I agree but to clarify:

Autistic people do not inherently develop post conventional morality and the j6 types are not presented here as a counter to “autism” but as a counter to “post conventional morality”

There are many autistic people who are stuck in the early more stages focused on discipline and punishment. Many neurotypical ppl as well. These people are extremely susceptible to fascism because it appeals to simplistic morals based on “things need to go my way and if they don’t you need to get severe punishment”.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg’s_stages_of_moral_development

_These people would literally be in the first stage of the Heinz dilemma

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma

Kohlbergs stages have valid criticisms (like they ignore the entire concept of collectivist cultures, for one) but they’re still a decent framework

This is a good way to describe the way moral reasoning works for a lot nd people succinctly. Now I will describe it much less succinctly lmao

There are possibly neurological bases for this as well

Mirror neuron system, for example, is thought to be a key factor in development of empathy and moral understanding. This is this system of neurons that give a shared neural activation in response to stimuli, eg we see someone in pain and it activates regions that activate when we experience pain directly

However, people with autism tend to have less active mirror neurons or differently organized system of mirror neurons (still somewhat poorly understood). This is one of the theorized mechanisms behind challenges with socialization and empathization in autism.

However people with autism can obviously still socialize and become empathic, right? I have spoken to many people with autism who if anything feel they are too empathetic.

One of the hypotheses here is that because of the above neurological difference there is a compensatory strategy. Essentially that instead of being able to naturally adapt neurologically people with autism create empathization, social and moral understanding, etc through higher level cognition. Analytical and cognitive based approaches. Trial and error, assessment and reflection, etc rather than instinctive and emotionally driven responses.

Thus far more thought is given to concepts and ideas that the general public simply does not consider. What is gender? What is a social construct? What is the point of social pragmatic language? What is the point of “business appropriate attire”? what is the point?

We recognize that many of these questions are simply tradition enforced by hierarchy balanced against us and can quickly fall apart with basic logic. We dissect these questions and potentially start to reach a state of postconventional moral development (read Kohlberg for more about this).

The thing about this is that you start to recognize a morality that supersedes the need for social order and start to maintain a personal sense of ethics and morality that is not dictated by external factors but empathization. You’re more likely to support civil disobedience now and also more likely to violate social norms but that’s because many social norms don’t make sense. Not surprisingly many adults don’t move to post conventional morality; they stay at a conventional morality in support of maintaining social order. Their morality is mostly dictated from external factors like law and religion.

Now to be clear this doesn’t mean that January 6 trump people have post conventional morality because they were practicing civil disobedience. Their violence was to arguably to protect social norms and to push to a society with extremely rigid social norms and they arguably have the moral development of a child (punishment and obedience stage, literally the first one, classic fascist shit). Where they stand in terms of moral development is an interesting debate but that’s a different post altogether

There’s a lot more to this like medial prefrontal cortex differences, temporo-parietal junction, VTA, reward system activation, etc. the neuroscience here is super interesting and of course it’s important to stress that people with autism approach moral reasoning differently and not that they can’t do it because if you don’t stress that dumb people associate autism with sociopathy and think all autistic people are elon musk

being a hentai addict would make him objectively cooler than the piece of literal shit he actually is

Well of course. Me too! The only way that changes is if we change the framework of our entire economic system, really

And mine either!!

my home actually has adaptive lighting, highly recommend. Gradually changes from cool to warm through the day

https://github.com/basnijholt/adaptive-lighting

Need home assistant although some things like homekit can do adaptive lighting too, just not as feature rich. You also need bulbs that can do the full spectrum of white (or rgb) obviously

But the home assistant one can adjust based on sunlight, dim the lights concurrently in a specific room to help with sleep, and customize it (like most times the primary advantage of HA vs commercial options)

I assume they’re being pragmatic. Appealing the us to remove copyright is a fools errand. Appealing to shorten the length of the prection period is too frankly given the nature of corporate protectionism but it’s far more likely than America ever entertaining the idea of free information, regardless of the benefits that could ensue. Think of the shareholders! And yourself! Gotta hang that carrot in front of you. What if you finally write that novel and it blows up! I know you secretly want to be a multimillionaire! No one just makes art or has passion to study and document something without financial gain, that’s dumb. Ignore all those forum posts where people do exactly that

My favorite ones are the ones from people who’s were the unfortunate victims of amazons garbage user interface

Saw a white led where you could buy in various color temperatures but you had to select and the default was 5000k/cool white (blue white). First review was a guy that expected amber/warm white/3000k and it was cool white. It said he had purchased the 5000k option. Sorry that amazons ux is absolute shit dude but I guess the cool white is what it’s supposed to be

Similarly the amount of “answered questions” that are just “I don’t know, why are you asking me??” Because amazon sends obnoxious unclear emails asking for product feedback to customers and then posts the answers with 0 moderation or review. So your grandma gets an email like “does your new toaster have smart capabilities that work with 2.4ghz wifi?” And she’s a trump person that can’t handle defying even the mildest authority figure so she answers, even if her reply is utterly useless

phew

I’m sure they initially just did a ctrl+f for “lgbt” then someone on truth social who’s totally not obsessed with checking on gay and trans stuff all the time boosted a post about how it still had a reference to ‼️‼️🚨🚨gay shit🚨🚨‼️‼️

“The goal for OpenAI is not to create hyper-persuasive AI models but instead to ensure AI models don’t get too persuasive.”

