I don’t get the “take off your shoes” part. Is this a meme I have missed?

As someone who doesn’t pay close attention to what Google does at the top of the page, this is not obvious to me. Glad it is a shit post and not something Google actually responded with.

I have used LLMs before and they are occasionally wrong, seems like you don’t disagree. I don’t see how someone who isn’t deeply familiar with LLMs would be obviously tipped off that this post is a shit post. As for the graphs, who knows, Google probably already has that working. I’ve seen LLMs make up songs before too.

AI would never write this.

Why not? I figure you could train an AI to write this. I could see a Google engineer messing up and producing a bad AI. GPT2 engineers has made this mistake before.

The fact that you are believing it doesn’t speak to the danger of AI as much as it speaks to the gullibility of people.

This is kind of like saying “the problem with nuclear bombs is that people are too easy to evaporate at high temperatures, not the bombs themselves”. Yeah, that is true, but it’s really hard to make people less gullible. I wouldn’t say LLM’s and AI are bad or we should stop using them. But I think people like you need to understand that the average person is not on your level, and you need to slow your roll.

If I said “obama made a law to put babies in woodchippers”…

I don’t think this is a good comparison, because Obama has been around for a while and most people believe Obama wouldn’t do that. Now if Obama went from being a nobody to president in a day and then someone told me the about the woodchipper law. I would be unsure and have to double check. It wouldn’t be obvious. Likewise, since LLMs are relatively new to most people, it’s going to take a while before most people figure out what is a normal mistake by an LLM vs an obviously faked mistake by a shit poster.

Ok, your not the original person. Is this an obvious shit post in your opinion?

Because if it isn’t obvious how am I supposed to know this is a shit post or not?

How is this an obvious shit post? I am here to learn.

Do you ever feel like we will be the last generation to know anything?

Also unciv: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.unciv.app

Anyone got any more of that context?

So the quality is worth the price of not owning the work you do?

I guess everyone has to make their own call…

Collective Action Problems

Oh, nice link (not sarcastic), I didn’t realize these issues had a name. Thanks!

But it doesn’t apply to the hypothetical. The first line is “A collective action problem or social dilemma is a situation in which all individuals would be better off cooperating but fail to do so because of conflicting interests between individuals that discourage joint action.” The hypothetical was that the majority of people already agree on a specific candidate. So there are no conflicting interests that matter.

First off, let’s note that these polls do not currently exist.

I don’t understand the point of this paragraph. Do you think the current green candidate has a majority interest? If so, then we should start making polls. Conservatives make polls every day like “Bad Black Man Bad?”. I am pretty sure this not a difficult task, especially if we have a majority.

Second, if these polls did exist, their implications would not be immediately apparent.

Yes, I agree with this. I understand why this isn’t ideal, but humans are messy. Like I said is might be 4 - 8 years before we are able to act on our majority.

I think “immediately” also points out some emotional energy. I think you are weighing the horrors of the current situation (and they are very bad) and are willing to take extreme risk to stop those horrors. An admirable goal, but taking those extremes risks has consequences and not just for you. The risk you are currently taking is trying to convince as many people as possible to vote in such a way to throw a wrench in the system. This can work if you can get a large enough amount of people, but that is like a 1 - 5 percent chance. That leaves a 95% percent chance that the outcomes will be the worst possible. On top of this, as you have said, you currently have no metrics. So you don’t know how likely you are to succeed. It’s a bad gamble and I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.

And if people saw it that way and did not switch, then the next election cycle, they would say, “see, we were right, it was a statistical anomaly, that question is not a reliable predictor of who would win.”

Ok, so we miss once and stop trying? Why is the left so weak in your mind? Why not just keep trying until we get the candidate that everyone wants elected elected?

Third, which candidates people like and dislike is influenced by the exposure they have to that candidate.

Where did this come from? I will assume this is a closing argument and not an answer to my question. As I have stated before. Money is very helpful, but not necessary. You can do things like fundraise. Berne proved that it was possible. And the bigger the majority you have, the more of a source you have.

Is that enough?

You linked me to an interesting wiki article that didn’t apply. You wrote a paragraph about how we currently don’t have polls, then claimed victory. You talked about how my idea wouldn’t work right away, then assumed people would just give up. Then you talked about how money was necessary, which was not part of the question.

So your answer boils down to leftist will just give up even if they have the majority, because organizing is hard and not perfect.

