jsomae

God this is just fucking insane. Grok can't go three sentences without reminding everyone why gender ideology is problematic or whatever. It's also strangely inconsistent with pronouns.

This paragraph of slop is jaw-droppingly incomprehesible:

In January 2017, Jenner underwent gender confirmation surgery (vaginoplasty), a procedure she had contemplated but delayed until post-announcement, as detailed in her 2024 memoir The Secrets of My Life.[96] These steps comprised the core of the medical transition, involving irreversible alterations to secondary sex characteristics while leaving primary biological male structures—such as XY chromosomes and original genitalia—unmodified until the final surgery.[96]

And it randomly inserts this medical advice into the article:

Biologically, HRT in male-to-female transitions like Jenner's carries documented risks, including elevated incidence of venous thromboembolism, stroke, and cardiovascular events due to estrogen's prothrombotic effects, particularly in older individuals initiating therapy after age 65.

Like... okay, even if this is true, why and how is this actually relevant to an article on Caitlyn Jenner? It's such a transparent attempt by Musk to insert his political views wherever they're tangentially related.

These interventions approximate but do not replicate female reproductive biology, such as menstruation or gestation, underscoring that transition modifies phenotype without conferring the immutable reproductive dimorphism central to biological sex distinctions.

I'm sorry -- what intervention approximates (but does not replicate) menstruation or gestation? Also, how on earth can a procedure "underscore" something? This isn't literary analysis.

It's interesting to note that data centers don't use very much, despite perception.

Seems like over the last week everyone in this community is talking about how the real reason AI is bad is because it is destroying the planet. Does this even matter though? AI is bad for so many other reasons. It's destroying art. It's destroying Hollywood. It's removing jobs from the workforce, and it's concentrating power and money. And ontop of all that, it produces only soulless slop.

We have a good front line there. We can rally around those points.

When you try to bring questionable objections like power an water usage onto the table, it just makes our front-line look weaker, since opponents can easily pick these arguments apart. "Sure it's a lot of power, but this will lead to nuclear power, which is a net win environmentally." Or, "a single AI query consumes 2 litres of water?? You mean milliliters, and it's just going to rain from the sky, and nobody is putting big datacentres in California anyway, and that's only 1/6th of the amount of water it takes to grow an almond." Or "yeah, google alone uses as much power as the entire city of Toronto, but Toronto uses green power; so what?"

And yes, we all have counter-arguments to these -- "how to deal with nuclear waste?" and "only a fraction of rain water is collected as potable water" and "almonds may take more water than AI but almonds are still bad" and "there are some datacentres in California" and so on but the deeper these arguments go the harder it is to maintain a stable front.

Can we all just admit that this environmental angle is a red herring? I could almost believe it's a psy-op intended to discredit the anti-AI crowd. Even if the environmental impact of AI is bad, I still think it's worse for our cause to focus on the environmental aspect than the other aspects. The world has already decided it doesn't care about the environment.

I'm really loving Pedro Pascal these days.