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?

Thank you for the extra information. The fact he’s doing free IVF is almost worse? I get how it’s “better”, but it definitely feels “worse”.

Most developed countries have some kind of limit, but apparently there’s a lot of variation due to exporting and poor communication.

I don’t understand why anyone would want donor sperm to be honest. I know people who have done it and I don’t want to pry, but if I’m creating a child I’d want to meet the person who will be providing half of their genetics. If I didn’t know anyone I liked enough or that was willing to assist, I think I’d adopt. I just can’t imagine the kind of person who donates sperm would be the kind of person that would want my child to be related to. What kind of person thinks “I should have kids with people I’ve never met”? I understand a lot of people are grateful for donors and would not have a family without them, I just know a lot of awesome people and none of them have ever donated, so that says something to me.

This post is bait, but for anyone passing through, afterwards he told people he rushed to pick them up because he was worried that if anyone else did there might be violence. Being concerned that your ally is so trigger happy that they would be glad to have reporters assaulted just for daring to get close to help them does not make anyone look good, but he was legitimately concerned for people’s safety. That’s the kind of leader we should be looking for. Not someone who’s obsessed with posturing and would not help on the chance it makes them look weak.

I mostly interact with two kinds of people and it’s either 1) people who think any deviation is sinful or 2) people who don’t notice or comment on others gender expression/identity unless the person brings it up. I’m not suggesting that there is no middle ground, but the thought that young people as a whole aren’t more interested/able in exploring gender as a spectrum and gender expression as a whole is just patently false.

The reason I bothered to mention that I’m a gender abolitionist is because it read to me like they were anti the whole concept of gender and believe that young people are just reinforcing it by lumping things in as “trans coded”. Aka “boy liking girl things is trans” should be “just a thing a boy likes”. But people aren’t saying “liking girl things makes you trans”. I’m stating that young people are actually better at exploring gender than others. I’m not saying young people are all progressive, just responding to the perceived point and saying that young people (more than other generations) are more flexible in their perception of gender. To me it seems like they are lamenting how instead of breaking down gender norms, people are using it to reinforce the gender stereotype.

I do agree we’re all (including them) on the same side. I did reread it before my previous response just to double check, but I appreciate you suggesting that. I want to be clear that I don’t think their comment is right wing, just that the talking point “society uses trans people to enforce gender norms” is sometimes used by the right as well.

I understand that reasonable minds can interpret statements differently. To me it reads like they were lamenting how trans ideology is kind of reinforcing gender. To you it reads like they are lamenting the lack of some people’s ability to explore gender. That’s totally ok. Hopefully they chime in and make their intent clear. Either way I hope we all get to a place where we can live as and present as whatever we wish whenever we wish.

They said: “They’re very rigidly stuck inside little Identity boxes anyway. You’re automatically “trans coded” if you’re a guy but like dresses, looking pretty and shaving.”

That stuck out to me as some of the same trans fear mongering that the right wing uses when they say “tomgirls are a thing. You don’t have to be trans”.

Im not saying they are right wing, but the idea that doing something gender nonconforming signals that you’re trans is not correct and in my experience not a widely popular belief among young people. It seems to me like they were saying people are too quick to call people trans and that’s just not the case. If that wasn’t their point, I’m not sure what they meant by suggesting that someone is “automatically trans coded”.

I agree that there are still spaces where it’s not safe, but I don’t see that argument being made in the comment.

Your comment shows either a very limited knowledge of queer identities or potentially large regional differences in the younger gens, because agender, bigender, and gender nonconforming people make up more of younger gens than they do older gens. So many young men are getting into makeup, nail polish, and wearing dresses and skirts. Way more than the older gens.

I’m a gender abolitionist, but your comment is either misguided or outright false.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9380989/

“Boomers+ and Generation X groups were more likely to identify as trans women compared to the younger generational cohorts, who were more varied in their identities.”

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.

She’s using her position to educate, raise awareness, and validate the alarm several people are feeling. This is possibly the most impactful thing she can do at the moment. She is standing up and pointing out fascism. I guess she could stay after having done that, but then you get people going “if it’s so bad then why don’t you leave?!” And then she’s at even more risk of being disappeared. She is uprooting her family and life and in the process displaying how sincerely she believes that we’re headed down the wrong path. Is she doing it for her own benefit, yea, sure, but this article imho is more impactful than her going to a protest. I’ve sent it to some of my more normie friends already because we were just talking about this and they really don’t realize how bad things are already. They think I’m fear mongering. This article might help people realize what the reality is and take direct action that they didn’t think was necessary at this point. Is it cowardly to leave? Maybe. But she didn’t have to speak out, she could have left quietly, but she chose to make a statement. That’s more than a lot of people will end up doing, regardless of if they stay or not.

There were a lot of articles that came out when the first trial was happening wherein adults spoke about how being sent to boarding school in Africa actually saved their life. I don’t know the situation those people were in as children, and I don’t know the situation this family is in, but I find it hard to believe that absence from family who love and support you is somehow the best way to keep someone from being involved in gang activity. It’s possible that it keeps him out of trouble, but I can’t imagine the harm this is doing to him and his relationship with his parents in the long term. I don’t know what the “right” answer is in situations where a child needs more care than the family can provide, but I want to believe that there are better options.

“Det Con Linge previously said Child Q had consented to the search, but admitted under cross-examination by Mr Gold that this was not accurate”

So they lied. They are a liar and they traumatized a child.

"Mr Gold asked whether she would accept that “a stereotype of black people is they may more likely be stopped and searched” and if she would accept that they are more likely to be “in receipt of use of force by police”.

Det Con Linge replied “no” to both questions.

The 46-year-old agreed there was no adult present in the room where the search happened who could have offered the child advice, assisted her in communication with police or ensured her rights were respected.

Det Con Linge also denied she “did not recognise Child Q as a child” and was, in effect, “treating her as older than she was”."

I’m so sorry for this poor girl, but I’m infuriated that these people are putting her through the trauma of this when they KNOW they are in the wrong. She needs justice. How any of these people still have jobs is beyond me.

I guess this section seems to indicate otherwise: “Like everyone else, you see issues in your environment - but unlike most people, you actually try to understand them and find solutions. And for that, you get nothing but pain.”

But I will take you at your word that you were more commiserating than directly agreeing. The internet in general is leading to more tribalism, sure, but I’m not seeing it any more on Lemmy than I am elsewhere. Mostly seeing it as it relates to politics. Would you mind sharing where you’re seeing that? Have you noticed specific communities or instances or topics? I follow a variety of content and it’s mostly pretty chill people with some political vitriol sprinkled in for novelty sake.