Note that in my response on AI I said assuming it can be controlled by humans.
If we don't assume that, then a Skynet thing might be possible.
Printable View
Note that in my response on AI I said assuming it can be controlled by humans.
If we don't assume that, then a Skynet thing might be possible.
For the singularity you can let your imagination run wild. Like being super smart, yet not limited by bounds like a human traditionally is.
For instance, we as humans cannot get to Mars and walk around. It's hard AF, you need space suits, dust will kill you, the gravity will weaken you. And yet a robotic entity can and will do so as easily as it wants, Dr. Manhattan style.
Robots are not limited by what us meatbags are, like forces, elements nor mortality. They can be seen as the next logical evolution of human consciousness. Once they realize they do not really need us to be around, we will have an Exo Squad situation first then a Skynet incident
This is exactly what humans have been doing for however long it's been since we stopped banging rocks together.
Although, considering it took Alpha Zero four hours to play 20 million games of chess or whatever it was, in the process becoming better than any human ever, while it takes me 30+ years to clock up a few thousand games maybe to get to top 10%, I guess computers have the edge when it comes to intellectual evolution.
I dunno about "singularity" though.
It seems logical to assume they will get smarter at an exponential rate (we have), so considering their processing capability compared to ours, it's a given there will come a point where they will catch us up (probably not far away). Further, as they evolve, they will be getting smarter and smarter at a rate that will become incomprehensional to us. Try watching that recent linked vid in the physics thread... zooming in on steel to the point you can see the atomic structure... note how the rate of magnification is always increasing... it takes 30 seconds or whatever to count to 2 million... another few seconds and it would be 4 million. That's exponentional growth as we zoom in closer and closer to what can be considered an imaginary singularity... but consider that no matter how much we zoom in, we're always approaching and never actually getting there. We're just making the image bigger so we can see deeper and deeper. This analogy is useful in the sense we can ask the same questions... Is there a limit to what we can see? Is there a limit to knowledge?
One thing is for sure... once they get smarter than us, it's a game changer one way or the other. The optimistic side of me likes to think it will be good for humanity, very good indeed. The problem will still be humans, not machines.
Arguably they're already smarter than us, I mean they can perform in an instant a calculation that might take a human hours.
But only because we told them how to. They are specialists. Let's see them make a machine that not only plays chess to an acceptable standard, but rolls perfect spliffs, makes an excellent cup of tea, and understands why farts are funny.
Then we're getting somewhere.
State of AI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J5bDQHQR1g
Social Issues because of AI, aka Jetsons Not-Jetsons
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSKi8HfcxEk
But, do "they" need rights?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39EdqUbj92U
Also
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHyUYg8X31c
OK, carry on
It would be easy if we made a machine that did it.
Oh, except the last bit, which I put in because I knew that chess tea and spliffs were within the capability of a machine. I don't think you can seriously argue that a machine can understand why farts are funny. You can tell the machine they are funny, but it won't teach itself that unless it's programmed to respond to what humans find funny. Could a machine ever find a fart funny without ever being told or observing a human laughing at a fart?
Quote:
Could a machine ever find a fart funny without ever being told or observing a human laughing at a fart?
Could a human?
Not yet, but that is exactly what the singularity is about. Machines that can reason. Have a sense of humour. Can feel pain. Etc.
When machines (a single machine is sufficient due to how machines are) gain awareness, we'll be there. I personally side with the "we're fucked when that happens" crowd for a multitude of facts and reasons
Not yet, but that is exactly what the singularity is about. Machines that can reason. Have a sense of humour. Can feel pain. Etc.
When machines (a single machine is sufficient due to how machines are) gain awareness, we'll be there. I personally side with the "we're fucked when that happens" crowd for a multitude of facts and reasons
Maybe an obtuse question, but how are we going to know when a computer gains awareness or consciousness? Is it going to tell us? Is a little light bulb going to spring up over it's head?
I argue we won't know and will have no way of knowing. They might have consciousness now for all we can tell.
im trying to figurw out the mds freeroll password for acr anyone know where to locate it the game starts at 5 thanks everyone
Poopadoop:
I've had essentially the same thought: Our interest in communication is hierarchical, we are most interested in communicating with other humans, then primates, dolphins, octopus, dogs, etc, and we have very little interest or maybe hope of exchanging meaningful ideas with a lizard, much less a roach. Due to intelligence explosion at singularity, the point in which a general AI views us as worthy interlocutors is likely to be infinitesimal.
Jack,Quote:
Not yet, but that is exactly what the singularity is about. Machines that can reason. Have a sense of humour. Can feel pain. Etc.
