I at no point said that anyone wasn’t worth the time for personal interaction. I said multiple times that my preferred solution would not involve having to resort to AI. That’s such a bad faith interpretation of my position that I can’t imagine this being productive at this point. Best of luck.

By getting better, I mean it will be improving on itself. I never meant to indicate that it will be better than a trained professional.

I agree that showing ND people empathy is the best path forward, but realistically being able to socially signal empathy is a life skill and lacking that skill really only damages their own prospects. It’d be great if it didn’t make people less likely to be employable or less able to build a robust support network, but unfortunately that’s the case. Yes, ASD differences are often a reflection of how society treats people, but a demonstration of empathy is not a platitude. It’s an important way NT and lots of ND connect. If you think that the expression of empathy is difficult for people with ASD because they are more honest, then I think you might be equating lack of empathy with difficulty expressing it. There’s nothing dishonest about saying “I’m sorry that happened to you” unless you are not sorry it happened. It might not be something you would normally verbally express, but if hearing about a bad thing happening to someone doesn’t make you feel for them, then the difficulty isn’t expressing empathy, it’s lacking it. Society certainly does a lot of things for bad or nonsensical reasons, but expressing empathy generally isn’t one of them.

I don’t personally find the framing offensive, but I’m not on the spectrum so I can’t speak to it from that perspective. My comment was less about the article and more about not offloading that work onto unsuspecting and unprepared people.

That being said, I’m not as anti-ai as maybe some other people might be when it comes to these kinds of tools. The study itself highlights the fact that not everyone has the resources to get the kind of high quality care they need and this might be an option. I agree that sacrificing quality for efficiency is bad, in my post history you can see I made that argument about ai myself, but realistically so many people can potentially benefit from this that would have no alternatives. Additionally, AI will only be getting better, and hopefully you’ve never had a bad experience with a professional, but I can speak from personal experience that quality varies drastically between individuals in the healthcare industry. If this is something that can be offered by public libraries or school systems, so that anyone with the need can take advantage, I think that would be a positive because we’re nowhere near universal physical healthcare, much less universal mental healthcare or actual social development training. I know people who cannot afford healthcare even though they have insurance, so if they were able to go to a specialized ai for an issue I would think it’s a net positive even if it’s not a real doctor. I know that ai is not there yet, and there’s a lot of political and social baggage there, but the reality is people need help and they need it now and they are not getting it. I don’t know how good this ai is, but if the alternative is telling people that are struggling and have no other options that they have to tough it out, I’m willing to at least entertain the idea. For what it’s worth, if I could snap my fingers and give everyone all the help and support they need and it excluded ai, I would choose that option, I just don’t have it. I also don’t know that LLMs really can do this successfully on a large scale, so I would need evidence of that before really supporting it, I just think it shouldn’t be written off completely if it’s showing promise.

I really don’t think a random D&D table is the place to learn to express empathy. I really wish people would stop acting like local D&D groups are a good way to learn how to socialize in general. I’m not saying you can’t learn things at the table, but the games are not actual reflections of reality and there’s a lot of go along to get along, or just run of the mill toxic group dynamics. The hobby overall can be hard for other minorities to enter, and having a table with someone still learning social skills (especially how to express empathy) and someone from a marginalized group can lead to unfortunate outcomes that your standard DM/group do not have the ability to address. It can lead one or both parties to have negative experiences that reinforce the idea they are unwelcome and leave the rest of the table with negative experiences of playing with ND people or minorities.

Sometimes practicing first with people trained to do this is the best step, and second to that would be practicing empathy in a space where the main goal is bonding rather than another nebulous goal of having fun playing a game. I don’t know if AI is the answer, but trusting your local DM/table to be able to teach empathy is a big ask. It’s almost insulting to the people that teach this and to people with ASD. Teaching empathy can’t be as passive as it is for non-ASD people, and acting like it’s just something they are expected to pick up while also dealing with all these other elements makes it seems like you don’t think it’s something they actually have to work to achieve. I’m not on the spectrum but I have a lot of autistic friends and I would not put just any of them in a D&D situation and expect them and the rest of the table to figure it out.