I will accept this. I asked a question, you answered to the best of your ability. You and I are both tired of this conversation. I am good with ending it here. I will not be replying to this conversation after this.

I will have to find someone else to convince me that no-voting or 3rd party voting is a good idea, because we are not communicating well.

I wish you well. No hard feelings, have a nice life.

Good and dark

It’s a problem of coordinating a mass switch.

Ok, so I don’t want to use up my one question, so I will just assume your position is that if we had one fascist leader and everyone else was a leftist who agreed on which candidate they would want to lead them, then the leftists wouldn’t be able to do whatever to figure that out and the one and only fascists leader would stay in charge forever. Got it.

You really should vote for the lesser evil, because your opinion of the people you agree with is very low. By your own logic, you’re are already screwed.

Now it’s that polls you just dreamed up that nobody is asking that are supposed to provide the mechanism for coordinating a switch.

Hey, if you have a general argument for why polling wont work, why didn’t you use that instead of just asserting that it wouldn’t without explaining (rhetorical question does not count)? That is why I am trying to figure out why you think that. The only way I know how to do that is by trying to figure out what wording is causing you issues.

Before I do: are you confident enough in that attempt that you’re ok with it being your very last one?

Yes, stop edging me. Any question I ask you, you will probably provide another evasive answer to. Anyone reading this thread will see that plainly. Please add more weight to my arguments.

I want to hear your response to this: Why would polls worded like “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?" not work to detect a consensus of a single leftist candidate and why wouldn’t people then vote for that candidate?

Polling as in “intends to vote for” or polling as in “has a favorable opinion of?”

We could try “has most favorable opinion of?” or “most ideologically aligned with?”

I feel like you are hinting at the possibility of not only a leftist majority but a majority interest in a specific candidate and we would be too dumb to figure that out. Is that your position?

You’re not going to find some clever solution that allows you to bypass the problem of coordinating a mass switch, that problem is fundamental.

Hey, ancient wisdom person, you need to be able to explain why the problem is fundamental and not solvable. I don’t see it. And all that ancient wisdom does you no good politically if you can’t impart it.

This is tiresome.

I agree, please stop making bad arguments so we can stop this thread or maybe I can learn something.

So, in your mind, if someone did this favorability poll you want, and it showed, say, 60% favorability for the Green Party, you would vote for them, and you imagine that the majority of Democratic voters would all spontaneous switch their votes over together?

Not Democratic voters (assuming you mean the party). Just voters.

If you’re a Democrat and you feel like the Green Party has a candidate polling at a majority that represents your interests more than the Democratic candidate, why would you vote for the Democratic candidate instead? It goes against your interests. I know some Democrats are brain damaged, but I think that is only a small percentage (1 - 3 %).

This is like saying the majority of the population is leftist and has a chance at a bloodless revolution, but they decide to not take it because of shits and giggles.

Or a poll that shows favorability over voting.

Your argument boils down to “We would need a thing that easily could exist and maybe currently doesn’t exist and that’s why this is an unsolvable problem.”

Sorry, I meant the “average Joe” aka, the average person. I have edited my post to add clarification.

I see where you are coming from. I just don’t think it can be pulled off in the current reality we live in. Fascism is spreading today. Things have been getting worse. The US has freedom of speech and the Fascist are currently using it as a shield. I am not saying we have to get rid of freedom of speech. I just think there needs to be consequences to saying dumb shit.

Fascism is destroyed when nobody - not you; not Hitler 2 - has power to silence dissent.

To be clear I don’t want to lose freedom of speech to silence the fascists I just want to punch them and make fun of them if they do start spreading their ideology.

Yes, I have no problem with that. I think we only need to target people who spread fascist ideology to a wide and/or large audience. The average fascist Joe, has very little reach and it would look bad if it seemed like random nobodies were being targeted.

Edit: When I say the average fascist Joe. I mean the average person who is a fascists. Not anyone named Joe. Sorry for any confusion.

It was a counter to this statement.

When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.

But I now that I am re-reading it I see that I had misinterpreted it. I thought you were implying that polls only ask questions about voting and not option. This was my bad. Sorry.

The poll would have to be about a specific candidate. Not voting third party in general.

Third party in general just means that most people are sick of the two candidates in top. This could mean that we are splitting The 60% between five third-party candidates. This means the Democratic and Republican candidates are still on top?

Now if 60% of the people were interested in voting for the green candidate specifically. Then I’m very interested and a big funny is about to happen to the Republican or Democratic candidate.