A reminder that running the casualty count in the headlines inspires further mass shootings, like a high score:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4

This wouldn’t be nearly as big of a problem if mental healthcare was more accessible.

How many of these kids know their family or school can’t afford a therapist, so they go to free LLMs?

Fair enough; at least we’re on the same page as far as what we disagree about.

Your metaphor strays too far from the topic to be relevant. Here’s one that I believe is closer and makes your position look as silly as you made mine look:

“AI makes hacking easy” is like saying “ovens make cooking easy” when fires exist.

Many more people who couldn’t or wouldn’t cook before don’t have to worry about measuring or guessing temperature, manual cook times, setting up a cooking surface, etc. Does the meal cook itself? Obviously not - you still need a recipe and plenty of manual effort.

anyone who formerly had no chance due to being a “script kiddie” can now just prompt an AI* to eventually find a vulnerability

- me, in a comment you already replied to

I’m more or less the same; “prepare for the worst but hope for the best.”

I misread this as someone wrote a piece of legislation that was so good, the voting public paid him $4.2 billion as an outsourced legislator.

I must be naive.

Nope.

You’re doing mental gymnastics to argue with me. Let’s try what I said worded differently in a way that hopefully helps you realize we agree:

It is now easier to hack.

Not my fault the block feature is broken.

Sorry you got called out for your lie when you thought I couldn’t read what you said, I guess.

Nope.

Fair enough, but the overall idea stands:

The bar has been significantly lowered for what it takes to hack.

The irony - of course - is that their 401k money goes right into hacking those same people’s 401ks.

… but at least we can brainrot an entire generation with glass fruit slices and put artists out of work?

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to go convince someone that the TikTok deepfakes they’re watching aren’t real and that cops don’t really employ nanny-boo-boos to unsettle criminals during interrogations. No, I’m not joking.

While I admit it’s possible some people’s eyes gloss over when they see “tankie” and conflate the term with “leftist” and/or “socialist,” I personally do not - as I’ve descried in this very thread. I also don’t think that attitude is very common on Lemmy, either.

Seems like you’re barking up the wrong tree.

I’m no cybersecurity expert, but from what I’ve heard from those who are, this is the new normal as anyone who formerly had no chance due to being a “script kiddie” can now just prompt an AI* to eventually find a vulnerability.

* oversimplification redacted

I don’t see how disliking tankies is psychotic, but you’re more than welcome to explain if you feel like it.

How trite; enjoy the block.

He would, too.

You understand comments are public, so it makes no sense to lie about previous interactions, right?

Right, so I didn’t, which is why I linked it.

In any case, yes, this explicitly is propaganda, specifically nazi propaganda. Circa 1930s, repackaged in the 1960s.

“This” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, considering you haven’t specified what you’re talking about unless you mean anti-Stalinist/communist sentiment. Technically true, but in the most ridiculous way possible. Observe:

It was also nazi propaganda that Stalin (and communism) were allies of the nazis, therefore are you an ally of nazis?

Tankies are the violent authoritarian

Define either of these words in a way that excludes any state that has ever or could ever exist. You can’t.

Tankie: Violent authoritarian socialists

violent: Causing or intending to cause damage, injury, or death, often when involving great force.

authoritarian: Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.

Every single state is violent

I can’t tell if you’re being pedantic or you’re just confused, but I’ll help regardless:

I meant relatively violent when compared to others.

All socialists are violent

Absolutely not.

Besides liberals and intellectuals, both of which are not including in the list of ‘victims’ of ‘violent’ socialists, all socialists should want the deaths of landlords and bankers.

In your opinion.

The only possible way you could believe this is if you think all violence is bad

I don’t.

What is your solution to people with unlimited wealth

Not possible, so next:

no morality

Also not possible, next:

and a psychotic devotion to harming society?

Prosecution based on their actions.

You can’t imprison them forever if you’re a poor country. You can’t send them to the fields to try to reform them, they are physically incapable of it at that point. You can’t let them live free, otherwise you will spend half your hard earned resources on defending against them from within and without.

In other words “it is cheaper to kill those who break the law (as written by us?) than to imprison and/or reform them.” While true, that’s the exact thought process behind nazi atrocities, and I reject it as the exact psychotic harm to society you pretend to be against.

No it isn’t. Facts that you don’t like aren’t automatically propaganda.

Yesterday when we talked about what exactly you believe as far as Stalin, Mao, et al., you just diverted into ad hominem rather than answer the question.

Want to try again?

That’s tankie propaganda, which seems to be the whole reason for you creating your account.

Tankies are the violent authoritarian wing of socialists, who believe liberals, landlords, bankers, intellectuals, etc. should be put to death. Stalin, Mao, etc.

They’re kinda like fascists as far as loving violence and purging their undesirables except the boot is a different flavor:

“We will live in a utopia if you merely give us the power to kill everyone we dislike!”