You don’t have the right Cheers pic next to Kirstie Alley.

In casual conversation IRL, if someone made this claim, I’d assume good faith. Or even in a reply to an existing discussion of Snopes. But OP decided to make a post without verifying their information and then went through and defended that take in the comments when people explained the actual facts to them. This wasn’t done in good faith, it would appear.

This has the same energy as the folks running around doing a disinfo op on Wikipedia. None of this is true and either OP wildly misunderstood the situation or they’re intentionally being deceitful.

In addition to the point about Western mythologies dominating because of cultural exports, I think there is also the undercurrent of England’s original mythologies having been “lost” and so the English were always fascinated by the mythologies of the Norse (due to being invaded) and by the Greeks and Romans (as previous “great” civilizations they aspired to be).

Combine that with America’s obvious English influences and the influence of England as a colonizer around the world, and those mythologies gained a huge outsized influence.

I probably didn’t explain well enough. Consuming media (books, TV, film, online content, and video games) is predominantly a passive experience. Obviously video games less so, but all in all, they only “adapt” within the guardrails of gameplay. These AI chatbots however are different in their very formlessness - they’re only programmed to maintain engagement and rely on the LLM training to maintain an illusion of “realness”. And because they were trained on all sorts of human interactions, they’re very good at that.

Humans are unique in how we continually anthropomorphize tons of not only inert, lifeless things (think of someone alternating between swearing at and pleading to a car that won’t start) but abstract ideals (even scientists often speak of evolution “choosing” specific traits). Given all of that, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be worried about a teen with a still developing prefrontal cortex and who is in the midst of working on understanding social dynamics and peer relationships to embue an AI chatbot with far more “humanity” than is warranted. Humans seem to have an anthropomorphic bias in how we relate to the world - we are the primary yardstick we use to measure and relate everything around us, and things like AI chatbots exploit that to maximum effect. Hell, the whole reason the site mentioned in the article exists is that this approach is extraordinarily effective.

So while I understand that on a cursory look, someone objecting to it comes across as a sad example of yet another moral panic, I truly believe this is different. For one, we’ve never had access to such a lively psychological mirror before and it’s untested waters; and two, this isn’t some objection on some imagined slight against a “moral authority” but based in the scientific understanding of specifically teen brains and their demonstrated fragility in certain areas while still under development.

Same! And if anyone disagrees, feel free to get in the comments! 😉

I understand what you mean about the comparison between AI chatbots and video games (or whatever the moral panic du jour is), but I think they’re very much not the same. To a young teen, no matter how “immersive” the game is, it’s still just a game. They may rage against other players, they may become obsessed with playing, but as I said they’re still going to see it as a game.

An AI chatbot who is a troubled teen’s “best friend” is different and no matter how many warnings are slapped on the interface, it’s going to feel much more “real” to that kid than any game. They’re going to unload every ounce of angst into that thing, and by defaulting to “keep them engaged”, that chatbot is either going to ignore stuff it shouldn’t or encourage them in ways that it shouldn’t. It’s obvious there’s no real guardrails in this instance, as if he was talking about being suicidal, some red flags should’ve popped up.

Yes the parents shouldn’t have allowed him such unfettered access, yes they shouldn’t have had a loaded gun that he had access to, but a simple “This is all for funsies” warning on the interface isn’t enough to stop this from happening again. Some really troubled adults are using these things as defacto therapists and that’s bad too. But I’d be happier if lawmakers were much more worried about kids having access to this stuff than accessing “adult sites”.

No idea on the song, may have better luck identifying the singer, and working backwards from there? Maybe something by Fine Young Cannibals? Certainly the most notable falsetto that comes to mind for that era for me.

That’s certainly where the term originated, but usage has expanded. I’m actually fine with it, as the original idea was about the pattern recognition we use when looking at faces, and I think there’s similar mechanisms for matching other “known” patterns we see. Probably with some sliding scale of emotional response on how well known the pattern is.

Yeah, understandable and even admirable. Thanks!

So someone attempts to actually reason with you and once again, another downvote and no reply - after you asked me a question. What are you so afraid of?

And that has what to do with what exactly? Would it make it easier if we just do your account on /politics because here’s that: https://lemmy.world/modlog/1252?page=1&userId=9454261

You asked about your dishonesty and I gave an explanation, and you replied with the modlog for a community we both post in. More bad faith engagement with other users it seems, and/or you never bothered to read the answer to the question you asked.

As you’ve asked before, and I’ve answered before, I’ll just offer the same explanation I offered yesterday that you never responded to - you know where you were once again offering lists of grievances (specifically in /politics)

But there seems to be something totally lacking. Anything that showed you had the slightest bit of self awareness. You claim no motive for sharing, but just about everyone else sees what you’re doing. You claim innocence, “I didn’t write the article” but when asked repeatedly to explain why you found it interesting, you have literally never answered, only saying “I don’t have to explain anything!”. Which is true, in so far as when you don’t explain your motivations, people will fill in the blanks.

Everyone else here who is a regular or even occasional poster has “tells” of one type or another. We’re human, and by definition that means we have biases. I generally can often guess who posted something without even looking at the user name, and that’s fine. And that’s just as true of other people guessing when I’ve posted something. The rest of us engage with posts and comments in a way that matches our personal views.

But supposedly not you. You claim no bias, no agenda and spend most of your time in the comments being disingenuous - not only about your agenda (which is plain to see), but in claiming you have no motive for what you do. That’s not genuine human behavior, which is probably why there’s so many who believe you’re a bot. Your behavior in posting and commenting falls smack dab in the uncanny valley. The only other explanation is that you’re not being honest.

As for the rest, please don’t pretend that you haven’t been trolling yourself. The modlog is evidence enough for that.

You keep acting like it’s the articles you post that are the problem when it’s your behavior in the comments that makes people angry. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a genuine conversation with you involved. It’s obfuscation, sealioning, deflection, and playing the victim.

And don’t do your usual “Just block me if you don’t like it!” When people see someone pollute a shared communal space, they should call it out, not turn a blind eye to it. Otherwise it’s just another example of the Tragedy of the Commons.

You have every right to keep posting (as long as the mods are willing to shoulder the extra work you create), but if you do, do it honestly. Stand up for what you believe in, even if folks say you’re wrong. Be an advocate for ideas, people, and movements. Explain why you think what you do - the only cost is the potential for someone to change your mind, and the benefit is you might change someone else’s mind.

But don’t be dishonest about why you’re doing whatever it is you think you’re doing here. Don’t hide behind “I didn’t write the article” and “I don’t have to explain anything to anyone”. You might still get downvoted to oblivion, but you might not.

I’ve linked the definition for him before and he got a temp ban for it. He knows the definition.

There are so much drastically dishonest and untrue things in this comment, I’m not even sure where to start. No one cares what you share, they care about your obvious dishonesty in saying why you do it.

I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, I tried to have a real dialogue, and you just double down on the trolling.

Yeah, I swear I just heard one of them say “Looks like Geek is back on the menu, boys!”

I didn’t even know orcs had restaurants? How do they know what a menu is?!

Ooh, tell me more! I used to love a good fairy tale. And this one sounds like a doozy! But just like you started, make sure it doesn’t have anything that matches reality - that’d be great. Thanks!

Okay. See ya!

I don’t know that Sauron had an ideology per se, more just power for the sake of power. Which allegorically is pretty spot on I think.

Do you need a hug? It sounds like you need a hug.

And jokes on you, I was conceived in the backseat of a car. Don’t you feel foolish now?