Hard no.

The idea that your can judge an entire group of people to be innocent or not is heavily flawed. Even if any groups cultural influence was hypothetically incredibly evil, do people deserve death for being influenced by their surroundings? How do we gauge who has true evil in their heart, and who was harbouring doubts but couldn’t say anything? We literally can’t, and that kind of thinking shouldn’t be used to decide judgement of a person, let alone who lives and who dies. In practical terms things get muddier sure, but we’re way past that point.

At this point I feel like the conclusion of violence is made first, then the justification coming afterwards.

Oh I’m sure they’ve got ten thousand shitty business practices we could spend all day criticizing.

Amazon. I’m pretty against workers being treated poorly, and they’re frequently the worst without delving into actual slavery.

It’s kind of two fold though, because trying to explain to people that letting shit like this fly is encouraging it to happen to you or me just cannot get through to some people. The longer this goes on, the more they push the envelope, the further it spreads. Like they don’t know how to function without the single megacorp, and having to suffer a minor inconvenience is just too much.

Sort of, but those let you use the pre-existing codebase for each game as is. This lets you play with the inner workings. You could do something drastic like implant rollback netcode, add new classes, wild shit.

For sure. I can at least give them the benefit of the doubt when they say that shadow organisations are trying to control them. Like that can happen, it does happen, it’s kind of happening. Motivations can range from societal change to world ending prophecy. However when they say shit is explicitly for making money, that’s a very clear cut goal you can easily prove or disprove.

Okay, but crackpot theory, and this one’s a bit out there…

What if they just didn’t want everyone to get sick and die? And vaccines are proven to be effective at this? Why is that less believable that the Jewish space laser.

I did something similar to what this article describes a bit back. For me it was turning off my phone, the effect was staggering. Anxiety etc dropped immediately.

For me in particular, it was being constantly available to anyone in my life, but also the doom scrolling, and knowing there’s a vast ocean of infinite content at my fingertips. Sure, I could curate my experience, and block people, but overall the phone is still functioning largely the same as it ever does. I can always turn those features back on. By changing how the device works externally, you’re disconnecting those people from the decade and a half of reinforcement and whatever they have associated with their phones.

To get similar results I was able to just turn off my phone, but that might vary for some. Anyway, it seems reasonable for the experiment at least.

See I don’t follow that one, because how are they actually making money in this theory?

In the real world the ai bullshit is just another grift that’s a giant money pit. While I recognise people that follow these kinds of theories probably don’t have critical thinking skills, I wish they would following thinking to it’s conclusion. It’s a stupid hope I know.

I’m kind of in the same boat.

I think it can fuck with people that rely on self determination for security or self justification? At least the couple of people I’ve met that take issue with the idea seem to mostly be uncomfortable with the implication that their choices and actions might mean less.

Anti sematic behaviour is unfortunately part of the internet and general historical data, which means it could very well be an undercurrent in training data. AIs then could exhibit subconscious biases, no matter how many times the creators tell them not to be racist.

Look, we also probably don’t have free will, but we should live and act like we do. Don’t let the minute details keep you from getting what you can out of this life.