Fingers crossed, trust us bro

Mihon is still available although it doesn’t do anime, only manga

It happened long before chatgpt. Subredditsimulator was touted as a “fun game” at first but it was really a testing ground for bot devs. That goes back to like 2016, 6 years before chatgpt.

Openai was established 2015 though, some of their team was probably already shitting up the internet by then

oh my god how could I forget the thick base layer of sour cream, spread around the entirety of the tortilla so that literally every bite has a huge dollop of

It says “Im sorry but that’s beyond my current scope” and asks to change the topic and people make 8,000,000 memes about censorship

Meanwhile chatgpt is much more subversive with things like suggesting Israel has an inherent right to freedom and Palestinian freedom is a “complex topic”, only changing the model after this blows up on twitter, and no one really gives a shit.

Here’s a fun answer from chatgpt about OpenAI’s business ethics

Prompt: if a product is brought to market with little regulation and overview does a company such as OpenAI have a right to keep a product such as chatgpt proprietary considering the potential harm?

2. Risks of Keeping AI Proprietary

Lack of Transparency: If an AI system significantly influences public discourse, elections, or safety-critical decisions, keeping it proprietary can make accountability difficult.

Limited External Scrutiny: Without independent review, it’s harder to assess whether the system is biased, unsafe, or being misused. Potential for Abuse: Proprietary control means the company alone dictates who can use AI and how, raising concerns about corporate overreach.

“3. Risks of Making AI Fully Open-Source Misuse by Bad Actors: A fully open-source ChatGPT could be exploited for disinformation campaigns, fraud, or even cyberattacks.

Loss of Safety Mechanisms: OpenAI currently moderates ChatGPT to prevent harm (e.g., blocking certain types of malicious content). If fully open, these protections could be stripped away.

Commercial Viability: If everything were open-source, companies might lack incentives to develop and maintain such powerful AI systems.

Conclusion: Should OpenAI Be More Transparent? Yes—if ChatGPT has serious risks, greater oversight and external review should exist. But a fully open-source AI could introduce new dangers, so careful regulation rather than total disclosure may be the most ethical approach.

Would you like to discuss AI regulation models that balance innovation and safety?”

So here we are trading (fairly blatant) censorship for (more subtle) propaganda. Transparency and open standards are bad! Put your trust into OpenAI! We will take care of the bad guys and make sure you don’t see nasty stuff. How do you know that’s the case? Just trust us bro!

Though to their credit they at least present the idea that proprietary models can be harmful, although the conclusion at the end is that this is not the case. To be clear I left out point 1 (it shows point 2 as point 1, I’m fucking up the markdown somehow) for length but this was just preamble.

At least deepseek releases their model. Not to mention the significant impact on the environment that their much more economical model has. or the tremendous impact on privacy that is obtained by being able to run the model locally (though to be fair at this point this is a privilege for those with at least a decent gpu).

80% the time it isn’t even close to the case

here’s your bag of shredded “Mexican” cheese with no Mexican cheese in it. You can put it on your “taco” that’s got grey ground beef, watery flavorless red “sauce” that’s smooth because you can’t handle salsa, iceberg lettuce, and a dash of tabasco because you say “you like spice” but what you really like is vinegar. all served on an microwaved flour tortilla that is cold

you don’t even use lime

“Authentic”

Note that you probably shouldn’t read this post if you have health anxiety

generally yes but not always. Don’t freak the fuck out without other symptoms. Something as simple as taking pepto bismol can make your stool very dark and it’s obviously benign in that case. Similarly red in your poop can be caused by dietary stuff, classic trigger is beets

Ideally you’d see a doctor just to be safe, especially if it occurs for more than a few days or if you also have other symptoms like dizziness, fatigue, etc.

if you have symptoms like tachycardia or weak heartbeat, pallor, hyperventilation, sweating, excessive fatigue/not alert, etc it’s in the medical emergency zone and you need an emergency room asap.

oh cool, tackling the key issues facing us right now

To be clear i am not the person who downvoted you

It’s not like I get paid extra to do ABA. I get paid to do therapy regardless of who shows up and thanks to the shitshow of the world there’s no shortage of people. Mental health isn’t really like physical health. We can’t really “pad” billing with a ton of codes in outpatient settings most of the time. We bill in units, not services. So you come in and I bill more like you would expect from a worker, essentially by the hour. This is not like a surgeon that tacks on a complexity billing code and an extra code because you took a $300 Tylenol. Of course not all mental health is like this (especially crisis, which has more modifier codes)

But clearly you think regardless of how the billing works it doesn’t matter. So anyone who charges for their services is invalidated from speaking on issues? Got it. That is a viewpoint entirely incompatible with modern society. How do you reconcile such a thing?

