And while the format and content varies in many ways from other sites, one thing they all have in common is millions of humans who cannot distinguish facts from personal opinions. I do not know why but I am absolutely fascinated by the phenomenon, and on Twitter/X you can discuss such things fairly seriously, at least with some people.

These conversations are a train wreck, I don't understand how people expect to stop war if you can't be bothered to even try to speak truthfully.

I really wonder if this normative phenomenon will be able to survive in the age of AI.

I like this version for at least two reasons:

1. It is 100% compliant with large quantities of scientific findings (psychology and neuroscience), whreas I believe yours has a conservation of mass problem at least

2. Everyone dislikes it at least in certain scenarios (say, when reference is made to it during an object level disagreement)

I used a very unpopular meme though, so unpopular you may not be able to see it.

However, that one has the capability sometimes is no guarantee that they can do it at all times, or even on demand.

Consciousness is generally not considered to be a part of the stack, despite it being the majority of it.

Studying the literal fundamental nature of reality doesn't seem like a waste of time to me.

Now: in what way will you avoid addressing the point (if you do reply)....will it be in the heart of the distribution as usual, or can you generate an anomaly....

I think it is interesting what actions cannot be done by humans.

You are describing your experience, but stating it as if it is a universal fact.

A relevant post from this morning:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42946854

If not: what am I intended to take away from this? What is its relevance to my comment?

Now, can you transfer some of that impressive courage toward the task of answering the question I posed to you?