We could have better pay, Medicare for all, better infrastructure, better fund public schools, 4 day work week, etc. INSTEAD we have to deal with people that just believe conspiracies and live in an alternate reality
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!
@@MrsRitchieBlackmore Hi. In the US, the Left reps Americans slightly better than the right. They are both corrupt - not every liberal but all conservative 'ideals' are anti-American. I'm an angry socialist. I am vehemently anti-capitalist, anti-military and anti establishment. Musk, Gates, Bezos and their cohort should not exist.
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.*
@@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.
This is just a rehashed controversy from 2017. Remember when JP started crying because of you googled “European people art” you’d get portraits of non whites?
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.
That guy Jonathan Haidt is a character.. I used to have talks with him in his office in the psych dept, and found him arrogant. His book “Coddling of the American Mind” completely ignores low income kids and communities - he lives in a bubble of privilege. He also had views he shared with me many years ago, that he completely contradicted later in conversation with Sam Harris in attempts to impress Harris.. He basically revealed himself to be dishonest to me based on my personal conversations with him
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.
@@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.
@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
People need to stop giving people the title "centrist" these people are right wingers. Calling them centrist gives them more credibility than they deserve.
Haidt gets WAY more credit than he rightfully deserves. Like his whole "we are creating a generation of essentially wimps" is just such ludicrous. So, the fact that this generation pays more attention to their children, isnt willing to do shit work for shit hours for shit pay, finds people being assholes for the sake of being assholes unacceptable - that makes them babies? His whole notion of millennials and gen z being overcoddled is just false and not supported by any reasonable data. Frankly, the whole "let asshole be assholes if they arent hurting anyone" was one of the greatest missteps in the history of western civilization. We have actively refused to cultivate a society where we demand others improve themselves as human beings in regard to their attitudes and how they treat others until the millennial generation, and the fact that we wont put up with racist people walking around just saying the N word nonchalantly, or put up with catcalling, or put up with bullying anymore makes us fucking thin skinned? The bullying issue in schools, for the most part at least, has improved IMMENSELY across the board, meaning more diplomatic solutions, less fighting, and his response to that is to suggest we have actually OVERCORRECTED on the matter? Like what the actual fuck? He literally said in one of his Big Think interviews that the intervening in bullying has lead to kids no longer building conflict resolution skills or skills that help them overcome obstacles, despite the fact that you know, the way in which the intervening is being implemented IS TEACHING CHILDREN CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS instead of letting things escalate to them swinging at each other. The guy is an absolute joke.
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.
@@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.
@@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.
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.
@@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.
Johnathan Haidt is someone who has some decent points on some things, but he's gotten lost in the weeds over the last decade on free speech, DEI, and cancel culture in higher education. None of these people flip out about cancel culture in higher education when right-wing groups make lists of professors, harass them, and try to get them fired. Or when right-wing legislatures try and ban "divisive topics" from being taught. Emma's point about Haidt relying on anecdotes is also true, especially his last couple of books. There's a tremendous amount of "correlation does not equal causation", particularly in his book that just came out. There's plenty of good reviews by academics that poke holes in his quantitative analysis in the Righteous Mind as well (For those that don't know, in the book he essentially claims that Republicans are more open-minded than Democrats, based on their moral foundations). But that said, I'd push back on what MR says here about Google being blameless. Google itself has come out and said they had messed up in having Gemini overcompensate for diversity.
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.
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.
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.
@@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.
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.
Great thumbnail! The singularity scare is nonsense. The real issue is needing less labour for the same production which has been happening throughout the industrial revolution. In a healty society this should lead to people having to work less but the way we structure our economy it's more likely going to lead to pitting people against each other for worse opportunities which is already happening with the rise of the gig economy and the trimming of social security.
