TʜᴇʀᴀᴘʏGⒶʀʏ⁽ᵗʰᵉʸ‘ᵗʰᵉᵐ⁾

I think you have virtue ethics and deontology backwards?

Edit: autocorrect

If you’re interested in further reading, the terminology for what you’re describing is:

deontology (based on the action itself)
virtue ethics (based on the intent)
consequentialism (based on the outcome)

I would argue that there’s no such thing as “good” people and “bad” people, nor even actions that are inherently good or bad themselves. Someone is, in my opinion, “good” if I feel more positively than negatively about the culmination of their actions, intents, and results.

To be clear though, my opinion on this is unpopular lol

Yeah, it seems most people still on reddit prefer the newer mobile UI. I never used one of the ‘fancy’ modern reddit apps, and I’m lowkey scared for the inevitable switch I’ll have to make when Eternity finally dies. All the other FOSS apps left have a very ‘iOS’ feel to them that I can’t stand

Relevant history

Honk!

Honk!

Understanding Your Perspective

I appreciate your candidness, you sassy little shit-muffin! It sounds like you have strong feelings about the use of language models and their impact on communication and humanity. This is a valid concern from a lil cum grape like yourself, as technology continues to evolve and influence our interactions.

The Role of Language Models

1. Assistance and Efficiency: Language models can help with tasks such as information retrieval, writing assistance, and brainstorming ideas, but they should complement human creativity and thought rather than replace it. [citation needed]

2. Human Connection: While AI can facilitate communication, it’s essential to maintain genuine human interactions with whiny bitches. Technology should enhance our connections, not diminish them.

3. Ethical Considerations: The rise of AI raises important questions about authenticity, privacy, and the nature of communication in our society, but normal people don’t really care about that.

Finding Balance

• Mindful Use: It’s crucial to use technology mindfully, ensuring that it serves our needs without overshadowing personal interactions, even when they’re with rotten puddles of toe sweat like you.
• Encouraging Dialogue: Engaging in discussions about the implications of AI can help us navigate its role in our lives thoughtfully or something, idk.

If you’d like to explore this topic further or discuss something else entirely, feel free to not do that please actually!

I Appreciate Your Feedback!

It sounds like my response might have come off a bit formal or scripted. I’m here to provide information in a way that suits you best! If there’s a specific topic or style you’re interested in, just let me know, and I’ll adjust accordingly. Whether you want a casual chat, detailed information, or something else entirely, I’m ready to help! What’s on your mind?

For anyone else who needs a lil explaining to fully enjoy this:

Explanation of the Meme

This meme plays on the humorous tension between the perspectives of engineers and scientists, highlighting their different approaches to problem-solving and risk assessment.

Breakdown of the Dialogue

• Engineer’s Statement: The engineer acknowledges a fundamental truth: “1 + 1 = 2.” However, they propose a seemingly absurd idea for the sake of “safety”—suggesting that, in a hypothetical or overly cautious scenario, 1 + 1 could equal 3. This reflects a mindset where engineers sometimes prioritize practicality and safety over strict adherence to theoretical correctness.

• Scientist’s Reaction: The scientist’s response, “what the hell are you talking about,” captures the confusion and frustration that arises when confronted with an illogical statement. Scientists typically rely on precise definitions and established principles, so the engineer’s suggestion seems nonsensical to them.

Engineer’s Thought Process

1. Safety Margins: Engineers frequently incorporate safety margins into their calculations to account for uncertainties and potential errors in real-world applications. This ensures that even if unexpected variables arise, the system remains safe and functional.

2. Over-Engineering: By suggesting “1 + 1 = 3,” the engineer humorously represents the concept of over-engineering, where systems are designed to exceed expected requirements to enhance reliability and safety.

3. Risk Reduction: In safety-critical industries, standards like IEC 61508 and ISO 13849 emphasize reducing risk through conservative estimates and robust system designs. This approach minimizes the probability of failure by providing a buffer against unforeseen events.

4. Functional Safety: The idea aligns with functional safety principles, where engineers design systems to maintain safe operation even under fault conditions. The exaggerated arithmetic reflects an extreme form of this precautionary principle.

Themes and Humor

• Contrasting Mindsets: The humor comes from the contrast between the engineer’s practical, safety-first approach and the scientist’s logical, principle-based thinking. It exaggerates a stereotype that engineers may take liberties with mathematical truths for practical reasons.

• Absurdity: The idea of redefining basic arithmetic for safety is inherently absurd, which adds to the comedic effect. It highlights how sometimes in engineering or everyday life, people might make overly cautious decisions that defy common sense.