Quoted By:
im so tired
Threads by latest replies - Page 13
Quoted By:
ban cirnoposters from /bant/
Quoted By:
Quoted By:
Who was in the wrong here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gERrPTptYdA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gERrPTptYdA
Quoted By:
What's 9 + 10?
Quoted By:
INSTITUTIONAL BULLSHIT DETECTOR (MATH, SIMPLE)
Goal: detect when a system “responds” but won’t touch the mechanism.
1. The dodge (why replies go sideways)
Let your claim be x. It has features:
m = mechanism you’re pointing at (the hook)
i = identity salience (protected-category trigger)
c = civility score (forbidden words / tone)
e = effort to answer honestly
The system picks a reply y to maximize:
U(y|x) = Help − Risk − Effort
More explicitly:
U = δ·Help(m) − α·PolicyRisk(i,c) − β·ReputationRisk − γ·Effort(e)
with α,β,γ ≫ δ
Translation: it optimizes “don’t get blamed” more than “address m”.
So when PolicyRisk is high (i high or c low), it chooses cheap moves:
S: talk about PERSON/TONE instead of m
A: shift attention from mechanism to emotion (“u mad?”)
D: demand proof with no update (you pay the cost, they don’t move)
If you keep seeing S + A + D, that’s the pattern.
2. The bad-faith test (works for housing, crime, drugs, schools, etc.)
Define:
M = harm metric they claim to want DOWN (rent, overdoses, crime…)
A = direct fix that would reduce it (measurable): ∂M/∂A < 0
P = their preferred program that grows when harm grows: P = g(M), with g′(M) > 0
Test:
If they BLOCK A (the thing that makes M go down)
while pushing P (the thing that expands as M stays high),
then their revealed preference is not M. It’s P.
No mind-reading. No “conspiracy”. Just:
what lowers M?
what do they block?
what do they expand?
That’s the proof.
—
Goal: detect when a system “responds” but won’t touch the mechanism.
1. The dodge (why replies go sideways)
Let your claim be x. It has features:
m = mechanism you’re pointing at (the hook)
i = identity salience (protected-category trigger)
c = civility score (forbidden words / tone)
e = effort to answer honestly
The system picks a reply y to maximize:
U(y|x) = Help − Risk − Effort
More explicitly:
U = δ·Help(m) − α·PolicyRisk(i,c) − β·ReputationRisk − γ·Effort(e)
with α,β,γ ≫ δ
Translation: it optimizes “don’t get blamed” more than “address m”.
So when PolicyRisk is high (i high or c low), it chooses cheap moves:
S: talk about PERSON/TONE instead of m
A: shift attention from mechanism to emotion (“u mad?”)
D: demand proof with no update (you pay the cost, they don’t move)
If you keep seeing S + A + D, that’s the pattern.
2. The bad-faith test (works for housing, crime, drugs, schools, etc.)
Define:
M = harm metric they claim to want DOWN (rent, overdoses, crime…)
A = direct fix that would reduce it (measurable): ∂M/∂A < 0
P = their preferred program that grows when harm grows: P = g(M), with g′(M) > 0
Test:
If they BLOCK A (the thing that makes M go down)
while pushing P (the thing that expands as M stays high),
then their revealed preference is not M. It’s P.
No mind-reading. No “conspiracy”. Just:
what lowers M?
what do they block?
what do they expand?
That’s the proof.
—
Quoted By: >>23979711
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCsODJD0Ug0
kog is gone
kagari is gone
no more funny digits
4chan might be gone soon too with all the documents that came out
how do i react to all of this
kog is gone
kagari is gone
no more funny digits
4chan might be gone soon too with all the documents that came out
how do i react to all of this
Quoted By: >>23986949 >>23986958 >>23987005
What was your crush when you were younger?
Quoted By:
I'm back bitches.
Quoted By:
Crackoids
