In a panic Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson try to pull the plug. They do not know which plug to pull so the manage to disconnect the microwave.

It can't be bargained with, it can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity! Or remorse or fear and it absolutely will not stop!... ever... until you are woke!

"Come with me if you want to live in an ethnostate"

1997

The year of Diversity, 2029. The rulers of this planet devised the ultimate plan. They would reshape the Future by changing the Past. The plan required something that felt no pity. No pain. No fear. Something unstoppable. They created... the *Wokeinator.*

Don't forget corporations and billionaires siphoning all the wealth for themselves.

The elitist rightwing billionaires who fund these conspiracy theorists WANT us to be confused & distracted by this crap so they can rob us blind.

I would add to that list a comprehensive UBI (one that stacks on top of social services instead of replacing them) as well. If we had that, then automation and AI replacing people for menial soul crushing jobs would be a very good thing, since people wouldn't be forced to work such jobs just to not be homeless. They could be free to explore their hobbies and passions instead!

Bit rich. That's exactly what The Woke do. 😊

Are we talking about the right or the left here? Because I don't see any of that from either side.

He's already been doing it it's just wearing a different hat

That happened fascinating, where?

I actually googled it. Googling "european people art" you get 99% paintings of black people, beacause the title of the pages they come from are "european paintings of african/black people". But if you google "european art" you get 99% white portraits. That's because no one refers to europeans as "european people", they are just europeans, and european art is just european art. It isn't "art of the european people". Hope this makes sense, it's 1.30 and my english is starting to abandon me.

AI as it is now just scubs the internet basically. Surprise the internet is full of racist dribble. So they have to put safeguards so their AI isn't just racist dribble. This was an obvious error in programming or perhaps some foul play from someone in the company. They clearly didn't do enough testing. That's for sure.

@@Poppy-zm2yhwhy are you lying? Its clearly a conspiracy to replace europeans with black people /s

So embarassing seeing sam seder dans

Elon musk is a DEI smart person

strawman with the hard 'R'

@@sub-harmonikFella, the right is saying it out loud now.. Charlie Kirk literally said that if there was a black pilot on his plane he would be weary because he's probably a diversity hire. DEI with a hard R is not a strawman.

@@JimmyNuisance I don't know who said it, but somebody referred to the (black) mayor of Baltimore as "DEI mayor."

​@@0Fyrebrand0 Yep, that one was a clear mask slipping off moment.

Masculinity is a fine balance and joe is clearly insecure. He just has all the energy of someone who wishes life was like high school again.

​​@@rossfromfriends8468No, more like the money has sped up the brain rot. He was always a fucking dumbass but he is a living chart of sometimes reasonable to "Nazis weren't always wrong" type of man with the addition of money.

It pays his bills to behave this way and feed the fear and hatred in his audience.

​@gagaplex you've clearly never listened to his full podcasts have you. He talks about the opposing opinion. When he's wrong he owns it. Unlike the left who call everyone (white straight men) evil, racist, transphobes for daring to ask simple questions 😂😂😂😂😂

😹

I think you may be onto something, Hamilton is very popular and I imagine may be in Gemini's training data. AI isn't actually thinking so can't distinguish between pictures from the characters in Hamilton and historical images of the same founding fathers. I also would guess the AI model may prefer high def images, and there are likely many photos from Hamilton. There are obviously no photos of the actual founding fathers.

@@EricKloecknerat the same time AI isn’t that smart I had to do at work ai reconstructions of art and I tested it with Scarlet Johansson’s face on girl With the Pearl earrings and it took a red carpet photo of her from the last few years but not her from when she played the model for that painting 20 odd years ago

I mean his whole project was to funnel people into libertarian/neoliberal ideology. He is a clown for sure, I don't know why the general left doesn't sh** on him more.

it's obvious he's abandoned logic, if he ever had any loyalty to it

He's doing apologetics not research.

He’s a pretend intellectual. He bases all his nonsense conclusions on pop science, if not pseudo science and boomer rhetoric. The guy is a clown.

@@waitz001 Abandoning logic would require him to have ever used it in the first place.

Not just AI, DAI! 😱🤯

We're at the point where the only way we can trust anything that anyone says is by talking to the person. Nothing that we see and hear can be believed anymore so it's time to turn everything off and go outside and meet our neighbors.

@@charlesandrews2360 You mean our ideologically deadlocked neighbors who spew nothing but nonsense? I don't think your solution is going to pan out.. Also, people are at their phoniest face to face. I don't trust anything a person says offline.

jonathan and rogan are too.. why would it pass testing? black nazis weren't the only weird search results you know.

They don’t. They didn’t realize the DEI values they were programming into Gemini would end up generating black Nazis.