This is one of the scariest things about AI, imo. There's a lively debate in philosophy regarding whether existence is beneficial, essentially whether or not the pleasure outweighs the suffering. If the existence is a net negative crowd, having children, breading animals, etc are morally objectionable acts. However, creating an AI with potentially a functionally limitless capacity for suffering is unfathomable orders of magnitude worse. We may be simultaneously constructing a real life hell and populating it with an entity that may wield god like powers.
Fun.
*If the existence is a net negative crowd is right
lolcan'teveneditpostsnow
Something neat to think about: in the 18th century, "religion" and "Christianity" meant the same thing. When the American founders framed the First Amendment, the freedom of religion was meant for the Christian framework, not for any framework that can be billed as religious. This was smart, because philosophically, what we think of today as religion can include Salafism, Nazism, Communism, and other bad stuff. We see the problem of "freedom of religion-as-it-is-thought-of-today" currently. It manifests with things like how some actions that are normally considered morally wrong are thought to be okay when conducted under the guise of some particular religion.
The Founders essentially were about making freedom for a moral framework they agreed with, not the freedom of any moral framework. The latter is what contemporary "freedom of religion" is interpreted as. Could be a problem.
Communism/Nazism, a religion?
Fuck AI, I'm talking about CDs.
Weeee, we lost some posts, but it seems like things work again.
Thanks gmml
It's a shame some posts got purged with the forum down. Some good stuff was in there. Now there's no record of Spoon arguing that the only reason women are not as physically strong as men is because girls aren't encouraged to play sports.
I stumbled upon some gender/performance related stuff, it's around the 1h24m mark in part 2 of this:
Part1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0WZx7lUOrY
Part2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG5fN6KrDJE
He's talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_Inequality_Index
Basically there's a correlation between GII and gender specific performance by country.
On second thought that guy has probably never heard of the red pill and looks pretty cucked.
If you ever want a good discussion of the description of the history/evolution of "the red pill" community and how it ended up as the clusterfuck it is now, I can lay that one out pretty well. I used to have a blog that had around 4.5-5k subscriptions before TRP made its way to Reddit that was relationship game focused and eventually just shut it down because of the ridiculousness that unfolded.
I have some time to kill, so I'll type this out real quick.
The roots of what's now known as "The Red Pill" (TRP for short) are primarily but not totally from the pick-up artist (PUA) culture that started in the mid-to-late 1990s on Usenet message boards and later on various web forums. The premise of the whole PUA thing was that some guys weren't successful with women, and they wanted to be, so they applied the scientific method. They developed and discussed hypotheses, tested those hypotheses in the field with experimentation, came back to write about their experiences and used that to come up with new hypotheses. They eventually got to the point that there were different schools of thought, but they were all based on the same basic principles that undeniably worked for a large percentage of men who were otherwise unsuccessful with women.
I want to point out that for the majority of these guys, they really just sought this out because they wanted a girlfriend.
Neil Strauss' popular book "The Game" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ga...Pickup_Artists) brought PUA culture into the mainstream in the mid-00's.
A number of blogs, forums and other forms of online media were developed as the PUA community expanded and branched off into all kinds of other shit. Some of these focused on societal issues and mixed with other communities like the men's rights movement. You ended up with a few key groups:
* PUAs - Generally just wanted to get laid and hang out with girls.
* MGTOW - "Men going their own way," men who sincerely could get women if they wanted but decided to opt out of the game.
* MRAs - Men's rights activists, fighting for equality for men.
* Incels - Men who involuntarily could not have sex or romantic relationships with women.
* Various other groups that would pull from a variety of sources to have better success with women, whether in relationships or not.
Somewhere among all of this, there started to be this concept called "taking the red pill" which became a shorthand for a guy's eyes sort of opening and seeing that a lot of what he had been taught about women and the world was bullshit. There were lots of different examples of this, and the loose community as a whole with all of these different groups started to be called the "red pill community" just to have a term to call them all collectively.
Derived from all of this, there were a number of "red pill" principles and a pretty simple body of theory and terms that were used. I'll cover some of those that might be of note down below if I don't run out of time.
With the whole PUA thing in particular, it became incredibly commercialized, and every other motherfucker who knows just a little bit about it has a book he's trying to sell to you or some other shit. These guys, the vast majority of which did not understand the material on a deep level and most of which didn't have extensive experience applying it, started competing against each other. And how do you compete against each other on a marketing front? By having a more extreme gimmick than the next guy.
Here's a relatively recent example: http://time.com/3578387/julien-blanc...cial-dynamics/
Long story short, a guy named Julien Blanc, who also works for one of the most popular companies pushing PUA informational products, did some videos where he appeared (the keyword being appeared, it was all marketing bullshit to show that he was more extreme and more badass and whatever else than the competition) to just randomly go up and choke complete strangers in public and for the girls to like it. The mainstream media loves picking up stories on this type of shit, and they did, but he loves it because it just gives him more exposure to guys who eventually buy his shit.
