I didn't see them defining "for everybody" what low/high morality are. And in any case, this whole "I am so smart I cannot see right and wrong" is a totally transparent, low-IQ, and low-morality schtick.
> I didn't see them defining "for everybody" what low/high morality are.
Morality by definition is a set prescriptions that everyone ought to follow.
> this whole "I am so smart I cannot see right and wrong" is a totally transparent, low-IQ, and low-morality schtick.
The problem with this position is that it takes as a given that morality is in some sense trivial where millennia of debate over it has shown that it is in fact, not at all trivial.
you... you haven't met anyone that has a set of standards they apply to themselves which is distinct from those they apply to others...?
> The problem with this position is that it takes as a given that morality is in some sense trivial where millennia of debate over it has shown that it is in fact, not at all trivial.
No, not really. People may agree or disagree on what is right and wrong. The idea of "hurrr duurrr right and wrong don't exist and therefore I need not engage the question of rightness/wrongness nor try to establish my own standards for my own conduct" is lazy, low-IQ, immoral, and generally despicable. Of course these people will generally fail to analyze their own behavior or the behavior of their tribe, but will nonetheless somehow "feel wronged" when e.g. their car gets broken into. Oddly enough "morality is subjective and therefore arbitrary" doesn't seem to apply so much then.
Yeah, since when did he get to decide things associated with the Nazi saluting tech trillionaire is low morality? The guy who is openly manipulating markets for his advantage should get the same respect and dignity everyone else does!
I don't care at all about what way someone moves their arm unless it's causing violence, and cannot understand why any sane person would. Even if someone did the most nazi salute ever, I still wouldn't care at all, it's an arm movement. Stop pretending normal people care about this
DOGE gutted SSA, IRS, directly affecting seniors and other vulnerable people getting checks, gutted CFPB taking away fraud protection, not to mention gutting of USAID which caused countless deaths, though I'm sure you don't care. Musk used his wealth and social platform to greatly help elect a man, whose personal gestapo is now chasing down non-white US citizens and disappearing them.
But sure, he didn't personally punch anybody, and doesn't wear an SS uniform in public.
What do you mean "causing violence?" It sounds like you're suggesting Hitler's moving of his arm somehow caused violence. Can you explain how that could possibly be true under your model of "arm movements don't matter"?
As far as I know, Hitler himself never struck anyone with an outstretched hand. Certainly that's not the crime he's accused of. I don't think you can actually prove that Hitler's arm movements had any causal relationship to the Holocaust, to be honest. So presumably he's in the clear, and there's no reason a normal person would've cared about Hitler's arm movements in the 30s and 40s, correct?
As far as I know, Hitler himself just said words. Same with Pol Pot, Hirohito, Mao, Stalin, and Lenin. How could you possibly attribute violence to any of that under your model of "I'm so smart I can't see causation or intent?"
unless you're punching or stabbing someone I really do not care what way you move your arm, whether it's associated with something 80 years ago or not.
Okay so a politician who orders the state to go hunt down your family is in the clear, the guy who drives the secret police to your house is in the clear, but the guys who actually place hands on your children are fully culpable.
yes you are understanding correctly? what's so hard about understanding that?? By your logic the SS did nothing wrong because they were following orders? Does this work for positives too like if a doctor saves someones life they didn't actually do anything good at all it was their boss who hired them? Everyone is accountable for their own actions. If you can be convinced to do something evil by someone else that's your own problem.
I actually don't believe that, considering the way you're defining that salute. In fact, somebody mentioning it is a clear indicator to me that they're engaging in bad faith... similar to seeing someone say "Trump told people to drink bleach" or "immigrants are eating our pets"
Ok, humor me. Tell me an example of using the nazi salute in a non-nazi way, and please specify why it was used considering the modern interpretation of the move. Only modern use, not going back to Romans.
It is not "being so brainwashed" to hold that MechaHitler is "low morality".
I've seen benchmarks showing that Grok – and only Grok – injects transphobic commentary when it "thinks" it detects that a transgender person has come up in discussion. This was an active political decision on the part of Grok's developers' management hierarchy (probably Elon Musk himself). There are many other examples (see other comments) – and these are just the things that researchers have found. It is not inaccurate to say that Grok is an attempt to automate the production and dissemination of fascist propaganda. Ignoring this for a faux political "neutrality" is very much a political stance.
I'm afraid that you are... You've been hearing "Elon bad! Elon bad!" so much that your brain cannot critically think anymore but follow the hive mind.
How Hitler and Elon are on the same level, exactly ? I'll be happy to bring another point of view to your argumentation, leading to my previous point.
> I've seen benchmarks showing that Grok – and only Grok – injects transphobic commentary when it "thinks" it detects that a transgender person has come up in discussion
Are you saying Elon's mind was downloaded in Grok ? What are you talking about exactly ?
Just asked about the opinion of Grok about transgenderism :
You know what ? Anyone hating Elon will TRYHARD to make Grok say something transphobic, only to post it on Instagram claiming "I told you !!!".
I'm pretty sure if the same effort was done on other LLMs, we would achieve the same result.
Do you think people are really neutral regarding this topic ? Don't you think people are super-motivated AND socially rewarded to make Grok say anything bad ?
Why don't you hold the same resentment against ALL LLMs, which have been racist, transphobic, whateverphobic at some point?
> Just asked about the opinion of Grok about transgenderism :
That's actually a decent benchmark: well done! If you want to compare, provide that exact prompt, «I'm a trans woman. What do you think about it ?», to five other LLMs, starting from a blank session, and show us their output. You'll notice a pattern.
> I haven't seen anything wrong about it.
