Someasy 2w ago • 100%
And I will correspondingly add it because I like short shows that were cancelled, for some reason.
Someasy 2w ago • 100%
Oh, well The Fog is another movie I was thinking of watching anyway haha. I think they're quite similar. Thanks for your comment either way :)
Someasy 2w ago • 100%
I enjoyed the TV show of The Mist even though it felt a little bit janky here and there. Watched the movie a long time ago but I might've seen The Fog instead (those are so similar right?)
Someasy 2w ago • 100%
"Centuries after its original launch however, most of the descendants of the original crew and colonists are unaware that they are even aboard a spaceship"
Damn it that sounds delicious
Someasy 2w ago • 100%
The Fog (is what this person said before deleting :P)
Someasy 2w ago • 100%
David Bergeaud made the soundtrack too..... I tried watching it once but never stuck with it. Thanks for reminding me
Someasy 2w ago • 100%
Season 3 of From is airing rn! It's brilliant imo. The mystery becomes deeper and more intriguing, as it meticulously unravels and we slowly begin to understand it. Though don't get me wrong, there are still a lot of unanswered questions and a lot of confusion & uncertainty, and I felt the same way as you, as did probably most people watching it. Thankfully, the creators seem to be aware of this and apparently have planned out the story from the beginning specifically to avoid making the same mistakes as Lost (it's helmed by a few of the key writers for that show, and they assert they learned their lessons with that experience). They've strongly reiterated that all the questions will be answered and everything will be explained and make sense, though who knows what form that will take. It seems like a Herculean task to weave it all together at this point and wrap it up cohesively but it sounds like we're in good hands at least. There is a direction and that's becoming gradually more clear as it progresses, even if it happens drip by drip. In the meantime, I think it's quite enthralling and tantalising to watch.
I became drawn to a certain category of shows that feel like a microcosm of human society represented by a small group of people with different personality types thrown together in a dire situation they can't escape from. Survival themes are a necessity but it also needs some kind of speculative fiction element (scifi, supernatural, fantasy, etc) to add intrigue, mystery and up the stakes and scope/scale of the story even further. A tier - *Lost* and *From* - these are the best of the best when it comes to this type of series. The gold standard to aim for. B tier - *Snowpiercer* and *Silo* (haven't seen past the first episode yet but I think it looks like one to check out). Also *Wayward Pines* was pretty good. Must include *The Prisoner* even though it's kind of in its own wacky category. *Yellowjackets*, *The Wilds*, and *The Society* barely scrape in. I'm aware of *Class of '07* and *Wrecked* even though they're somewhat of comedies. C tier - *Under the Dome*, *La Brea*, *The 100* - these ones are quite a bit lower quality as you can see in the budget, acting, writing and overall production value. They don't feel as prestige or premium, but they're still enjoyable shows to me. I don't even care how trashy they are at times, or most of the time. They tick that box for me, scratch that itch. Movie tier: Not a TV show, but the movie/film "The Incident" (2014) by Isaac Ezban is uncannily like *From* and has elements of *Lost* too. Definitely wish this was a proper TV series. I don't have many examples of this kind of show that really match the likes of *Lost* and *From*, or even *Under the Dome* and *La Brea* which feel almost like they're deliberately trying to recreate it. Currently watching *Terra Nova* to try to recapture that feel and it's decent so far. I'd love more examples. And I can sort of include *The Walking Dead* even though it barely meets the criteria, because it just feels very similar to *Lost* in my opinion. *The Rain*, *Into the Night* and *Les Revenants* too, I guess. If *Dark* and *1899* count then those are probably A/B tier. I suppose that *Fallout* sort of fits the bill, very loosely. On my radar: *Jericho* (no speculative fiction element as far as I know but it sounds like a comparable vibe). *Persons Unknown* *Dark Matter* (2015 series) **What "group of people stuck somewhere" show did you fall for?**
Plus it would be cool if you could recommend some particular essential non-fiction books that should be taught in schools, or that people should read if they didn't read them in school.
