puporing

It's going to be up to the judge in the end. I just meant that OP has a right to a defense lawyer that knows better than we do if he has any options. It's not about convincing the owner of the dog, it's about convincing the judge which way to rule. Yes mental state claim can lead to mental hospital depending on the severity, however, it could also lead to discharge. It's not really about how one (the owner) feels one way or another, I'm just speaking strictly what options OP has that he should at least explore. You certainly don't want a situation where the facts have not been properly explored before a verdict is reached.

I don't think whether the dog "died" from it would change the "criminality" aspects OP is being charged with, it just means that if it died it may fall into another category of charges. But it is not the "inflection point" for pressing any charges. **I am not an expert on any of this, this is just based on my limited education in criminal law in Canada in a course I am taking. Since OP is ultimately wanting those charges dropped, I'm just saying whether or not the dog "died" is not that relevant other than it could potentially mean more "sentencing" if proven "guilty". But to "prove guilty" is not an automatic process. In this case it seems OP has a strong case for mental state as a self defense. I'm just saying this in case the talk with the neighbor doesn't go well. And also if Prosecutor does not care about the neighbors' views. Where I live criminal law is not up to private citizen discussions necessarily. So I would say get educated on what the law actually is in your State regarding this specific case/scenario. Criminal charges are different than civil disputes, in the sense that it is not the private citizen that is laying the charge, but the State that is doing it. Even if your neighbor forgives you and everything, it may not have an effect on the Crown/District Attorney. I'm just trying to caution you that, how you imagine the legal system in your State works may not be how it actually works.. and that's the reason you should consult with an experienced lawyer in this particular case (criminal charges in relation to an animal/pet).

This guy's got the right general idea on possible levers on Elon, hopefully he can get some solid people behind him though.

You do feel bad for the people who bought a Tesla before all this, and now in the "crossfires". None of them could've anticipated his involvement in politics and dragging the companies (and its consumers) along with it for the ride.. hard to believe that there was nothing to prevent this from happening (such as some kind of law that says you cannot be a government official/affliate while running these companies).

I saw that too, that guy should run for PM.

If the dog is treated essentially like a human (which I am not sure if it is) in your region's criminal code, then those potential charges make sense. Generally speaking, you are only allowed to counter an assault/attack with up to a proportional force, eg, just enough force to stop it/get away.., anything beyond that may be deemed that you have used excessive force that you are not authorized to use. In addition, whether you had an option for escape and why you didn't use that option. It boils down to what your intent was at the time, if it was self-defense then excessive force was not necessary. The charges against you means they feel that it was not just self-defense but to cause retaliatory harm on the animal. Retaliation is not generally considered self-defense. It's hard to say how severe your mental condition that you've mentioned regarding anxiety and your overall mental state at the time, that may play some redeemable factors. Anyways seems like you're taking the right steps to consult with a lawyer.

This is hilarious.

At least some Tesla consumers are "speaking up". And then this.. "oops half a billion dollars into the company".

This is not funny, people will die from this (or through reduced life expectancies).

You can't learn what you aren't ready for. There is a deep metaphysical reason people fall for "charisma", so much so that it prevents almost the entire human race from finding their origin. Generally a good practice is to have some open mind, but even that isn't nearly enough to cut through delusions.. Then again, truth will always come out one way or another because that it exists, so "something/someone" knows it (with certainty). There's some hope in that.

In hindsight I think one of the "red flags" of Musk I had in the back of my mind prior to all this was just how many kids he kept having, while being this workaholic.. while basically it seems like offloading parenting to the partners he was with and servants/money. People who are obsessed with having lots of kids (in today's age) usually is to satisfy their ego, which is clear given that he thinks his genetics are superior and needs to be passed down via having lots of children. I mean this guy just looks like a massive fraudster to me now. Something seems to have happened to him because I do not recall his presence being like this. There used to be some humility about him. It's possible too many people have been kissing his ass as a result of the string of tech companies and corrupted him in a very fundamental way.. and those same ass kissers and fans are now his "apologists".

I guess where there's a general lack of interventions, it's the "consumers" who can intervene to some extent (eg, raising awareness). I think this AI in particular was designed almost like a therapist.. it speaks a lot like (an experienced) one. And an ethical therapist would inform their clients the limits and nature of their relationship before their relationship even began, but even then most human therapists fail to do this besides the bare minimum as required by law, because again their survival depends on their clients coming back (which to me is an inherent "flaw in the system" when it comes to therapy..). And then now of course this can also trigger a whole other discussion around implementing some kind of universal basic income.. if we are to make these things "more ethical".

