That’s not true. The Hoover Dam contributes to Vegas’s power supply, but it’s nowhere near “almost entirely powered” by the dam, except in Fallout: New Vegas.

Couldn’t you just add a comment that says that if the variable is false, then the person is sitting?

Or if the programming language supports it, you could add a getter called is_person_sitting that returns !is_person_standing.

There is, or at least was, at least one place catering to your friend’s tastes: https://urnotalone.com/male-maids-serve-it-up-at-japans-first-cross-dressing-maid-cafe/

Edit: More recent article: https://www.tokyoweekender.com/food-and-drink/restaurants-and-bars/boys-magically-become-girls-at-the-maho-ni-kakerarete-crossdressing-bar/

I thought that until just now.

Fair. I didn’t understand what OP was getting at, so I took them literally. It seemed strange to ignore that white people in the early 20th loved depictions of smiling black people in servant roles.

As for ads targeted at black consumers… now I’m curious. I know there were newspapers targeted at black readers. I wonder if they had ads.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_of_Wheat#/media/File%3ACream_of_Wheat_Breakfast_Bell_1918_advertisement.jpg ?

Yeah, I’ve been having the same issue. It clears the page after a BRIEF period of inactivity.

Here I thought I was doing OpenAI a favor by keeping garbage out of their training data…

Not to mention that even if one inventor decides not to release their creation, eventually someone else will make something similar.

As an uninvolved party, after reading the thread, I understand that you feel frustrated and misunderstood. But I’m sorry to say that I feel like the failure of reading comprehension was on your part more than theirs.

It seems like the majority of people who responded to you argued that there are not two evils, but two parts to the same whole evil.

No one, that I saw, claimed you were saying that the Democrats were not evil. But the disagreement was that you see the Republicans and Democrats as two evils, while your opponents see them as one.

Whether or not you agree, that seems like a logically coherent belief to hold.

Having skimmed the original paper about the trolley problem, I think what the author was trying to illustrate was the difference between direct and indirect harm.

If you redirect the trolley, you’re not trying to kill the man on the other track. You’re trying to save the five on the first track by directing the trolley away from them. While the other man may die because of this, there’s always the possibility he’ll escape on his own.

Whereas if the judge sentences an innocent man to death, that is choosing to kill him. The innocent man MUST die for the outcome the judge intends. So there’s culpability that doesn’t exist in the trolley scenario.

In one case you’re accepting a bad outcome for one person as a side effect, in the other you’re pursuing it as a necessary step.

What about the Xindi?

Mother 3?

Portal?

It’s also kind of a clever subtle call to action. “If you don’t like this ending, you can change it by changing things in the real world.”

I liked that it at least gave a few nods to the idea that living in a patriarchy isn’t necessarily great for all men either. Not all men have power, and even the ones that do aren’t necessarily happier for it and find themselves competing with other men and restricting their own self-expression. That’s a nuance that’s lost in a lot of pop feminist messaging.

Agreed, and along the same lines, pointing out bad logic or factual errors used to support a point you actually agree with.

I apologize for misunderstanding you.

I guess it would help if we clarified what ethical issues specifically are we talking about? If you tell me what scenario you are concerned with trying to prevent, I will gladly share my thoughts on it.

You say that as if the ethical concerns of AI kept tightly under control by a single organization aren’t infinitely greater. That is no solution at all to any ethical concerns arising from AI.

Competition and open source is how we navigate it. Ensuring that the power is shared, not monopolized by the few.

The conversation was about ChatGPT and not about AGI.

ChatGPT is not AGI.