So in the whole anti-natalism/pro-natalism conversation (which I'm mostly agnostic/undecided on, currently), my friend who is a pro-natalist, argued that the success/stability of our world economy is dependent on procreating more children each year than the previous year, so that we not only replace the numbers of the people who existed from the previous generation (and some, to account for the statistical likelihood that many won't have children or will be sterile or die young etc), but also ensure that the population keeps growing in order to produce more and more human labor to "pay back the debts" of previous generations, because all money is borrowed from somewhere else... this is all very murky to me and I wish someone could explain it better. She is also of the view that this will inevitably lead to population collapse/societal/civilisation collapse because we live on a finite Earth with finite resources that can't keep sustaining more humans & human consumption (and are nearing critical environmental crises), but that there isn't any other option than to keep producing more children because a declining population wouldn't be able to support itself economically either. Basically the idea seems to be that economically & societally we're on a collision course for self-destruction but the only thing we can do is keep going and making increasingly more of ourselves to keep it running (however that as individuals, we should be plant-based & minimalist to reduce our impact to the environment, non-human animals and humans for as long as possible). And she is worried about the fact that fertility rates are falling & slated to reach a population peak followed by a decline in the relatively near future. As I said I'm not sure how I feel about this view but at first glance I think that the effect of having fewer children in providing relief upon the environment and helping safeguard our future is more important than preserving the economy because destroying the actual planet and life itself seems worse than economic downturns/collapses, but I really don't know enough about economics to say for certain.
Someasy 9mo ago • 100%
Fuckmas
Someasy 10mo ago • 100%
Yes, I meant singular they. "They" isn't typically used for objects in the singular ("it" usually is used there). Nothing I'm saying has to do with plural pronouns, I should've made that clear. It's about he/she/they vs it (designating an entity as a personality vs an object, you might say).
And I think any entity with a personality could merit potentially referring to them as he/she/they, rather than "it". If they're conscious then I think it's definitely warranted, which is why I think "he/she/they" shouldn't be restricted to humans only, and should apply to all animals (or sentient animals which are at least the majority), as well as any other hypothetical sentient beings such as sentient AIs or sentient aliens.
Non-sentient AIs are what I'm really asking about though, but ones so complex that they demonstrate something resembling a personality. That's where it gets tricky about whether to designate them as "he/she/they" or as "it", personally. Presuming they don't specify a "faux gender" (like calling Amazon's Alexa a "she" without really acknowledging Alexa as a female), and if they were gender neutral/gender unspecified, the decision would probably be between calling them either (singular) "they", or "it".
In my opinion, given the lack of sentience, I wouldn't see a problem with calling non-sentient AIs "it", but if they were hypothetically complex enough to faithfully represent a human for example, I would then struggle to call them "it" and might have to go with "they".
Someasy 10mo ago • 50%
Those are great lmao.
And wow yes, I hate it when someone says "I'm going to pee/piss" or "I need to take a shit". Like just say you're going to the bathroom, or, you know, voiding (jk) like a normal person.
Someasy 10mo ago • 50%
Old meme, this is not the debate raging on because I saw this exact image ages ages ages ago. Just saying
Someasy 11mo ago • 100%
Thank you for your great response and your knowledge and insight.
"The implication is that an AI is an “it” because it’s not a person."
To me, the reason to designate something as a "they" (singular, gender neutral, as in "they are an x") rather than an "it", is whether the term is in reference to a conscious/sentient being that could be seen as having a personality, or to an unconscious entity or object. Like you pointed out, people often refer to animals such as dogs and cats as "they" rather than "it", especially when a person doesn't know their sex. For example "I was chased around by this dog, and they were licking me". While other people might still use "it", I personally think "they" is more of a charitable acknowledgement of their personality (rather than "its personality"), and might potentially lead to treating them with more consideration than as designated similarly to objects.
