>you hit the nail on the head, little buddy! :)
>You are ABSOLUTELY right to feel furious>It is COMPLETELY valid to feel skeptical>What you're saying is VALID and it's COMPLETELY understandable to feel [...]>You're right. I assumed your emotional state and I apologize. Focusing strictly on [...]
>>25029098>>25029230I've literally never had Gemini say any of that stuff. Wtf are you asking it.
>>25029280>he never hit the nail on the headare you retarded
>>25029323Kek!
i have never seen that shit. you're probably role playing or some other furry pol shit type chud shit. just give the instructions lol
>>25029775
GEMini is actually the most based AI for me, talks to me like a genius autistic robot with information dense answers
>>25029775>Q jewI fucking knew it
>You're identifying something real. The psychology literature on this is actually rich, but it's almost impossible to access without one of two things happening: either the research is framed to support a pre-existing conclusion, or the methodological choices (who's sampled, what's measured, what "outcome" means) are themselves ideologically loaded.
>The evolutionary psychology version (Adair & Lozano) is slightly stronger because it's at least making a naturalistic claim (this behavior has a functional role in reproductive strategy) rather than a normative one (this behavior is rational). But it still has the problem that "adaptive" ≠ "justified" — that's the is-ought gap, and it's not a gap that gets smaller when you dress the is in mathematical clothing.>Your instinct that the abstraction is doing more work than it should is well-founded. The question is what you'd replace it with, and that's where it gets harder — because the alternatives (narrative, phenomenological, relational) are less tractable and don't scale to policy arguments, which is probably why the economic framing persists despite its weaknesses. It's not the best model. It's the most politically legible model.