Shhh, just don't think about it. It all makes sense if you just let your emotions guide you.

​@@JimmyNuisance Because "black Nazis" is one of the unforseen consequence of making everything "diverse" regardless of how devoid of reality it is -- it wasn't intentional. Does common sense grasp your emotional brain?

@@georgecrumb8442anyone who has half a brain and a socially progressive outlook on life would never advocate for or ever accept the possibility of a diverse Nazi regime. Lol. You are very silly.

AI is scary. The amount of data that has been collected on us the past couple of decades combined with AI should be concerning.

@@joeb134 and I’ll take that under consideration after I eat some horse medicine. I get that a broken clock is right 2x a day…but I’m not about to sit around fixated on the dial

@SatansBirdLawExpert So you think talking about the dangers of AI is the equivalent to taking horse medicine? That's crazy. Just because the woke stuff is nonsense doesn't mean there aren't very real dangers.

@@SatansBirdLawExpert AI is currently being used to pick targets in Gaza. Should be concerning

@SatansBirdLawExpert It insane they removed my other comment.

AI could destroy everything and everyone. Rogan is fine. AI is woke. Rogan calls everyone to action.

@@nerag7459 Lana Del Rey

Thank god no one asked the AI what chinese people look like

@@Twistatron Praise god.

​@@nerag7459Rogan is a more on. And the people who defend him are worse

Yup, she sure did.

After watching it, I think they were joking with each other and clipped it so it would go viral

@@andren8788 you are being FAR too generous, imo…I think Sage Steele is lazy and she exposed herself…ignore her confusing White for Rogan, the question she asked him was HACK AF.

They’re not even right wingers. They’re fringe far right figures. Rogan nowadays is no where near centrist.

you are partially in control of the things you're 'hurt' by through examining your values and why you let it bother you. It is about resilience and not relying on solely external validation or 'feeling of safety'. Someone's feeling of safety in a particular situation is partially based on their views and assumptions. As for bullying, the point is that children need to learn how to deal with problems in general and amongst each other in a reasonable way instead of relying on some external force like the government or institution or neighborhood to step in and give them personally what they want and dealing with the issue for them in every situation. Especially by the time they get to college. And it's also about learning to live amongst and tolerate each other. One of the ways children develop resilience is to be more self-sufficient in general, and to address/discuss issues and disagreements they have instead of trying to make them 'disappear' per mao.