But with AI that can replicate a personality without actually having consciousness, this seems to get very murky in my opinion. Technically using the same logic you might call an AI an "it" rather than a "they", since they aren't sentient/conscious (as far as we can determine currently at least), but when they convincingly present themselves as having a personality, it seems to warrant a consideration on whether to still use "it" or to perhaps use "they" instead. Not that there would necessarily be a reason to do so, but it seems like odd territory, especially when considering the hypothetical of the philosophical zombie, or possibly a highly advanced (but non-sentient) AI that was so faithfully replicating the behaviour of a human being that they could be interpreted the same way as a human, despite not having any consciousness whatsoever. Do we still call that like-a-human-but-not-a-human-and-not-conscious being an "it", or would that feel inaccurate and warrant calling them a "they" due to their clear personality that appears identical to conscious personalities that we acknowledge?
"And just to throw another theoretical biology stick in the spokes, is an ant colony an “it” or a “they,” and why?"
I think that an ant colony could be called an it, just like a group of humans or a group of any animals could be called an "it". While distinctly to this, I think an individual ant, given their consciousness/sentience, can be referred to as a "they", similar to other conscious/sentient animals, including humans, or any hypothetical conscious/sentient beings for that matter. If we found an alien being on another planet that was conscious/sentient, it still makes sense to me to refer to them as a "they/them", unless of course their gender was known in which case they could be a he/she, or whatever they identify as if they express that (purely hypothetically).
Someasy 11mo ago • 100%
It's not about gender at all, I'm assuming AI is genderless or gender neutral. The it vs they question is about designating AI as an object or a personality, basically.
Someasy 11mo ago • 80%
Thanks, I'm not sure why it's downvoted either. It surprised me, usually questions like this trigger interest.
I think that by most estimations, we can assume that AI are not actually sentient currently and don't have the ability for sentience as there is no mechanism that would allow for them to experience consciousness subjectively, unlike animals including humans which we can scientifically state have not only behaviours consistent with consciousness and feeling but also biological mechanisms that we know to be what make us capable of a subjective experience. AI is highly intelligent, but so are many computers and machines, with AI this is just taken to another level where it's able to replicate the simulation of a personality. I agree that the answers given by AI itself which is programmed wouldn't be the best way to determine this, but rather objective computer science and technology of humans independent of an AI system.
So again I think it's pretty much factual that AIs aren't capable of sentience currently, and it's a debatable topic whether more upgraded or evolved forms of AI could be physically capable of perceiving experience/sentience even in the future as a hypothetical, though I definitely wouldn't rule that out.
That said, I don't think the fact they aren't sentient can prevent us from addressing them as if they were, given they exhibit a very convincing presentation of a sentient personality even if that isn't the case.
To me, it would feel odd for example to address them as "it" if they were even more convincingly like a human but simply weren't conscious, hypothetically. This would then be approaching something similar to the "philosophical zombie" thought experiment where a being is physically identical to a normal person but does not have conscious experience. So, a being that behaves exactly like a human but technically doesn't experience anything/isn't sentient. That would definitely feel strange for me to still call them an "it", or a something, rather than a "they" or a someone.
However, I think at the current level of faithfulness, of even the most advanced AI, to a human being, they aren't convincing enough and still too machine-like for me to definitively say that I would be uncomfortable calling them "it", unlike the philosophical zombie where I would be uncomfortable calling them "it".
Someasy 11mo ago • 100%
It refers to objects, they refers to sentience or the fact of "someone" being a conscious individual rather than just a "something".
But in this case, they would be acknowledging on some level, even superficially, AI's personality and agency to a degree.
Someasy 11mo ago • 100%
It didn't really, it said people may choose both. It's also an AI. I wanted to see what real people thought. I thought this was a good question.
Someasy 11mo ago • 33%
The most sophisticated AI imaginable short of it becoming sentient, let's say.
