Ah so I guess you can’t read. Might explain the need to defend AI.

It’s funny how everyone that tries to defend the use of AI, other than deny the fact that most evidence (and common sense/basic understanding of AIs) points to the idea that it’s just negative, always avoid the subject of environment.

Even if you assumed that you get the same result with Claude or whatever in 6 seconds, and with your brain in five minutes… Is the end of humanity and a massive extinction event worth those 5 minutes?

Defending AI while there are literally news popping out right now about heat waves being more violent than ever recorded and killing thousands of people per day in countries that had no problems with heat a few decades ago, is extremely selfish and self-centered. And the only justification is “it’s a bit faster and easier”. Okay.

There can be a million papers on how AI is worthless, the vibe coders are way too brainwashed into their shitty habits that they’ll never stop. It’s basically a sect at this point, but a sect that is destroying the world.

“I don’t care about morals”, an opinion shared by the greatest people in the world.

I don’t think I have to prove my point any further, you’ve done a great job of proving that you can’t even be a decent human being, so reason is obviously far out of your reach.

It’s weird that so many people that would only fit on twitter or facebook end up here… Did you get banned out of both and found lemmy mentioned somewhere?

Yes, but there’s no such huge body. Just a bunch of studies funded by the meat industry, versus overwhelming evidence.

Still waiting for your comment on the morality of having a gigantic industry made to murder sentient creatures, just for the (im)possibility of a potentially slightly better health.

Yeah you’re typically the kind of case that I was referencing.

You’re denying a scientific consensus based on a couple isolated “studies”. Cherrypicking is not going to lead to any reasonable result.

And then you just start doing some dietary whataboutism, which is something I had yet to witness. Carbs could be deadly, it wouldn’t change the fact that meat is bad for health.

You’re typically in the second category of what I was mentioning about alcoholics here, the category that refuses to face reality and goes to delude themselves into even believing the opposite of reality, that their addiction is actually good for health.

And on top of that, you conveniently ignored the part where I mention that murdering sentient beings for your personal health and comfort is a pretty immoral take. Once again, not surprised.

Cancer is rarely healthy but sure. And I’m not sure why carbs are suddenly in the middle.

Also I’m pretty sure the animals that produce the meat would say that it’s not all about health, but well…

The amount of alcoholics in comment sections like this is crazy.

Half of the people are basically saying “I’d rather die that stop alcohol”, the other half tries to cope by saying that all of these things about the dangers of alcohol are either false or exaggerated.

Even the crazy meat lovers are not that extreme.

It’s not an AI bot, it’s Beep

Yeah they really don’t understand anything related to biology.

Good thing that DNA, genitals and gender are always 100% correlated right.

I mean, he was sort of fucking around. A lawyer that is fine using AI for a case should never be allowed to work as a lawyer after that. That’s a gigantic moral flaw.

This is how an update news should be done. Summarize the software, include the changelog.

Software? Reliable? What?

Why do you think places that need reliability are stuck of systems made decades and decades ago? They know that software is shit and unreliable and that you should never touch it if you have something that works.

“Humanity finds out once again that they conveniently dismissed sentient beings as brainless objects, puts into perspective the assumed intelligence of said humanity” can really cover a whole bunch of articles.

There’s a lot of shit writing in all the star treks (less so in lower decks maybe) but discovery is consistently, deeply badly written, and in ways that often have a pretty bad underlying meaning.

And also, people complain on Discovery for different reasons. Nazis find it too woke because they don’t pretend that lgbt people don’t exist, I find it fakely woke but actually discriminating against minorities while pretending to defend them.

In a way, Discovery is a shittily written, enlightened-centrist version of star trek, so I think it’s good that people shit on it. Now people should obviously shit on a lot of other star treks like Enterprise and Picard, but I’m certainly not going to stop shitting on discovery in the meanwhile.

It feels a bit pulled out of nowhere though. If it was the plan from the start, it’s not very good writing.

The red angel, who is supposed to be either Burnham or her mother, and neither of them had a reason to go back in time to save a random church, and teleport it to a random planet. Also absolutely no mention of how they would achieve such a thing.

I mean, they were still trying to show it as James Bond-cool (which I mean, works if you see that James Bond is pretty problematic, but most people don’t)… They were shown as a bit evil, but also as the “cool, edgy dudes that do what needs to be done”, but other shows managed to do worse somehow.

Let’s not forget the part where they want to go in the future to stop control because they think they can’t destroy it, then control gets destroyed, then they go in the future anyway.

Also, I don’t think any star trek depicted section 31 in a way that didn’t make the show worse, but Discovery really went the extra mile

The church in Discovery.

I am convinced that they put it there without having an explanation yet, then forgot they did it when they made the explanation.