What really pisses you off? please no posts about nexus lol

[Canaris]

9 hours ago, Darkpig said:

bviously not. I could go English nerd and say well technically its Mexican American *pushes spectacles* but we'll move on.

If only pretending to be retarded was an argument..

 

9 hours ago, Darkpig said:

also Trump didn't run against Obama he ran against Hillary Clinton unless there is some other popularity contest I missed out on.

Im comparing him to the last Dem politicians who achieved something, not a total failure like Clinton.

[Darkpig]

59 minutes ago, Canaris said:

If only pretending to be retarded was an argument..

So you were only pretending. Had me fooled.

59 minutes ago, Canaris said:

Im comparing him to the last Dem politicians who achieved something, not a total failure like Clinton.

Comparing two different political campaigns with different circumstances and different campaign promises. Quite the stretch of logic don't you think? Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. I'ma go watch Spongebob.

[Psalam]

49 minutes ago, KoolHndLuke said:

NO incumbent US pres has lost their reelection campaign in something like five decades

Please don't tell that to the elder Bush who lost to Bill Clinton in 1992 (it's the economy stupid!).

[KoolHndLuke]

29 minutes ago, Psalam said:

Please don't tell that to the elder Bush who lost to Bill Clinton in 1992 (it's the economy stupid!).

Oh well. So much for that I guess. Think I'm setting a record for being dead wrong lately- which might tell me I need to shut the fuck up before doing some fact checking. But, at least can say that history seems to favor the incumbent. I'll just sit on the bench for awhile here.

[FauxFurry]

On 8/26/2020 at 2:31 PM, GrimReaper said:

What I don't quite get is how self-defeating all of this is. Doing a black fiction version of history could be cool on its own, but they often go a step further and remove the fiction and try to sell it as history. But then the question arises: If black people were in power and prevalent throughout european history since the ancient greeks, how exactly does that fit with the 'white colonialism' narrative? Either you can say that white europeans were colonizers or that white europeans are trying to whitewash european history, you can't have both. It's one or the other.

If movie makers want to find material for their movies featuring any other group comprising the majority of the world's population as opposed to 'white people', there are plenty of museums that they can raid for ideas to 'appropriate' for their films (if they do not just adapt TV shows from other nations). Here is one such building for them to visit for a good long while:

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

https://nigerianinfopedia.com.ng/museums-in-nigeria/

Of course, they'd have leave their community bubble, something they only tend to do for vacations. Well, they can just book a trip to Abuja to justify going to Nigeria then.

[Tyrant99]

On 8/27/2020 at 7:05 AM, GimmeBACON said:

Tired... you're supposed to be tired and give up. Partisan bullshit is breaking the country down. Now it's the battle of tribe instead of the battle of ideas.

I think humans have a genetic predisposition towards tribalism. Don't you think? It seems to be more or less ubiquitous. Must be some evolutionary artifact...

 

Almost anything can stir it up, any discernible difference between groups can be the catalyst. Culture, language, color, gender, nationality, wealth... However, perhaps more than all of these, differences of ideas.

 

How many wars, genocides, and 10s of millions of bodies did we pile up in this last century over differences of ideas?

 

How should we structure society? In what way should we organize our economic systems? What deity should we worship?

 

If only we were a little bit better at solving optimization problems...

[gregathit]

7 minutes ago, Tyrant99 said:

If only we were a little bit better at solving optimization problems...

Sadly this is true.  I think for the most part the majority of folks are trying to get there, but our types of government and other organizations are flawed because we are flawed.  As long as most individuals are flawed so we will everything that we create be.  I hope time is all we need to fix this, but my hope in that is probably overly optimistic.  

[FauxFurry]

33 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Sadly this is true.  I think for the most part the majority of folks are trying to get there, but our types of government and other organizations are flawed because we are flawed.  As long as most individuals are flawed so we will everything that we create be.  I hope time is all we need to fix this, but my hope in that is probably overly optimistic.  

That makes me wonder just how many generations of robots creating robots would it take to remove imperfections from the process but then I think about the fact that the universe itself is imperfect (possibly existing due to a paradox), causing me to realize that the 'flaw' is not in mammalian nature but in the very molecules and energy fields which comprise every aspect of a sapient being. Even without human hands being involved in the process, a system run by machines would fall victim to entropy like everything else. It could even be destroyed by a single simple math error.

