• Rooskie91@discuss.online
    60·
    3 months ago

    This guy must listen to RAtM and be like “I don’t get it, work forces, burn crosses, this metaphor doesn’t make sense!”

      • drcobaltjedi@programming.dev
        41·
        3 months ago

        I still love the post where some dude bitches at Tom Morello something like “I liked RatM when you weren’t political” and Tom shot back asking him to name a single song that wasn’t political so he could delete it.

          • slaacaa@lemmy.world
            10·
            3 months ago

            Love that dude.

            Never got to see RATM live, held tickets in my hand 3 times, and it was always cancelled (covid, Zach’s injury). At least I saw Morello a year ago, it was great.

    • HeyJoe@lemmy.world
      14·
      3 months ago

      You know he saw that and probably thought how clever he was to point this out while posting it.

    • Digit@lemmy.wtfEnglish
      6·
      3 months ago

      Wonder if he figured it out yet?

      *checks date*

      6/30/22

      *interprets name *

      TheGreatWhiteNorthFreePress

      … doubt it.

  • kopasu22@lemmy.world
    142·
    3 months ago

    Might be the conspiratorial part of my brain coming through, but I’m half convinced it’s not just a stupid person, but an AI that completely missed the point.

    I almost wonder if there shouldn’t be an extension or corollary of Hanlon’s Razor somewhere to account for AI.

    “Never attribute to malice that which can be better explained by stupidity, but never attribute to stupidity that which can be better explained by malicious chatbots.”

      • kopasu22@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 months ago

        Hanlon’s Razor is an old adage that boils down to: when you think someone is intentionally trying to be evil and ruin something, take a step back and ask whether it’s likelier they’re trying to be intentionally malicious, or if they’re just stupid/incompetent.

        For example, you go to a restaurant and tell the waiter that you can’t have dairy, so you order a pasta dish without cheese. They bring it out to you, but look, there’s cheese. You can assume either that the waiter or the staff in the kitchen absolutely hate you and intentionally gave you cheese just to spite you…or that they just screwed up and forgot. The latter is probably likelier.

        I was half-joking about potentially updating this idea to include an additional stipulation about AI bots online, which are good at looking like stupid people but actually are often malicious. Bots are used to sway political opinions. You have cases where they are trying to pass themselves off as real people to drown out legitimate discourse with a simulation of it, and cases like Musk’s Grok AI where it’s programmed to ignore truth and instead answer questions in ways that further his agenda or inflate his ego.

        So sometimes when you see political posts that just defy all logic, or are ignoring a hard truth that is staring them in the face, you’re inclined to ask “How can this person sincerely believe what they’re saying right now?” And often the answer will be that they don’t, because they’re not a person, they’re a bot just regurgitating propagandic talking points.

    • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
      21·
      3 months ago

      I almost wonder if there shouldn’t be an extension or corollary of Hanlon’s Razor somewhere to account for AI.

      I feel like Hanlon’s Razor is a disease more than it is useful to anyone in any situation.

      So frequently do normal people refuse to acknowledge that others can simply be malicious, that this rule only serves to aid people in giving the benefit of the doubt to people who act in ways to abuse it.

      Politicians, shitty bosses, unscrupulous contractors, etc etc. All of these people hurt others by abusing their presumptions of innocence.

      • kopasu22@lemmy.world
        1·
        3 months ago

        It’s not perfect, but the basic idea is that assuming malice as default in every scenario will cause one to spiral into paranoia.

        It’s not saying “people are never malicious and always just stupid” but just asking someone to take a step back from the situation and ask which is likelier in context.

        • Credibly_Human@lemmy.world
          1·
          3 months ago

          It’s not perfect, but the basic idea is that assuming malice as default in every scenario will cause one to spiral into paranoia.

          But thats not what the phrase actuyally advocates for. It feels almost like a bit of theological apologia to save a phrase that really does far more harm than good in my estimation.

    • escorps@lemmy.zip
      5·
      3 months ago

      Out of curiosity, I just sent the screenshot of post (without comment) to ChatGPT and Gemini to asked for a comment and they got the point, maybe they are using smaller models that are cheaper to run.

  • Snowclone@lemmy.world
    44·
    3 months ago

    So they don’t know what the word ‘misnomer’ means at all? You really gotta be brain dead…

    • 18107@aussie.zoneEnglish
      69·
      3 months ago

      “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

      - Upton Sinclair

      • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
        15·
        3 months ago

        I recently watched a video responding to a video about Supergirl. Idiot needs Supergirl to be bad so he can complain about it; his channel depends on complaining about popular movies. He complains that she shouldn’t be able to get drunk because alcohol doesn’t affect kryptonians. Someone explains to him directly that she goes to red sun planets so that she can get drunk, that she CAN get drunk on red sun planets, as was clearly explained at the end of Superman (2025), and his immediate response is “yeah but why drink if alcohol has no effect on her?”