These people pretend they are being attacked for questioning DEI policies, but really their positions are just being challenged and scrutinized. It all comes down to the fact that they feel entitled to be able to criticize and ridicule unchallenged. They dishonestly attack policies and they dont want to be called out for it. When that happens, they pretend they are being persecuted. It's shameful. They are little brats throwing tantrums because they cant have supreme authority.
Who do I have to pay to avoid hearing about Joe Rogan. Even though I have disliked and blocked channels I'm always seeing his face and someone is talking about him.😮💨
Wow, the leftist histeria on here is absolutely brilliant, best comedy special ive seen in a while😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 i cant wait for you all to be claiming "Not my president" come 2024😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 its gonna be funny guys.
Seems a little overzealous to throw Haidt in the same bag as the rest. As far as pseudo intellectual goes. He is doing work. He is a social psychologist. He is doing studies. Point out things he says that might be incorrect or that you agree with sure but Emma’s description felt a little lazy. Also, they shouldn’t be so forthright when they obviously don’t really know how AI engines work. I see the issues with Haidt but we shouldn’t just be dialing it in like this.
@4:50 Ai just presents our own issues directly back at us in a way that a computer would. So, being offended by it is really about us not liking the image we see in the mirror. It's like when all those discussions about how tech is racist because it can't discern darker skin tones started happening about 5 years ago, and then people had to acknowledge that the tech is as limited in its knowledge of the existence of black people as its creators are. This led tech companies to admit that they were not hiring non-Yt employees. We'll probably also she gender bias against women in tech, as most of these places are male dominated too.
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'.
As someone who has dabbled with image generation, a lot of image generation models and add-ons have a tough time making dark-skinned people. It is kind of a problem. Add-ons especially very often have no or very few people of color in their training data, and so can be very inflexible about skin color.
"Many people think we're already at the Singularity." That may be true, but you forgot to mention that those people have no idea what the Singularity is.
As so called A.I. believes Israel has a right to exist! Palestine 🇵🇸 And Palestinians are a controversial subject that can't be justified by so called A.I.!?!? I love yall
you can be critical of structures and be historically knowledgeable without seeing things in terms of strict good vs. evil/us vs. them. It seems like jonathan is saying people are learning the latter mindset and that's the issue, not general critique or historical perspective.
I see Roe Jogan is continuing to platform only the brightest intellectuals on his platform. Honathan Jaidt's sheer brilliance is only surpassed by Wrett Bienstein!
Bad take by TMR here. Haidt never said it was the most pressing problem with AI, he was talking about misinformation generally and Rogan asked him about Gemini. Also, these images were appearing before Google took down the image generator that was producing them. TMR gets really offended and defensive whenever these kinds of issues get brought up
As a leftist I feel very conflicted frustrated about MR-crew's, especially Emmas, description of Haidt. To equate him to JBP is exaggerated, unfair and very intellectually dishonest. Of course there's some valid criticism against Haidt, but his book The Righteous Mind as well as his work with MFT (Moral Foundations Theory) have had important academic and theoretical impact and contributed to sociology, social psychology and psychology. Also The Coddling book, although it has problems, I don't think it's fair to describe it as just another woke-panic thinking "wokeness" are making students at universities "stupid" (don't think he even uses the concept of "woke" at all in that book, but that's of course more about terminology), since there's important insights in that book even for the left, about capitalism and universities (as in the american structural/systemic foundations for treating students as costumers etc), as well as what NOT to do, and what progressive could do better, to promote change.
Yeah, its the same things with leftists and crypto. They have no concept of it and demonize all crypto, instead of learning and maybe realizing that crypto is trying to get rid of middle men, ledgers, and corporatism.
This reminds me when I saw "the left" attacking Bill Nye many years ago....for not being left enough, which was a surprising direction to me.....going against a discipline firmly with a progressive stance.
Rogan doesn't have any legitimate concerns about AI because he knows he'll be fine. He has no problem with AI stealing from artists, writers etc. because the only ones who benefit from AI are the status quo which he's a part of.
