This has nothing to do with the AI itself, Aman simply left a debug message in production.

I feel like 'total mass being moved' is irrelevent if most of that mass is useless (car motor/metal frame/plastic/etc).

Even if a car motor was more efficient per kg, most of the work is wasted on moving the actual car itself, regardless of the passengers & cargo.

Bikes clearly use less energy to displace 'useful mass' than a car, so they are more efficient in that sense.

Women and men are probably more-or-less equally emotional, but because men are more likely to be in positions of power (for other reasons), we tend to feel their wrath more when they’re upset than we do when a woman is.

They could each be on the vertices of a tetrahedron for all we know...

The point of most of the comments here is that you shouldn't believe anyone on vibes alone. The problem isn't sexism, people are pointing out that believing victims without evidence is no basis for a legal system.

In most places, citizens below a certain age can't vote, yet laws affect them as well. By extension, one could probably argue that some people "don't know what's best for them" and experts/educated people are better suited to make the laws.

(However, creating such a test would obviously be impossible in practice, and would result in a conflict of interest, leading to discrimination, as muusemuuse points out.)

Stop Killing Games

15

Many MAGA/libertarian/fascists love ice cream. Does that mean ice cream is bad? We should be able to make up our own minds about things instead of turning everything into a partisan issue. A broken clock is right twice a day.

As if indigenous societies never fought wars and claimed land between eachother. Send all of humanity to Africa and let the squirrels and birds take back their land while we're at it.

At what scale does a genocide become bad enough to deport everyone? Without written history, it's hard to say exactly how pre-colonial conflics in North America played out, but I've found a few sources that suggest that inter-tribe warfare can be just as bloody as any other war (as far as the technology allowed, of course). "Skirmishes between tribes" is quite an understatement.

I've found a case of recorded genocidal conflict ("with intent to exerminate opposing tribe"), but it was obviously postcolonial (because there are basically no records of precolonial history). I'll note that both sides were supplied by respective colonial powers, so it could very well be considered a proxy war; however the conflict was waged by the tribes themselves, at their own will. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Wars

We can't forget that since the population density of America was much lower than in Europe, it's hard to compare conflicts apples-to-apples. Killing 10 individuals in a small tribe/village could exterminate nearly 10% their population; a number that would be considered devastating, quasi-genocidal if it happened between european powers.

As for your second point, it brings up a problem I have with your general argument. You argue that Indigenous conflics can be forgiven since the individuals had "no interest in waging a multi-generational genocide". I can confidently say that I, an North American with European decent, also have no interest in "waging a multi-generational genocide"; why must I be punished for it, then? Nobody gets to choose their ancestry.

(That being said, I acknowldege that systemic racism is still a very big problem today where I live, and I give my vote to whoever can reduce it the most)