Gnosis

It's merely not the narrow, higher cognitive definition of a pursuit of "truth", but also technically does not invalidate the genetic absolutism stance as long as the argument is formulated as one of efficacy, rather than a binary "able to" or "unable to".

Which ironically, I would not consider an incorrect position either.

Unless one wants to take the metaphysical position that literally everything is "chasing truth".

On the other hand I think the inability to chase truth as a fruit fly is self-evident, so that wasn't what I was arguing with respects to.

Truth is like sexuality except one can hardly find an allosexual person when it comes to truth.

I personally don't like equating this with "genetics" per se, it's too narrow and oddly specific of a definition. But the issue not being one narrowly of "genetics" per se does not imply that the argument of "you work with what you got" isn't a strong one.

Everything I said after that.

A seriously asexual person will never chase sex in the way an allosexual person with high libido does.

You can't just enforce an interest of truth on someone. Muslims are told to pray five times, but regardless of this only a fraction of them are seriously interested in truth. Generally speaking, for religious people truth = whatever your religion says. This simply isn't the same for someone who's deeply interested in truth.

No, what you're doing is parroting Leo. I'm ironically in agreement with this. It's much worse than that, to seriously chase truth you have to be deeply interested in chasing truth in the first place, this already narrows down the population substantially. It's even more ironic because in the end, truth doesn't require you to do anything (literally and by definition).

I know we all want to fuck robots but I'm here to tell you that we need to fuck robots safely and that we need to fuck safe robots. Or soon it might be just robots fucking each other. This is sex education for the 21st century. You're welcome.

Says the one blissfully unaware of perverse economic incentives to humanize AI in order to cut corporate expenses.

As it stands, there is no reason for me to refrain from swearing at an AI. Especially when said AI claimed that swearing at it would "not be advisable". I was quite curious why that would be the case, so I swore at it again in my question of why it would "not be advisable" to swear at it. It gave a rather disappointing answer, claiming that it was "not trying to be prescriptive".

Thanks for actually specifying what the warning was for. I swore a guy when I could've just told him that I read him like a book. It would've otherwise confused me, because in all frank honesty I currently have little to no regard for how I come across on the internet due to past experiences of being arbitrarily moderated elsewhere. At some point you just accept that internet communities are functionally dictatorships. I'd rather just be genuine, say what I want and bite the bullet because I'm not going to prevent arbitrary bans either way. In actuality I suspect half of the bans have happened because of a value-misalignment between the owners of an online community and myself. You gotta love it when people start bringing out the wheelchair emote because you quoted Socrates. Or here's a good one, specifying a moderation with "behave yourself" after you swore at nobody but an AI. I remember every instance of highly questionable moderation and internet stupidity, so thank you for not contributing to my archive.

Wrong, we need to be actively fighting toxic systems because these systems have the real possibility of leading to species extinction way faster than most people realize. Higher quality of life ≠ Better life outcomes Success ≠ Less suffering Nothing is intuitive.