When I was in my early 20s, I used to instinctively pressure non-drinkers into drinking as well. I did it because the non-drinkers ruin the fun for me. They don't laugh as much or engage in banter. They're timid and lack the drinker's adventurous spirit.
The pressuring usually worked though.
When I realized that I was hurting those people by pressuring them into drinking, rather than stop pressuring them, I stopped inviting them to social gatherings that involve drinking altogether.
> “I know you really want to like these jeans, but I think they fit such and so.”
This statement is empathetic only if we assume a literal interpretation of the "do those jeans fit me?" question. In many cases, that question means something closer to:
"I feel fat. Could you say something nice to help me feel better about myself right away?"
> There is no need empathy to require lying.
Empathizing doesn't require lying. However, successful empathizing often does.
> Most communicative problems I have ever seen (aside from language barriers) could have been resolved by a little bit of empathy.
Empathy is usually an internal process. On it's own, it wont't resolve a communication problem.
What ends up affecting a communication problem are the external actions that we take based on our internal empathy calculus (assuming we haven't totally miscalculated). Those actions will vary significantly by person and context, assuming any action follows at all.
Empathy is the relatively easy part. Acting on that empathy in a way that doesn't come across as condescending, disengaged, presumptious, judgemental, awkward, or scripted, while also remaining true to yourself and upholding your personal values are the hard parts.
I think the original commenter meant that the LLM can't be called wrong because the concept requires understanding. However, I think it would be fine to call the LLM's response incorrect.
Perhaps you're overthinking it, or perhaps you're onto something, and the author invented at least one of the friends for the benefit of the story and wrote the "response" herself.
"Thus, the relevant analogy is buying one lottery ticket in a huge lottery such as the Powerball or Mega Millions and matching every number to win the jackpot."
I like your analogy, but I think it needs to account for the fact that there are two scenarios in which a single vote can influence an election:
1. If it would have been a tie without that single vote. In this scenario, the single vote breaks the tie.
2. If the candidate that the single vote is to be cast on would have lost by one vote withtout that single vote. In this case, the single vote creates a tie.
The odds of either happening are astronomically long, of course.
The purpose of propaganda, in its broadest definition, isn't to change minds. It is to leverage the existing contents of a mind in a way that makes you perform a certain action that is desired by the propagandist.
The belief that holding strong opinions protects against propaganda is dangerous. Strong opinions is where propaganda inserts its levers.
> but this "we interrupt your tweet thread for sponsored content" style tangent is a bit annoying
I found this hilarious. I don't use Twitter and so was unaware that these annoying tangents are common on the platform. As a result, I thought Yishan was using them to illustrate how it's not necessarily the content (his climate initiative) but a specific pattern of behavior (saying the 'right' thing at the wrong time, in this case) that should be the target of moderation.
In real life we say: "it's not what you said, it's just the way you said it!" Perhaps the digital equivalent of that could be: "it's not what you said, it's just when you said it."
Not up to date on the gun control issues in the U.S., but just wanted to comment on this:
> Why bother making murder illegal?
I think having consequences for murder is very different from restricting someone's freedom.
My freedom is not infringed on by the fact that murder is illegal. Why? Because I can still go out and murder someone (not that I would, lol - just making a point). Totally up to me. Feel like murdering someone today? I just go out and do it.
The "restricted freedom" version of outlawing murder would be if my hands were cuffed behind my back every time I left my house, just so I wouldn't be able to murder someone if I felt like it.
I hope I'm getting my message across (not a native speaker). My point is that, to me, there's an ocean of difference between forcing me to do something in order to prevent me from possibly doing X (no matter how likely / unlikely it is that I would do it), and having consequences in place for actually doing X. The former is a violation of my freedom; the latter is justice.