Seems like I’m not in the target audience for these ads. I have absolutely zero clue what any of the things mentioned above are. I use WhatsApp to send messages.

I have a tendency to present my views in a provocative way, so I don’t exactly fault people for misreading me or my intentions.

that there is any celebration of vigilantism at all?

Pretty much, yeah. I think violence should, for the most part, only ever be a response to immediate violence - not a tool for political or ideological expression. I believe in due process, reason, and honest discourse as the means to influence those we oppose - not bullets, or even fists. So when people cheer for acts of vigilante violence, even against those they despise, I see that as both morally bankrupt and strategically self-defeating. It undermines the claim to the moral high ground and reinforces the very hostility many claim to oppose. We should hold ourselves to the same standards as we do others.

is that correct?

Mostly yeah.

It’s not unclear to me why people feel differently toward the victims - what I’m pointing out is the inconsistency in how people react to vigilante violence itself. I’m not asking anyone to mourn a murdered healthcare CEO - though I do question the celebration of it. And likewise, I feel sympathy for the recently murdered politicians.

What I’m criticizing is the double standard in how the shooters are treated.

And it’s not really about political leanings specifically, even if there’s overlap. It’s more about the broader “us vs. them” mentality - where people’s moral judgment flips depending on which side they perceive someone to be on.

I’m more than happy to elaborate on any of my unpopular opinions that you view as trolling. I’m very much sharing my honest views here.

Sure, let’s go. But if your argument is as strong as you seem to think it is, you shouldn’t need to wrap it in this condescension and chest-thumping. I’m always open for an debate - but if the tone stays at “let me enlighten your dumb little mind,” I’ll check out rather quick. I’m here to discuss ideas, not trade insults.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit my original comment was intentionally provocative but I stand by the underlying point: I oppose vigilante violence across the board, regardless of who the target is. And if someone cheered for Luigi’s killing but condemns this one, I think that’s morally inconsistent. That’s what I was calling out - a double standard that, to me atleast, reeks of tribalism more than principle.

It gives me value - unlike the smug, unsolicited moral judgement of a stranger.

Depending on what definition you use, chatGPT could be considered to be intelligent.

• The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
• The ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations.
• The ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests).
• The act of understanding.
• The ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason.
• It can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information; and to retain it as knowledge to be applied to adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

I don’t like that part about it either but instead of stopping using it, I simply told it to stop acting that way.

It’s not a place for incivility that I’m making, either. I just struggle to believe you genuinely don’t understand what people mean when they ask for less moderation or censorship.

Now vigilante murder is bad when the victim is “one of us,” but when it was “one of them,” it was all cheers and applause.

Nobody is asking for an unmoderated space.

“Your claim is only valid if you first run this elaborate, long-term experiment that I came up with.”

The world isn’t binary. When someone says less moderation, they don’t mean no moderation. Framing it as all-or-nothing just misrepresents their view to make it easier for you to argue against. CSAM is illegal, so it’s always going to be against the rules - that’s not up to Google and is therefore a moot point.

As for other content you ideologically oppose, that’s your issue. As long as it’s not advocating violence or breaking the law, I don’t see why they’d be obligated to remove it. You’re free to think they should - but it’s their platform, not yours. If they want to allow that kind of content, they’re allowed to. If you don’t like it, don’t go there.

You don’t get notified if the channel owner deletes your comment.

I agree. There just seem to be a fairly widespread pro-censorship sentiment among Lemmy users, usually driven by the desire to block speech that could be harmful to marginalized groups - but in practice, it often extends to broadly silencing all ideas they disagree with. The strawman here tends to be that anyone who wants more free speech just wants to shout slurs and spread (in their view) objectively harmful ideas.

That’s a bit different than using chatGPT in what is effectively a one-on-one interview. This isn’t about writing a job application. It’s about someone asking you a question and instead of you answering it you make chatGPT to answer it for you.

This decision makes sense to me.

It only makes sense if you yourself are being paid by lobbyists.

I can’t read it in any other way than as him calling the previous poster a paid lobbyist.

You seriously think anti-weed (or whatever) lobbyists are being paid to comment on Lemmy? Because that’s what it sounds like you’re implying - discrediting the person for who they supposedly are, not for what they’re actually saying.

Doesn’t take much to get labeled far right these days.

That’s because it is.

The term artificial intelligence is broader than many people realize. It doesn’t mean human-level consciousness or sci-fi-style general intelligence - that’s a specific subset called AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). In reality, AI refers to any system designed to perform tasks that would typically require human intelligence. That includes everything from playing chess to recognizing patterns, translating languages, or generating text.

Large language models fall well within this definition. They’re narrow AIs - highly specialized, not general - but still part of the broader AI category. When people say “this isn’t real AI,” they’re often working from a fictional or futuristic idea of what AI should be, rather than how the term has actually been used in computer science for decades.

Different definitions for intelligence:

• The ability to acquire, understand, and use knowledge.
• the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations.
• the ability to apply knowledge to manipulate one’s environment or to think abstractly as measured by objective criteria (such as tests)
• the act of understanding
• the ability to learn, understand, and make judgments or have opinions that are based on reason
• It can be described as the ability to perceive or infer information; and to retain it as knowledge to be applied to adaptive behaviors within an environment or context.

We have plenty of intelligent AI systems already. LLM’s probably fit the definition. Something like Tesla FSD definitely does.