Lol I’m not, I just communicate easily with normal people, and know that when I read texts from ancient curmudgeons, I need to first filter out their poor communication skills.

Lmao, you keep acting like other people perceiving you as an asshole is a them problem when it is literally just a you problem.

It’s been 30 fucking years, learn how to text.

At some point a set of fairly strict rules is important for a written language

Given that English has become the lingua franca without having a strict set of rules, reality would say otherwise. If a strict set of rules was that important then French would be the most commonly used language.

Over-use of exclamation points is another poor habit, since they can mark something that’s important regardless of it being a positive or negative. With quoted speech it could be something that’s either angry or joyful. Using them to convey a non-threatening tone shouldn’t be required. I get that it is in some cases, and I belive that indicates a problem with our overall literacy and a renewed misogyny in the workplace.

You realize that its just you who’s having problems? You are claiming that other people have literacy problems, when they communicate with each other just fine, and it’s you who are struggling to communicate effectively. They are not having problems with being misinterpreted, just you are.

Whether this is a result of the medium of communication or a decline in literacy is up for debate, but word choice and context should do the bulk of conveying tone and relying on punctuation for that purpose understandably looks like an indicator of poor literacy.

No, people insist on strict rules so that they don’t have to change or learn new things, and can blame other people when they communicate poorly. The English language constantly changes, and authors constantly break the “rules” that your elementary school teacher taught you to effectively communicate ideas. That has literally always been the case, from Shakespeare, through Cormack McCarthy, to the past several decades of online communication.

No, you were a prick who talked past them.

They very clearly and calmly explained the dynamics of both sides of this debate, and you responded by inanely reiterating your original point which they obviously already understood.

Show me where they state that their rules are meant for informal communication.

At school they teach you common rules of thumb for the English language, and formal writing styles for communicating in academic settings. Famously, and unlike French, the English language does not have hard set rules, and book writers constantly break the ones you’re taught in elementary school to more effectively communicate their ideas, or speak in a desired voice.

So you’ll point to a variety of different and conflicting sources?

The English language naturally evolves over time. You getting butthurt about improving your communication style accomplishes nothing.

Lolol how is you living a life where people think that you’re an asshole, a me problem?

The rule hasn’t changed.

Can you point me to this institution that decides on the rules of the English language? What’s it’s address? Where does it publish these rules?

There may be an informal convention among some people that using a period at the end of the last sentence in a text is passive aggressive, but it’s far from universal and far from being a rule.

It is a natural result of reading both versions, noticing that one sounds more formal and has a sharp ending, and noticing that since you can write either one, if they’re ending it sharply they must be doing so intentionally. If you use the full availability of communication options available, it inherently sends that signal, if you follow rules for the sake of following rules though, then it limits that option so doesn’t send that signal.

Seems like it’s just as pedantic to expect people who have habitually used correct punctuation for decades to adopt this convention without ever being told and then blaming them for not abandoning an immensely useful part of written language for no apparent reason.

You had literally decades to adjust and change, this isn’t new, it’s been the case since at least the early 00s when cell phones and instant messengers became a thing.

It was like this in the early 00s, you may just have rose coloured glasses.

Lmao, this thread is full of self righteous pendants who can’t communicate.

Learn how to write in the way your writing will be read, or don’t bother writing.

No, they’re called people who know how to write, as the point of writing is to communicate ideas and emotions, not to be a pedant about ever changing rules.

It does.

deleted by creator

In this situation that would be the correct response.

It’s not entirely clear what he’s referring to, he just uses the term AI broadly in the context of people being worried about job losses, then talks about the reduction in secret police costs that enables, then discusses applying AI to physics.

Tl;dw: he has two points:

1. That between cameras and now AI monitoring, it has just drastically reduced the cost of running an authoritarian regime. He claims that running the Stahsi used to cost like 20% of the government budget, but can now be done for next to nothing and if will be harder for governments to resist that temptation.

2. That there hasn’t been much progress in the world of physics since the 70s, so what happens if you point AI and it’s compute power at the field of physics? It could see wondrous progress and a world of plenty.

Personally I think point 1 is genuinely interesting and valid, and that point 2 is kind of incredible nonsense. Yes, all other fields are just simplified forms of physics, and physics fundamentally underlies all of them. That doesn’t mean that no new knowledge has come from those fields, and that doesn’t mean that new knowledge in physics automatically improves them. Physics has in many ways, done its job. Obviously there’s still more to learn, but between quantum mechanics and general relativity, we can model most human scale processes in our universe, with incredible precision. The problem is that that the closer we get to understanding the true underlying math of the universe, the harder it is to compute that math for a practical system… at a certain point, it requires a computer on the scale of the universe to compute.

Most of our practical improvements in the past decade have and will come from chemistry, and biology, and engineering in general, because there is far more room to improve human scale processes by finding shortcuts, and patterns, and designing systems to behave the way we want. AI’s computer scale pattern matching ability will undoubtedly help with that, but I think it’s less likely that it can make any true physics breakthroughs, nor that those breakthroughs would impact daily life that much.

Again though, I think that point number 1 is incredibly valid. At the end of the day incentives, and specifically cost incentives, drive a massive amount of behaviour. It’s worth thinking about how how AI changes them.

Bruh what the fuck are you talking about?

You think that a user being upset when they give an app full filesystem access to their phone, and then having that app be handed over to some shady new owner is entitlement?

Congratulations man, ‘skill issue’ people like you are why open source software rarely takes off. No one will use or trust any open source software if this happens. This just pushes people to use tech giants like Google and Microsoft because they’re big and stable and not about to change owners.

Don’t fucking publish your software for people to download if you’re going to pull the rug out from under them. Keep it on your local machine and jerk off to it if you don’t care about others using it.

Like go through IVF so that their children don’t have to.

The fact it is so prevalent in the gene pool suggests there may be some benefit we are unaware of. Further study is needed.

No it doesn’t. That’s not how evolution works. It is not perfect, it does not march towards good, it rolls random die and sees if that leads to having kids or not. If you get old enough to have kids and have them procreate it very much stops caring.

Edit: and it doesn’t ‘cause’, it puts you ‘at risk for’.

And I said that the mutation causes massive increases in the rate of breast cancer. Which it does. Read more carefully if you’re going to try to be pedantic.