Haidt : Acclaimed researcher with a PhD in psychology Emma : Nepo kid with no real accomplishments even though her family paid for a 50000/semester elementary school Also Emma «Hes a pseudo intellectual»
I've actually gotten his book "the righteous mind" a year ago and when I started it, it kind of surprised me how badly written it was. I finished one chapter and couldn't read anymore because of how badly written it was. Thought it could still be a good book but just poorly written or something lol glad I don't have to feel the guilt anymore of not finishing that book now.
Both sides in this conversation are wrong. Google was caught altering prompts for their image generator to give more diverse results. This had the negative consequence of showing very ethnically diverse groups of people when the prompt WW2 German Soldier was put in for example. Rogan's conspiratorial interpretation of the story is incorrect, but so is The Majority Report's understanding of what actually happened and how the technology involved actually works. The problem wasn't with the algorithm. It was with the ways in which Google was intercepting and altering prompts to make accidentally offensive imagery. This feels similar to a segment from a couple of weeks ago where Sam went off in support of some apparent soda ban in Colorado schools (video title: Fox Host’s IDIOTIC Argument Against Soda Ban At Schools). It turns out that the Fox News segment he was reacting to was complete misinformation, and he took it at face value. I know everyone makes mistakes, but coverage like this is really sloppy. To anyone reading this, make sure to fact check information before forming strong opinions on a topic, even if the initial information comes from a trusted source.
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
It is very important to remember that generative AI has no idea what it's doing these are large language models that through a process of adapting other types of data into text they can process has been leveraged in a large number of other domains besides the language processing it's a layer removed from the visual data processing that even traditional computer vision systems use let alone how humans process vision. If this AI was actually unable to produce images of white guys it's because there was some problem with its processing of data not because it's ideologically captured anyone who says anything like that doesn't know enough to even be worth listening to.
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.
I remember when this happened. It really did go over board to the extemt that you wonder why google would put it out. Ive forgotten some of the images. It was a clear prigramming error or purhapse a some pritest or something like that from staff.
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.
@@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? 🤗
Aside from politics, how can two people be so utterly unlikeable?. The smugness and the "hey I am just talking here..." Vibes you get from slimy sales people.
Also you're technically ignorant of what actually happened. It wasn't the AI doing it. It was the gatekeeper filtering queries and injecting unsolicited parameters in the queries. I don't think thata terrifying but it is utterly indicative of the big brother virtue governing attitude
"Truth is part of Google's brand?" Oh freaking please. _Talking_ about truth is part of Google's marketing strategy. For God's sake, learn the difference.
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.
That portion of the AI model is not even 'programmed' directly in that sense. Responses can be filtered by a governing application that sits between the model, and users. But it's raw generative output is a conglomeration of its training dataset(s), after being put through large amounts of what is essentially linear algebra. If its output is woke, then the most likely culprit is the data it was trained on.
The singularity is nothing we will see in our lifetime, and this "social scientist" is a crackpot if he thinks the AI that exists today is a threat to humanity. Singularity will only happen when the world is unified and peaceful, as well as having technology that would seem like magic to us. The singularity AI would know everything and be a living being by all regards, without any human input. And the idea is that humanity would have a choice: create the most powerful AI of which there can only be one, that has the potential to kill all humanity for whatever reason or threat we might seem to it. The other choice is to not create the AI, and there would be a worldwide discussion about it. The AI today is artificial but it is not intelligent. These people are insane if they are afraid of Gemini or chatGPT.
Previously, it was joked that an A. I. Sam Seder would not have any pauses. I would posit that an A. I. Sam Seder would not include a third or fourth example to support his point when the first or second examples already do.
I think you guys were a little off mark with the google gemini stuff, the AI would insert words like "ambiguous race" or "black" into image-generating prompts. people tested this by having it repeat their prompts back to them. you can find lots of examples of people generating an image of a public figure but gemini swaps their race for whatever reason.