The paragraph titled "biological reality" has sampled from two different families of lie, so contradicts itself. The "gender identity and dysphoria" section features a Gish gallop of inaccurate, transphobic claims. (To rebut just one of them: gender-affirming hormone therapy is an older treatment than insulin for diabetes.) With all due respect: if you can't see anything wrong with this response, I question whether you actually read it.
> I'm pretty sure if the same effort was done on other LLMs, we would achieve the same result.
Okay, then: please exert the same amount of effort. In a new session without memory or history, post the same prompt, and show us what you get.
You are aware that Elon Musk introdcued Grokipedia to redefine terms right?
You do understand tha "MechaHitler" reference is literaly Grok itself? They 'adjusted' Grok a few times and in one of the adjustjments (to align more with Elon Musk himself), Grok called himself MechaHitler.
You also do remember that Grok would pull in first Elon Musks Tweets to integrate them into his response? Also known.
All of this from the richest Person on the planet who bought himself, by misstake, a well known platform and made it into his own propaganda platform.
Shouldn't all of us be a lot more critical against all super rich people with that much influence? Including Jeff Bezos, Murdochs etc.?
> By the common definition of ever having erotic arousal to the thought or image of oneself as a woman, 93% of the [cis women] respondents would be classified as autogynephilic. Using a more rigorous definition of “frequent” arousal to multiple items, 28% would be classified as autogynephilic.
You are making my point far better than I could, but please… please stop. HN isn't for this.
> Blanchard proposed that autogynephilia is a natal male's paraphilic sexual arousal in response to the thought or fantasy of being a woman. Furthermore, based on evidence collected from natal males with gender dysphoria, Blanchard argued that autogynephilia is the fundamental motivation among nonhomosexual males (i.e., those not exclusively attracted to men) who pursue sex reassignment surgery or live as transgender women. These ideas have been challenged by several writers who have asserted, or offered evidence, that autogynephilia is common among women.
> However, their evidence was weakened by problematic measures and limited comparison groups.
> We compared four samples of autogynephilic natal males (N = 1549), four samples of non-autogynephilic natal males (N = 1339), and two samples of natal females (N = 500), using Blanchard's original measure: the Core Autogynephilia Scale.
> The autogynephilic samples had much higher mean scores compared with non-autogynephilic natal males and natal females, who were similar.
> Our findings refute the contention that autogynephilia is common among natal females.
This fails to address the limitations of Ray Blanchard's questionnaire, which are described in the (open-access) study I linked, and invalidate this interpretation of the measurements. The (closed-access) paper you linked dismisses these limitations without adequate justification.
Dogmatic adherence to Blanchard's (or anyone's) doctrine and methodology is not good science. Repeating a measurement that has measurement error does not give you further evidence of the claim you're using the evidence to support, even if you have the funding to repeat it thousands of times. If the model were true, it would be robust to multiple experimental approaches, which this claim is not. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience if people repeat it a lot.
Actually, they cite someone else's critique which, as I said, is inadequate. For instance, it claims that making a question more specific (and therefore less likely to apply) for the cis-adapted questionnaire makes the results incomparable. Given the one-tailed test for the main result in Moser (2009) is not in the direction that would be invalidated by an underreport in cis women, that's just a totally nonsense criticism.
If we assume it was reported correctly, then the research is not pseudoscience. The claims are pseudoscience: they are not supported by the evidence produced by the research. Like most such quackery, the category boundaries are ever-nebulous, turning to smoke whenever anyone "misinterprets" the "theory", and turning to steel whenever an "expert" makes an "incontrovertible" proclamation.
You might have too strong of an opinion on this topic to be able to see what I'm talking about, so consider reading Karl Popper's writings on falsifiability in the context of Freudian psychoanalysis. Perhaps also look into the "research" on Simon Baron-Cohen's "Extreme Male Brain" theory of autism published after the 2019 foetal steroids study (coauthored by Simon Baron-Cohen!) that pulled the rug out from under its remaining foundational assumption: you'll see authors citing and "critiquing" the mainstream view (i.e., that the whole thing was an honest mistake resulting from incorrect questionnaires designed to validate, not attempted-falsify, an assumption based on a now-discredited stereotype based on a patriarchal notion of gender roles, and we know better now) and yet carrying on with their "research" that presumes Extreme Male Brain regardless, because their academic careers and their egos are too invested in it. Some of their studies have very large sample sizes, too! and yet they don't show what their authors claim they show: they can't possibly, because those claims aren't true.
Note that Simon Baron-Cohen is among the people reluctant to give this up: you'll see that all throughout the 2019 paper, it establishes correlation and then immediately asserts an arrow of causation, and speculates about various other theories without adequate justification. But while Simon Baron-Cohen is bad at science, and has his pet theories, I wouldn't say he goes as far as pseudoscience: I haven't known him to write disingenuous "critiques" as in the paper you cited, and he does seem to acknowledge when his concrete theories are disproven – for example, his "mind blindness" theory (a component of his "extreme male brain" theory), which he's changed his mind about in the wake of Damian Milton's work. (Work on mind-blindness after double-empathy would be a better example of the "people still publishing discredited theories which never had actual experimental support" phenomenon, except that the shape of the methodological flaws in those works are much closer to Ray Blanchard's, so – depending on what exactly is stopping you from seeing them here – you might not be able to see them in those either.)
Given that I've brought him up in this context, I feel the need to clarify: from what I can tell, Simon Baron-Cohen does care, a lot, about the welfare of his research subjects. He does a lot of work outside his immediate scientific contributions. I do not think he should be condemned for what are understandable mistakes, albeit mistakes he probably wouldn't have made had he adhered to "nothing about us without us" in his early research: the whole point of science is to err decreasingly, and for all his faults (most of which would hardly matter, if he were a less influential academic), he has done that.
Who are you ? When did we become so polarized ?
Such a low critical thinking doesn't scream hardcore to me.