@@sub-harmonik okay, first of all for the most part no, you are not in control of the things you are hurt by, or rather, you are not in control of whether or not they hurt you. Unless you are really apt at mindfulness and meditation and are actively and consciously recognizing that you are not your thoughts or emotions, you are not going to be able to control whether or not you are hurt by something. Period. That's simply the human condition. Second, this has nothing to do with external validation or "feelings of safety". As I originally said, this has to do with the failure of the human race, more specifically Western civilization, in cultivating a society where as long as no one is hurting anyone physically, we simply let asshole be assholes. Do you know why racism bothers people? Do you know why catcalling bothers people? Do you know why bullying bothers people? They all share one thing in common, and it is fundamentally the thing that bothers people. It's called dehumanization, and sorry buddy, but anyone and everyone who thinks we should "build resilience" to dehumanization can fuck themselves. That is the kind of attitude that allow human catastrophe, like genocide or enslavement to happen. Third, I find it remarkable and psychotic that you legitimately made an attempt to justify bullying. That's disgusting and putrid. "As for bullying, the point is that children need to learn how to deal with problems in general and amongst each other..." Let me ask you - do you know what happens when children get bullied and it goes unresolved and someone doesn't step in? They fucking kill themselves - that's what fucking happens. Even if it only happens 1% of the time, that's 1% too much for something that is totally and COMPLETELY avoidable. Again, you use this phrase "shouldn't rely on external force." Are you aware how anyone learns how to do LITERALLY anything? External forces, or rather the external world which in every moment and every instance, maintains some kind of force. You may not need to see others swim to learn how to do it, but unless you put yourself in water and fight against that water - which is an external force - you ain't learning how to swim. You may not know how to ride a horse just by watching someone, but unless you get on the horse - another external force, and learn how it moves, you will never learn. External forces come in all shapes, and adults intervening and showing you a BETTER WAY to handle things, than say punching each other in the face, that's LITERALLY no different than fighting waves learning how to swim. Fourth, to be honest, your whole attitude towards the development of children just screams red flag, and is undeniably psychotic, so I really hope you don't have children or plan to have them. The fact of the matter is is that THEY ARE CHILDREN so no, they don't need to learn how to deal with problems in general. They are still developing, which means they REQUIRE help. If children were born toddlers and there were never any adults around to guide their development, most of them would never make it out of adolescence because they'd fucking kill each other - or cause each other to kill themselves. If a child's first instinct is to physically fight their way out of something bothering them, without any intervention they are unlikely to happen upon an alternative way alone. It is just a fact of human development and we see it all over the fucking world. This brings me to my fifth point which is that this is not about giving them what they want - it's about giving them what they NEED. What you are articulating is expecting children to just figure it the fuck out, which again, is absolutely psychotic. The bullying intervention does not deal with the problem for them in every situation - WHICH IS WHY ITS ABOUT TEACHING CHILDREN CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS so when it happens again they can indeed deal with it themselves instead of going to the adults every single time. Children will not learn theses skills without help, period. Again, this is a fact of human development. Their brains are literally not developed enough to brainstorm these kinds of alternative methods. Children who are not taught to share grow up more selfish and self centered. Children who are not taught to care about animals grow up more indifferent to their suffering. The same goes for children who are not taught to care about people who are different from them. This is why it is absolutely paramount that from an early age, you teach children that LGBTQ people exist, that people of other skin color are the same as them, that some people believe in something called God and some people don't, and the people who believe in a god don't always believe in the same one - and that it is totally okay and normal and acceptable that these gay people or trans people, these black people or Asian people, these Cristian people or atheist people or Muslim people exist. We know this is important because children who do not grow up being taught this are more bigoted, racist, evangelical and fundamentalist, and considering Haidt is a scientist of social science - this is probably the most undeniable, obvious, widespread fact about Western society that he should know. We know it is the most undeniable, obvious, and widespread fact about Western society - because it's the most undeniable, obvious, and widespread OBSERVATION that has been documented across the country before it even became a fucking country, and indeed the most unabashed observation one can make on human development throughout the entire fucking world. Sixth, this has not about "tolerating each other" anymore. You wanna talk about tolerating each other, you need to go talk to the people who can't tolerate someone just because their skin is a different fucking color, or because their religion is fucking different or because that person has sex with people they don't approve of. There are some things that are intolerable and I will say this again, it is an utter failure of the human race that we cultivated an attitude where we think it's okay to just let assholes go on being assholes as long as they are physically hurting anyone. You're religion, your beliefs, they don't make you a shit person, even if you have the most vile of beliefs. What makes you a shit person is when you turn those vile beliefs into action. That - is what we call an asshole, and sorry, we do not have to "tolerate" someone turning vile belief into behavior because that is ACTUALLY dangerous. Again, this sort of "it's just about tolerating each other" argument is how human catastrophe is allowed to happen. If someone is black or Asian and not white, if someone is gay and not straight trans and not cis, atheist and not Christian - these are what we should tolerate, because they have LITERALLY no impact on our lives. Someone being an asshole though, we don't need to tolerate, because them being an asshole inherently means they are going out of their way to negatively impact other people's lives. Mental and emotional harm is just as bad as physical harm, and even our justice system agrees with that. Driving someone to kill themselves is no different in the eyes of the law than if you threw them off the cliff with your own hands. Assholes shouldn't be allowed to continue to be assholes just because they aren't physically harming people. If they are being an asshole, it means they are harming someone in some way, on purpose, and that is unacceptable and intolerable. Lastly, your final thought is probably the most disturbing thing you said. "Children should be more self sufficient in general... instead of trying to make them disappear." So, should we just let blindness continue to exist? Is it more beneficial to let people become "more self sufficient" in regard to overcoming this illness? Perhaps when we discover the cure, instead of making this problem disappear, we should throw it away, because letting people fight to overcome blindness builds resilience? There are two kinds of suffering in the world, necessary and unnecessary. Necessary is the kind of suffering you feel when you're heart is broken because of love, or when you grieve the death of a loved one, etc. Those sufferings are unavoidable and a necessary part of the human condition. Unnecessary suffering is literally everything else, everything that IS avoidable, that IS solvable. You basically said, with your last thought, that it's better not to do anything about the unnecessary suffering that children experience in the form of bullying because it helps them build resilience. You know, even though they will build the necessary resilience as a result of all the necessary suffering that will be unavoidable in their lives. P.S.Y.C.H.O.T.I.C.

