Amazing, you came up with something worthwhile, though not before you were a snippy little bellend. I’ll still read it though.
Here’s why I read your “ordering” in your original comment (I didn’t see your mention of ordering in your second comment, as that was an edit) as ascribing the majority of the effect to sentiment about life: because you (still) didn’t provide any evidence for that claim, the only way it made sense to me was if what you were actually saying was that sentiment about life was such a major and significant contributor to falling birth rates that we could simply assume it was more important than AI chatbots.
By the way, I find it very interesting that the two studies you were both largely about economic circumstances (4/6 axes in the first study, the entire premise in the second).
Yea yea we get it you are so great at thinking outside the box and every other comment made is just ideological populist shit. Grow up and learn to discuss stuff with people.
You’re just going to lob useless comments like “Interesting perspective”? OK.
Amazing, you came up with something worthwhile
Are you practicing accusations in the mirror technique, I don’t understand. Do you really not realize how aggravating your discussion approach is? Do you really expect someone to see your first comment and go “oh what a lovely reply, let me get into a very interesting discussion with this person”? Are you really that not self-aware?
Your prior entry point to the discussion was claiming that I was somehow trying to prove that sentiment about life is the one and only explanation of declining birthrates. Now that you have admitted that you were wrong in assuming that (I assume you did otherwise there is no point in discussing further because we are discussing something fictitious), lets go back to the crux of the discussion:
I am claiming sentiment about life is a more major contributer to declining birth rates than AI chat bots. And you are asking for proof or evidence of this? If you only accept as valid proof a carefully designed study that compares AI chat bots and sentiment about life for this particular question, I would only laugh at this expectation (mostly because AI chatbot romantic relations are relatively new and this is an original claim about them effecting birth rates so very unlikely for some researcher to have taken up on it yet).
Currently, the only reasonable way one can compare the two is to see if there are any sources that independently claim they are contributers to declining birth rates (or not). I have presented multiple source for the first one (and have read more in the past). For the latter I don’t think we will find any sources, but it is biased by the fact that it is a relatively new concept and people may not have studied it. In such a scenario the only reasonable action then is to default to logic and that is what I did. From my previous readings and my own perspective I think sentiment about life affects birth rates. From reasoning I imagine people get into serious relations with AI chatbots because they want to lead a life in isolation from Earth, they have stuff they feel like are missing from their life (hope for future etc) and they look for comfort in a chatbot that always confirms what you say, bigs you up no matter and presents minimal friction. So for me it makes more sense to view it a side-effect of again sentiment of life rather than an individual causative effect on declining birth rates. If true, this would mean because both declining birth rates and increase in chatbot romantic relations are caused by decreasing sentiment in life they may indeed be correlated but do not cause each other. And hence makes sense why someone who hasn’t thought about it deeply may think it is causative.
You have not contributed one bit to this discussion apart from aggravating the OP (me) and pulling the discussion in completely the wrong direction while trying to present an aura of the superior unbiased debater. lol.
Do you really not realize how aggravating your discussion approach is?
When people respond with that kind of passive-aggressive sniping, I don’t see any reason to have any other kind of approach.
[It’s too early for there to be evidence about AI chatbots’ effects on birth rates]
Yeah, I agree.
I think I’ve said all I wanted to say, don’t have anything to say regarding your speculation on the other factors and, since your reply was sensible (and not snippy) don’t have any motivation to be annoying either.
When people respond with that kind of passive-aggressive sniping
Your very first reply was
so your explanation is very clearly incomplete.
without really trying to make an attempt at a good discussion or trying to really understand what I said. If you tell me that this first reply of your was written in a completely neutral tone with no intent of condescension then we are probably living in alternate realities.
PieFed
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
Amazing, you came up with something worthwhile, though not before you were a snippy little bellend. I’ll still read it though.
Here’s why I read your “ordering” in your original comment (I didn’t see your mention of ordering in your second comment, as that was an edit) as ascribing the majority of the effect to sentiment about life: because you (still) didn’t provide any evidence for that claim, the only way it made sense to me was if what you were actually saying was that sentiment about life was such a major and significant contributor to falling birth rates that we could simply assume it was more important than AI chatbots.
By the way, I find it very interesting that the two studies you were both largely about economic circumstances (4/6 axes in the first study, the entire premise in the second).
Interesting perspective you have there.
Are you practicing accusations in the mirror technique, I don’t understand. Do you really not realize how aggravating your discussion approach is? Do you really expect someone to see your first comment and go “oh what a lovely reply, let me get into a very interesting discussion with this person”? Are you really that not self-aware?
Your prior entry point to the discussion was claiming that I was somehow trying to prove that sentiment about life is the one and only explanation of declining birthrates. Now that you have admitted that you were wrong in assuming that (I assume you did otherwise there is no point in discussing further because we are discussing something fictitious), lets go back to the crux of the discussion:
I am claiming sentiment about life is a more major contributer to declining birth rates than AI chat bots. And you are asking for proof or evidence of this? If you only accept as valid proof a carefully designed study that compares AI chat bots and sentiment about life for this particular question, I would only laugh at this expectation (mostly because AI chatbot romantic relations are relatively new and this is an original claim about them effecting birth rates so very unlikely for some researcher to have taken up on it yet).
Currently, the only reasonable way one can compare the two is to see if there are any sources that independently claim they are contributers to declining birth rates (or not). I have presented multiple source for the first one (and have read more in the past). For the latter I don’t think we will find any sources, but it is biased by the fact that it is a relatively new concept and people may not have studied it. In such a scenario the only reasonable action then is to default to logic and that is what I did. From my previous readings and my own perspective I think sentiment about life affects birth rates. From reasoning I imagine people get into serious relations with AI chatbots because they want to lead a life in isolation from Earth, they have stuff they feel like are missing from their life (hope for future etc) and they look for comfort in a chatbot that always confirms what you say, bigs you up no matter and presents minimal friction. So for me it makes more sense to view it a side-effect of again sentiment of life rather than an individual causative effect on declining birth rates. If true, this would mean because both declining birth rates and increase in chatbot romantic relations are caused by decreasing sentiment in life they may indeed be correlated but do not cause each other. And hence makes sense why someone who hasn’t thought about it deeply may think it is causative.
You have not contributed one bit to this discussion apart from aggravating the OP (me) and pulling the discussion in completely the wrong direction while trying to present an aura of the superior unbiased debater. lol.
When people respond with that kind of passive-aggressive sniping, I don’t see any reason to have any other kind of approach.
Yeah, I agree.
I think I’ve said all I wanted to say, don’t have anything to say regarding your speculation on the other factors and, since your reply was sensible (and not snippy) don’t have any motivation to be annoying either.
Your very first reply was
without really trying to make an attempt at a good discussion or trying to really understand what I said. If you tell me that this first reply of your was written in a completely neutral tone with no intent of condescension then we are probably living in alternate realities.
It’s was supposed to be direct but not condescending, and I apologise if you felt condescended to by that message.