I don’t really understand this mentality. Is it a younger gamer thing? I can enjoy games on their own merits without having to compare them with anything else. Besides, the best aspect of Avowed is its gameyness so to speak . It’s just the right length and pick up and play enough that busy people like me can play it and actually finish it. I’ve been meaning to play BG3 but I if I do I have to commit to it for a year at least, and that’s a hard pill to swallow. And I always finish every game I start, especially RPGs.

Wanna talk about all the weird ass, some times AI generated videos that YouTube kids has? I’m sure there’s a few mind wash Chinese and Russian Trojan horses. One day someone will say skibidi toilet at just the right pitch and an entire generation of KGB agents will activate or some shit.

I understand the logic, I just think it’s intellectually dishonest and dilutes the meaning of the word fascist to the point it becomes meaningless.

I agree with what you say, but if there’s one thing I like about libertarians is that they are often the most consistently committed to the ideology. There’s also shades of libertarians; for example I’m somewhat in their camp though I do believe some regulation is needed and that industries where for profit corporations have perverse insentives to not provide the best service possible (ie healthcare) it should be funded by the government and managed by an independent but governmental organization. I’ve seen some say they are socialist libertarians, though I’m not sure how that works exactly. Maybe it’s all coops?

Ok well I didn’t know that, but it doesn’t change my argument.

That doesn’t say anything about the content of the modification itself. For all you know the internal policy could be that white genocide is a thing. But what they are in fact referring to that violates the internal policies is modifying the prompt in such a way that it takes a specific stance on a political issue. Cmon man use your brain, it’s not that fricking hard.

If the contents of the prompt were to say that white genocide is a thing, it would have likely have said something along the lines that it is a nuanced topic of debate and it depends on how you define the situation or some other non answer. But the AI was consistently taking a stance that it was misinformation, that tells you what the prompt was. Also it was reported in other outlets that that was in fact what the modification was, to not spread misinformation about that.

I guess you didn’t read the article, or don’t understand how LLMs work so I’ll explain.

An employee changed the AI’s system prompt, telling it to avoid spreading white genocide misinformation in South Africa. The system prompt is a context that tells the AI how to work with the prompts it is given and it forces it “to think” about whatever is on there. So by making that change in the system prompt every time someone prompted Grok about anything, it would think about not spreading misinformation about white genocide in South Africa, so it inserted that into pretty much everything.

So it doesn’t bother me because it’s an LLM acting as it is supposed to when someone messes with the settings. Grok probably did not need these instructions in the first place, as it’s consistently been embarrassing Elon every time the man posts one of his shitbrained takes, and while I haven’t used that AI, I don’t think, or have yet to see proof that Elon is directing it’s training to be positive conservative ideologies or harebrained conspiracy theories. It could be for all I know, but from what I’ve seen Grok sticks to facts as they are.

A lot of people are reading the misleadingly titled articles about this thinking that Elon made the AI spread the notion that there’s such a thing as a white genocide in South Africa when that was not at all what happened. You need to read the actual article or else you’re falling for the same shit the MAGAtards do.

Did you read what Grok was saying? Grok was saying that white genocide is questionable at best, and unfounded.

It was just saying when prompted about unrelated stuff which is what made it bizarre. It never said it was a real thing, nor endorsing the idea that it is something real.

No, it absolutely hinges on how you define fascism. Lots of people are calling conservativism and even libertarianism fascism and that is just not accurate, and it hurts more than it helps. If that were the case then humanity has lived under fascism its entire history.

Wealthy people are just people, so there are wealthy Marxists and Anarchists just like there are wealthy Fascists, Monarchists and other designations. If there’s any movement that is a wealthy people movement it is neoliberalism or neoconservatives (same thing different color), which has failed horrendously. And despite its failures they keep pushing it, because it’s the only system that can sustain their wealth long term.

I’m convinced this game is a Lacanian social experiment.

Also how can a game be play to win if there is no game?

Trans people are actually not banned anywhere from using the public restrooms they choose as far as I’m aware. I was using it as an example because it’s perhaps the most salient one along with trans women in sports.

But yes my view is that there should be no law or regulation or order saying anything about this, it is up to the people who use the space to decide who is or isn’t allowed. Same with sports, let the leagues decide.

It’s one faction among many others, just like there are tankies on the left.

You can’t force social change from the top down. I’ll use the trans issue because what else. It’s not clear to me that there are any civil rights being violated when you say that they are not allowed in women’s bathrooms. Now do I think they should be allowed? Yes, but I think it’s up to the women to allow them in if they so wish to and the government can’t force it.