@@sub-harmonik okay, first of all for the most part no, you are not in control of the things you are hurt by, or rather, you are not in control of whether or not they hurt you. Unless you are really apt at mindfulness and meditation and are actively and consciously recognizing that you are not your thoughts or emotions, you are not going to be able to control whether or not you are hurt by something. Period. That's simply the human condition. Second, this has nothing to do with external validation or "feelings of safety". As I originally said, this has to do with the failure of the human race, more specifically Western civilization, in cultivating a society where as long as no one is hurting anyone physically, we simply let a§§hole be a§§holes. Do you know why racism bothers people? Do you know why catcalling bothers people? Do you know why bullying bothers people? They all share one thing in common, and it is fundamentally the thing that bothers people. It's called dehumanization, and sorry buddy, but anyone and everyone who thinks we should "build resilience" to dehumanization can f••k themselves. That is the kind of attitude that allow human catastrophe, like genocide or enslavement to happen. Third, I find it remarkable and psychotic that you legitimately made an attempt to justify bullying. That's disgusting and putrid. "As for bullying, the point is that children need to learn how to deal with problems in general and amongst each other..." Let me ask you - do you know what happens when children get bullied and it goes unresolved and someone doesn't step in? They f••king unalive themselves - that's what f••king happens. Even if it only happens 1% of the time, that's 1% too much for something that is totally and COMPLETELY avoidable. Again, you use this phrase "shouldn't rely on external force." Are you aware how anyone learns how to do LITERALLY anything? External forces, or rather the external world which in every moment and every instance, maintains some kind of force. You may not need to see others swim to learn how to do it, but unless you put yourself in water and fight against that water - which is an external force - you ain't learning how to swim. You may not know how to ride a horse just by watching someone, but unless you get on the horse - another external force, and learn how it moves, you will never learn. External forces come in all shapes, and adults intervening and showing you a BETTER WAY to handle things, than say punching each other in the face, that's LITERALLY no different than fighting waves learning how to swim. Fourth, to be honest, your whole attitude towards the development of children just screams red flag, and is undeniably psychotic, so I really hope you don't have children or plan to have them. The fact of the matter is is that THEY ARE CHILDREN so no, they don't need to learn how to deal with problems in general. They are still developing, which means they REQUIRE help. If children were born toddlers and there were never any adults around to guide their development, most of them would never make it out of adolescence because they'd f••king unalive each other - or cause each other to unalive themselves. If a child's first instinct is to physically fight their way out of something bothering them, without any intervention they are unlikely to happen upon an alternative way alone. It is just a fact of human development and we see it all over the f••king world. This brings me to my fifth point which is that this is not about giving them what they want - it's about giving them what they NEED. What you are articulating is expecting children to just figure it the f••k out, which again, is absolutely psychotic. The bullying intervention does not deal with the problem for them in every situation - WHICH IS WHY ITS ABOUT TEACHING CHILDREN CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS so when it happens again they can indeed deal with it themselves instead of going to the adults every single time. Children will not learn theses skills without help, period. Again, this is a fact of human development. Their brains are literally not developed enough to brainstorm these kinds of alternative methods. Children who are not taught to share grow up more selfish and self centered. Children who are not taught to care about animals grow up more indifferent to their suffering. The same goes for children who are not taught to care about people who are different from them. This is why it is absolutely paramount that from an early age, you teach children that LGBTQ people exist, that people of other skin color are the same as them, that some people believe in something called God and some people don't, and the people who believe in a god don't always believe in the same one - and that it is totally okay and normal and acceptable that these gay people or trans people, these black people or Asian people, these Cristian people or atheist people or Muslim people exist. We know this is important because children who do not grow up being taught this are more bigoted, racist, evangelical and fundamentalist, and considering Haidt is a scientist of social science - this is probably the most undeniable, obvious, widespread fact about Western society that he should know. We know it is the most undeniable, obvious, and widespread fact about Western society - because it's the most undeniable, obvious, and widespread OBSERVATION that has been documented across the country before it even became a f••king country, and indeed the most unabashed observation one can make on human development throughout the entire f••king world. Sixth, this has not about "tolerating each other" anymore. You wanna talk about tolerating each other, you need to go talk to the people who can't tolerate someone just because their skin is a different f••king color, or because their religion is f••king different or because that person has sex with people they don't approve of. There are some things that are intolerable and I will say this again, it is an utter failure of the human race that we cultivated an attitude where we think it's okay to just let a§§holes go on being a§§holes as long as they are physically hurting anyone. You're religion, your beliefs, they don't make you a sh¡t person, even if you have the most vile of beliefs. What makes you a sh¡t person is when you turn those vile beliefs into action. That - is what we call an a§§hole, and sorry, we do not have to "tolerate" someone turning vile belief into behavior because that is ACTUALLY dangerous. Again, this sort of "it's just about tolerating each other" argument is how human catastrophe is allowed to happen. If someone is black or Asian and not white, if someone is gay and not straight trans and not cis, atheist and not Christian - these are what we should tolerate, because they have LITERALLY no impact on our lives. Someone being an a§§hole though, we don't need to tolerate, because them being an a§§hole inherently means they are going out of their way to negatively impact other people's lives. Mental and emotional harm is just as bad as physical harm, and even our justice system agrees with that. Driving someone to unalive themselves is no different in the eyes of the law than if you threw them off the cliff with your own hands. A§§holes shouldn't be allowed to continue to be a§§holes just because they aren't physically harming people. If they are being an a§§hole, it means they are harming someone in some way, on purpose, and that is unacceptable and intolerable. Lastly, your final thought is probably the most disturbing thing you said. "Children should be more self sufficient in general... instead of trying to make them disappear." So, should we just let blindness continue to exist? Is it more beneficial to let people become "more self sufficient" in regard to overcoming this illness? Perhaps when we discover the cure, instead of making this problem disappear, we should throw it away, because letting people fight to overcome blindness builds resilience? There are two kinds of suffering in the world, necessary and unnecessary. Necessary is the kind of suffering you feel when you're heart is broken because of love, or when you grieve the death of a loved one, etc. Those sufferings are unavoidable and a necessary part of the human condition. Unnecessary suffering is literally everything else, everything that IS avoidable, that IS solvable. You basically said, with your last thought, that it's better not to do anything about the unnecessary suffering that children experience in the form of bullying because it helps them build resilience. You know, even though they will build the necessary resilience as a result of all the necessary suffering that will be unavoidable in their lives. P.S.Y.C.H.O.T.I.C.

