If you think I did, you should sue your school for child abuse.
First, a comparison can be an equation, but doesn’t have to be. Trying to downplay the Holocaust by equating it to something like ai, would be insane and insulting to the victims. But if the “comparison” is literally an reductio ad absurdum, it is obvious not an equation and not downplaying it. The whole point of reductio ad absurdum is to go for the absurd consequences of the statement. I don’t think legal is moral, so the shared property of legality (at the respective time) is not something that I would use to judge either of them. I don’t judge the Holocaust by it’s legality. Its horrors go far beyond anything in which the legality is relevant. That is why we had the Nuremberg trials. So by using reductio ad absurdum, I implied that the consequences would be absurd, which implies I think that it isn’t the same, that I am not comparing and that i think legality is a horrible ground on which to judge something, so obviously I wouldn’t judge the Holocaust by its legality and consequently I wouldn’t compare the Holocaust to ai because of their legality at their respective times. Their shared attribute “legality” is irrelevant to me. The person who believes that legality is a good way to judge something, consequently would have to equate holocaust with ai, at least on the bases of their legality.
So if you want to take offense in “comparing” the Holocaust with ai, then you have my support and go and shit on the person who implies that they are the same in a relevant way. The person saying that legal is moral.
So we went from “Omg, you are comparing ai to the Holocaust” to “intellectual property isn’t real”. I guess that means you realized how silly you were. Good job.
I would invite you to a discussion about what intellectual property is and isn’t and how real it consequently is, but at this point, I am not sure, you would be able to have that conversation. You seem to prefer short outburst of thought, instead of careful consideration of these thoughts.
I wish you a great day and that you can reflect on your behavior and whether or not this is for your own good. Take care.
That is what I am talking about. Impulsive outburst of consciousness, based entirely in emotions. Do you see how a conversation is difficult like that? In emotional state, people often project their feelings on others, given your words and emotional state, I want to take the opportunity to wish you good luck in your life. There will be better times. Stay strong.
Are you really comparing computer program who spits words with a fucking genocide? Wtf
If you think I did, you should sue your school for child abuse.
First, a comparison can be an equation, but doesn’t have to be. Trying to downplay the Holocaust by equating it to something like ai, would be insane and insulting to the victims. But if the “comparison” is literally an reductio ad absurdum, it is obvious not an equation and not downplaying it. The whole point of reductio ad absurdum is to go for the absurd consequences of the statement. I don’t think legal is moral, so the shared property of legality (at the respective time) is not something that I would use to judge either of them. I don’t judge the Holocaust by it’s legality. Its horrors go far beyond anything in which the legality is relevant. That is why we had the Nuremberg trials. So by using reductio ad absurdum, I implied that the consequences would be absurd, which implies I think that it isn’t the same, that I am not comparing and that i think legality is a horrible ground on which to judge something, so obviously I wouldn’t judge the Holocaust by its legality and consequently I wouldn’t compare the Holocaust to ai because of their legality at their respective times. Their shared attribute “legality” is irrelevant to me. The person who believes that legality is a good way to judge something, consequently would have to equate holocaust with ai, at least on the bases of their legality.
So if you want to take offense in “comparing” the Holocaust with ai, then you have my support and go and shit on the person who implies that they are the same in a relevant way. The person saying that legal is moral.
Intellectual property isn’t real dumbass
So we went from “Omg, you are comparing ai to the Holocaust” to “intellectual property isn’t real”. I guess that means you realized how silly you were. Good job.
I would invite you to a discussion about what intellectual property is and isn’t and how real it consequently is, but at this point, I am not sure, you would be able to have that conversation. You seem to prefer short outburst of thought, instead of careful consideration of these thoughts.
I wish you a great day and that you can reflect on your behavior and whether or not this is for your own good. Take care.
Yeah shut up idiot with your smug tone. I bet your life is shit
That is what I am talking about. Impulsive outburst of consciousness, based entirely in emotions. Do you see how a conversation is difficult like that? In emotional state, people often project their feelings on others, given your words and emotional state, I want to take the opportunity to wish you good luck in your life. There will be better times. Stay strong.
I’m hungry