just me

  • 0 Posts
  • 84 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: October 3rd, 2023

help-circle
  • shneancy@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    this is not about wanting this is about companies taking advantage of vulnerable people who should be grieving. This can cause lasting psychological harm

    you might as well be saying, if someone came to a drug maker, and wanted some heroine, and provided ingredients for heroine, and agreed to whatever costs were involved, isn’t that entirely their business?



  • shneancy@lemmy.worldtoTechnology@lemmy.world*Permanently Deleted*
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    wow, so many reasons

    • to create a mimic of a person you must first destroy their privacy
    • after an AI has devoured all they’ve ever written or spoken on video it will then mimic such person very well, but most likely still be a legal property of a company that made it
    • in a situation like that you’d then have to pay a subscription to interact with the mimic (because god forbid you ever get actually sold something nowadays)

    now imagine having to pay to talk with a ghost of your loved one, a chatbot that sometimes allows you to forget that the actual person is gone, and makes all the moments where that illusion is broken all the more painful. A chatbot that denies you grief, and traps you in hell where you can talk with the person you lost, but never touch them, never feel them, never see them grow (or you could pay extra for the chatbot to attend new skill classes you could talk about :)).

    It would make grieving impossible and take constant advantage of those who “just want to say goodbye”. Grief is already hard as is, a wide spread mimicry of our dead ones would make it a psychological torture

    for more information watch a prediction of our future a fun sci-fi show called Black Mirror, specifically the episode titled Be Right Back (entire series is fully episodic you don’t need to watch from the start)


















  • as someone who knows a lot about TERF discourse second hand (not a fan of personally engaging with them) - TERFs are more likely to say “transwoman” than “trans woman”. I don’t have a proper citation but I’ll try to walk you through the logic of it

    what “transwoman” implies is that it’s not a “real woman” (never realwoman, of course). It subtly excludes trans women from the title of “women” by making the word itself seem like it’s some sort of third option, not a real woman, not a man, a “transwoman”.

    trans inclusive communities nearly always have the space, that’s because trans women are simply a sub-category of women, and not something different altogether.

    though nowadays you’re also likely to see more outspoken TERFs say “TIM” which stands for “trans identified male” (they mean trans women)

    bottom line is, in online spheres trans friendly people and sources will almost always have the space, and trans exclusive people and sources tend to write that as one word

    it’s the same sort of linguistic shift that prompted the trans community to stop using “transsexual” move to “trans[gender]” and now “trans [gender]”. Even though in essence they all mean the same, some of them have been used by groups that hate us much more than others. (For a similar example see “stupid” > “retarded” > “special needs” > “special” > “intellectually disabled”. All the words before “intellectually disabled” are medical terms turned insults, and honestly i’m not even sure if “intellectually disabled” isn’t halfway there already)