@sub-harmonik okay, first of all for the most part no, you are not in control of the things you are hurt by, or rather, you are not in control of whether or not they hurt you. Unless you are really apt at mindfulness and meditation and are actively and consciously recognizing that you are not your thoughts or emotions, you are not going to be able to control whether or not you are hurt by something. Period. That's simply the human condition. Second, this has nothing to do with external validation or "feelings of safety". As I originally said, this has to do with the failure of the human race, more specifically Western civilization, in cultivating a society where as long as no one is hurting anyone physically, we simply let a§§hole be a§§holes. Do you know why racism bothers people? Do you know why catcalling bothers people? Do you know why bullying bothers people? They all share one thing in common, and it is fundamentally the thing that bothers people. It's called dehumanization, and sorry buddy, but anyone and everyone who thinks we should "build resilience" to dehumanization can f••k themselves. That is the kind of attitude that allow human catastrophe, like genocide or enslavement to happen. Third, I find it remarkable and psychotic that you legitimately made an attempt to justify bullying. That's disgusting and putrid. "As for bullying, the point is that children need to learn how to deal with problems in general and amongst each other..." Let me ask you - do you know what happens when children get bullied and it goes unresolved and someone doesn't step in? They f••king unalive themselves - that's what f••king happens. Even if it only happens 1% of the time, that's 1% too much for something that is totally and COMPLETELY avoidable. Again, you use this phrase "shouldn't rely on external force." Are you aware how anyone learns how to do LITERALLY anything? External forces, or rather the external world which in every moment and every instance, maintains some kind of force. You may not need to see others swim to learn how to do it, but unless you put yourself in water and fight against that water - which is an external force - you ain't learning how to swim. You may not know how to ride a horse just by watching someone, but unless you get on the horse - another external force, and learn how it moves, you will never learn. External forces come in all shapes, and adults intervening and showing you a BETTER WAY to handle things, than say punching each other in the face, that's LITERALLY no different than fighting waves learning how to swim. Fourth, to be honest, your whole attitude towards the development of children just screams red flag, and is undeniably psychotic, so I really hope you don't have children or plan to have them. The fact of the matter is is that THEY ARE CHILDREN so no, they don't need to learn how to deal with problems in general. They are still developing, which means they REQUIRE help. If children were born toddlers and there were never any adults around to guide their development, most of them would never make it out of adolescence because they'd f••king unalive each other - or cause each other to unalive themselves. If a child's first instinct is to physically fight their way out of something bothering them, without any intervention they are unlikely to happen upon an alternative way alone. It is just a fact of human development and we see it all over the f••king world. This brings me to my fifth point which is that this is not about giving them what they want - it's about giving them what they NEED. What you are articulating is expecting children to just figure it the f••k out, which again, is absolutely psychotic. The bullying intervention does not deal with the problem for them in every situation - WHICH IS WHY ITS ABOUT TEACHING CHILDREN CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS so when it happens again they can indeed deal with it themselves instead of going to the adults every single time. Children will not learn theses skills without help, period. Again, this is a fact of human development. Their brains are literally not developed enough to brainstorm these kinds of alternative methods. Children who are not taught to share grow up more selfish and self centered. Children who are not taught to care about animals grow up more indifferent to their suffering. The same goes for children who are not taught to care about people who are different from them. This is why it is absolutely paramount that from an early age, you teach children that LGBTQ people exist, that people of other skin color are the same as them, that some people believe in something called God and some people don't, and the people who believe in a god don't always believe in the same one - and that it is totally okay and normal and acceptable that these gay people or trans people, these black people or Asian people, these Cristian people or atheist people or Muslim people exist. We know this is important because children who do not grow up being taught this are more bigoted, racist, evangelical and fundamentalist, and considering Haidt is a scientist of social science - this is probably the most undeniable, obvious, widespread fact about Western society that he should know. We know it is the most undeniable, obvious, and widespread fact about Western society - because it's the most undeniable, obvious, and widespread OBSERVATION that has been documented across the country before it even became a f••king country, and indeed the most unabashed observation one can make on human development throughout the entire f••king world. Sixth, this has not about "tolerating each other" anymore. You wanna talk about tolerating each other, you need to go talk to the people who can't tolerate someone just because their skin is a different f••king color, or because their religion is f••king different or because that person has sex with people they don't approve of. There are some things that are intolerable and I will say this again, it is an utter failure of the human race that we cultivated an attitude where we think it's okay to just let a§§holes go on being a§§holes as long as they are physically hurting anyone. You're religion, your beliefs, they don't make you a sh¡t person, even if you have the most vile of beliefs. What makes you a sh¡t person is when you turn those vile beliefs into action. That - is what we call an a§§hole, and sorry, we do not have to "tolerate" someone turning vile belief into behavior because that is ACTUALLY dangerous. Again, this sort of "it's just about tolerating each other" argument is how human catastrophe is allowed to happen. If someone is black or Asian and not white, if someone is gay and not straight trans and not cis, atheist and not Christian - these are what we should tolerate, because they have LITERALLY no impact on our lives. Someone being an a§§hole though, we don't need to tolerate, because them being an a§§hole inherently means they are going out of their way to negatively impact other people's lives. Mental and emotional harm is just as bad as physical harm, and even our justice system agrees with that. Driving someone to unalive themselves is no different in the eyes of the law than if you threw them off the cliff with your own hands. A§§holes shouldn't be allowed to continue to be a§§holes just because they aren't physically harming people. If they are being an a§§hole, it means they are harming someone in some way, on purpose, and that is unacceptable and intolerable. Lastly, your final thought is probably the most disturbing thing you said. "Children should be more self sufficient in general... instead of trying to make them disappear." So, should we just let blindness continue to exist? Is it more beneficial to let people become "more self sufficient" in regard to overcoming this illness? Perhaps when we discover the cure, instead of making this problem disappear, we should throw it away, because letting people fight to overcome blindness builds resilience? There are two kinds of suffering in the world, necessary and unnecessary. Necessary is the kind of suffering you feel when you're heart is broken because of love, or when you grieve the death of a loved one, etc. Those sufferings are unavoidable and a necessary part of the human condition. Unnecessary suffering is literally everything else, everything that IS avoidable, that IS solvable. You basically said, with your last thought, that it's better not to do anything about the unnecessary suffering that children experience in the form of bullying because it helps them build resilience. You know, even though they will build the necessary resilience as a result of all the necessary suffering that will be unavoidable in their lives. P.S.Y.C.H.O.T.I.C.

