The same thing every billionaire did: He took it from other people.

Right. And that problem compounds itself, as well. The more AI generated information that exists and inevitably is fed back into the algorithm, the worse the outcomes will get because algorithms will essentially inbreed themselves off the data they generate.

But these companies are desperate to hook other companies on AI. If they can generate income off of AI by renting other companies AI workers, they’ve made you a perpetual customer. The boss is asking workers to use these AI to feed more specific data into the algorithm to better mimic the workers because the more workers that use these, the more “good” data they can feed into them, to ultimately replicate your job functions.

It’s just… Bad from pretty much every angle.

Well defended. Truly, brevity.

What a dumb take.

People don’t use AI for a lot of reasons, but it’s not because their company said they couldn’t. Every programmer I know is being asked to use AI, and most of them find AI to be significantly shitty to use on top of how horrible it is to use it from an environmental, occupational, moral, and psychological view.

Like, skip past the parts where AI has killed people. Skip past the insane water usage. Skip past the emissions. Skip past the cognitive reduction in reasoning.

This thing was trained on whatever data they could get a hold of: the internet, discredited information, and biased data notwithstanding. When you’re lucky, it is basically a coin flip on whether it works or not. So, if you have no foundation about the question you ask it, you have no clue if that is a hallucination or a bad data point or a correct answer. And if you do, you have to double check the answer anyway.

AI, as it is now, is a glorified search engine doubling as a sycophant. The main purpose of the businesses that own and run AI is to keep you using it, forever. Whether it is good or bad at anything else is unintentional.

Whoa, man, that’s ridiculous. They’re just a furry.

Glurp, glurp!

It sounds like you didn’t even try!

Weird that you’re on here arguing with people instead of changing the laws. If they’re not doing enough, then what the fuck are you doing?

Wait, where are you going? You still haven’t shown this group of trans people that are the top of women’s sports.

Statistically, if there is an advantage, trans people would be the top of their sports, given that all other factors would be normalized. So, you simply have to show that there is a congregation of trans people at the top. That would inarguably prove that you are correct and there is a competitive advantage to being trans. If you leave, I will continue to be under the (correct) assumption that there is no advantage to being trans.

Unless you can point to all of the trans athletes dominating sports right now, my point is pretty easy to defend. If it is a competitive advantage, there would be multiple trans athletes at the top of women’s sports regardless of how uncommon being trans is, and there simply isn’t.

You’re saying there’s not enough data, but you’re also saying that it shouldn’t be allowed, therefore ensuring there will never be enough data using, again, the exact same excuses for making black leagues (competitive advantage). And to accuse me of cherry-picking while explicitly doing so is ironic, since I was using aggregated studies.

It would be simpler for you to claim that you will never accept trans people, instead of trying to use logic to defend your stance, because you’re wrong.

No, I get it. But, you’re using what you feel is true versus what is true. The “advantage” you’re talking about isn’t significant among any study, ranging from a 7% advantage in some athletic categories to a 13% disadvantage in others.

Competitive sporting associations have rules and regulations for trans athletes competing in sex-segregated leagues, and they typically involve around two years on HRT and I’m not sure if you’re aware of the side effects of starting HRT, but athletes typically see substantial muscle loss. These competitive organizations do not see trans athletes excel when following these rules. And that is because trans athletes aren’t superior to cis athletes.

The strongest and tallest man probably has some advantages in some sports over the tallest and strongest woman, but you need to compare the strongest and tallest trans man to the man and trans woman to woman because those comparisons are surprisingly more in favor of the cis athlete than you would probably like for a whole host of reasons.

Definitionally, if you say a part of being a woman is having breasts, and a woman doesn’t have breasts, you are saying they are either less of a woman or not a woman at all.

Either that, or your initial argument is wrong, and having breasts has nothing to do with being a woman, so there is nothing wrong with going topless as a woman.

I will say it feels like you definitely believe not having breasts makes you less of a woman because you said “technically makes you a woman” here, which is a weird thing to say if you were arguing that women shouldn’t be allowed to go topless for some sex-related reason.

Part of, you also have your vagina?

Part of

you also have your vagina?

You say disgusting things and try to backtrack when called out on them. You are such a coward to say horrible things and then pretend you didn’t.

No woman is defined by her breasts, vagina, or even chromosomes, and losing any part of her is not being less of a woman. Any woman with breast cancer is just as much of a woman before as after. Fuck you.

deleted by creator

Oh, my bad. I’m glad you told her she is only less of a woman because she has no breasts.

People like you are sick in the head.

Women aren’t less women because they lose their breasts. They’re not less women for not having a vagina, whatever the fuck that means. Like, if your labia or clitoris are removed, are you less of a woman? If your uterus is removed, are you less of a woman? What a disgusting thing to tell women, that their womanhood is their genitals.

People like you make breast cancer so much harder than it already is.

Your thought process is weird and culturally sheltered.

Holy shit, that is a fucked up thing to say.

Like imagine telling a woman with cancer, “luckily, your vagina is the only thing keeping you a woman”. As if their genitalia is what defines them as a woman.

What a disgusting thing to say. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Removed by mod

So, any woman with a double mastectomy is no longer a woman? Damn, cancer keeps getting harder and harder.

The first is that trans women do not have a big advantage over cis women. They have, at best, a very slight advantage, depending on their time on HRT and age.

The second is that there isn’t a lot of trans people. Trans people make up around 2-3% of the population, so they would have around 1/30th of the number of teammates in their school. That would be difficult to make a full team around. And because they’re segregated out, they would need to find other teams to play against, as well.

The third thing you’re missing is that you really only care about trans women in this debate. Do you care if trans men compete against cis men? They compete at very similar levels, too, and if you think being born as a woman is a disadvantage, then why do they do just as well after transitioning?

And the last thing is that we have gendered leagues due to a sexist history behind sports. Women weren’t allowed to compete in a variety of sports for a long time. Women’s leagues were initially created for the same reason black leagues were created. We have kept them because they are a really lazy way to determine what category of play you are in, as though they act similar to weight classes in wrestling. But athletes within the same sex can compete at completely different abilities for different reasons. Taller players can have a much bigger advantage against shorter players in a ton of sports, so why don’t we use height as a determiner of which league you play in instead?