whatever are male bimbos called, for example?

Bimbo is italian and it means a male-infant. The femine equivalent is bimba.

Just the kind of headline the people who don’t like rich people are likely to engage with.

I don’t see anyone here making such claim. Thus my response to you in the first place.

Also, I take that you do believe in free will? Then why do you suggest evil people lack the capacity to change? Those two seem to be in conflict.

You didn’t pick your desire to be contrarian and you couldn’t choose not to be.

Rewinding a video is a bad example in two ways: it does not rewind the universe to the exact same state it was before and secondly, the video still plays out exactly the same every single time - just like I said.

My argument was that you could not have done otherwise. I never claimed that choices aren’t being made. They are - based on things that are outside of your control. You don’t author them. In fact the whole concept of “I” is just another side of the same coin. There is no “self” sitting somewhere there behind one’s face, looking out into the world and authoring decisions. It’s all brain chemistry, brain is made of matter and matter obeys the laws of physics. There isn’t anything separate that’s standing outside of that, free from the influences of cause and effect.

It feels like freedom because the action aligns with your desires. You do X because you want to do X or you do Y because you don’t want what follows if you don’t do Y. To claim you could do something you don’t want to or don’t have to is an impossible claim. You can punch a wall and hurt your hand to try and make a point but that’s still an action motivated by wanting.

You’re arguing against a stance that no one is making. Nobody is suggesting that no free will implies freedom from consequences. There is no stronger indicator of future behaviour than past behaviour. A violent person doesn’t get a free pass just because he’s not ultimately responsible for his behaviour in the same way as we don’t let a grizzly bear freely wander around a neighbourhood. The bear gets shot because it’s dangerous, not because it’s morally flawed.

Everyone is free to do whatever they want but nobody is free to choose their wants. We do things for two reasons: either you want to or you have to. There’s no freedom in either.

When I say I don’t believe in free will, what I mean is that I don’t think you could’ve done otherwise. You were hungry so you grabbed a Snickers bar on the checkout line. Now we go back in time to the moment right before you made the decision - could you choose otherwise? I don’t think you could. Whatever compelled you to pick the Snickers the first time will cause you to do so every time. All else being equal - how could you have done otherwise?

If you take a bunch of people and measure their baseline behaviour, and then subject them all to a hormonal change, is it really that surprising that you’re then able to find measurable group-level differences in how they behave?

Does it really matter? Less bad doesn’t mean good. We’re talking about the lives of innocent bystanders here. If taking additional risk is avoidable, it should be avoided.

Humans are highly adaptable for both good and bad. I’ve heard that even people who have lost their ability to see or walk are back at baseline happiness in about a year.

Measures of subjective well-being are higher among treated participants in the first year of the transfers but then revert to control group levels.

I have no idea what you’re even talking about. Neither of these people is an AI researcher and neither is making the claims you’re here arguing against.

Anthropomorphizing them isn’t going to suddenly change reality…

No more than thought terminating clishes do.

Consciousness gets mentioned the first time at 1 hour and 26 minutes into the episode. The discussion is about cognition - they’re not the same thing and nobody is claiming that they are.

You used the term predetermined there so I just want to note to others that no-free-will doesn’t imply fatalism. It’s not that whatever was going to happen is going to happen anyway whether you do anything about it or not. That would imply cause without an action and it’s the exact opposite of what the idea of no-free-will in a deterministic universe means.

Determinism is about everything following from past events and the state of the universe at that specific moment and that the ability to have done otherwise is an illusion. So you didn’t grab a chocolate bar at the checkout because it was predetermined at your time of birth that this would happen but you also didn’t grab it because that’s what you chose to do there and then and you could’ve also chosen not to grab it. No - you couldn’t have. You didn’t choose to be hungry, you didn’t choose to notice the chocolate bar there, you didn’t choose to like Snickers more than Twix and so on. Everything that ultimately led to you grabbing that specific chocolate bar was outside of your control and the fact that you did grab it means that if we rewind the universe back to that same moment, everything else being equal, you’ll just grab it again, and again, and again. How could you not grab it? That’s like saying 4 + 4 is 8 but it could also be 6. No it can’t. It’s always going to produce the same result no matter how many times you run the calculation.

We do things for two reasons: either you want to or you have to. There’s obviously no freedom in having to do something but you’re not free to choose your wants either.

Who “everyone”?

I thought it’s pretty common knowledge that solar panels are more efficient in cold climate.

Choosing to filter out content from your social media feed isn’t necessarily about denial or apathy. For many people, it’s a conscious decision to preserve their mental clarity and avoid being constantly pulled into emotionally charged, tribal, or manipulative discourse. Being well-informed doesn’t require immersing yourself in an endless stream of outrage, nor does stepping back from that mean you’re turning a blind eye to anything.

There’s a difference between ignoring reality and choosing how and when to engage with it. Most of what passes for “news” online isn’t a sober presentation of facts or ideas - it’s performance, manufactured outrage, and algorithm-driven noise. If someone wants to stay sane and focus on things they can actually influence in their immediate life, I don’t see that as sticking their head in the sand. I see it as setting healhy boundaries in an environment that’s often designed to provoke rather than inform.

People aren’t morally obligated to be constantly exposed to negativity just to prove they care. In fact, thoughtful action tends to come from those who can step back from the noise and think clearly, not from those who are perpetually consumed by it.

People always use the most extreme housing markets as the default example, which distorts the picture. You can buy a house with that income. I know because I did.

And it’s not like the other 90% isn’t causing any damage.

Outrage gets clicks.

There’s some amazing stories of identical twins discovering eachother at later age. I believe the claim there was that it’s among the strongest bonds between humans that there is. You’ve never met before but when you do, it all immediately just clicks.

I guess the question that remains is: how much of that is due to being hit and how much due to having the genes of parents who hit their children?