Political correctness is about cleanly dividing ideas into ones obviously meant to hurt and ones obviously meant to be harmless. It is impossible to even come close to succeeding at this, but it is still worth trying.

Things like function and variable names. Letting an LLM pick them would be perfectly fine, as long as you make sure the names are valid and not duplicates before outputting the final code.

Or if there are several ways to display some really weird control flow structures, letting an LLM pick which to do would be fine.

Same for deciding what code goes in which files and what the filenames should be.

Letting the LLM comment the code as it comes out would work too, as if the comments are misleading you can just ignore or remove them.

If you only make mistakes very rarely and in places that don't cause cascading analysis mistakes, you can recover. But if you keep making mistakes all over the place and vastly misjudge the structure of the program over and over, the entire output is garbage.

Doing physical violence does not make someone any more of a problem than they already were just by being alive. Is lying to get someone fired any better than beating them up and stealing their car? Of course not. Violence is substrate-independent. If something matters, humans will both use it to hurt others and hurt others to keep them from using it.

Yes, humans are collective. The tricky part is that they are only as collective as they need to be. Humans adaptively adjust how evil they are to take as much as they can without being retaliated against or burning everything down. Mostly. All the hardwired instincts are buggy and outdated, so they often vastly misjudge the situation.

People do in fact do good, mostly when their surroundings are too broken to survive being evil. But quite a lot of people mostly do good most of the time, because evil is so good at destruction that you need an awful lot of good to even come close to counteracting it.

I mostly think of myself as a good person, but I know that unless the local community is really good at keeping people from hurting others, doing good deeds mainly just supports other people doing bad stuff. It is theoretically possible to go an entire life without hurting others or having your works twisted to hurt others, but your descendents will have the same statistical chances of being evil as everyone elses'. (Plus, minds nudge people to cheat and do bad things whenever they can still think of themselves as good. I am not immune to that. I cannot rewrite my mind to remove the rootkits installed by evolution)

> ..."Sacrifice" them? They are already marked for demolition but the local powers work with the speed of a glacier. You are starting on the entirely wrong premise, I am not surprised that you drew very wrong conclusions.

If people have tents filled with whatever they can get their hands on to help them survive, having the police force everyone away so they can destroy everyone's stuff does in fact count as sacrificing their belongings. You are still only focusing on the ways homeless people slight you, and not on the way homeless people are hurt. "How dare they use buildings we aren't using and haven't cared enough to destroy! Something must be done immediately!". But you just ignore police destroying tents and sleeping bags right before winter, like that isn't going to be directly responsible for a lot of people's deaths.

I understand that in this terrible world everyone is drowning, but that isn't an excuse to pull down other people again and again.

Though the sacrifice part is more for things like civil asset forfeiture. If you let the police seize large amounts of cash from people, you shouldn't let the police keep it. In fact, seizing property should decrease the police budget by a small amount, so they only do it when they think it is actually important. If you claim that hurting another person is super important for society to do, you should willingly hurt yourself to show you are selfless in your intentions.

> I have sympathy for you until you draw a knife and command me to give you my wallet. There the sympathy stops. Unconditionally.

I have slightly more sympathy for people who use physical violence than people who hurt in other ways. Or at least I think people overreact to it because it's pretty much the easiest form of evil to detect. If a doctor systematically doesn't actually attempt to diagnose problems reported by women and just tells them to lose weight, they can easily do as much damage as a cannibal serial killer, and be as deserving of death, but it's way harder to tell they are doing it. (And if an organization were to be created to investigate doctors for this, it would either be irrelevant or twisted into a weapon at the expense of its purpose. Nothing that matters can be good)

So do I like everyone? Do I want everyone to die, including me? Am I an optimist? Am I a pessimist? It changes from moment to moment.

> Sounds nice and virtuous Yeah it is. I care about people about as much as it is possible to care about people, because I can't truly separate myself from anyone. If I know someone is happy, I feel like I am happy. If I am aware of someone on death row, I feel like I am on death row. My brain doesn't actually mix up real and imagined sensations, but I lack the ability to hear of something happening to someone and go "that can't happen to me". In some sense, I "am" humanity: I want everyone to be happy and get what they want. I empathize towards trans people and transphobes simultaneously (though ultimately side with trans people). I feel near-completely unable of actually making a difference with anything, but my mind does give me rather strong yanks to "make this war go away" all the time. Though the one exception to all this is people who hurt other people and call it good, especially if they call it "for their own good". I feel quite a lot of rage when I hear about incidents like that.

If you share goals and desires with someone, you are "the same person" as them. You are a "law-abiding citizen". Their successes are your successes, their failures are your failures. You are not the same person as "homeless people". Their successes mean nothing to you. Same with your failures. They are capable of causing problems to you (as all people do), but your desire to retaliate is not limited by the desire to not "cut off your nose to spite your face" that you would have if the cause of the problem was a "law-abiding citizen".

In my understanding of the world, it is not possible to convince you to care about homeless people. The desires of different people are fundamentally not comparable. My desire to stay alive does not outweigh your desire to not stub your toe, and if those desires come into conflict, it does not matter which one wins. (Though as I also consider myself to be you to some extent, I desire both to stay alive and for you to not stub your toe. And you too are probably also "humanity" to some extent, though probably not as strongly as I am. Not that it actually matters beyond simply describing what happens)

I see groups of parents looking out for their kids and feel good. I see groups of homeless people being hurt and feel bad. You go, "I'm defending the lives and non-drugginess of the kids of my community. That makes me a good person". Does it? You are making a decision to help the people you feel closest to at the expense of the people you feel further away from. On one hand, no such decision is better than any other decision. On the other hand, people are being hurt at all.

Bulldozing peoples' stuff is in fact pretty bad. Having laws against giving money to people is in fact pretty bad. Putting hostile architecture everywhere is in fact pretty bad. People make decisions, over and over again, to not just hurt homeless people, but also hurt the people trying to help homeless people.

Stopping people from doing that is called "empathy for the homeless". It's called that because saying and feeling bad things about people is part of the process of hurting them. It's how people agree who is and isn't okay to hurt. By stopping group efforts to make things worse, you only have to worry about random individuals trying to make things worse for other random individuals. Which is unstoppable but untargeted.

I'm pretty sure they are just asking for emailing. Just a short shift to getting changes in advance some of the time rather than none of the time. It didn't sound like they were asking to cross the divide from Partition Tolerance + Availability to Partition Tolerance + Consistency, merely shifting things a step in that direction (I think the CAP theorem applies everywhere).

It's more likely that developing brains have a huge number of potential tradeoffs to make for what tasks they are good at and how much energy they use. Genetics and epigenetics are merely one of the tools a brain uses to decide what shape it takes, and aren't even close to the whole picture.

https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20040115-00/?p=41...

This makes it really hard for them to write an article for non-technical people. To do so, they would have to connect the human side of things to the systems theory side of things. Which they can't do, because they don't understand the human side of things.

They aren't using bad-faith arguments to convince you that they are correct. They simply have no idea how to talk to you. They are in fact trying to be helpful, by presenting what they think is really useful information to understand and control the world with. Their help is useless to you, but they are trying.