Maybe you’re using some formal or narrow definition of “structure” but in my experience there are lots of things I would call structures in anarchist theory and practice, from meeting templates to the mental flowcharts of emergency medicine.

Removed by mod

An LLM contains multitudes. It’s nice you can get it to a space where you benefit from it for now - its inevitable enshittification is still in the “attract users by being useful and cheap” phase - but that doesn’t contradict it being dangerous for those who don’t know how to handle it whose input activates the section of its weights that imitates cults, catfishers, scammers.

I don’t think those places are an antidote for extremism, they just help people find their allies.

Uncensor it you coward.

I mean, they’ve been having to do that since the chalcolithic.

Or, expose people to the challenges and teach (their immune systems, their frontal cortex, whatever) to recognize the bad actors and prevent harm before it starts.

Sure, vaccines and playing in the mud are nice, but eating playground sand and shaking people’s hands when you have the flu isn’t. Some forms of expose help us, others harm us. If you don’t know, it’s better to err on the side of caution.

The Zapatistas show that region-scale anarchy can work and remain stable. You need more careful and explicit structures to do things at scale, but the same goes for nation-states, just look at the average state’s legal and regulatory codes. Compared to trying not to break the law in a nation-state, participating in local anarchist organizing committees is child’s play.

We’ve only had the opportunity to apply this at a scale larger than the smallest 30-or-so nations, but in theory systems like sociocracy can nest exponentially, meaning there are applications that are already halfway to a world government.

Oh no, reducing people with eating disorders’ sense of personal responsibility for their disorder. What a nightmare that would be.

Next up, let’s yell at someone with anorexia for throwing up in the bathroom!

Convincing people your interpretation of reality exists is literally all that politics is.

Unfortunately, despite being correct, science is also an interpretation of reality.

“Just stop being depressed and enjoy life”.

People are overweight because something in their diet, psychology or physiology overrides the natural desire to stop eating when they’ve had enough calories. As long as that thing isn’t addressed, trying to use willpower to overcome it can easily lead to burnout and disappointment. Sometimes raw willpower works, but most people who are overweight have tried that and found it doesn’t work for them.

Those people aren’t failures, they just happened to have a problem that didn’t eliminate itself when using willpower. If your problem is the chemicals in fast food, then stopping fast food by willpower can solve things, but if your problem is pica for some vitamin deficiency than stopping fast food by willpower will not solve things. People that stop by willpower alone are lucky, nothing more.

So most people who are overweight do in fact need more scientific knowledge, or better environments, or both. A pedestrian-murdering hellscape isn’t great for getting enough exercise. Micronutrients, letting your stomach rest, avoiding blood sugar spikes and dips, metabolism-affecting drugs like caffeine, stress eating, etc can all affect things.

And because people can’t just get up and move to a pedestrian-friendly area, or because vegetables are twice as expensive as meat per calorie, or because their job requires them to sit still for eight hours, they want to try the messy imperfect solutions that do as much as possible in their limited environment.

I can well believe that intermittent fasting works better than “burn more eat less” for someone with the unnatural lifestyle of sitting in an office chair for hours straight. The traditional 3 meal structure was built on a society where people did lots of physical labor throughout the day every day, so just trying to eat less in those 3 meals doesn’t change the fact that your body needs far fewer calories at certain times than that diet frees up, and the same goes for exercising outside of work hours.

It’s sad all that control is necessary just to allow children to walk around town with some modicrum of safety. Pedestrian deaths in the US increased 90% in the past 15 years and it’s not because people in the 2000s used to wear high visibility outfits or leashed themselves together.

If it’s not social engagement, then why are you experiencing a particular social signal from it?

A boycott or a strike is political engagement. Deliberately ignoring you is social engament. A blank stare sends a stronger signal than small talk: It means actually engaging with your ideas and judging you for them. Where small talk seeks to neutralize tensions with noncommittal affirmations, a blank stare communicates a boundary clearly and efficiently.

That wasn’t terror, that was genocide, which unfortunately can work. See also the USA genocide of native Americans.

The issue is that it’s not one problem, it’s thousands. Anarchism has countless solutions for countless power vacuums, from regulating the flow of meetings to federating different Zapatista towns.

You yourself are probably engaging in anarchic power vacuum mitigation when your friend group decides when to hang out and what to do; if anyone got too much power or responsibility you would take action to make things fair again.

Generally speaking, power vacuums are dismantled by dissolving the hierarchies that can be dissolved, changing the material conditions so power is decentralized, and building a social structure to hold the remaining power conditional on not being authoritarian. You can probably remember doing these things with your friends (or former friends).