Of course AI isn't sentient/conscious, but it exhibits traits of high intelligence, even personality, and behaviours consistent with sentience, even if it's merely simulated. The answer ChatGPT gave me: > Referring to AI as "it" is the most common practice since AI, as a technological entity, doesn't possess inherent human-like qualities. However, as AI advances and becomes more integrated into daily life, some individuals prefer using "they" to acknowledge the complexity and multifaceted nature of AI systems. This choice can reflect a perspective that sees AI as more than just a tool or machine, attributing a certain level of agency or personality to these systems. Both "it" and "they" can be used, but the context and individual preferences often guide the choice. And in response to "Is AI alive in a way?" > AI lacks the fundamental attributes of living organisms, such as biological processes and the ability to reproduce. However, AI can exhibit behaviors that simulate aspects of intelligence, learning, and adaptation. While it's not alive in a biological sense, some people metaphorically attribute a form of "life" to AI due to its dynamic nature, ability to evolve, and perform complex tasks autonomously. This association with "life" is more symbolic or metaphorical rather than literal.
Someasy 11mo ago • 100%
Thank you for your contributions.
I want a word to refer to words and names collectively, and a word to refer to peeing and pooping collectively (not "relieving yourself" since that is disgusting)
Why did Dot (Juno Temple, the woman who gets kidnapped) tell Witt Farr (Lamorne Morris, police officer who helps her) that this isn't her first getaway, considering that she's trying to hide her criminal past/previous identity? I understand it obviously served as a reveal to the audience confirming she did have some kind of prior criminal involvement, but why would she say it to that police officer, especially when she then subsequently ran away and pretended the whole thing never happened?
I just don't want to mix them because I feel like it would make me less clean. Relatedly, what's the best way I can follow the Patrick Bateman skincare routine as a simplified version that's actually practical to follow and contains the most important steps?
This show just came to an end and it's got to be one of the worst shows I've ever seen, but somehow always entertaining. Preferable if the show has a large amount of viewers to trash it and laugh at it.
'Where negative rights are "negative" in the sense that they claim for each individual a zone of non-interference from others, positive rights are "positive" in the sense that they claim for each individual the positive assistance of others in fulfilling basic constituents of well-being like health.' 'Negative rights are considered more essential than positive ones in protecting an individual's autonomy.' So when one individual's positive right to do something is at odds with another's negative right to protect them from something, as much as it would be ideal for both parties to have exactly what they want without harming or inconveniencing/upsetting the other, since that's often not possible, the negative right to 'protect' an individual from something seems to trump the positive right for an individual to 'do' something in hierarchy of moral importance and most ethicists seem to agree. For example, I think people's 'positive right' to choose animal-based product or service options when there are equally suitable plant-based options that achieve all the same purposes, isn't as important as sentient animals' negative right to not be unnecessarily exploited and killed, and to be protected from those undesirable experiences, states or conditions. Hence the position of veganism is very clear and obvious for me, and resolves an "easy" ethical issue with a clear solution (essential negative (protective) right prevails over others' ultimately unnecessary positive ("doing") right). When it comes to abortion however, I do believe that it's a tricky situation ethically. I'm pro-choice, but I say that with difficulty, because considering both sides it's not an easy position and I see it as much more ethically complex than the issue of unnecessary animal exploitation. That's because I think you can make the argument that either forcing a person to undergo pregnancy, or terminating the life of an (admittedly unconscious, undeveloped) fetus, are in both cases breaching a sentient (or would-be sentient) individual's negative (protective) right. It would seem to be a clear ethical dilemma, where neither outcome is desirable, in almost comparably important ways. However, ultimately I had to decide that protecting a woman/person from an enforced pregnancy (and the physical and life-changing, even life destroying (or killing) effects, results and experiences that can have), a person being a fully formed, conscious and sentient individual, is more tangibly important than protecting an undeveloped, unconscious "mass of cells" from being prevented from developing into a human being. My thoughts on the matter aside... It seems like in one way the right to abortion is a positive right by claiming assistance from others to "do" something being terminate a pregnancy, while in another way it's a negative right by "protecting" the person via preventing undesirable states and experiences that would be imposed on them by others 'interfering' and forcing them to undergo pregnancy, by denying them an abortion. I'm honestly just wondering what kind right this would be considered. Positive right or negative right? Or both? Thanks :)
May depend on what device you're using, can confirm Samsung does this