Microsoft has Copilot Plus PCs loaded with AI, and rumors are that Apple is all in on AI, too, but if you don't want AI in everything you do, there is another option: Linux.
But it’s also important not to fanboy over people too much or assume they’re right about literally everything. I doubt most people here would share Stallman’s views on paedophilia, for example.
Didn’t he kind of pull a 180 on those VERY questionable views? Not even trying to refute that he is not right about everything, as that’s just silly, but I’m pretty sure he pulled back on that particular extremely dumb opinion.
Many years ago I posted that I could not see anything wrong about sex between an adult and a child, if the child accepted it," Stallman wrote. "Through personal conversations in recent years, I’ve learned to understand how sex with a child can harm per [sic] psychologically. This changed my mind about the matter: I think adults should not do that. I am grateful for the conversations that enabled me to understand why.
Took me a bit to find, but also he talks about how the Minsky scandal was a-okay in that same article. So maybe I should say he mildly changed course instead of pulling a 180. Still a strange opinion to hold.
He’s held the view that there’s nothing wrong with adults having sex with children for decades (and even championed it using his workplace email address)
He then said he’s changed his mind… two days after people were calling for his resignation and his job was on the line.
Now, maybe I’m just a pessimist, but I personally think that was more of a last-ditch attempt at saving his job than a genuine sudden epiphany that maybe having sex with children is wrong that just happened to happen at the time that it did.
IDK, I agree with Stallman in a philosophical, pedantic sense on some of his gross views, but I reject it from a policy perspective.
On pedophilia, Stallman went on the assumption that a child can consent to an adult, and I agree with the conclusion that, if they consent, it’s totally okay, regardless of age. But he missed the most important bit: children can’t consent. So I agree with the conclusion philosophically, I just disagree with the assumed premise. He didn’t seem to understand the age of consent and why it exists. When he made that statement, I understood where he was coming from, and I also understood that it would be a bad look and that he shouldn’t have opened his mouth.
I disagree with him a lot too, especially politically. But I feel like I understand his reasoning, and in many cases we just disagree on some fundamental assumptions. I like that he’s a very logical person, but being highly logical can end very poorly when you’re dealing with shaky assumptions.
I just can’t even begin to reckon that view. I know he pulled back on it (see his quote I posted elsewhere), but aside from a child’s inability to consent, there’s a gigantic power disparity between an adult and a child. I just don’t get the logic on its very face. There’s no child out there that has the world experience to understand what is happening in that sort of situation.
If anything it’s just a gross oversimplification akin to a spherical cow in a vacuum (ie Assume a child with an adult brain, with world experience of an adult, and has the same relationship power as the adult. Also assume the adult that that is perfectly altruistic, has no alternative motives, and truly cares for the child on the same level as an adult relationship). It’s just so far beyond any real world scenario that I struggle to see how you could even logically come to the conclusion that it’s okay.
The hypothetical here is that the child sought out the adult, not the other way around, and the child is near legal age and presents as if legal age. Given that set of assumptions, how much liability does the adult have?
That is the philosophical part of it. But reality isn’t that neat. Here are some questions that need to be asked:
how did the child get there?
how much did the adults know? How much should they have assumed?
what kind of pressure, implied or otherwise, was the child under?
I don’t think Stallman considered that, I think he only considered the hypothetical.
When it comes to software, certainly.
But it’s also important not to fanboy over people too much or assume they’re right about literally everything. I doubt most people here would share Stallman’s views on paedophilia, for example.
Didn’t he kind of pull a 180 on those VERY questionable views? Not even trying to refute that he is not right about everything, as that’s just silly, but I’m pretty sure he pulled back on that particular extremely dumb opinion.
As always a source of some kind is appreciated.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/03/richard-stallman-returns-to-fsf-18-months-after-controversial-rape-comments/
Took me a bit to find, but also he talks about how the Minsky scandal was a-okay in that same article. So maybe I should say he mildly changed course instead of pulling a 180. Still a strange opinion to hold.
Thank you for finding the source. Well, at least he backed down on the pedophilia thing.
Only two days after his job became on the line.
Call me a pessimist, but that timing seems suspect to me.
He did. But also not really.
He’s held the view that there’s nothing wrong with adults having sex with children for decades (and even championed it using his workplace email address)
He then said he’s changed his mind… two days after people were calling for his resignation and his job was on the line.
Now, maybe I’m just a pessimist, but I personally think that was more of a last-ditch attempt at saving his job than a genuine sudden epiphany that maybe having sex with children is wrong that just happened to happen at the time that it did.
IDK, I agree with Stallman in a philosophical, pedantic sense on some of his gross views, but I reject it from a policy perspective.
On pedophilia, Stallman went on the assumption that a child can consent to an adult, and I agree with the conclusion that, if they consent, it’s totally okay, regardless of age. But he missed the most important bit: children can’t consent. So I agree with the conclusion philosophically, I just disagree with the assumed premise. He didn’t seem to understand the age of consent and why it exists. When he made that statement, I understood where he was coming from, and I also understood that it would be a bad look and that he shouldn’t have opened his mouth.
I disagree with him a lot too, especially politically. But I feel like I understand his reasoning, and in many cases we just disagree on some fundamental assumptions. I like that he’s a very logical person, but being highly logical can end very poorly when you’re dealing with shaky assumptions.
I just can’t even begin to reckon that view. I know he pulled back on it (see his quote I posted elsewhere), but aside from a child’s inability to consent, there’s a gigantic power disparity between an adult and a child. I just don’t get the logic on its very face. There’s no child out there that has the world experience to understand what is happening in that sort of situation.
If anything it’s just a gross oversimplification akin to a spherical cow in a vacuum (ie Assume a child with an adult brain, with world experience of an adult, and has the same relationship power as the adult. Also assume the adult that that is perfectly altruistic, has no alternative motives, and truly cares for the child on the same level as an adult relationship). It’s just so far beyond any real world scenario that I struggle to see how you could even logically come to the conclusion that it’s okay.
The hypothetical here is that the child sought out the adult, not the other way around, and the child is near legal age and presents as if legal age. Given that set of assumptions, how much liability does the adult have?
That is the philosophical part of it. But reality isn’t that neat. Here are some questions that need to be asked:
I don’t think Stallman considered that, I think he only considered the hypothetical.