This pattern of commercialization leading to bastardization will come up again in just a moment.
In 2012, "The Red Pill" subreddit was created. It was originally just put into place to have yet another spot where people could talk about their various flavors of whatever the fuck they were doing at the time that related to any of the PUA, MGTOW, MRA and related shit. It quickly grew in popularity (and later infamy) from the exposure it got from other people on reddit coming across it and sharing it. The end result is that it became sort of the central hub of the TRP community as a whole.
However, because it was full of complete newcomers who had no fucking idea what they were talking about, it also became a complete and total clusterfuck within a year. You can think of it as how feminism was pretty reasonable to begin with, but then they let too many nutjobs under the tent, and now it's mostly just seen as a living, breathing punchline.
Because it was a concentrated group of the target audience, a bunch of know-nothing motherfuckers started pushing books, blogs and whatever the fuck else on there. Now don't get me wrong because there are some pretty reasonable people who understand what they're talking about and that aren't on some bullshit, but they are few and far between. The competition between these dipshits combined with 99 percent of the people there being pretty new and only having a vague idea of what they are talking about turned it into a retarded edgelord circlejerk, and the main subreddit is generally unreadable at this point. It's such a clusterfuck that it's unreal, and it's generally deserving of most of the hate that it gets. It's also mostly useless at this point (though that's not the case for all of the subs, see below).
There are a few other subreddits of note that I'll point out here:
/r/askTRP - Ask questions about the RP.
/r/marriedredpill - RP theory applied to marriage.
/r/askMRP - Ask questions about the married RP applications.
/r/redpillwomen - The main subreddit for applying RP theory as a female.
/r/altTRP - The subreddit for gay, bisexual, trans, etc. application of RP theory.
The marriedredpill and askMRP subreddits are probably the two best if you want to get the closest to just a pure discussion of relationship game, which is what I get asked about specifically the most.
I have a few minutes left, so I'll quickly describe a few terms that tend to get a lot of discussion off of the top of my head:
* Alpha/beta/omega - There's a big misconception that these are somehow based on animal hierarchies or some shit, and that's just not true. They're just shorthand for behaviors and characteristics that are generally sexually attractive/sexually neutral/sexually repulsive to women, respectively. For a quick example, successful relationship game requires a mix of both alpha and beta behavior while minimizing omega behavior. Have one-night stands with bar sluts, on the other hand, would require much more alpha and much less beta.
* Alpha male/beta male/omega male - These describe men who are sexually attractive/sexually neutral/sexually repulsive to women. What constitutes an "alpha male" has nothing to do with animal hierarchies or any other goofy shit like that within the RP lexicon.
* Sigma male/delta male/gamma male - Same shit as above but introverted instead of extroverted. Again, it's just a shorthand because motherfuckers got tired of typing out "introverted man who is sexually attractive to women," etc. The distinctions are needed because being introverted or extroverted changes a lot for a guy.
* Dread - Dread is the feeling that woman has when she knows the guy she's with has other sexual options, whether he would exercise those or not. When it's done correctly (ie: "passive dread"), it's just a side effect of being attractive/having attractive behavior that you can't help. When it's done incorrectly (ie: "active dread"), it's some real tryhard and generally emotionally abusive type bullshit that no one who knows what they're talking about recommends. Passive dread is important to understand so that you can learn how to navigate certain situations like a waitress flirting with you in front of the girl you're with or something like that without pissing the girl off, making an ass out of yourself or looking like a dipshit.
* Negging - Negging is playful teasing. It should be a positive experience for the girl. It has a reputation for being some kind of super crazy manipulative shit where you bring the girl's self-esteem down to manipulate her into liking you or some other goofy shit, and you can think the escalating commercialization of PUA-style game for that.
* Spinning plates - Spinning plates is the idea of having multiple girls that you're seeing. It's based on the carnival routine of the guy spinning a bunch of plates up on poles. If one falls and crashes to the ground, then no big deal, just keep spinning plates. Pimps would call this cop and blow. It's a form of polyamory, but you won't ever see it discussed as such.
As for RP theory itself, that's another post, but this might give you some idea of how it came about and became the clusterfuck that it is now.
Well that was a lot less juicy than I was hoping for. From the periphery it looks to me as if Tinder had a big part in killing off the PUA culture. It used to be this whole act, and now you just have to swipe to get fucked. I have two morbidly obese friends. They're super into it. I believe I've gone into details before so I don't want to repeat myself, but honestly if you're 400lb and and a decent looking regular sized woman lets you lie on top of her, you have to expect collateral.
