MountingSuspicion

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.