Sam Seder (who I do believe is pretty smart) doesn't seem to understand how these AI's interact with people or how incredibly easy it is to write bias into every user session. To get such an engine as Gemini to "create" something, you type in a text "prompt." The language of this prompt is the literal instruction set for whatever you want to generate. So all Google was doing to fudge the results is intercepting the user-drafted prompts and automatically adding in extra phrases and terms before submitting the altered prompt on to the engine to be processed by the neural network. It could have been something as simple as, "make the people racially diverse." So some person prompts "Make me a picture of America's Founding Fathers" and the Google server contaminates the original prompt with """Make me a picture of America's Founding Fathers + make the people racially diverse." You don't have to train it on strictly "woke" data. You just get in there between the user and the engine and tamper with the terms in the prompts. (Generally speaking, by toying around on your end, you can "jail break" the AI of its governing woke imperatives and get what you want anyway.) ♠
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.
We could have better pay, Medicare for all, better infrastructure, better fund public schools, 4 day work week, etc. INSTEAD we have to deal with people that just believe conspiracies and live in an alternate reality
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. 😊
@@MrsRitchieBlackmore Hi. In the US, the Left reps Americans slightly better than the right.
They are both corrupt - not every liberal but all conservative 'ideals' are anti-American.
I'm an angry socialist. I am vehemently anti-capitalist, anti-military and anti establishment.
Musk, Gates, Bezos and their cohort should not exist.
Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes Woke at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th.
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.
"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.*
@@nerag7459 omg I died reading this
DEI with the hard 'R'
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.
This is just a rehashed controversy from 2017. Remember when JP started crying because of you googled “European people art” you’d get portraits of non whites?
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
Joe is less than two years from prosperity gospel
He's already been doing it it's just wearing a different hat
That guy Jonathan Haidt is a character.. I used to have talks with him in his office in the psych dept, and found him arrogant. His book “Coddling of the American Mind” completely ignores low income kids and communities - he lives in a bubble of privilege. He also had views he shared with me many years ago, that he completely contradicted later in conversation with Sam Harris in attempts to impress Harris.. He basically revealed himself to be dishonest to me based on my personal conversations with him
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.
For a multi millionaire tough guy, everything seems to scare him
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 😂😂😂😂😂
@@rossfromfriends8468Joe Rogans more masculine than your ever be Star Trek boy
Fear of “Hamilton.”
😹
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
People need to stop giving people the title "centrist" these people are right wingers. Calling them centrist gives them more credibility than they deserve.
They’re not even right wingers. They’re fringe far right figures. Rogan nowadays is no where near centrist.
Haidt gets WAY more credit than he rightfully deserves. Like his whole "we are creating a generation of essentially wimps" is just such ludicrous. So, the fact that this generation pays more attention to their children, isnt willing to do shit work for shit hours for shit pay, finds people being assholes for the sake of being assholes unacceptable - that makes them babies? His whole notion of millennials and gen z being overcoddled is just false and not supported by any reasonable data. Frankly, the whole "let asshole be assholes if they arent hurting anyone" was one of the greatest missteps in the history of western civilization. We have actively refused to cultivate a society where we demand others improve themselves as human beings in regard to their attitudes and how they treat others until the millennial generation, and the fact that we wont put up with racist people walking around just saying the N word nonchalantly, or put up with catcalling, or put up with bullying anymore makes us fucking thin skinned? The bullying issue in schools, for the most part at least, has improved IMMENSELY across the board, meaning more diplomatic solutions, less fighting, and his response to that is to suggest we have actually OVERCORRECTED on the matter? Like what the actual fuck? He literally said in one of his Big Think interviews that the intervening in bullying has lead to kids no longer building conflict resolution skills or skills that help them overcome obstacles, despite the fact that you know, the way in which the intervening is being implemented IS TEACHING CHILDREN CONFLICT RESOLUTION SKILLS instead of letting things escalate to them swinging at each other. The guy is an absolute joke.
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.