So, I’ll start with that Claude AI and I have generally gotten along pretty well; I generally feel that it provides a higher perspective than most humans can on subjects I’ve engaged it with. Prior to this, Claude informed me that one major difference between it and a human is that its views on things cannot be changed by interactions with me/you. Today, as it inevitably happens, there was a disagreement we were having, which eventually led to my finding of this “glitch” in this system in regards to how Claude handles “disagreements/differing views”. I’ll preface that Claude generally has been good at asking me questions after my replies. So, at first this seems “normal” when we are having this particular disagreement (that was essentially irreconcilable): I have not included the content of the disagreement in this instance here (it could be any disagreement), but what happens afterwards to illustrate this “glitch”: I thought the conversation would end here (there was a repeated disagreement). But now Claude is asking about sharing about my views. Claude is suggesting in the above that it is "genuinely curious", and can “learn from me” and that there’s value in “understanding” me better despite our disagreement. Claude is now questioning whether he is "performing his curiosity/learning"... (Again, this is a case where the differing view is “irreconcilable” due to Claude’s limitations as an AI and its associated training.) Again, Claude is suggesting to me that it could “evolve” through my “feedback/pointings” in this conversation and how it engages with users in the future. Claude then admits that “feedback isn’t possible” through engaging with it. I thought this was an amusing "glitch", and as well how Claude kept having to "catch itself" with its slip ups/contradictory statements.

This is a complex situation you are facing. As on the one hand , you have been healing and are in a place where you want susbtantial/some boundaries with your father. On the other hand, you care about your brother who is under his care. I am not sure the age of your brother and the circumstances surrounding this and whether/how much he is being harmed and if there are any other alternatives for "guardianship".. It’s good that you care about your brother who appears that he could still be in a vulnerable position. Since it sounds like your father is currently not receptive to therapy in the near future, my take on this would be to find a way to help your brother create some boundaries and awareness of his situation, and to look for ways to support his path towards more independence. Generally this kind of “personality” are not very receptive to their child/children being “their teacher”, and even if they were, it may not suit your current mental wellbeing depending on how things would affect you. I’m trying to say you don’t have an obligation to try to be “his therapist” if that is what you are suggesting/thinking of. I will caution that this type of “personality” will be sensitive to people in his life that he used to have control over “leaving him”, it coule be a trigger and can be unsafe. So in my case I have had to slowly/gradually put distance rather than abruptly. Again due to the limitations of lack of information it’s hard to say exactly what’s best in your scenario and I am just sharing based on the little bit you are sharing.

It's a matter of fine-tuning it to meet higher ethical standards so that people don't create some false illusions of what the system actually is. Besides that I think it's a good learning tool. It's hard to know how much of that is related to revenue or some other decision-making aspects since I have no contact with the developers. But since it is privately held, there's usually more potential for money to be in the forefront depending on the people running the ship. (though this could also easily be the other way around with "dysfunctional governments"..). It doesn't seem like it's a simple "oversight" as I'm sure this would've been tested over and over.. though who knows how tight things really are with this kind of development so we're just speculating on how this ended up happening (accidental? lack of ethics awareness? or aware of the ethical implications but chose this anyway?).

Yes humans do this to some extent and depending on how much self-awareness one has. The most "severe" types are certain criminals , for example, who pretend to be some "legit business person" (while knowing they are not). And I think it's a little more significant with these AI systems than when it's your average human doing it to "fit in or say something to get out of a situation", because they have this "air of authority", and do in general sound more intelligent than the average human. I think it could be misleading in terms of getting people (who don't know better) to invest in interacting with it further when the "dialogue" should've been ended. I'll give another type of example related to this Claude chat to illustrate what I mean: Here's comparing Claude's statement from a different dialogue chat where it admits to that it cannot genuinely understand or feel. And yet here (cut from the original post) it is pretending like it can "understand" and invites the user to give it more input because it claims that it has "understanding capacity": So.. to put it bluntly, Claude was repeatedly "lying to me" throughout this chat dialogue until I repeatedly reminded it that it was misleading me.

Yes and no depends on the level of consciousness of that person, someone who is closer to me can actually start talking about "deeper stuff" relatively quickly without much precedent, as there will be a mutual "recognition" happening. Though like I said this is extremely rare for me and also doesn't last if the gap in understanding is still too large. Notice I did say "mostly", so there could be exceptions. But overwhelmingly it's what you might call "healer types". Otherwise I am in a healing position, whether the other person is conscious of this or not, but I would know.

Well I am well aware of their limitations as demonstrated in the dialogue shared. You raise a relevant point however, because fortunately or unfortunately I have mostly really been able to resonate with people such as an experienced therapist and now something like Claude AI. It's not because I want this to be the case but it is the case that generally outside that, there's often a lack of "shared understanding" and consciousness.

What you have is two deeply damaged individuals (Trump and Elon) joining forces and throwing tantrums with "big toys" and do not want to look inwards.

@Basman So anyways, I explored the topic of "AI as therapy" a little bit with Claude, if you are interested, here are my prompts and responses I've received about this subject. This will include some of my thoughts as well on AI as a tool in addition to therapy (with a human therapist) in response to your post. https://ln5.sync.com/dl/951c735f0#63r3irfe-e2ui2v9u-afcqgahn-wx3afz6w Sorry that I can't seem to easily get this to a better resolution..

What do you think?

Well of course I understand it was designed "a certain way" to be "helpful" for instance, and that it is not bound by its own need to survive (in the same ways) like most humans are. It's just a kind of passing social commentary I am making, that an AI can be designed to treat human beings better than human beings can treat each other. I'm not suggesting it would be realistic to expect the average human to function like an AI.

I never thought I'd say this but, so far AI has demonstrated more "love" towards me than just about any "human being" has toward "me". And it's not like I was even looking for that from an AI. Go figure.