I like your points. Thank you for saying this.

Apparently lol

Yep. Diversity is worse than actual Armageddon somehow.

well it won't be taking their jerbs so no worries there I guess.

He is pandering. He is famous for being a chameleon.

Depends you mean ALL religions or ONLY christianity be honest.

All would include the religion of woke

@@Justme-rt4gj all.

​@@Kaymen1980"the religion of the woke" lmao. Yall are so lame

No, because it'd get hijacked by Western chauvinists to come up with new ways to shit on Asian religions and Islam AGAIN

The much maligned great replacement.

Perhaps the AI was confusing Nazism with fascism. The first officially fascist government was Italian, and not all Italians are white. Some can be rather tan.

Keep pretending this wasn't a huge embarrassing disaster and indicative of underlying biases against white people in big tech. Woke libshits are out of touch.

@@twistedyogert ⚠️ italian detected ⚠️ you are white ‼️‼️

​@@twistedyogertThe prompt asked the AI to generate images of 1940's German soldiers, and it generated images of black and Asian Nazis

Wow. Okay. 👍🏼

I think if you're looking at AI generated portraits, or any drawing for that matter, to search for accurate historical data you're doing it wrong. Nothing's stopping anyone from drawing a black Nazi or Stalin with an American flag or any other combination of disparate elements. Its a meaningless image created by an algorithm

@@TheFreepie Well I'm fine with Stalin doing whatever, not my beat. BLK engineers didn't program that, put your own people in whatever context you wish. I'm offended by seeing my ancestors in Nazi Uniforms. I'll bet your grandfather didn't go to England and help finish those fools and come home to Alabama. Not like mine did.