Also, generally comparing to an unaffected control is the gold standard. They did what is generally needed to show their approach has some kind of effect.

I don’t trust Google at all, but there’s an argument to be made that people using Google trust Google. Now that trust is being forcibly compromised by having Google share all that data with anyone? That data was presumably for sale anyways, but now it’s just there. This is worse than the worst possible outcome I would have imagined.

There is an impartial principle and it’s science. Is it perfect, no, but it’s there and there’s a large community that is able to come to a consensus.

If they had your kids read a book where someone gets a vaccine and dies due to complications or where they don’t get a vaccine and get the disease and live, would you have them not read that book? Because the fact is there is no class on being gay and there’s no class on vaccines. No book they’re reading is saying “God loves gay people”. They’re saying “gay people exist”. That is true. People also die of diseases they’re vaccinated against. That’s also true. If they’re having them read a book that says not to vaccinate, they’re pushing an ideology, not spreading awareness. That’s the distinction.

Maybe you’re unaware, but if your ideological enemies are on the right, they will wield power that they were never granted against you. Conceding the truth to them is preemptive defeat. I will continue to push for facts to be taught in schools and the fact is that gay people exist, evolution is real, and some vaccinated people die anyway. None of that is ideological, it’s factual, and if you don’t want your kids to believe the facts then you’re going to have to hope your “ideology” is as convincing as the science.

I don’t think religion and faith “are the problem.” But if I’m honest, I think they’re at least a little problematic. I think anything that encourages anti scientific beliefs or principles isn’t “good” for society. I don’t know I’d go so far to say it’s “dangerous”. I think anything that allows people to create in groups and out groups is not helpful, even if it does not overtly preach harming the out group. Any time spent bonding over religion or in religious community could be spent bonding over something more practical. I know a lot of people have found help through religion, but I can’t help but think how much better off we would be if instead of finding that sense of community within a religion we found it within our actual community. Instead of a constancy in a higher power, we found it and built it up within ourselves. Maybe there is no way to frame society so that people look within themselves and their community for strength they seek a higher power for, but I believe that as long as religion exists we will never know.

I don’t think talking about a thing that goes against any individual religion should be considered protecting religion. If my religion teaches vegetarianism, can I opt out of any books where a character eats meat or hunts? Can I be exempt from learning about early humans or the food chain because it involves learning about their diet? The answer is now yes, and I think it does a huge disservice to children. Reading a book about a gay couple is not forcing you to be gay or even support homosexual relationships. It’s just showing you that gay people exist and that’s legal and some gay people have families and are happy. You can think it’s morally wrong, but it’s happening and it’s the schools job to educate children on things that are happening. I know people who were removed when evolution was discussed. They’re no longer religious, but they have this gap in understanding they now have to fill in because their parents didn’t want them to know the science. I think that’s terrible and does not help, but I support that more than the book thing because at least you can argue testing a child about evolution forces them to say things they don’t believe in whereas just reading or hearing about gay people doesn’t make you do anything.

You misunderstood. She’s focused on affordability for herself. How is she going to afford things if she can’t get kickbacks from corpos and the rich for keeping taxes low?

Their comment is basically “we logged the whole forest and sold lumber for profit, now don’t you feel stupid for not doing it when trees still existed?!” Most anti crypto people are more sad that crypto exists than upset that they didn’t cash out big. A fascist government saying that everyone who engaged in ruining the forest was right isn’t going to change how people actually feel about the fact the forest is now gone.

People like that would rather be “right” than good, and will side with whoever is declaring them “right”.

