iNow

The principle was explained in general terms. Your example is clear and cogent, but represents a specific case that very well could highlight an exception. My text spoke more of an average or a mean, whereas your text speaks more as an outlier or deviation from that norm. That’s my initial thought, anyway. I stipulate that I very well may be wrong. As a member who knew this well before you said it, and who has participated here for decades (?) now specifically because of rules like this one are in place, I encourage you and the team to recognize (begin to accept?) that this rule will only continue getting harder and harder to enforce. I was feeling lazy responding in a thread created by a community shit stirrer, and TBH I felt it was self-evident that AI was involved in drafting that specific post. It’s hardly a pattern of behavior from me, so yeah. Enjoy your weekend.

yes and it's especially powerful when using LLMs to analyze and explore an issue

A steelman argument is the practice of rebuilding an opponent's point of view into its strongest, most logical, and most persuasive version before attempting to critique or rebut it. It is the exact opposite of a straw man argument, where you intentionally oversimplify or misrepresent an opposing view to make it easy to knock down. The goal of steelmanning is deep understanding and truth-seeking rather than just winning a debate. It's an extremely useful tool I use all of the time to come to my own conclusions on an issue or explain the relevant points to others.

I prompted a system with a direct request to give me the steel man arguments for and against and to then to summarize based on current consensus which is most likely to be correct. In this case, it was Gemini Flash. It aggregated details across hundreds of thousands of content sources on my behalf.

The Steel Man For the Handicap Principle The core strength of the handicap principle lies in its solution to the evolutionary problem of deception. If mate signaling were cheap, any low-quality individual could fake a "high-quality" signal, rendering the signal useless to choosy mates. Guaranteed Honesty via Cost: The high cost of the signal acts as a structural barrier to lying. A weak peacock literally cannot grow a massive, symmetric tail, or if it does, it will quickly be eaten by a predator. Therefore, the signal is a reliable, un-fakeable indicator of underlying genetic health, immune system strength, and vigor. Mathematical Validation: While initially dismissed, mathematical biologists like Alan Grafen later proved that the handicap principle is evolutionary stable, provided that the cost of the signal is proportionally higher for a low-quality individual than for a high-quality one. Widespread Explanatory Power: It explains otherwise baffling evolutionary traits, such as "stotting" in gazelles (leaping high in the air in front of a cheetah). By deliberately wasting energy, the gazelle signals to the predator: "I am so fast and fit that trying to catch me is a waste of your time." The Steel Man Against the Handicap Principle The strongest counterargument is that honesty does not strictly require waste or handicap, and evolutionary selection usually optimizes for efficiency rather than deliberate disadvantage. The Efficiency Over Cost Argument (The "Index" Signal): Critics argue many signals are honest simply because they are physically impossible to fake, not because they are a handicap. For example, a large croak from a toad honestly signals large body size because a small toad physically lacks the vocal anatomy. There is no added "handicap" or self-inflicted cost; it is just a direct physical index. The "Good Genes" Alternative: Traits can evolve simply because they are direct products of vigor (e.g., bright feathers reflecting a diet free of parasites). The trait is an output of good health, not a strategic hurdle the animal created to prove its health. The Viability Paradox: Natural selection ruthlessly penalizes waste. If Mutation A gives a bird high fitness and no tail, and Mutation B gives a bird the same fitness but forces it to drag a heavy tail to prove it, Mutation A should theoretically win out in terms of pure survival efficiency. Which View Is More Likely Valid? In modern evolutionary biology, the "Against" view—specifically a highly modified, tempered version of the principle—is considered more valid. While Zahavi’s original idea that waste itself creates honesty was groundbreaking, it has largely been subsumed by broader theories of receiver psychology and index signaling. Biologists today generally agree that signals are honest because they are physically or physiologically constrained (indices) rather than strategically wasteful (handicaps). When a cost does exist, it is usually viewed as an unavoidable production cost of a high-quality trait, rather than a deliberate self-imposed penalty to "show off."

Completely aligned with your well made point, also the part about info getting memory holed and our brains being hacked so we can barely remember more than a week ago

Part of their education involves visiting concentration camps and memorial centers with records or those exterminated. I’m hopeful that youth will see that as something to avoid and not something worth repeating, but tribal tendencies and daily feedback loops across the manosphere remind me that we’ll have to wait and see.

Editorial Rewrite: Anthropic researcher turned whistleblower says there's a 90% chance that AI will NOT wipe out humanity within next decade 🎲

Clearly true from a pure on paper logical perspective, but hardly what we see in practice. Repeat something enough times from enough sources and the narrative takes hold. We have seen this for decades, and it's amplified now. We all tune into our local channels and "trusted" sources and consequently our own beliefs shift in that direction. See also the way Fox News historically introduces the words "woke" and "leftish" and "liberal" and "socialist" every 4th word of every single program every single hour of every single day for months at a time. That is the same idea, and AI / internet / algorithms turn the dial up to eleven on that same principle. People say lots of silly things, but if she did provide intellect then she didn't do a very good job of ensuring we use it.

Thank goodness we always learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of those who preceded us.

I basically expect devices to collect my info and spy and sell it to make money. What’s more nefarious here is how they continued collecting and consciously decided to be more invasive well behind the pale. And I also expect this is extremely common. It’s just that LG got caught, not that they were isolated in their actions.

Agreed, and the lies that get repeated get accepted no matter how big

They don’t want to have more tariffs levied on their goods, and military action is a nonzero probability. There is still risk they likely want to deflect while he’s president.

Yes. Thanks. No offience was intended. I have now responded. Perhaps we can please return to a more cordial less needlessly prickly set of exchanges once more.

Sure, but I didn't post a video about the bible. Shrug. Gentle reminder, despite your otherwise great posting history and overall contributions to this community, please see Section 2.7 before shrugging off my entirely valid point like I'm some child or mosquito: https://www.scienceforums.net/guidelines/ Of course, though it's the classic convenience vs security challenge. Doing this would result in a lot longer wait times for bootup and software load every time. Most collection can be opted out of, but not all so it's a real risk.