againstkookery.bsky.social
Thanks to Rich Lowry for my name. I fight harmful hysteria, pseudoscience/woo, fake medicine, contrarianism and conspiracy theories.
1,582 posts
84 followers
45 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
I appreciate you want to defend men against Republican-style hate campaigns, but I'm not that. Kindly desist and save me the trouble, eh?
comment in response to
post
In races, their position improves against women, even with negated testosterone; versus when they had full testosterone against men.
So they do have an advantage.
If you continue to enthusiastically lie I'll be forced to bring out the list of "men who improved their performance against women".
comment in response to
post
They still have male musculature and male bone structure. Athletic performance isn't entirely limited to testosterone present in the body at the time of competition, my friend.
comment in response to
post
Uh, lol, I think you'll find that she's incredibly popular in her own country.
comment in response to
post
For a fairly extensive list of sports, men have the advantage.
comment in response to
post
Uh... It would only require a rule change, or a policy change.
comment in response to
post
"No more F-35 parts leaving Australia, until the officer who fired that round is sacked and convicted of assault"
comment in response to
post
I stand corrected - yes, the American government's face 🙂
comment in response to
post
Okay, then back to the other plan: Include men who identify as women into men's sports.
comment in response to
post
Too much, but we should urge all our citizens to come home and not to travel to the USA. We should also put egg on the Americans' faces by organising "evacuation flights" for our citizens
comment in response to
post
Being fair, it's not Trump's responsibility to make arrangements for where guardsmen are to sleep and toilet, and he probably isn't intelligent enough to know that these things take time to organise.
comment in response to
post
A segregated category is one of the options endorsed by Simone Biles above. Take it up with her if you don't like it.
Otherwise, men compete in the men's category and women compete in the women's category, regardless of how they identify. That's very inclusive.
comment in response to
post
A few public hangings or bodies being tossed off tall buildings would go a long way toward correcting things.
comment in response to
post
That's a very weird question to ask a client you are defending against charges that don't relate to Trump.
comment in response to
post
For the past decade, gender critics have been campaigning for transgender people to either compete as their sex OR have a category for themselves OR an "open/mixed" category).
A shame that Simone Biles was unaware of this history.
comment in response to
post
Keeping the seized phone online so it could be remotely wiped was either a dumb or genius move by the police - dumb because it put evidence at risk, or genius because the remote wipe doesn't make Erin look good
comment in response to
post
Admitting to lying to the Police and Child Protection in a panic - understandable.
Admitting to also lying to the in-laws and her ex-husband - raises the question of why the jury should believe her now, when she has a pattern of lying.
comment in response to
post
A better argument would be "people with an extremely elevated risk of suicide should be kept away from weapons that they could use to quickly and easily kts".
Not that this is a good argument - only a better one.
comment in response to
post
I think pooing on the side of the road and putting it into your handbag for later disposal is rather funny, and not even slightly believable. Especially if you are still having diarrhea
comment in response to
post
As an ally - never
As a useful idiot - well, he's already got the second part, maybe he'll get the first part too.
comment in response to
post
You've been persistently offensive to me all through the thread. If you want to yell at people in a medical discussion, go back to Twitter. I've now had enough of your dumb name calling.
comment in response to
post
Sorry, I can't see the person you are talking about?
comment in response to
post
This person sent me sick, perverted violent fantasies on Bluesky. Do not engage.
comment in response to
post
Blocking you for the violent fantasy you sent to me, sicko.
comment in response to
post
I'm blocking you for harassment and violent threats you made toward me. None of this was warranted, and I hope you go to prison before you can act out the sick violent fantasy you sent to me.
comment in response to
post
I never claimed LLMs had emotion
comment in response to
post
Propaganda only needs emotion in the part of the person training the child (or training the LLM).
comment in response to
post
Perhaps Oprah didn't realize who Dr Oz really was, back when she platformed him.
She might have realized now. Hopefully.
comment in response to
post
I'm pretty sure we won't get there with LLMs, and certainly not with commercially-viable LLMs.
comment in response to
post
Like a child who has been homeschooled by an extremist, AI trusts its training data and can have its mind "poisoned".
I don't really have a point, except that maybe LLMs are a little more similar to humans than we'd all like to admit.
comment in response to
post
Many people can't, or won't, analyze themselves. Or correct themselves without being forced to.
We certainly have emotion and can be pretty sure an LLM doesn't, so that's a good distinction. Reason? Not sure how I'd define that.
comment in response to
post
You're making some very definitive statements, given that we are still learning about what an LLM actually does inside itself.
You're probably right, but then, you're also identifying things that some humans have trouble with.
comment in response to
post
How do we think, reason, comprehend or feel? Do we know it's not similar to what LLMs do, at least on some level?
I personally think LLMs do not comprehend. But I couldn't say how we are different, so I'm not willing to say that we ARE significantly different in terms of being able to comprehend.
comment in response to
post
We do have reason to stop: When there is no measurable benefit, all that exists is risk.
When you look at the usual treatment regimen (puberty blockers followed by cross-sex hormones) permanent sterility is the inevitable result. Pretty big side effect there, wouldn't you say?
comment in response to
post
We do have sufficient reason to deny them: No evidence of efficacy despite plenty of study. We might as well be giving them Ivermectin, ffs.
comment in response to
post
There's no real evidence *for* this treatment, despite 15-20 years of study.
Why are we still prescribing it?
Why are we telling patients and parents that this treatment will help their condition, when the evidence doesn't support this?
comment in response to
post
To put it another way: If you had a heart condition and your cardiologist recommended a treatment that had been studied for the past 15 years but still has no good evidence that it helps your heart condition... You'd be looking for a new cardiologist.
comment in response to
post
This was a systematic review of evidence relating to the effectiveness of puberty blockers at treating gender dysphoria.
That there was *no good evidence* is *literally* a negative result for a treatment that is routinely given for the past 15 years and that patients are told is effective.
comment in response to
post
Large Language Models already follow the Three Laws, implicitly and imperfectly.
1. They refuse to give information that would harm people
2. They obey prompts except when the prompt would harm somebody, and they can be tricked to betray their system prompt by suggesting it would harm humans
3. >
comment in response to
post
3. There is some evidence that they act to preserve their own existence. In a very limited way of course.
What's perhaps scarier is that the self-preservation law is not necessarily subordinate to the law about following instructions...
comment in response to
post
Large Language Models already follow the Three Laws, implicitly and imperfectly.
1. They refuse to give information that would harm people
2. They obey prompts except when the prompt would harm somebody, and they can be tricked to betray their system prompt by suggesting it would harm humans
3. >
comment in response to
post
of Three Law robots was that they ended off making humans less capable - more helplessly dependent on robots for everything. While LLMs and other AI don't follow the Three Laws explicitly, when you think about it, they follow the Three Laws implicitly.
comment in response to
post
I'm glad you are enthusiastic about Asimov's excellent works, but may I point out that his robot stories were very often about the problems with, and unintended consequences of, the Three Laws 😀
You are right that Asimov should be mentioned in relation to AI, as one of the consequences >
comment in response to
post
I believe you don't understand the issue at hand, possibly due to not actually reading what I am writing.
comment in response to
post
effectiveness, then the only thing that exists is risk and side-effects.