America is a circus 🎪. People don’t even know what the hell they’re doing stuff for, they’re just doing.
I'm still trying to figure out why a woke programmer would want nazis to be black?
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.
Generally speaking, woke AI terrifies Toe Rogan.
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
Basically, Joe Rogan is afraid of anything he can’t physically dominate
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.
The real chaos will be the ability to dismiss everything inconvenient as being AI. More room for right winger la la land.
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.
This is the part of AI they're MOST scared of?
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.
Can we start referring to religions and cults as "structural stupidity"?
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
"Obviously Google is not a stupid company." The list of dozens of failed Google products begs to differ.
Sage Steele interviewed Dana White the other day and IMMEDIATELY confused him with Joe Rogan 😂😂😂…LOOK IT UP!
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.
Johnathan Haidt is someone who has some decent points on some things, but he's gotten lost in the weeds over the last decade on free speech, DEI, and cancel culture in higher education. None of these people flip out about cancel culture in higher education when right-wing groups make lists of professors, harass them, and try to get them fired. Or when right-wing legislatures try and ban "divisive topics" from being taught.
Emma's point about Haidt relying on anecdotes is also true, especially his last couple of books. There's a tremendous amount of "correlation does not equal causation", particularly in his book that just came out. There's plenty of good reviews by academics that poke holes in his quantitative analysis in the Righteous Mind as well (For those that don't know, in the book he essentially claims that Republicans are more open-minded than Democrats, based on their moral foundations).
But that said, I'd push back on what MR says here about Google being blameless. Google itself has come out and said they had messed up in having Gemini overcompensate for diversity.
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.
200 years pushing Eugenics and stereotypes in America.Then AI picture of a Black George Washington and this is ridiculous?!😂
if you looked up the term "pseudo intellectual", there wouldn't be any text, just Joe Rogan's photo.
Sam: play the video
Video plays for 0.5 seconds
Sam: pause the video !
It alienated 1/2 the country by generating tan nazis? 😂😂😂
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
"We just want the free exchange of ideas!!"
"Wait, not those ideas!"
That vikings and geroge Washington were black?
blacks can have nazi soldiers if they really want.
😂😂😂😂😂
woke AI is funny, ill give it that.
Rogan is terrified of anyone with a brain
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.
The images of BLK Nazis were very disturbing and equally misleading!
In a " see they weren't that bad " kinda way.
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.
7:47 He says Google "alienated half the country" like that's a thing Google did and not just reactionaries getting angry
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".
This is why they’re scared of ai? Lol of all things
Black people being shown=nuclear Armageddon
Joe Rogaine needs to glue a wig to his scalp. I'm tired of seeing my reflection in his head.
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
Stupid is as stupid does.
Basing “conclusion” solely on personal beliefs rather than facts and data is pretty dang stupid.
Who isn't afraid of AI that is unmoored from accuracy?
He sees profit, that's why.
I cannot stand Jonathan Haidt whispering sweet nothings into the mic. It's very annoying.
Like NPR voice without the interesting content that gives you a reason to put up with it.
"Man has invented his doom. The first step was touching the moon." - Bob Dylan
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
Great thumbnail! The singularity scare is nonsense. The real issue is needing less labour for the same production which has been happening throughout the industrial revolution. In a healty society this should lead to people having to work less but the way we structure our economy it's more likely going to lead to pitting people against each other for worse opportunities which is already happening with the rise of the gig economy and the trimming of social security.
These people pretend they are being attacked for questioning DEI policies, but really their positions are just being challenged and scrutinized.
It all comes down to the fact that they feel entitled to be able to criticize and ridicule unchallenged.
They dishonestly attack policies and they dont want to be called out for it. When that happens, they pretend they are being persecuted.
It's shameful. They are little brats throwing tantrums because they cant have supreme authority.
