It looks to me like he’s engaging in fallacies. Even if the people in question are hypocrites, being one doesnt make a statement the person made wrong, so using an accusation of hypocrisy as a comeback comes off as an attempt to shut down a line of thinking about a large scale issue by redirecting the conversation to one person’s moral failings, without actually addressing the statements his comebacks are a response to at all.

beyond that, even if it was bought new, its not like that person can, upon learning something about apple that they dont like, go back and retroactively un-buy their phone.

What help can a modern AI really give you in making a nuke though? It could give you broad-strokes information about how they work in general, but that information isnt really a secret anyway, nukes are a technology that is over three quarters of a century old, you can just look them up and find information about how they work. For anyone with any risk of being able to build one, obtaining that information isnt realistically a problem.

You could perhaps ask the thing for more specific information about how to design all the relevant components, but then you have to deal with the issue that AIs tend to be wrong a lot of the time, and in any case, if you have the resources to seriously have a chance at building such a thing, is hiring, recruiting, or acquiring training for some actual nuclear physicists or engineers really going to be your limiting factor, such that getting a bot to do their work could help you?

Id image the hard part to be actually getting or refining the nuclear material of the needed enrichment level, testing the thing, and doing all of this without being found out. ChatGPT or whatever cant exactly go out and buy uranium or build a secret enrichment facility for you, no matter how much you might jailbreak its safeguards on the matter.

Its a statistical effect, not infantilization. Suppose they are just lazy. What then? Do you expect that if enough people realize this and call them out on it, that people that didnt vote will suddenly realize the error of their ways and go do it next time? If they are, but you treat them as if any existing difficulty to voting was the cause and work to make it easier instead of casting blame, what harm would be done? If I “stop infantilizing lazy voters” as you think it, what benefit is achieved?

It seems to me that if what is necessary to achieve a better outcome is for people that tend to stay home to vote instead, then it makes sense to do whatever it is that will make them more likely to do it, whether or not they seem to deserve it or not. And people rarely do what you wish them to do after you assign blame to them for something, regardless of how true that blame is. Assigning blame, if you can back it up with appropriate consequences, can help change the behavior of specific individuals. But it virtually never is effective at changing large and vague groups whose members you do not even know. To do that, you have to create systems that push people into a desirable behavior rather than leaving it up to their personal responsibility that has already shown, by the fact that the end you want isnt already happening, to be ineffective.

Telling people to stop making excuses for other people doesnt help, if voting is less convenient for some people, then some fraction of those people arent going to bother. Making it into a moral failing for those people is just making excuses for flaws in the system. Should they bother? Sure, but what people should do isnt relevant here, the effects of what they actually do is.

Are there any actually poisonous snakes I wonder?

You misunderstand, I am not saying “make sure he spends it responsibly”. Nobody has has “made” him do this at all, and I didn’t advocate for a policy of doing so. What I’m saying is that I don’t think this particular use is worthy of condemnation the way his other actions are, because in the long run I think that this specific thing will end up benefiting people other than him no matter if he intends for that to happen or not (even if the American healthcare system prevents access, which I’m not confident it will do completely, not every country has that system, and it’s statistically improbable that the US will have it forever, and research results are both durable and cross borders). That sentiment isn’t saying that it excuses his wealth, just that I think people are seeing only the negatives in this merely because of the association with Altman’s name and ignoring the potential benefits out of cynicism. The concept is just as valid with him funding it as it would be had he been condemning it instead.

The response to something beneficial being only available to the rich shouldn’t be to avoid developing that thing, it should be to make it available to everyone. The failures of the US healthcare and economic systems don’t suddenly make developing new medical techniques a bad thing. Human augmentation is another issue from curing genetic disease, though I’d personally argue that wouldn’t be a bad cause either, with the same caveat about it availability. It at least has more potential to improve somebody’s life somewhere down the line than just buying a yacht with his ill gotten gains or some other useless rich person toy would.

I’m not sure I get the universal negativity to this. Like sure, Altman sucks as a person, and an individual having enough money to significantly bankroll research like this is a sign of an economic failure, but surely curing or preventing genetic disease is just about the most uncontroversial use human genetic modification could have?

Tbf, the 10% that are real people still would represent more people than the handful of people I both know and can easily reach to talk to outside. And even then, what about when one gets home? Can’t stay out all the time

Microbes are still made of chemicals, it’s just different chemicals

Feel like God would have fit this sentiment better. There’s a decent amount of historical evidence for Jesus himself to my understanding (not the supernatural stuff attributed to him so much, but moreso that there was a guy the various stories were based off of). But an actual benevolent diety would probably make for a more pleasant world than what we have to deal with, probably why so many people care so strongly about the idea and want to believe it I’d imagine.

That’s another take of mine tbh, if clothes hold obnoxiously visible wrinkles, the fabric is too stiff to be comfortable in my view anyway. I try to avoid buying and wearing anything that needs to be ironed if I can get away with it.

Folding laundry is a complete waste of time and effort. If it’s been through the wash it’s clean, it’s not going to be any cleaner just because you spent half an hour doing laundry origami.

I don’t eat meat at all anymore, but growing up, whenever we had steaks I would always prefer it well done. It wasn’t really that I enjoyed it that way though, just that I did not like the flavor and texture of steak even cooked perfectly, my father did and kept making me eat it, and cooking it to a crisp and then covering it with ketchup and paprika was a way to make it not taste like steak anymore.

and not to mention, the tools required to create it (maybe not the best examples, but still) are already in the possession of virtually everybody.

Ive heard nice things about Amsterdam, though there’s the obvious caveat that the impression the internet gives of a place is rarely an accurate picture of how a place actually is.

Honestly, I don’t really believe people are fundamentally much different now than they were before the internet, I think people are just aware of negative events from a wider area now and that things that previously would have gotten blamed on something else get blamed on the internet instead.

Surprised by Estonia tbh. Both because they seemed like the type of country to have UHC, and because I had thought they were considered a developed country these days.

Shouldn’t Spanish have the same problem? I’ve seen them abbreviate it to EEUU though, which I assume must help prevent confusion?