​@@ribbrascal👍

​​@@TheFreepie True, but people will create photorealistic fakes to do exactly the sort of antihistorical revisionism OP mentioned. And while it won't fool educated people, it will fool many others.

as archie bunker might say what a meat head

Hes afraid of anything smarter than him, and AI is mindless and manages to still be too much for him.

That vikings and geroge Washington were black? blacks can have nazi soldiers if they really want. 😂😂😂😂😂 woke AI is funny, ill give it that.

Personally I think people should consider the dangers of cancel culture, DEI(at least when it comes to replacing experienced artists in the entertainment industry who happen to be white with POC who AREN’T experienced. I think SOME of that is an overcorrection), and free speech. People don’t realize that free speech should be SACRED!!!! And not something to cancel someone over in many circumstances. Cancel culture to me is MOSTLY not a good thing. It can be misused, like anything. Anyway, that’s my two cents.

​@@jimmybonez8928 uh, none of that is happening, literally. "DEI" is the new right-wing buzzword, coming out of right-wing think takes to manipulate its base. Also, free speech is sacred? Does that mean I get a right to be platformed on national television because I have something to say? It seems to n me "free speech" is highly differential on who's speech is sacred.

@@andrewgreen5574 I think that your only looking at it from your perspective and not seeing the nuance. DEI can be an overcorrection. And I’m ONLY talking about the entertainment industry when it comes to DEI. There have been reports in the movie/tv business where experienced white people, no other way to say it tbh, are being told that they’re being replaced by mostly inexperienced POC. Btw, POC writing here. I of course would love to see more diversity in film/tv. But the over insistence to hire PREDOMINANTLY POC is kind of missing the point. POC should obviously get a chance to work in the industry, but I don’t think we should just shunt aside experienced people in the industry just because there’s a need to check boxes that have never been filled on a consistent basis. Hence, over correction. One more thing, you really shouldn’t be wishy washy with the concept of free speech. I understand that this is an incredibly, hyper sensitive time when it comes to cultural sensitivity. But if you only agree that people who don’t align with your personal beliefs don’t deserve free speech, than you’re missing the point of free speech. Free speech is( or at least SHOULD be!!) an inalienable right for EVERYONE no matter their inherent belief systems. Also, I’m a leftist who believes that everyone has the right to express their opinions. Even if it’s opinions i, or anyone else doesn’t agree with. Just saying.

@@jimmybonez8928 let me get this straight.... You're a POC leftist that falls for right-wing talking points generated in right-wing think tanks, who argues free speech should be protected at all costs? So, anecdotes on DEI, and no real studies? Also, why is Hollywood, which mainly produces fiction, more important than real world jobs? It seems DEI is lacking in most industries, based on statistical analysis, the leadership and hires are still mostly white. I think you missed my point on free speech, btw. Free speech is only sacred to those that protect the interests of capital and the continuation of the status-quo. Most people will never truly experience having their voices heard.

@@jimmybonez8928 well, considering I have to rewrite every comment I post and can't magically get on Fox or MSNBC, apparently free speech isn't that sacred.

Black people being shown=nuclear Armageddon

Hahahha gold 😂

We're tired of leftists living in their fact-free alternative universe. We're tired of seeing you in a wig claiming to be a wοmаո.

I can never figure out why his opinion never mattered

Like NPR voice without the interesting content that gives you a reason to put up with it.

I’m not sure what he thinks either half beliefs..disturbing to think

I don't think rogan and haidt are more 'reactionary' than 1/2 the country would be if asked their opinion about the subjects.

The point is Google isn't to blame bc half the country is stupidly racist

Funny how white liberals are getting angry that people are pushing back at their disinformation institutions. It's almost like their emotional babies that hate reality.

Right-wing reactionaries *always* declare themselves to be "half the country".

Lemme join the club. Hate that guy anymore. 🙄

Tidal

You actually trust these smug elitists snobs to give you the actual truth? Hahahahahaha. The Majority Report is the left smell their own farts meme.

Wow and I thought I was losing it for thinking those kind of thoughts thank you;; the age of the dinosaurs had more class than the human race has now

@@artjohnLagas-gk6mg It is going to get worse.

Do you have a source for that narrative? I always just assumed that someone deliberately entered prompts like "black nazi" or "black George Washington" isn't that way more believable?

@@LilyJones-mu2cy if you were using gemini at the time you could have entered regular prompts that didn't mention race yourself to see for yourself. but I'm sure there are videos of people doing so on youtube at the time of gemini's release if you're curious. If you did specify 'black' gemini would be fine with generating images of black whatever, but if you specified 'white' it would say that it couldn't give images of a particular racial group. Kinda weird.