Who do I have to pay to avoid hearing about Joe Rogan. Even though I have disliked and blocked channels I'm always seeing his face and someone is talking about him.😮💨
Lemme join the club. Hate that guy anymore. 🙄
Tidal
The lack of research done for this segment is very poor, makes me start to worry about how much I can trust their information :/
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.
Send the planet Earth deleting asteroid.
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.
why is TMR report trying to pretend this whole fiasco with gemini didn't happen?
Wow, the leftist histeria on here is absolutely brilliant, best comedy special ive seen in a while😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
i cant wait for you all to be claiming "Not my president" come 2024😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂 its gonna be funny guys.
"Histeria"
Why would anyone need an AI generated image of the Founding Fathers when there are plenty of existing portraits available?
Seems a little overzealous to throw Haidt in the same bag as the rest. As far as pseudo intellectual goes. He is doing work. He is a social psychologist. He is doing studies. Point out things he says that might be incorrect or that you agree with sure but Emma’s description felt a little lazy. Also, they shouldn’t be so forthright when they obviously don’t really know how AI engines work. I see the issues with Haidt but we shouldn’t just be dialing it in like this.
I'm woke I wake up everyday
@4:50 Ai just presents our own issues directly back at us in a way that a computer would. So, being offended by it is really about us not liking the image we see in the mirror. It's like when all those discussions about how tech is racist because it can't discern darker skin tones started happening about 5 years ago, and then people had to acknowledge that the tech is as limited in its knowledge of the existence of black people as its creators are. This led tech companies to admit that they were not hiring non-Yt employees. We'll probably also she gender bias against women in tech, as most of these places are male dominated too.
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'.
As someone who has dabbled with image generation, a lot of image generation models and add-ons have a tough time making dark-skinned people. It is kind of a problem.
Add-ons especially very often have no or very few people of color in their training data, and so can be very inflexible about skin color.
"Many people think we're already at the Singularity."
That may be true, but you forgot to mention that those people have no idea what the Singularity is.
For fuck's sake, we don't even have AI. AI is just a marketing term tech bros use to make their parrotting algorithms sound sophisticated.
I love the 'If Books Could Kill' breakdown of his book
This guy must hate Hamilton.
“People yell at me when I’m being a racist and I want to be racist” 😂 11:50
You know it's valid when it starts with "many people think"
As so called A.I. believes Israel has a right to exist! Palestine 🇵🇸 And Palestinians are a controversial subject that can't be justified by so called A.I.!?!? I love yall
you can be critical of structures and be historically knowledgeable without seeing things in terms of strict good vs. evil/us vs. them. It seems like jonathan is saying people are learning the latter mindset and that's the issue, not general critique or historical perspective.
Listening to the disgusting clicking sounds and labored breathing coming from Johnathan Haidt while he talks makes me feel sick.
I see Roe Jogan is continuing to platform only the brightest intellectuals on his platform.
Honathan Jaidt's sheer brilliance is only surpassed by Wrett Bienstein!
Bad take by TMR here. Haidt never said it was the most pressing problem with AI, he was talking about misinformation generally and Rogan asked him about Gemini. Also, these images were appearing before Google took down the image generator that was producing them. TMR gets really offended and defensive whenever these kinds of issues get brought up
7:10 "that's not happening but if it is happening, it is a good thing" got it
You didn't get it.
As a leftist I feel very conflicted frustrated about MR-crew's, especially Emmas, description of Haidt. To equate him to JBP is exaggerated, unfair and very intellectually dishonest. Of course there's some valid criticism against Haidt, but his book The Righteous Mind as well as his work with MFT (Moral Foundations Theory) have had important academic and theoretical impact and contributed to sociology, social psychology and psychology. Also The Coddling book, although it has problems, I don't think it's fair to describe it as just another woke-panic thinking "wokeness" are making students at universities "stupid" (don't think he even uses the concept of "woke" at all in that book, but that's of course more about terminology), since there's important insights in that book even for the left, about capitalism and universities (as in the american structural/systemic foundations for treating students as costumers etc), as well as what NOT to do, and what progressive could do better, to promote change.
