It’s just obvious from your way of speaking that this is a rewriting of history, yes you have mentioned some poor world building she has done outside of her literature, that is almost entirely irrelevant to the books she has written.

Calling her works ‘mediocre’ is once again, objectively incorrect and in my opinion (this is an assumption) is fuelled by your own personal feelings towards her.

now do a count per years of release and calculate how many jk rowling would sell if her books were out for the same amount of time?

or is the bible the greatest piece of fiction ever?

does shitting on the floor exist as a major plot point in the series? No?

you are letting your hate for a person obscure the objectivity behind the comments you are replying to.

How is it even possible to afford $800 for insulin? It boggles the mind

To be fair if I received an assignment and it said “Use the exact sentence xyz in the second chapter” I’d be unlikely to ignore that as a human?

I wasn’t familiar with that. When I wanted to see if I could buy ethical cheese I found one farm which reared calves with mothers, and read that although everything else they do seemed to be ethical, they did sell their male calves to be used for veal. That may have been incorrect and if it was, I was unaware.

The cheese was also extremely expensive too, like 10x the price of normal cheese.

Ah, there’s a random block of white space on the page for me indicating that the article was finished. Thanks I’ll read the rest now.

Unfortunately - and this is the problem - it is incredibly inefficient to raise animals properly. Almost any ‘humane’ animal products that you can think of have very harmful practices embedded in them.

Firstly - the animals having the best possible life right to the moment of death would still allow things like lamb. Surely giving a baby the best possible life before killing it young is still barbaric?

Secondly - secondary animal products would still require harmful practices. For a dairy cow to produce milk she has to be pregnant / have a baby. Some farms produce ‘humane’ dairy which involves allowing the mother and calf to live together, but then it also requires them to sell the male calves to be killed for veal because… what else would a male calf be for?

And finally, onto the point of inefficiency. Do you have any idea how many chickens are killed every single day to supply our food system? You probably do, but you may be unaware of what that means - the Earth does not have enough land possible to raise these chickens, it is physically impossible and that is just one farm animal.

So the future of a humane world for animals either involves quality synthetic meat, or everybody is suddenly happy to go vegan, or more likely; everybody remains carnivorous and we continue to torture animals.

The em dash used in MS word is different to the one used by ChatGPT as far as I can tell, it looks more like the en dash used by GPT.

Would be better if they revealed what the Trojan Horse was for me, that was what I was most interested in. Saying it’s an infallible way of exposing AI usage without actually revealing what it was is questionable.

The problem is it’s incredible rare to find others that are willing to change their minds in return, so every discussion either involves you changing your mind, or the other person getting agitated.

A discussion in good faith means treating the person you are speaking to with respect. It means not having ulterior motives. If you are having the discussion with the explicit purpose of changing their minds or, in your words, “alarming them to take action” then that is by default a bad faith discussion.

If you want to discuss with a pro-AI person in good faith, you HAVE to be open to changing your own mind. That is the whole point of a good faith discussion - but rather, you already believe you are correct, and are wanting to enter these discussions with objective ammunition to defeat somebody.

How do you actually discuss in good faith? You ask for their opinions and are open to them, then you share your own in a respectful manner. You aren’t trying to ‘win’ you are just trying to understand and in turn, help others to understand your own POV.

With this perspective, is death really a ‘meaning’ to life, or is it rather a ‘fuel’ for more life?

If it’s the latter, then that implies there is another meaning to life. There is a circle which keeps the wheel of life spinning - but where is the wheel going, and why?

The ultimate death of everything, perhaps, in which case I suppose you are correct.

The meaning of life (to you) could be to: “Just be here because here is where we happen to be.”

It’s not that deep, really. Some people want to have an impact, others just want to chill. I’m just curious what people’s first response is to that question and so far I have seen lots of interesting comments.

It makes more sense that a god is a creator and not a omniscient controller, if we could grow life in a petri dish and set the scientific boundaries for that life - we would also sit back and watch what happens, for good and for bad.

nobody is gonna convince me of anything now

This is part of the problem. If two people engage in open debate and neither of them can be convinced to change their minds about anything, then what exactly is the point?

I will listen to people and engage with their arguments, and remain openminded to be convinced. Life isn’t that simple and believing you know all the answers is naive.

If you stop viewing Jesus as a deity and start viewing him as just a really nice guy, and you ignore much of the rest of that book, then I think he is a good role model.

Strangely, all of the good things he said and did are ignored by the people that worship him.

Turn the other cheek - nope, let’s blow people up in the ocean just in case they’re doing something wrong.

Love thy neighbour, the story of the good Samaritan - nope, fuck anybody that’s not rich and definitely fuck immigrants.

Yep, and as always, the hardest working and least well-off are punished by a system that either doesn’t have them in mind or purposefully excludes them.

Would love to know shift-workers are expected to vote when they work 7-7 or whatever else. Night workers that sleep most of the day, etc.

The real concern is that with 8 million potential voters, NYC barely breaks 2 million.

This is why it’s always such a toss-up between fascism and normalcy - because too many people are complacent.

If that is how you feel about AI, then you would need to stop posting on social media and probably even stop having text conversations on your phone. Stop buying things online, stop watching YouTube, etc.

Every bit of virtual footprint that you have will, in some way, be used to train AI / machine learning / be sold for marketing purposes.

I don’t think stopping your life because AI exists is the right thing to do. Those ‘other artists losing their jobs’ would also be fuelling AI wiht this logic, so we should all stop making art?