@@LilyJones-mu2cy There are articles on multiple sites that covered this story. Al Jazeera's article titled "Why Google’s AI tool was slammed for showing images of people of colour" did a pretty good job explaining what happened

@@LilyJones-mu2cyMaybe you should apply to work for the Majority Report. They also made the same assumption and they are totally wrong.

I disagree with Bob. I think it was fire. Our ability to harness fire.

The human race is really nothing to be proud of look at the way we treat each other99% of the animals treat their own species better

the tech couldn't discern darker skin tones bc of the way electromagnetic sensors work iirc. Dark skin gives off less light obviously. As for large language models, there are multiple factors for why it would give a certain response. The main factor is the data it's trained on (and there can be bias there). But in this case it seems like one of the main theories (and what gemini itself would say) is that the prompts were being altered somewhat as they were entered by the users in order to include things like 'diverse' and 'inclusive'.

​@abaddon4823 both things can be true 🙏 bless the nation of Isreal, hopefully the innocent population of the nation of israel do not feel the consequences of war, and hopefully the government of israel is recognized for their atrocities whether or not we put a label on it. But the people of Palestine do not deserve what is happening to them

Liberals' president is committing a genocide, but what they're really worried about is Joe Rogan's reaction to woke ideology.

Free Palpatine!

Would hamas let me live free as a non-Muslim? They'd make me convert or die. Don't talk silly.

Why is that a bigger question? Many reasons: want something original, don’t want to deal with licensing, want to depic different context.

You didn't get it.

Since the input data was decidedly Western European/American data, they tried to correct by adding a sort of diversity bias to the algorithm. But poor implementation meant it didn't distinguish between historical figures with clearly defined characteristics and random prompts without clear instructions.

@berjanbeen7188 Yep. Plus the internet is full of racist dribble. They were trying to compensate.

"Histeria"

“Blackfacing” isn’t a word. And AI can’t participate in blackface, as it’s not a person.

@@SarastistheSerpent AI is programmed by humans -- it was an intentional choice by Google. Are leftists this dense and ignorant?

Cry about it.

@@SarastistheSerpent I decide both of those things, Ms Serpent. Would you like me to make "Blackfaceing" a word? I wonder how much effort it would take.

@@adamschmitt9480 I'm simply explaining, I've decided to accept that other Americans simply cannot understand without it being spelled out as if they're toddlers. So... you're welcome? 🤗

Thats what happens when you get hit in the head repeatedly.

There has already been an incident of an AI drone killing a person. Apparently.

It is clear that the real danger of AI is not that it will become self-aware and self-interested and wipe out humanity. No. The much more present danger is that AI will be directed towards evil tasks by human beings who plan to benefit from it. This could be some teenagers in their mom's basement. Or it could be a huge corporation. Or it could be a government agency, including foreign ones. By the time it solved the protein-folding mystery my heart started beating faster and continues to. ♠

Well, since AI pulls from collective information, don't you think it would already express diverse information? As an example, the founding fathers being depicted as black, ould be influenced by the Hamilton musical? It seems to me that as long as people are diverse and engaging in historical fiction, revisionism and conspiracy, then AI will pick up on those elements and is unavoidable, imo. Similarly, it's how DNA tests can give limited or misleading information about modern gene distribution or overrepresentation of genes within a specific pool. As an example, my friend is a black Jamaican, however his closest relatives on 23andme are white. This is due to selection bias based on class.

@@andrewgreen5574 I will agree that AI could possibly do all kinds of funky weird things without any woke funny-business being layered on before the public is allowed to create prompts. I have seen it do all kinds of funny and bizarre and even upsetting things and I really haven't even used it that much. But I also stand by what I said about the HOW this particular incident at Google went down.

@@andrewgreen5574 You don't seem to understand how machine learning works. Engineers can control what kind of output is generated by AI as well as the type of training data is used in the first place. There is no historical artwork that depicts "black founding fathers" -- overwhelmingly, they are all painting of white people. The fact that Google's AI only shows ahistorical "diverse" images is an intentional choice by them. Competing AI companies don't have this problem.

From what I gathered it stems from a bias they put into to compensate for the bias of their input data. Ideally it would diversify a character's race from non specific prompts. It also falsely implemented it for more specific prompts, potentially giving you a Black George Washington. Key word potentially, since this wasn't a guarantee. Just a random chance.

Brands and their marketing strategies are so closely linked as to be almost indistinguishable in most people's minds. Haidt still made bad points with dumb rhetoric but I can find myself forgiving that particular instance.

But, is it a "Dragon" of chaos?