I don’t use these services, but out of curiosity how has that gone for you? To and from the airport where you can give a heads up of at least a few days makes sense to me, but I always figured part of the allure was flexible scheduling and the location algorithm. I can’t imagine a driver would want to give their information out and possibly get a call at like 2 am to do a pickup somewhere they aren’t close to. Do they give you their general schedule and service area? Do you have a long list or do you just pay 1 or 2 well enough that they will make the trip even if they’re not actually working at that time?

The article explains that Thursday a statement was issued suggesting they would stop raids on these places. It was not long a long lasting pause since that very weekend he reversed course, likely due to the no kings protests. So he reversed his decision and then reversed it again within a week.

I’m glad you’ve put in the work, and I’m sorry your community of men is failing you. I think it’s probably dependent on where in the country you are, but leftist political spaces have quite a few men who have put in the work. Not all of them, but that’s the only thing I can think of that doesn’t require you to have a specific interest. You’d be surprised how many fully actualized people you’ll meet volunteering somewhere, even just once a month.

I don’t see it regardless. Are you logged in? It’s possible that if your account lists your country that they just set it to always appear? I’m unfortunately not sure, but having that notice would be a huge improvement imho.

It kind of is the governments job to do that. You might not want it to be, but the government has entire regulatory bodies to protect people. You can call them delusional if you want, but plenty of people that are not experiencing mental health problems don’t understand that LLMs can lie or make up information. Lawyers have used it and it hallucinated case law. The lawyers weren’t being delusional, they just legitimately did not know it could do that. Maybe you think they’re dumb, or uninformed, but they’re just average people. I do think a disclaimer like the SG warnings would go a long way. I also think some safeguards should be in place. It should not allow you to generate child abuse imagery for example. I don’t think this will negatively impact it being able to generate your SQL queries.

My page does not say that. It’s possible that in your country, which I’m guessing is different from my country seeing as you stated guns are illegal, they already have this legislation in place. That is not the case here.

It literally is not. ChatGpt has a blank page (a la google homepage) that says “What can I help you with?” And the input field says “Ask anything”. If it said “Use this text field to play pretend” it would be at least a little better.

Thinking everything you see online is fake is bad advice. Being skeptical is important but the internet isn’t all just fake.

There is a good place to regulate it. At the input and output level. It already is regulated there. It has guardrails already. Public data AI may be more ethical, but it is not going to solve the issue. The issue is the way people are using AI and the output it produces. It seems like you might not be wholly familiar with this subject.

Every single LLM should have a disclaimer on every page and potentially in every response that it is making things up, is not sentient, and just playing mad libs. If they had a “conversation” and every response ended with “THE CONTENTS OF THE RESPONSE ARE NOT VERIFIED AND ARE ENTIRELY MADE UP ON THE SPOT FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND HAS NO RELATION TO REALITY” or some other thing it might not get as far. Would some people ignore it? Yea, sure, but the companies are selling AI like it’s a real thinking entity with a name. It’s going to happen that the marketing works on someone.

I’m not saying that’s the specific answer, but it should be made overwhelmingly clear that AI is not real right on the page. The same with AI video and audio. Education won’t help kids who haven’t had AI safety class yet, or adults who never had it, or people who slept through the class, or people who moved here and didn’t have access to the education where they grew up. Education is important, but the fact you think regulation won’t help at all seems dismissive.

Yea, that’s my point. If someone has certain tendencies, education might not help. Your solution of more education is not going to stop this. There needs to be regulation and safeguards in place like the commenter above mentioned.

Education might help somewhat, but unfortunately education doesn’t in itself protect from delusion. If someone is susceptible to this, it could happen regardless of education. A Google engineer believes an AI (not AGI just an LLM) is sentient. You can argue the definition of sentience in a philosophical manner if you want, but if a Google engineer believes it, it’s hard to argue more education will solve this. If you think it’s equivalent to a person who has access to privileged information, and that it tells you it was tasked to do harm, I’m not sure what else you should do with that.