I don’t think history agrees with what you are saying. From what patterns I notice , dictators rise because they become popular with the masses thanks to the exploitation of grievances both real and perceived, and only when it seems inevitable that they will wrest power from the established order do capitalists align with themselves with the fascists in order to protect their interests and their own heads. The wealthy tend to be one of the first targets for any dictator, as they are the ones who have the means to unravel their power.

I hear what you say, but again that’s intellectually dishonest. Libertarians find themselves between a rock and a hard place, so they inevitably choose the side that overlaps most with them.

What progressives want is also authoritarian, and libertarians are against authoritarianism on principle, whether it has noble or evil goals because the potential for abuse even with noble goals is too great.

Yes the same heavy moderation that worked wonders for curtailing the rise of hate speech online over the last decade. It did not at all just incentivized the hate mongers to simply build their own platforms and audiences were they cannot be fact checked by anyone sane.

Let people spout and indulge in all the hate speech they want, instead have social mechanisms to dissuade from it. You know, like the real fucking world. The downvotes on reddit are such a simple mechanism that works at a level similar to how social feedback leads to self censorship people do in the real world.

Also fuck outta here with fact checking bs. You don’t hear more disinformation than the kind that gets repeated in barbershops daily, even before the internet and no one ever thought you had to fact check the shit Tony is saying this week. You just learned to take everything with a grain of salt.

It really devalues the meaning of the words and makes it harder for people to take real accusations seriously. I once read an article of someone claiming they had been sexually assaulted on WoWs text chat. Like what the fuck, mute them, report them, move on. You can call it harrasment if you like but there’s nothing sexual about it, it’s letters on a monitor.

Well yes, because liberals tend to believe in state enforced equality while libertarians believe in equality as a moral prerogative but one that cannot be imposed through laws and regulations because the state should not have the right to impose any form of laws that dictate morality or way of living etc. At least that’s my interpretation of it from conversations with libertarians.

So that means that libertarians will be against the use of state power to right systemic wrongs. Which I wouldn’t qualify as helping fascists but a lot of progressives do, which is imo a little bit intellectually dishonest.

The real problem though is that the US only has two parties so you have to choose one that overlaps with most of your views and for libertarians that ends up being the GOP due to the fact that their own party is an insane clown show worst than the GOP. But at the same time I’d like to point out that libertarian adjacent members of the GOP in the past are the ones who have made the biggest strides for human rights in the US. The party it is today is unrecognizable from the one it was 60 years ago. Hell, even 20 years ago.

But calling libertarian fascist just devalues the definition of the word, which the real fascist use to their advantage.

Mussolini might have said whatever, but I don’t think it’s accurate to say corporations and the wealthy like fascism, as it tends to be horrible for the economy. Mass consumption gets heavily impacted in such regimes. But that also depends on how you define fascism, because I’ve seen a lot of people lately refer to libertarians and even some liberals as fascists and that just doesn’t hold up. Not wanting to shift the balance in order to address systemic issues does not make someone a fascist.

The wealthy like few regulations and open borders for trade, without proper paths to citizenship so they can pay lower wages locally and exploit lower human rights standards abroad.

Mean words online by people who don’t even dare lift their voices in public.

I think you are focusing too much on the modern world. You’re ignoring the Middle Ages and before, and also eastern monarchies as well. Many of them existed for centuries with petty succession squabbles but in general being the same government, in the sense that they were ruled by the same royal family or one with close ties and maintained over that time similar aims. Every 4 or 8 years our governments have to change aims in response to crises that were caused because our government can only implement projects on a 4 to 8 year basis which is often not enough to fix problems. Something akin to technical debt in software, but societal.

Also I think you forget that Democracies existed in the ancient world and they didn’t last long either. They weren’t modern democracies but democracies nonetheless. And they were famous already for being short lived back then.

I’m not saying that we might not see a long lasting democracy, just that the evidence seems to point that democratic states have by their very nature an expiration date in which they enter a stage of some form of dictatorship until a total collapse happens, which is then followed by a renewal of democratic institutions under a new constitution. Maybe this may be construed as the same that happened with civil wars during monarchies but I think the key difference is that the government changes drastically between stages, even the national identity itself may change in these shake ups.

Just look at the US. One of the longest living democracies in the world right now, founded by some of the smartest men of their time who designed a system that could withstand the inherent weaknesses of democracy and yet it is on shaky ground only 250 years in.

Did I say Elon came up with the idea? I said that’s his goal.

Also not saying it like it’s a good thing, just stating a fact.