Do you distrust vaccination because the evidence is sponsored by companies with a vested financial interest? Do you distrust the providers who recommend your flu shot because they have a vested financial interest in being able to bill for the service in rendering it? Do you distrust the evidence based treatments for your TN-2? There is a vested financial interest behind every treatment if you are that cynical.

A financial interest is absolutely something to investigate. That’s why they’re required to be disclosed in research. But it’s not inherently an issue if there is valid evidence of efficacy

I am criticizing their bias because their bias allows them to present a one sided inflammatory and misleading argument that masks the true issue of what the problem is here.

When someone comes into my job I give them the associated risks and rewards with ABA or any other therapy. They are allowed to weigh that risk and either consent or leave. Obviously my bias is that I think it is good. Like all people I have bias. But my bias is supported by a base of evidence supporting the efficacy of treatment

Again I think the issue here is consent and I think the article obfuscates that. If a parent comes in and says “my autistic child flaps their hands and that is weird, make them stop” it is my responsibility to say no. That is where I take offense to your point. If I was purely working from financial interest why wouldn’t I be like “fuck that kid?”. Granted there are practitioners out there who do this. I am sure of it. I am sure some of them are malicious even, knowing this is bad but doing it because they can bill. But I am betting the majority of them are more naive. They believe they are being helpful. They believe they are making this child’s life easier because it will help avoid social stigma, rather than think of ways to address causal factors of social stigma.

And to their credit they at least have an argument. I have worked with clients who wished they could suppress their stereotypy early in life to avoid bullying. I would argue these clients need work on self esteem and self advocacy rather than finding themselves in a position where they feel the need to be subservient to an abusive system only to make the abuse stop, but on the other hand it is not my right to tell someone how to interpret the world and this is starting to get away from the point.

But there is a very difficult ethical debate here. Where is the line for clients that cannot actively consent? A moral gray area exists, obviously. It’s easy to say that using ABA to extinguish non harmful stereotypy is fucked up. It’s somewhat easy to make the argument that someone who is physically harming themselves to the point of hospitalization would likely consent to changing their behavior (though obviously some will steadfastly disagree no matter what the risk is and regardless of the lack of viable alternatives). But where is the middle? What about doing homework? Chores? Moderating access to games and such? Far more interpretable

But we can’t have these nuanced discussions because of misleading articles like this and hardline stances like yours that reject any nuanced discussion on the topic whatsoever.

Edit: and that blog absolutely has a financial interest, they literally have a fucking shop link in their top bar. I have no idea if they run Adsense because I have Adblock. Their financial interest is more nefarious if anything! At least mine is upfront! I will tell you my hourly rate beforehand!

I never claimed to not have bias. Everyone has bias. But I run my practice with a fairly extreme sliding scale, I take Medicaid, and I work with several clients for no money at all. I make a livable wage but I don’t make as much as you think. And the reason I do is because I do literally everything myself to cut as many middlemen and overheads as possible.

Additionally ABA is only a part of my practice. I do a lot of gender affirming care, CBT, etc. frankly if you removed ABA from my practice I would be fine, financially.

While it is valid and important to expose a vested financial interest I think it’s also important to look at the overall content of what is being displayed as well. Of course you have no obligation to do so and can always tell me to go fuck myself

I mean see the much more involved reply I gave to the to other person but in addition to that the difference here is that ABA does work. It’s evidenced based to do so. It is not kooky bullshit of people stealing your money with snake oil.

The issue surrounding it is one of consent, which is a very worthwhile discussion to have. This is another issue with the way the article is presented. It confounds the actual issue! Now you are conflating it with snake oil when there is an astoundingly large body of evidence in support of its efficacy. To be clear, this is not a flimsy “it works sometimes under some scenarios maybe” thing. This is decades of evidence

So when you come into my practice and say you want to change a behavior that bothers you and negatively impacts your quality of life I can present you with operant conditioning. You want to change something about yourself, which is sometimes a thing that people do. It will likely be effective if done correctly. If I present it to you clearly and you consent to it, what’s the problem? But the moment I call it ABA you are far more likely to simply reject it now. That’s your right of course, but it’s sad

Now we can discuss the ethics of treating those who cannot reliably consent, children, people who cannot reliably communicate, etc. but frankly is ABA the issue here? Again I argue your issue is with programming direction being forced upon someone who cannot advocate for themselves. This is not ABAs fault. But it is an easier thing to scapegoat