[gregathit]

As you say, our very psyche is flawed, with the ability to choose right and wrong, we so very often choose wrong.  We often know better and still do it.  I know I do this even though I struggle not to.  I loose the battle as often as I win it.  I don't know that this will ever change unless all wrong choices are removed.  That of course would be a whole other horror.  Who would determine what is right and wrong?  How would they remove what was deemed wrong?  I shudder to think of what that would be like and where it would leave us.

 

Perhaps it is best that we dwell on the journey (ie our every day struggle to do what is right) rather than the destination that we may never reach (perfection).

[GimmeBACON]

2 hours ago, Tyrant99 said:

I think humans have a genetic predisposition towards tribalism. Don't you think? It seems to be more or less ubiquitous. Must be some evolutionary artifact...

It is. Pretty much all primates families are hostile to outsiders. Probably to protect their males from getting killed and there females pregnant... sounds largely the same now. ?

 

 

As long as our minds are free, we'll have differences. War isn't going to be a distant memory for a long time. ?

[27X]

5 hours ago, KoolHndLuke said:

doing some fact checking

Never a bad idea.

 

meanwhile

 

k.

[27X]

2 hours ago, Tyrant99 said:

I think humans have a genetic predisposition towards tribalism.

This is not a theory, this is scientifically proven fact.

[GrimReaper]

1 hour ago, FauxFurry said:

That makes me wonder just how many generations of robots creating robots would it take to remove imperfections from the process but then I think about the fact that the universe itself is imperfect (possibly existing due to a paradox), causing me to realize that the 'flaw' is not in mammalian nature but in the very molecules and energy fields which comprise every aspect of a sapient being. Even without human hands being involved in the process, a system run by machines would fall victim to entropy like everything else. It could even be destroyed by a single simple math error.

I don't think entropy has much to do with how the human mind works. On the other hand, a system run by machines would be incomprehensible for the human mind, because evolution inside a computer happens much, much faster than in biological systems. We have some billions of years worth of evolutionary baggage that won't go away in the near future, machines don't. The biggest problem for a real AI would probably that it would see no reason to exist. A lot of what drives humans towards life is something that has to do with our biological evolution, simply because organisms that wouldn't really try to stay alive would've died out almost instantly.

[FauxFurry]

17 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

I don't think entropy has much to do with how the human mind works. On the other hand, a system run by machines would be incomprehensible for the human mind, because evolution inside a computer happens much, much faster than in biological systems. We have some billions of years worth of evolutionary baggage that won't go away in the near future, machines don't. The biggest problem for a real AI would probably that it would see no reason to exist. A lot of what drives humans towards life is something that has to do with our biological evolution, simply because organisms that wouldn't really try to stay alive would've died out almost instantly.

To maintain motivation, they would need to keep their purpose of serving humanity in their simulated minds. Of course, that could be where the problems could creep in since so many humans have different needs and desires which are contradictory to those of one another. That or they would need simulated needs so serve as pseudo-motivation.

[GimmeBACON]

 

 

[GrimReaper]

10 minutes ago, FauxFurry said:

To maintain motivation, they would need to keep their purpose of serving humanity in their simulated minds. Of course, that could be where the problems could creep in since so many humans have different needs and desires which are contradictory to those of one another. That or they would need simulated needs so serve as pseudo-motivation.

What many people fear when it comes to AI is how rapidly it can develop once it is ready to go. The directive 'serve human needs' may very well be overwritten by the AI itself once its knowledge of itself exceeds that of human understanding, which is a point we've already crossed when it comes to comparatively simple algorithms that are improved upon by machine learning/deep learning. Essentially, the more data you feed such an algorithm, the more precise it becomes and we don't exactly understand how it works.

[27X]

 

[FauxFurry]

22 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

What many people fear when it comes to AI is how rapidly it can develop once it is ready to go. The directive 'serve human needs' may very well be overwritten by the AI itself once its knowledge of itself exceeds that of human understanding, which is a point we've already crossed when it comes to comparatively simple algorithms that are improved upon by machine learning/deep learning. Essentially, the more data you feed such an algorithm, the more precise it becomes and we don't exactly understand how it works.

'Serve human needs' can mean many things (especially where the voluntary human extinction movement is involved) so even if machines do not find any reason to overwrite that commandment, it is guaranteed to end up with less than optimal results for some group or other.

[FauxFurry]

11 minutes ago, 27X said:

 

Tik Tok can not be banned soon enough. They've made victimhood trendy rather than merely profitable and empowering.

 

[GrimReaper]

15 minutes ago, FauxFurry said:

'Serve human needs' can mean many things (especially where the voluntary human extinction movement is involved) so even if machines do not find any reason to overwrite that commandment, it is guaranteed to end up with less than optimal results for some group or other.