Anarchist theory is either descriptive, like critically analysing the Zapatistas, or it’s putative, like sociocracy. So far we have no proven overarching theory of what works for everyone everywhere in every situation, but we do have lots of small anarchist collectives that are benefiting their members and their society in limited scopes.

I think you’re conflating mathematical and philosophical realness and then Principle of Explosion-ing your way into hating on physicsts. Quantum indefinite interpretations still result in the same mathematical predictions about observations, so all your talk about MW saying your memory is a lie is just obvious bullshit. The labels are different but there is still a mathematical structure of a person having memories.

Do farmers still do crop rotation? Here in the Netherlands they pump the ground full of the appropriate chemicals so they can grow the same crop in the same place every year.

As for your plan, the fact that bees are getting essential nutrients from those flowers proves a fallow field with wildflowers isn’t being fallow; it’s extracting resources from the soil which may have needed replenishment for crop rotation to work. You can sacrifice productivity for wildflowers, but at that point you’re just designating a space to be a meadow.

The solution is complicated and requires society to step away from the industrial model of agriculture entirely. Food forests are diverse and resilient permaculture, where a farmer does the labor of monitoring nutrient flows through the ecosystem so that a large population of humans can be part of that balanced ecosystem (possibly at a distance, with food being exported and feces imported). Bees are a natural part of such an ecosystem.

Cults and toxic self-help literature have existed before LLMs copied them. I don’t know if LLMs are getting people who couldn’t have been gotten by human scammers.

Scams have many different vectors and people can be vulnerable to them depending on their mood or position in life. Testing people on LLM intolerance would be more like testing them on their susceptibility to viruses.

People can be immunocompromised for various reasons, temporarily or permanently, so as a society public hygiene standards (and the material conditions to produce them) are a lot more valuable. Wash your hands after interacting, keep public spaces clean, that sort of stuff.

Are the users in this study techbros?

Besides, tech bros didn’t program this in, this is just an LLM getting stuck in the data patterns stolen from toxic self-help literature.

For decades there has been a large self-help subculture who consume massive amounts of vacuous positive affirmation produced by humans. Now those vacuous affirmations are copied by the text copying machine with the same result and it’s treated as shocking.

Choice and “predestination” are unintuitive even in secular philosophy. The interpretation of quantum mechanics most popular among quantum physicists - the Many Worlds Interpretation - is a fully predestinatory model. Everything flows completely from the initial boundary conditions of the universe. Your choices are fully calculated in. Even if you experience quantum randomness in your perception, that’s just because you can only remember your own path on the quantum world tree - neighboring universes where the quantum randomness flipped the other way are outside of your perception.

This interpretation is 100% consistent with all observations we can make. And yet we observe ourselves making choices. This is because we do not understand the full complexity of our own neurology. We simplify the fully quantum-deterministic biological computer that is our body as a person with thoughts, feelings, and motivations. In this simplification, choice seems malleable, when in truth choosing the other option would either be physically impossible or down to a quantum coin flip with no intelligent reasoning behind it.

When we imagine someone “could have made” a different choice, we are implicitly imagining a slightly different universe (branch) from the one we live in, in which some different historical quantum perturbation or some difference in the material reality resulted in them making the other choice.

Which means that while a MWI supporter believes in predestination of sorts, they can still choose freely whether to have strawberry or pistachio ice cream. It’s just that the boundary conditions of the universe and the particular quantum perturbations of their particular quantum history result in them choosing one or the other.

While John Calvin was not a quantum physicist, he did preach a similar philosophy. Though this is definitely a point where the dozens of different branches of Calvinism differ on the theological details.

But roughly speaking, this means that while Calvinists do believe in predestination, they also believe/notice they can choose whether to live in sin or to obey god. It’s just that this choice is determined by God, as it is determined by God whether or not they go to hell. And according to the Bible, people who make “good” choices go to heaven and people who make “bad” choices go to hell. Therefore they choose “good”, or try to. Not because it earns them a place in heaven but so that if God chose to send them to hell anyway that would be kind of bullshit.

(This last sentence is heavily editorialized; it’s the sort of thing they’ve had regular schisms about)

So a Calvinist hearing your attitude would respond something like “Of course you would go wild if you knew the truth of predestination, you’re probably the sort of person that goes to hell”. When someone is ostracized from the community, the community comes to the collective conclusion that they’re probably the sort of person that goes to hell. They can’t know God’s will for certain, but the Bible tells them as much as anything can and it looks like the Bible says they’re doomed.

Meanwhile they, the good Calvinists, are probably predestined to Heaven, so all their bad actions are probably just bumps on the road to God’s mercy, right? … Right?