The idea of making the behaviors you want easier, the outcomes you want more likely to happen, just does not occur. Like, if you want less reckless driving, make it less necessary or convenient to drive.
You realize punishment is harm, right?
You understand nothing
I’m really not interested in your extremely remedial analysis. I am aware of the various philosophies of law. The idea of making the outcome you want easier just does not occur.
It’s all about proximal causes and assigning ultimate responsibility to a person you assume must be evil and not helping them to do what you want even when its something that’s usually a function of recklessness irresponsibility or incompetence but just hurting people until the world is better.
The violently incurious crescendo of dunning-kruger that you would take out on others is absolutely disgusting. Everything you’ve said here is violently stupid, literally violently. Never stop posting. Not for a moment.
I was more so getting at a scenario like The Giver where humanity modifies itself to be more peaceful with itself more than what you’re getting at. Of course maybe not to such an extreme like the giver. Anyways I think we could have a better conversation without the name calling but to each their own I guess.
Where is he condoning these things or implying he doesn’t understand the things he’s describing? Reading comprehension bro.
Edit - oh he condoned it in the next comment. Yeah that’s stupid. He’s not wrong about gene therapy bring socially accepted eugenics though. Hell even genetic testing for pregnancies is eugenics if it results in terminating pregnancies due to various conditions. I don’t think anyone would argue in good faith that’s a bad thing though.
There are genuine uses and perils, but this ass clown has never met a torment nexus he didn’t feel a compulsion to stick his dick in, and that’s exactly the kind of person, aside from Nazis, who’s a case for us not being grown-up enough as a culture to touch that technology.
I’m not saying we should make it identical but honestly we could just make humans more compassionate and more apprehensive to causing harm if we wanted. It’s like the Gattaca example, I’m not saying we should straight up duplicate the story one to one. With AI we essentially have parlor walls like fahrenheit 451 but does that mean reality is now exactly like the plot of fahrenheit 451? You can take an idea from somewhere without being forced to duplicate everything about the source.
Okay but you get some of these things are like the core of the dystopianness?
Like reading diamond age and doing the ‘let’s make a pure ai kids toy!’ Or ‘I want a skull gun!’ Instead of any of the cool parts, when the book is exactly about how ‘this is dangerous/stupid/fundamentally evil/would suck’. You’re from the bay area, or work in tech. You have to be.
Also, we do not have parlor walls. How does someone get to be this stupid-evil and this confident in being stupid-evil? Like have you ever seen a torment nexus you didn’t want to stick your dick in?
I mean yeah a lot of ideas can be used to cause a lot of needless and avoidable suffering instead of preventing it which is what I think the actual thing is we want to avoid. Like in Gattaca it wasn’t the gene editing that was the issue it was the dehumanization of a group that was the issue, unless they were editing themselves to be less compassionate but that’s not in the plot. Once again I think we can talk without the name calling, I’m not being mean or rude to you personally and I would appreciate you having the same decency but you’re free to do what you want. I guess I could say where I’m from and then you could just deny it. As for parlor walls, just get a few AI agents with an avatar playing out a plot you can interact with and it’s essentially the same thing. Use a projector I guess and you got your wall.
You’re being extremely offensive and everything you believe is confidently wrong and repulsive. Using nice words to advocate eugenics and polydystopia is not civil. Thoughtless speech and confident stupidity are offensive to everyone who’s ever fucking studied a god damn thing. Fuck off with your tone policing.
You do not know what the fuck you’re talking about. That’s not even what an “ai agent” claims to be. Please never try to interact with the real world.
Like I said you’re free to say whatever you want. There’s no harm in me asking for a mutually polite discussion. I don’t agree with your synopsis of what you think I think and that’s also fine. Put firmly the goal is to decrease needless and avoidable suffering for as many people as possible whether that’s with policy or technology. For example, if we can end starvation then we should. We can today, we simply find justification not to. I’m not claiming that’s what an AI is but it can be used as such, it’s functionally identical if one sets it up that way.
hey there buddy, i noticed youve got adorable kids there. I’m gonna kidnap them and lock them in with my state’s congressmen and a bucket of lube for a few days. Then I’m gonna visit you and make sure your body has the right number of holes. We probably disagree about what that is, but I think we can come to a compromise in the mid double digits! Compromise! Civility!
I would not call that civility, I would call that disgusting and gross as well as violent and offensive. That’s what you sound like. That’s what everything out of your vile fucking mouth sounds like to any thinking human being. Content matters as much as form, and yours is always without exception violently ignorant to an offensive and dehumanizing degree.
Also, literally nothing works like or is what you think it is. You are wrong. This is a blanket statement. You are wrong. About every single god damnthing so far. Its like you’re ontologically wrong. Like a wizard conjured up a dunning-kruger elemental. Fuck off back to San Francisco, finish your mba at Stanford, and fuck off.
It can’t be used to solve world hunger, that’s nonsense. We already produce more than twice enough food to feed the world (this will be changing drastically very soon, climate change you know) but since it’ll spoil before it can get to most of the people what with the lack of roads and infrastructure there’s no realistic way to do it that wouldn’t be cartoonishly expensive. Also, that’s not how AI works.