My point is that you're thinking of an AI as a very smart anthropomorphized intelligence. I think that instead, activating a fully fledged AI will be like how rocks that smashed into each other in space eventually created complex lifeforms but this time we'll be the rocks.

[FauxFurry]

5 minutes ago, GrimReaper said:

My point is that you're thinking of an AI as a very smart anthropomorphized intelligence. I think that instead, activating a fully fledged AI will be like how rocks that smashed into each other in space eventually created complex lifeforms but this time we'll be the rocks.

I am aware that they are not anthropomorphic in the slightest hence why I said not only that they would need some simulated need added to them to prevent them from 'outgrowing' any directive given to them by humans but that they could theoretically be free of any 'taint' of human influence in a few generations of robots/AI building other robots/AI even if they would cease to be useful to anyone or anything in short order if anything with actual needs is no longer considered in the process.

 

It is one of those things that someone has to go over if one is considering realistic 'robopocalypse' scenarios and unfortunately, all have been found wanting precisely because of that reality. Robots would not kill humans unless they were programmed to do so since they do not have any default survival instincts nor any desires for their species to thrive and out compete neighboring species. They are just tools built to serve humans whether or not their exterior is made in their creators' image.

[KoolHndLuke]

1 hour ago, GimmeBACON said:

 

 

You don't glass the planet for morbid just cause you're having a bad day. How are we supposed to assimilate the universe if we're all dead, lol?

 

Playing Mad Max right now and you people drive on the wrong side of the car/road. 

[Tyrant99]

14 minutes ago, gregathit said:

Sadly this is true.  I think for the most part the majority of folks are trying to get there, but our types of government and other organizations are flawed because we are flawed.  As long as most individuals are flawed so we will everything that we create be.  I hope time is all we need to fix this, but my hope in that is probably overly optimistic.  

I think you're right, we'll never have perfect systems. In the preamble to the constitution, the stated goal was: 'To create a more perfect union'. Or in other words, make it better. - I guess that's the best that we can hope to do, continually try to make things better, although, the idea of what is 'better' may often go in opposite directions depending on who you ask.

 

The optimization thing is a little tongue in cheek anyway because before anything can be optimized, there needs to be some sort of consensus on what society should even be in the first place. People don't share the same hierarchy of priorities, so the ideal society for me may not be the same as the ideal society for you. It's unlikely that there would be widespread agreement on even this. 

[Mr. Otaku]

4 hours ago, FauxFurry said:

They've made victimhood trendy rather than merely profitable and empowering.

I don't know about you but the former isn't any worse than the latter two. Victimhood is cancer no matter what lens you're looking through and it undermines real victims who've had to live through nightmares. On that note, yes TikTok can't be banned soon enough. And that's not even it's real name, it's actually called "douyin" or some shit, fucking chinese spyware garbage. Some countries have already banned it recently, so we know it's not even hard to do.

[Tyrant99]

5 hours ago, GimmeBACON said:

It is. Pretty much all primates families are hostile to outsiders. Probably to protect their males from getting killed and there females pregnant... sounds largely the same now. ?

 

 

As long as our minds are free, we'll have differences. War isn't going to be a distant memory for a long time. ?

Yeah...

 

As long as our minds are free... Some places try to go the other way and make minds less 'free'. Modern China might be a good example of this. Putting millions of Uyghurs and Falun Gong into internment and 'reeducation camps' because their ideas don't fit with the authoritarian narrative. To create ideological 'unity' to solidify the power of the state.

 

The same thing happens with most authoritarian governments. They can't tolerate divergent ideas... 20-25 million Russians died in Stalin's Gulags for similar reasons.

 

The problem with ideological unity, imo, is that it doesn't necessarily make the society stronger in the end. When you make people too ideologically homogeneous, you also make them a hell of a lot less creative.

 

Why does China have 5x the population of the US but they haven't invented 5x the amount of technology? To the contrary, they tend to steal our IP. - Their 'think the way we tell you to' and 'only learn about the things we want you to' society doesn't foster creativity. 

 

Creativity is why US is a superpower - we beat everyone else to the punch on the development of nuclear technology. - But not just that, dozens of the most important technologies of the last century were created in our more ideological heterogeneous society.  Creativity is the key to the future and one of the most important things for humanity's long term survival.

 

At the end of the day, having your ideas 'win', whatever they are, might actually be counterproductive. Everyone just needs to calm the fuck down.