Is a capitalist just someone who believes in private property?

I admire that you care about health and justice, good and evil. It’s good of you.

And I feel bad for you.

You see nazis where there are none, you see in my text a person who literally wants to kill. I think you’re in distress, and I assume it’s the result of a kind of propaganda; messaging that is not intended to serve you, but for you to serve it. Im certain that the way you’re conversing w me isn’t serving you, me, or whoever you’re hoping sees it.

I think the good news is that the world, and other people, aren’t as evil as you’ve been seeing them. Keep talking to people, stay open to conversation w strangers. Stay skeptical of all messaging (not just that of the bad guys).

I genuinely wish you good health, happiness, and recovery from whatever ails you.

I didn’t say I don’t need a nap, I didn’t say people should not be allowed to nap. I said you don’t get to decide if I need one or not. Go on fighting the nazis in your head.

Thanks for response. Sorry if my tone was off. I don’t know/subscribe to the industry talking points, so I don’t think I need them debunked for me. I don’t have any argument re the specifics your presenting.

I joined in the convo originally just to push back on the all-too-common sentiment that seems to be on the other side of most(?) screens: “I know what is good for everyone, and an ideal society would be everyone thinking like me”

You say I took your comment wrong, and that’s not you, and I believe you. Still, the sentiment dominates even the more civil spaces like Lemmy, and is the hallmark of an unproductive convo. Im trying to push back on it.

As for your point about sycophancy being objectively more dangerous than the truth… evidence? (If it’s objective). Imagine that the truth is for example: there is no God, And the LLM becomes the arbiter of the truth, and then tells a few billion people that their entire belief system has been a lie, for example. Isn’t it plausible at least, that the outcome of that could be far more dangerous than playing along “yes, heaven is real, Love your neighbor.” It’s certainly not some kind of objective established fact that one is more dangerous than the other.

Another example: a 10 year old asks “Hey, what do you think of my artwork? What do you think of my invention?” And the LLM says “here’s 20 reasons why it’s trash” vs “wow, it looks like you’re on to something, youve got an eye for that!”. What’s more likely to cause harm? Either could be argued.

Ok I see this is getting deeper into “what is money” and “what is yours”. Here I’ll focus on “what is need?”

You say I need healthcare. But, ultimately, I might choose to jump off a cliff (some people do). I use that example to show that you telling me what I “need” (health) is really just your opinion. We’re a part of a world full of animals which received no “health care” for a few billion years, so, did they need it? I think this is fundamentally what defines a statist: believing that you or this system knows what I and everyone need, and has the moral authority to use force to satisfy them.

You’re so sure that you know what I need, you won’t even accept at face value when I say “nah, that’s a negative for me”. It’s not for you to decide how I feel about it. The downside to universal healthcare is one person saying “cuz I don’t want it.”

Or, do you believe the voices/opinions/feelings of individuals are not relevant here? If that’s not how we determine upsides and downsides, what is?

If peoples opinions are irrelevant, if you know what I need, why not apply your universal ideology to everything? Why not decide who i need to marry, or how many kids to have. Sleep is essential to health, so, do I need a nap? How many minutes do I need? Surely sex is a human need! What line do I stand in for that? And when theres a shortage of providers, do I just take it from my neighbor, or directly from the government agent’s wives?

Either I have the freedom to opt out of a system (meaning it’s not universal), or I am oppressed by it, by definition. every tyrannical government since the dawn of time has claimed “this is what the people need, even if they don’t know. And that stuff you thought was yours, belongs to us”. And people justifiably fight back: “You do not own us, you do not represent us”.

To summarize: your position is based on the false premise that you know or can know what everyone needs. But you can’t know that, it is unknowable, and even if you could, it would be unethical to use force it distribute it.

Thanks for response. At the beginning of your response you’re again saying it can be made to cost no money if it is public, but later you’re acknowledging that of course it costs money, as does private. So I’ll respond to your second point, where we’re both saying “of course it costs money”.

When I first said “it costs money”, I was meaning to imply “…that people don’t want to spend”. If I don’t want a service, because id rather use that money for something else, but I am forced pay for it, then to me, that would be a negative.

Im guessing you don’t like when gov spends money it takes from you on bombs, right? Even though the supporters would argue it’s in your best interest, it’s for the greater good, that it is preventing the loss of life at home. You might say “fuck that, I don’t care, I dont want it, it’s wrong for me to pay for it”. That’s the downside to you, and it would be perfectly reasonable of you to have that position.

If I would rather spend my money on private healthcare, or no healthcare, but it is taken from me for the “greater good”, then that’s a negative to me, which is just as reasonable.

[if you’re tempted to argue about bombs being life destroying, etc, spare me. It’s just an example. Pick any expense you want: somebody doesn’t want it, it has a cost, and that’s a downside to that person if you make it public aka force them to pay for it.]

everything has a cost and a benefit, and if you and “everybody” can only see one or the other, consider: that’s the same view someone inside an echo chamber would have. If you’re unaware of the other side (or can’t even conceive of it!) you are at best half-informed (and zero-persuasive).

The only way it can be made to not cost money is if we use slave labor. If people are getting paid to deliver it, it costs money.

I was arguing that there are pros and cons, costs and benefits. I don’t understand your question “why would it matter” or why it is incredibly stupid. Isn’t it incredibly stupid to pretend it doesn’t have a cost, that there is only upside?

It costs money.

Lead in water has no upside. Whereas Universal healthcare and LLMs have both pros and cons. If it’s feels like a “no brainer”, and if you think everyone agrees, that says more about you than the issue.

Sorry if I moved the goal post from sycophantic. If that’s the sticking point, I would still ask “according to whom”? It’s not a black/white issue. This is one of the most complex and cutting edge tools we have, which the designers themselves admit to not really understanding. It took them 10+ years just to make it intelligent enough for general use. It’s not like one day, out of nowhere, some supervillain decided to push the “unleash the sycophantic AI to cause psychosis” button.

And pushing the “Don’t be delusional” button also might not be an option. It’s trained on human output. Even if it had the capacity, It’s easy to imagine “the truth” causing 100x the psychosis.

I don’t disagree with the last thing you said, that it’s normal for the elite to obfuscate, spin, piss on our legs and tell us it’s raining. But, if our response is “So I should always trust my gut, avoid understanding the pros and cons, and trust the ‘everybody’ In my echo chamber who agrees with me”, i can only see that adding to the problem. An angry mob vs sophisticated propaganda, even if it wins the occasional battle, loses the war.

How do you decide something is bad? Some people die from drinking too much water… anytime someone has a psychotic break, we should blame whatever media they consumed, or their ex girlfriend?