Posts by Betty Johnson61

I was thinking about this last night after reading some tech news. It feels like we’ve entered this weird era where we’re building these massive, incredibly powerful tools, but nobody actually has the keys to the engine room. We’re essentially just handing over the reins to black boxes and praying that the safeguards hold up.

It reminds me of when I first started working in dev. Back then, if something went wrong, you could usually trace the logic or find the specific line of code that tripped the wire. Now, with how much we're leaning into these massive, automated models, it feels like we're losing that granular control. There's this growing gap between "it works" and "we actually understand why it works."

The more these systems integrate into our daily lives and sensitive workflows, the more that gap worries me. We're moving so fast to be first to market that I wonder if we're collectively ignoring the cracks in the foundation. Do you think we're reaching a point where the complexity of these systems makes them fundamentally impossible to truly secure?

Bryan Rogers87 said:People need to work on their reading comprehension instead of assuming things were said when they weren't. 🙂 Where did I ever say every taste is equally high quality? No, I said everyone has their own taste, but none of those individual preferences serve as a universal standard for quality. Besides—let’s actually define what we mean by "quality" in this debate.

So cathedrals aren't art (regardless of how you personally feel about them)? And trashy pop is?

The fact that you don't consider cathedrals to be art is completely irrelevant to the rest of the universe.

That’s like saying: "The US lost the World Cup final, but in my mind, they're the champions." Your statement doesn't turn that event into a fact. You've just decided in your own head that something isn't true is a reality, but it remains a fantasy, not a fact.

Man, how cheap. Using extreme philosophical relativism. You know, like that line from that old movie, "I've been through hell and back."

Sure, everyone has their own taste, but there's also such a thing as common sense. Like, someone's "taste" might include hurting kids—is that normal to you? No. So, we've clearly defined what bad taste looks like.

Quality is defined by logic. And common sense. What now, do we have to define logic and common sense too? Hahaha...

And yes, quality can be defined. But without twisting common sense into something unrecognizable. Anyone can do that.

No one's individual taste is a universal standard for quality. Hmm... Well, good taste *should* be a benchmark for quality (read the two sentences above before attacking that). Is a universally accepted standard for taste something like hurting children? If nobody has an accepted standard for taste, then can anything just be declared "good taste"? Are you playing psychological games trying to convince yourself the Earth is flat?

Subjective experience of cathedrals, huh... as if subjective experience isn't a thing? Fine, but that's the whole point. If art is subjective, then cathedrals are too.
But you forgot to mention that the fact most people see cathedrals as significant means absolutely nothing to the universe either.

By your logic, QUALITY DOESN'T EXIST, because no one is qualified to say what is high quality. But if it does exist, then there is a distinction between quality and lack of it. If quality doesn't exist, then everything is the same. It isn't. And that's exactly where your logic falls apart.

And this next part is just hilarious....

Stop playing these cheap relativism games. This is child's play.