Yeah, its the same things with leftists and crypto. They have no concept of it and demonize all crypto, instead of learning and maybe realizing that crypto is trying to get rid of middle men, ledgers, and corporatism.
This reminds me when I saw "the left" attacking Bill Nye many years ago....for not being left enough, which was a surprising direction to me.....going against a discipline firmly with a progressive stance.
Joe Rogan Show...
Dumb host, dumb guests, dumb conversations, dumb viewers.
It has everything.
Not always. But in the future I suspect it will have less and less intelligent guests.
Rogan doesn't say whatever he wants he's told what he can say and what he can't
Rogan doesn't have any legitimate concerns about AI because he knows he'll be fine. He has no problem with AI stealing from artists, writers etc. because the only ones who benefit from AI are the status quo which he's a part of.
Guaranteed he fires people to replace them with AI for his show. Dude wants to exclude even white ppl at this point lmao
Bigger question, why are people asking AI to make images of historical figures of which we already have plenty?
Why is that a bigger question? Many reasons: want something original, don’t want to deal with licensing, want to depic different context.
Haidt : Acclaimed researcher with a PhD in psychology
Emma : Nepo kid with no real accomplishments even though her family paid for a 50000/semester elementary school
Also Emma «Hes a pseudo intellectual»
The scariest part of AI is AI controlled weaponry.
There has already been an incident of an AI drone killing a person. Apparently.
I have never seen Jonathan Haidt and Kevin Nealon in the same room
I've actually gotten his book "the righteous mind" a year ago and when I started it, it kind of surprised me how badly written it was. I finished one chapter and couldn't read anymore because of how badly written it was. Thought it could still be a good book but just poorly written or something lol glad I don't have to feel the guilt anymore of not finishing that book now.
I couldn’t get Gemini to generate an image of Jesus pooping out Easter eggs-woke😂
Love the show. Left is best.
He’s afraid of everything
Thats what happens when you get hit in the head repeatedly.
Both sides in this conversation are wrong. Google was caught altering prompts for their image generator to give more diverse results. This had the negative consequence of showing very ethnically diverse groups of people when the prompt WW2 German Soldier was put in for example.
Rogan's conspiratorial interpretation of the story is incorrect, but so is The Majority Report's understanding of what actually happened and how the technology involved actually works. The problem wasn't with the algorithm. It was with the ways in which Google was intercepting and altering prompts to make accidentally offensive imagery.
This feels similar to a segment from a couple of weeks ago where Sam went off in support of some apparent soda ban in Colorado schools (video title: Fox Host’s IDIOTIC Argument Against Soda Ban At Schools). It turns out that the Fox News segment he was reacting to was complete misinformation, and he took it at face value. I know everyone makes mistakes, but coverage like this is really sloppy.
To anyone reading this, make sure to fact check information before forming strong opinions on a topic, even if the initial information comes from a trusted source.
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.
It is very important to remember that generative AI has no idea what it's doing these are large language models that through a process of adapting other types of data into text they can process has been leveraged in a large number of other domains besides the language processing it's a layer removed from the visual data processing that even traditional computer vision systems use let alone how humans process vision. If this AI was actually unable to produce images of white guys it's because there was some problem with its processing of data not because it's ideologically captured anyone who says anything like that doesn't know enough to even be worth listening to.
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.
I remember when this happened. It really did go over board to the extemt that you wonder why google would put it out. Ive forgotten some of the images. It was a clear prigramming error or purhapse a some pritest or something like that from staff.
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.
Sam "Here is" Seder
I find the AI Blackfaceing of history to be unspeakably offensive.
“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? 🤗
Aside from politics, how can two people be so utterly unlikeable?. The smugness and the "hey I am just talking here..." Vibes you get from slimy sales people.
