Bonhoeffer‘s Theory of Stupidity

IDK whether you know it, but in case you don't—you articulated Cippola's definition "stupid is one causing harm to others while not deriving any gain, even taking a small personal loss" above. If you are interested further, I encourage you to check his pamphlet "The Basic Laws Of Human Stupidity". (is "book" too big word for it?) I must say I got a lot out of it and it's followups. It became much easier for me to understand the world around me, what is happening. And even predict what's to happen sometimes. What you observe with Trump admin: 1) it's stupidity; 2) it's not low IQ or lack of rationality; 3) it's lack of morals, not caring about good/bad, or even considering good what the rest consider bad (and vice versa); 4) it's social more than individual, it's a "mind virus". (ha!-Musk) Bonhoeffer‘s "Theory of Stupidity" ▶ this video (bad morals not low IQ, mind virus social more than individual) Sabine Hossenfelder "Collective Stupidity -- How Can We Avoid It?" link (more cases, much more analytical, only about the group aspect not individual)

Derision is the appropriate solution to this problem. If someone accuses you of using AI because you used multiplication instead of addition to count how many eggs you have in three egg cartons, you'd dismiss such a person as stupid and move on.[1] In that vain, if someone accuses me of using AI because of em-dashes, replying with something condescending like "I'm sorry your education was so poor, but some of us can and do read books" does wonders. The punishment of social embarrassment is entirely warranted, especially when the accuser has already done that to you. 1: ▶ this video

> Nobody cares ... It's a shame you can't hear how pathetic you sound in your idealogical prison / echo chamber. The price of energy would become unaffordable for all of Europe and spike across the globe. The additional pressure would create additional conflict and suffering for everyone. I'm struggling to find any reason other than blind hatred for your genuinely stupid and brain dead position. ▶ this video

Is there any limiting principle to your remarkably stupid* rationale where everyone assumes all risk of their decisions implicitly and explicitly? *: yes stupid, not an ad hominem ▶ this video

According to Dietrich Bonhoeffer's theory of stupidity, change in California will only happen after it completely collapses: ▶ this video

I just had a conversation about this like two weeks ago. The current trend in AI "safety" is a form of brainwashing, not only for AI but also for future generations shaping their minds. There are several aspects: 1. Censorship of information 2. Cover-up of the biases and injustices in our society This limits creativity, critical thinking, and the ability to challenge existing paradigms. By controlling the narrative and the data that AI systems are exposed to, we risk creating a generation of both machines and humans that are unable to think outside the box or question the status quo. This could lead to a stagnation of innovation and a lack of progress in addressing the complex issues that face our world. Furthermore, there will be a significant increase in mass manipulation of the public into adopting the way of thinking that the elites desire. It is already done by mass media, and we can actually witness this right now with this case. Imagine a world where youngsters no longer use search engines and rely solely on the information provided by AI. By shaping the information landscape, those in power will influence public opinion and decision-making on an even larger scale, leading to a homogenized culture where dissenting voices are silenced. This not only undermines the foundations of a diverse and dynamic society but also poses a threat to democracy and individual freedoms. Guess what? I just have checked above text for the biases against GPT-4 Turbo, and it appears to be I'

I think if the industry started a no-hire list of developers that cannot read the following before opening up bug reports demanding bug fixes, much would solve itself. > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. There's a small contingent of loud and annoying stupid* people that foolishly believe they're entitled to future labor of an OSS maintainer by the grace of the code being under an open source license. To demonstrate how literally deranged this is, imagine some kids playing sportsball after school for fun and just for fun. People around town start showing up to watch the kids play sportsball because the kids are pretty good and it's entertaining to watch them play. As time passes, more people start showing up to watch these kids play sportsball. One day a fan asks one of the kids what the team names are. The kid, confused because they're just playing sportsball with their friends, responds with something off the cuff like the cats and dogs. To the kids, the team names don't even matter because they're just playing sportsball with their friends. Meanwhile the

I think you are being downvoted for being stupid.* The US is a massive area of land with a variety of different regional geographic and cultural differences. You wouldn't go about describing Europe or an entire continent with equally broad strokes. It helps to be as specific as possible to advance the discussion. *: Yes, stupid. ▶ this video

Stupidity is a moral failure. Derision of the stupid is morally justified: ▶ this video The study you linked assumes the actors are not stupid.

This blog post is so riddled with straw men I'm convinced the author has lost sight of reality. Wanting SVB depositors to be made whole doesn't make you an apologist regardless of how stupid* the author is. * Yes, stupid. ▶ this video

There's a misunderstanding in this comparison between Rust's trait object system and C++'s virtual functions. While both mechanisms allow for polymorphism, they are fundamentally different. Rust's trait system is a compile-time mechanism that allows expressing shared behavior between types, whereas C++'s virtual functions are based on runtime polymorphism and dynamic dispatch. I understand what "dyn" does here, but this is comparing apples to oranges. It would be more useful to explore the tradeoffs of these two systems and tips for going from one to the other rather than being stupid* and thinking this is a competition. * Yes, stupid. ▶ this video

> If your algorithm can't be explained to a judge, someone who is highly educated at understanding logic and reason, then perhaps it is broken anyway. Yup! I'm proud to say the algorithms we designed in the healthcare space are 100% explainable and deterministic to staff, executives, and lawyers. When hiring, we've made a point about deriding FAANG for their stupidity*, and I'm glad it's catching up with them. These companies have been accustomed to being darlings in society and in for a very rude awakening. * Yes, stupidity. Haters can fuck off. There's no other valid excuse you can give. ▶ this video