Feel? I don’t understand the question.

Are you what your name implies you are? You feel a lot about dogs, and i’m asking how you feel about a far more severe problem regarding pollution, noise, and danger (“Just shit, noise and danger,” your words) in cities, to see if there’s hypocrisy in your very logical engineer’s mind.

Given the context, clearly i am asking about the danger traffic poses to pedestrians, especially the poor children you were bringing up earlier, and in very emotionally enriched wording (“They will tear a kid here and there.”). Since you’re logically concerned about safety, i was wondering if your very logical engineer’s mind has a rational reason to be so emotionally fixated on dogs in particular (“make them feel like owners of the place.” “Just shit, noise and danger.”), and if it’s all relative to the problems they actually pose compared to other things.

Or again, if you’re just talking out of your ass, and trying to legitimize the typical dog hate.

I can use logic. And I know when empathy should be used. And to what extent. And when it shouldn’t at all.

I’m suspecting that you’re masking the usual dog hate as unusual rationality to legitimize it. don’t want to presume, so let me ask you straight: How do you feel about traffic in residential areas? Just to make sure that you actually do allocate your attention to problems rationally, based eg on their severity.

It seems like the most immature and toxic thing to me to invoke terms like “gaslighting,” ironically “toxic,” and all the other terms you associate with these folks, defensively and for any reason, whether it aligns with what the word actually means or not. Like a magic phrase that instantly makes the person you use it against evil, manipulative and abusive, and the person that uses it a moral saint and vulnerable victim. While indirectly muting all those who have genuine uses for the terms. Or i’m just going mad exaggerating, and it’s just the typical over- and mis-using of words.

Anyhow, sadly necessary disclaimer, i agree with almost all of the current criticism raised against AI, and my disagreements are purely against mischaracterizations of the underlying technology.

EDIT: I just reminded myself of when a teacher went ballistic at class for misusing the term “antisocial,” saying we’re eroding and polluting all genuine and very serious uses of the term. Hm, yeah it’s probably just that same old thing. Not wrong for going ballistic over it, though.

I find it fascinating how oblivious people pretend to be about what our natural social hierarchies are, making fringe speculations ranging from proto-capitalism, over alpha male fantasies, to proto-communism.

Maybe it’s too obvious, or too boring, but it’s families. Incidentally, happens to be the same for actual, natural packs of wolves.

Same.

And what happens when a bubble bursts? Did the internet die when the dotcom bubble burst, or is that just when it really started to get going?

I share most of your sentiments against AI, but a bubble popping won’t make it go away, and it won’t even rectify it to be more to people’s likings (i doubt it). It takes more than just waiting around to accomplish that.

Harm per presence is actually looking pretty darn good compared to cars, not to mention other humans. And if looking at certain nations and cultures where “strays” are historically not seen as such, but as communal protectors, where people are culturally aware of how to treat and coexist with them, they’re often if not widely regarded as a major net-benefit.

I don’t know if the current AI phase is a bubble, but i agree with you that if it were a bubble and burst, it wouldn’t somehow stop or end AI, but cause a new wave of innovation instead.

I’ve seen many AI opponents imply otherwise. When the dotcom bubble burst, the internet didn’t exactly die.