True enough, he's definitely in group #2. No question about that. Though he and people like him are kind of a special (pathological) case, straddling the line between #2 and #3, in that they seem to believe their own current bullshit, even when it directly contradicts their previous bullshit. Not that they actually care about ethical behavior at all, but I think at least some of the time, they're deluding themselves into thinking that they're "doing the right thing" -- and they (sort of) are, but only for themselves and their cronies -- they can't see outside that mindset at all. When they're harming people they think of as "losers", that doesn't even count for them, since they consider them not worthy of being treated fairly, which is almost worse than people who know full well all the time that they're villains pulling the wool over everyone's eyes and glorying in it. It's the difference between psychopaths and sociopaths. The psychopath literally thinks that the harm they cause isn't wrong, whereas the sociopath knows that it's wrong, and does it anyway. This is necessarily an oversimplification, since humans are infinitely complex creatures, but I think it distills down to something like that.

Also if it wasn't for group #3 running amok for the last several decades (or centuries, depending on where one wants to draw the line) he'd most likely still be doing reality TV shows, at best.

Yeah, on reflection, that statement I made is not a maybe/sort of, it's a no/not at all, as you say. I guess I was lazy and didn't think that through: what "Ethics" "is" ultimately gets defined by the people already in power who benefit most by defining their unethical behavior as actually ethical, and their opponents behavior, whether ethical or not, as unethical. In other words: "My bad behavior isn't bad, it's good, because I support the system as-it-is, which is good by definition, and hey, you're just complaining about 'a few bad apples', but your bad (and good) behavior is very bad because you're a dangerous and subversive [insert pejorative] and (more to the point): Hey! You don't even have standing here, go away." That is, I guess, more or less, the established order. "History is written by the victors" may be an oversimplification, but is nonetheless part of a larger, very real phenomenon.

Wasn't familiar with Brickman, thanks for sharing him.

Yeah, that's a definitely a thing, though for the most part, that's willful ignorance, since the foundation of ethics (an innate sense of fairness) is rooted in biology [citations widely available]. And "do onto others" isn't quantum physics.

Though you're right there is a fourth group that legitimately "doesn't understand what ethics even is", though I think that group is vanishingly small, and most people with an IQ above 50 that couldn't tell you what "ethics" is know what the "golden rule" is.

"Fake Kevin Bacon" definitely knows what ethics is and understands it perfectly well, he just chooses to engage in the opposite. He's a perfect example of someone in group #2.

"I think that lawyers who understand how to effectively and ethically use generative AI replace lawyers who don't,"

There are three kinds of people in the world:

1. Those who strive to behave ethically.
2. Those who don't give a damn about ethics at all and make no bones about it.
3. Those who pretend to behave ethically.

People who want to "do the right thing" aren't a problem. They sometimes make mistakes, but try to correct them. I think this is most people, like more than 80%.

People who don't give a damn aren't really a problem either, since in a world populated by mostly good people, they'll ultimately be shamed and marginalized or end up in jail.

People who can successfully project the illusion of behaving ethically when they have no intention in doing so are a HUGE problem. While there aren't a lot of them, they're highly concentrated in positions of power and hold most of the world's wealth.

Maybe in the field of law, you can sort of cancel out the pretenders over time, since everything is (ostensibly) reviewed, so maybe "AI" will help the unabashedly unethical lawyers to self-destruct, but everywhere else, the problem remains, and "AI" is mostly going to make them worse.

And stop calling ii "Generative" -- it doesn't generate anything -- at best, it's "reflective" in that it reflects back whatever was put into it. It's still GIGO.

What?!?! Are you a password-generating LLM that is irritated by my comment?

I set all my passwords to CorrectHorseBatteryStapler you insensitive Claude!

Came here to say exactly this, but you beat me to it.

That's part of the problem, but not the whole problem. Even *with* a properly configured and tuned surround-sound system there are an infuriating number of movies and TV shows that sometimes present nearly inaudible dialog for various reasons: actors "whispering" and mumbling is one very real issue, though that *could* be at least mostly corrected by the sound engineer responsible for the final audio mix-down. I think there are directors that are literally doing this on purpose to "enhance realism" or some bullshit like that, and hey, I'm all for "Cinema verite" when done well, but if people with reasonably normal hearing need subtitles to HEAR THE DIALOG then the director and sound production crew have COMPLETELY FAILED! I also get that if I'm watching an action movie, I might need to turn the sound system up quite loud to hear all the dialog, and that's fine, but I've experienced many instances where a regular tv show or movie that is literally just people talking, with no explosions or any real background sound, needs to be turned up to an unreasonably loud level for the dialog to be audible, and at least a few cases where even maxing out the sound system's capabilities (stopping short of distortion) still results in barely-audible dialog.

As far as dumbing down movies for people who stare at their phone instead of actually watching the show: sure, go ahead. As someone who watches things because I WANT TO SEE THEM, I just won't watch those shows and movies designed for people who won't actually watch them; the same way I already don't watch TV shows and movies that I don't want to see, which is most of them. Don't get me wrong, that leaves a lot of things that I do want to watch, but it's probably something on the order of 5% or less of the available content. If this knocks it down to 1% of what's out there, so be it.

Blazing Saddles!

"What happens when they molt?!?"

Huh. I didn't know that was disputed, though it looks like the dispute is still unresolved, with at least one source saying that it should be more like the 2nd power of the axle weight for *some* kinds of road damage, though everything I'm reading would seem to indicate that the general principle still holds that heavily loaded trucks are causing more road damage than lighter vehicles, though I guess it is a complex problem with no easy way to characterize the exact ratio under varying real-world conditions, though it does look like "all of them far more relevant than axel weight" may not be exactly right either.

Almost all the damage is being done by tractor trailers

This! Road damage = 4th power of the axle weight. Heavy load operators should be paying the vast majority of the costs for roads. The way it is now is *gasp* socialism benefiting trucking companies.

Exactly! Who watches TV in a brightly-lit room? I watch TV in a dark or dimly lit room, 8 feet away from my 10+ year old 50" 1080p tv, with the brightness turned down to 50%. Even on my old, inexpensive LED backlit LCD panel TV, setting the brightness at 100% is way too bright in a dark room, and I doubt very much that that's anything near 2000 nits. Probably more like 200.

Totally this. I enjoy good, clean, very loud audio in a movie, but at most "regular" movie theaters, it's very loud, but not clean or good. Like WTF! Why!?!? I'd be a *much* better experience if they simply turned down the volume until the sound stops effing clipping!

The exception to this is iMAX theaters, which have enormous screens and crystal clear (and very loud) audio. I'll probably never go to a "regular" movie theater ever again, unless the trend changes, but iMAX is worth it for a special screening. For everything else there's my 50" tv and decent sound system on my couch.

I don't care about snacks at all though. I'll bring my own water bottle and go out to a nice restaurant afterward.