The idea of making the behaviors you want easier, the outcomes you want more likely to happen, just does not occur. Like, if you want less reckless driving, make it less necessary or convenient to drive.
You realize punishment is harm, right?
You understand nothing
I’m really not interested in your extremely remedial analysis. I am aware of the various philosophies of law. The idea of making the outcome you want easier just does not occur.
It’s all about proximal causes and assigning ultimate responsibility to a person you assume must be evil and not helping them to do what you want even when its something that’s usually a function of recklessness irresponsibility or incompetence but just hurting people until the world is better.
The violently incurious crescendo of dunning-kruger that you would take out on others is absolutely disgusting. Everything you’ve said here is violently stupid, literally violently. Never stop posting. Not for a moment.
I was more so getting at a scenario like The Giver where humanity modifies itself to be more peaceful with itself more than what you’re getting at. Of course maybe not to such an extreme like the giver. Anyways I think we could have a better conversation without the name calling but to each their own I guess.
You get that ‘the giver’ is a dystopia, right? Of fucking course you don’t.
Where is he condoning these things or implying he doesn’t understand the things he’s describing? Reading comprehension bro.
Edit - oh he condoned it in the next comment. Yeah that’s stupid. He’s not wrong about gene therapy bring socially accepted eugenics though. Hell even genetic testing for pregnancies is eugenics if it results in terminating pregnancies due to various conditions. I don’t think anyone would argue in good faith that’s a bad thing though.
Yep, I read real good. Its a curse.
There are genuine uses and perils, but this ass clown has never met a torment nexus he didn’t feel a compulsion to stick his dick in, and that’s exactly the kind of person, aside from Nazis, who’s a case for us not being grown-up enough as a culture to touch that technology.
Stupid sexy torment nexus.
I’m not saying we should make it identical but honestly we could just make humans more compassionate and more apprehensive to causing harm if we wanted. It’s like the Gattaca example, I’m not saying we should straight up duplicate the story one to one. With AI we essentially have parlor walls like fahrenheit 451 but does that mean reality is now exactly like the plot of fahrenheit 451? You can take an idea from somewhere without being forced to duplicate everything about the source.
Okay but you get some of these things are like the core of the dystopianness?
Like reading diamond age and doing the ‘let’s make a pure ai kids toy!’ Or ‘I want a skull gun!’ Instead of any of the cool parts, when the book is exactly about how ‘this is dangerous/stupid/fundamentally evil/would suck’. You’re from the bay area, or work in tech. You have to be.
Also, we do not have parlor walls. How does someone get to be this stupid-evil and this confident in being stupid-evil? Like have you ever seen a torment nexus you didn’t want to stick your dick in?
I mean yeah a lot of ideas can be used to cause a lot of needless and avoidable suffering instead of preventing it which is what I think the actual thing is we want to avoid. Like in Gattaca it wasn’t the gene editing that was the issue it was the dehumanization of a group that was the issue, unless they were editing themselves to be less compassionate but that’s not in the plot. Once again I think we can talk without the name calling, I’m not being mean or rude to you personally and I would appreciate you having the same decency but you’re free to do what you want. I guess I could say where I’m from and then you could just deny it. As for parlor walls, just get a few AI agents with an avatar playing out a plot you can interact with and it’s essentially the same thing. Use a projector I guess and you got your wall.
You’re being extremely offensive and everything you believe is confidently wrong and repulsive. Using nice words to advocate eugenics and polydystopia is not civil. Thoughtless speech and confident stupidity are offensive to everyone who’s ever fucking studied a god damn thing. Fuck off with your tone policing.
You do not know what the fuck you’re talking about. That’s not even what an “ai agent” claims to be. Please never try to interact with the real world.
Like I said you’re free to say whatever you want. There’s no harm in me asking for a mutually polite discussion. I don’t agree with your synopsis of what you think I think and that’s also fine. Put firmly the goal is to decrease needless and avoidable suffering for as many people as possible whether that’s with policy or technology. For example, if we can end starvation then we should. We can today, we simply find justification not to. I’m not claiming that’s what an AI is but it can be used as such, it’s functionally identical if one sets it up that way.
You are not being civil. If I say
I would not call that civility, I would call that disgusting and gross as well as violent and offensive. That’s what you sound like. That’s what everything out of your vile fucking mouth sounds like to any thinking human being. Content matters as much as form, and yours is always without exception violently ignorant to an offensive and dehumanizing degree.
Also, literally nothing works like or is what you think it is. You are wrong. This is a blanket statement. You are wrong. About every single god damnthing so far. Its like you’re ontologically wrong. Like a wizard conjured up a dunning-kruger elemental. Fuck off back to San Francisco, finish your mba at Stanford, and fuck off.
It can’t be used to solve world hunger, that’s nonsense. We already produce more than twice enough food to feed the world (this will be changing drastically very soon, climate change you know) but since it’ll spoil before it can get to most of the people what with the lack of roads and infrastructure there’s no realistic way to do it that wouldn’t be cartoonishly expensive. Also, that’s not how AI works.