Does "AI slop" actually mean something, other than "something I don't like"?

I can't see any point to this other than providing LinkedIn ai training data.

  I *want* ai to keep clearly sounding like fucking ai (although, being honest, I can't think of a single post on LinkedIn that didn't sound like it was written by a robot, ever).

.... to load a /. story and see in the top rated comments 3 anti-Israel, pro-Iran comments.

Just weird to see what has happened to people's brains over the years.

If "something" means getting back to going nuclear, and also figuring out carbon scrubbing solutions, then sign me up.

But if "something" just means "random emoting and demonizing", then no thanks.

I'm wondering why they don't just continue the Vision Pro team and see where it leads them.

Or maybe they are continuing the team, just getting rid of one skill set?

I don't have any VR system, but even I can see it's not ready for Prime Time yet. But that doesn't mean it won't be in the future.

As for marketing of it, it really should be marketed as a desktop/laptop computer replacement.

Oh, so you don't have kids.
Parents don't get the luxury of "giving up" because it's too much work that might be wasted anyway.

I don't disagree with you that they probably WILL see stuff on the internet but... the reality is that most kids are what ~8bn people would call normal and aside from "your team" pushing trans propaganda like this, will NEVER SEEK IT OUT because most people find it gross. So while they absolutely will see sexual subjects on the web, likely it's normalizing, not degenerate. Which is why the trans-propaganda campaign is working so hard, it's an uphill fight against young people's normal inclinations, you need to 'get them while they're young' to try to move the frame of acceptability. We see it, we understand it, and we (& they) reject it.

Sorry for your loss. Hey, at least you have apparently legions of political sheep willing to sacrifice their children for your ideology.

Your opinion has been filed appropriately.

Proof that "TV rots the brain", lol!

Now excuse me, while I go watch another Gilligan's Island.

Insofar as you're being honest about being a libertarian, I genuinely apologize.

Hairsplitting semantics and pretending not to understand idiom are such standard leftist tactics, I admit, I presumed.

To your point, then: Auschwitz was legal, according to German Criminal Codes in 1942. So... to you, not "murder"? Yes, I think this is a stupid point to make and a stupid argument, but you seemed to assert a narrowly-defined concept of murder, just seeing how far you're willing to go? If you are consistent, and affirm that being legal, the Holocaust wasn't murder, I guess you ... win? I would absolutely concede the point.

Do you believe children should be exposed in any way to adult sexuality?
Particularly hypersexualized dancers with sexually suggestive names, acts, gestures, themes?

The fact that you're even asking suggests you're either
- deeply disingenuous or
- a pedo yourself

The answer, in case you're searching for it? It's NO. Just LEAVE THE KIDS ALONE. They don't need to be groomed, thanks.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/new...

"....The performer in drag was none other than the president of the PTA at P.S. 96., Frankie Quinones. Video shot by Morales shows him twirling and gyrating to a song by '80s Puerto Rican performer Iris Chacon.

On an event flyer, the drag show was only billed as a âoeSpecial Surprise Performance!â

Morales questioned what organizers were thinking.

âoeHe got on all fours on the choir stand, he laid on his back, raised his legs, opened his legs wide open. What made you in your head think that was appropriate for elementary school students?â Morales said."

I didn't care what adults do to/with each other, not even faintly but I draw the line at degeneracy with children and kinks that involve them. Even (shudder) with their parents enthusiastic consent.

If it's just about representation and being seen, why aren't they lobbying to dance in front of the elderly?

Thank you, I appreciate your post.
Next time I need to demonstrate to someone
- how the Left seems to treat words like magical spells
- how they like to pretend they don't understand something
- how slashdot has been ideologically captured .... Now I have a single, succinct post to show them. Very neat.

Ok, I'll bite that you're arguing in good faith.

Do I need to quote all the times Democrats - and in particular their leadership - have called conservatives or gop politicians literal Nazis? Racists? Pedophiles (although that seems to be less common, as it starts to become a lifestyle choice for redditors)?

You've used them so repeatedly they've become meaningless even to you.
This is the irony & the hypocrisy of the left in active play: it's fine to insult the right because you agree with it, but a little mud flying back your way has you wetting your panties.

A video on their website. Looked like even with the battery cover off, there was a thingie you had to screw to fasten the battery in. Again, not a bit deal at all. Didn't look any more (and probably a lot less) onerous than the screw for a battery cover on a children's toy. Hm, maybe I just answered my own question ...

"I'm totally fine with seeing political positions that I disagree with."

Bullshit.

"That's how political discourse in a democracy is supposed to work."
Yes, and your opinion isn't sacred. For every right wing post that hurt your precious feelings, I can show you ten insisting trannies have the right to do burlesque in front of little kids, women insisting on the right to murder their womb fruit, or gleeful at the murder of Charlie Kirk.*

*hint: yes, that was deliberately inflammatory choice of words because leftists are so amusingly emotional. Your TWO posts saying basically the same thing in this thread alone proves that, cupcake*.

As Justice Douglas wrote in 1949: "...[A] function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects as it presses for acceptance of an idea."

Doesn't sound like you actually want to hear anyone that disagrees with you. You make that abundantly clear.

Insisting against all obvious signals that "but I want to hear people from the other side" is simply an outright lie.

How do you believe people are so stupid that you believe they'll believe you? Are you that used to just talking to your reddit friends?