“I should really do chores, I’ll just put on a YouTube to listen to in the background… hmm… the entire history of Mega Man, a game and IP I’ve never thought about, you say? Four hours you say?”
Yeah. I was not expecting it to involve that much conversation about eugenics and the nature of artificial intelligence and where we draw the line of consciousness and what qualifies as sentience and free will, but, damn, that Dr. Wily sure is a cunt. I still haven’t done the dishes…
You’re literally getting pissed off that people who disagree with you aren’t providing the leg work to prove the point you are attempting to make. What was the end goal here? What was the purpose of you interacting with this conversation if you didn’t want to interact with this conversation thread?
That’s not angry or autistic, that’s simply being a chud.
The article outlined reasons for that to be happening in Japan, and references India for similarity, it didn’t imply that that is a universal response to gender inequality, simply that the reason for that specific phenomenon in Japanese culture is likely because of gender inequality, which seems more than a reasonable conclusion to me, especially when you look at the 80’s business woman culture era and how there was a decline in that specific behavior.
Also, I’m very much not seeing what you’re saying about your interpretation of feminism being present in the article. Gender inequality is a thing, objectively, to address that as a part that plays relevance in any given context doesn’t require feminist values.
Meanwhile, the government: “That’s fucking stupid. We don’t poison you with the air, that would be inefficient. We have to breathe that, too. We just poison the water and the soil, and if you’re a target we will just pick you up off of the street like a stray cat, we’ve always been very up front about that.”
I was a bit out of date, but thanks for the article, it was helpful. It’s a journalism piece interpreting multiple scientific studies, though, not a study. If you check the sources on the multiple actual studies they are referencing in it you will notice many of those studies observed that development and “maturity”, whatever that qualifies as, continues into your 30’s on average, the age of 25 is a pretty ambiguous marker for anything in the information provided from studies and there is no evidence that there is any kind of universal rate for everyone as far as what age your grey matter starts to decline in development, but the curve is well over 25. I still stand on my opinion that autonomy should be respected well before you’re 25.
The research didn’t continue after the participants reached the age of 25, the study was ended. We only have data up to that point, there hasn’t been a similar study done that kept the research and observations conducted past the age of 25. We only have information from one study that brought the gathered information to that point, we don’t know how the brain continues to develop from beyond that point. To me, that doesn’t translate to brain development stops at 25, it just means we only have collected data from one study that documented the first 25 years of brain development and activity of its research participants, we can’t say we know what the path of brain development is after that because we simply don’t have the data.
Always keep in mind, if it’s free then you are the product!
That’s why my life, my love, and my lady is the sea.
This isn’t true. The study you are referring to was simply funded to that point in time and there has not been a repeat study or any sort of extended work on that front, that’s simply when the study stopped. The more likely explanation is that your brain never stops developing. Also, the concept of child and adult are constructs, at some point we are old enough to think and act on our own and there is no universal marker for that change in rationality and behavior or any bar for where that divide line is drawn. The idea that people shouldn’t be allowed to practice autonomy until 25 is just coddling and absurd.
Also friendship!
Yes. That is actually an ideal function of ethical AI. I’m not against AI in regards to things that is is actually beneficial towards and where it can be used as a tool for understanding, I just don’t like it being used as a thief’s tool pretending to be a paintbrush or a typewriter. There are good and ethical uses for AI, art is not one of them.