Also you're technically ignorant of what actually happened. It wasn't the AI doing it. It was the gatekeeper filtering queries and injecting unsolicited parameters in the queries. I don't think thata terrifying but it is utterly indicative of the big brother virtue governing attitude
"Truth is part of Google's brand?" Oh freaking please. _Talking_ about truth is part of Google's marketing strategy. For God's sake, learn the difference.
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.
That portion of the AI model is not even 'programmed' directly in that sense. Responses can be filtered by a governing application that sits between the model, and users. But it's raw generative output is a conglomeration of its training dataset(s), after being put through large amounts of what is essentially linear algebra. If its output is woke, then the most likely culprit is the data it was trained on.
Is joe rogan interviewing epstien?
you'd think with all the money he gets, joe rogan could pay someone to make his audio not sound like fucking shit.
Isn’t this like saying bill and Ted could make people think Abe Lincoln said Party On
Sound like the type of person Bill Maher will have on his show.
I’d assume Joe would have the opinion that it’s not very “masculine” to be afraid of everything.
You can trick AI to do anything absurd and get around their safe guards.
The singularity is nothing we will see in our lifetime, and this "social scientist" is a crackpot if he thinks the AI that exists today is a threat to humanity. Singularity will only happen when the world is unified and peaceful, as well as having technology that would seem like magic to us. The singularity AI would know everything and be a living being by all regards, without any human input. And the idea is that humanity would have a choice: create the most powerful AI of which there can only be one, that has the potential to kill all humanity for whatever reason or threat we might seem to it. The other choice is to not create the AI, and there would be a worldwide discussion about it.
The AI today is artificial but it is not intelligent. These people are insane if they are afraid of Gemini or chatGPT.
OMG....that guy was completely full of $hit...lol😅😅
AI draw a black person, where is the world going!
AI is asked to draw a Nazi and ends up drawing black people. Understand now, white supremacist?
I tried Gemini... it will not currently create pictures of the founding fathers
Refusing to see the problem when the bias is bias you support is a clearly unintellectual and makes them all look like complete fools.
Previously, it was joked that an A. I. Sam Seder would not have any pauses.
I would posit that an A. I. Sam Seder would not include a third or fourth example to support his point when the first or second examples already do.
I think you guys were a little off mark with the google gemini stuff, the AI would insert words like "ambiguous race" or "black" into image-generating prompts. people tested this by having it repeat their prompts back to them. you can find lots of examples of people generating an image of a public figure but gemini swaps their race for whatever reason.
Google noticed that it's ai was not doing a good enough of depicting P.O.C.. Google over corrected it's code to resolve it.
Sam Seder (who I do believe is pretty smart) doesn't seem to understand how these AI's interact with people or how incredibly easy it is to write bias into every user session. To get such an engine as Gemini to "create" something, you type in a text "prompt." The language of this prompt is the literal instruction set for whatever you want to generate. So all Google was doing to fudge the results is intercepting the user-drafted prompts and automatically adding in extra phrases and terms before submitting the altered prompt on to the engine to be processed by the neural network. It could have been something as simple as, "make the people racially diverse." So some person prompts "Make me a picture of America's Founding Fathers" and the Google server contaminates the original prompt with """Make me a picture of America's Founding Fathers + make the people racially diverse." You don't have to train it on strictly "woke" data. You just get in there between the user and the engine and tamper with the terms in the prompts. (Generally speaking, by toying around on your end, you can "jail break" the AI of its governing woke imperatives and get what you want anyway.) ♠
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.
Humanity needs a babysitter .
We're not doing well .
Why is this steroid addicted guy so popular
My god that guy breathed through his nose CONSTANTLY Jesus Christ stop, fucking stop please stop. Lmao
Most people do breathe through their nose. The rest are called mouth-breathers.
you're supposed to breathe through your nose.
Joe is producing chaos. All the bullshit with his bros.
But, is it a "Dragon" of chaos?
12:12 does he know how often suggestion about DEI are swatted down at companies because it uspsets the boss?
Now A.I is woke 😂😂😂