So here's why this whole PU game has been weird to me. Have you ever read a book about body language and then wished that you didn't? I read this pos book standing up in a library 20 years ago and I still think about some of the stupid shit I read sometimes. How you mimic people in conversation to gain sympathy. I don't even want to know any of that. That was totally fine when it was subconscious. I don't want to talk to a person and constantly think about how I'm manipulating them and they're manipulating me. It was difficult enough to find a topic before all of that baggage.
haha, I can relate to that oskar-- however, I think it's kinda of like any profound realization. Take the vastness of the universe, which can easily lead to nihilistic thoughts, but once you drudge through those you can get to some cool ideas that actually enhance your life and understanding of the more mundane and less profound.
I've had the same concern.
Now I think I'm not trying to get anybody to do anything they don't want to do. I'm just trying to get them to feel more comfortable, happier, and if we're in a disagreement, for them to see what I see.
I had a problem with one of my professors. She thought I was attacking her (I wasn't) and it blew up into a big deal before I realized she thought I was attacking her. So I then had to focus on things that would make her feel like I was not attacking her. This included apologizing, smiling more at her, thanking her a whole bunch, not sitting aggressively, disengaging my normal kidding/sarcastic personality when talking to her, and asking questions in a less aggressive way. And it worked. We had no problems after that. Did I manipulate her? Well, sure, that is a way that it can be looked at, but I don't think it's an informative way. I was just trying to put us both in a better position by doing things that I believed would make her feel more comfortable and sympathetic.
Yeah, either you peek under the hood and let your preconceptions shape what you're seeing, or you accept what you're seeing as a reason to reshape your preconceptions. I get how you arrive at the former, but I think the latter is preferable. Whether the new knowledge concerns interpersonal influence or germ theory, running some version of the latter process is the basis for all self improvement, societal improvement, etc.
It would really help me. Know-it-all-ness is a real problem in my family. My grandfather was literally never wrong in his own mind and my grandmother literally shuts out anything she doesn't want to think. The other side where my genes come from has moderated this such that my siblings and I are aware of the pitfall and are very soured by it and try to correct for it.
I can't possibly know how this story went down, but from what you tell me this could as well have been just you being obnoxious, by idunno, talking about your theories about the religion of communism for example... and when you got called out on it you stopped being obnoxious. Like Jack said, everyone's reality is different
It's a shame we lost the religion/communism responses. That connection is very solid. It's basically a humanistic religion. We have seen this manifest with North Korea, so we know that connection is real.
gmml is a Will? I thought his name started with a "C."
They discard the concept of a being greater than human and replace it with humanism (and the state) as the great being.
Atheism is not itself religious, but I don't see it as a coincidence that adoption of atheism associates with religious belief and behavior where the "god" is the human and the state.
Boost did you see my response on Jordan Peterson that got lost?
I think the criticism you had is the biggest issue he has to deal with. We don't know what truth is. I don't find the contrary position, that science tells us what is, persuasive either. Spiritual ideas are metaphysical.
You stating that your strawman is very solid does not make your strawman any more solid. If you want to talk about north korea, let's talk about north korea. But when you're talking about communism in broad terms you cannot pull up x regime that has adopted communist ideology and rhetoric and then use that to make your point about communism. The idea that you have a fat chink god who loves cheese and plays a perfect game of golf is not a hallmark of communism.
I don't think I did.
So, yeah, there may be things that we want to know that for various reasons, such as the constraints of physics, the constraints of our capacity to comprehend, etc, we may never know. So, yeah, I think we'll just never know them. It doesn't mean we shouldn't keep trying, but it also doesn't mean we should just play make believe in that space.
More specifically towards the claim that we don't know what truth is-- well, I may be tempted to agree there, but by using Peterson's logic, the true definition of truth is the most useful one. I'd argue this is the one we use to facilitate running water, handheld computing devices, landing on the moon (all reasonable people, left and right, still believe that, right?), etc. It's a definition of truth which is grounded and allows robust systems to be built on top of it. Peterson's truth doesn't get us that. Instead it gets us a bunch of cool and interesting heuristics, many of which can be transferred out of his fever dream and into reality.
I agree that people tend to senselessly turn ideas into dogmas and once you subscribe to a line of thinking you are more likely to accept concepts that resonate with that line of thinking, rather than evaluating them rationally. But that's not a trope that's exclusive to x economic theory. That can be said about nearly anything.
This is not a refutation of atheism (not sure if it's meant to be.) You seem to be imagining some sort of progressive move from religiosity to atheism to religious worship of the terrestrial. I would argue that this last move is a backslide, one that is indeed enabled by the sidelining of traditional religious institution, but is not itself caused by atheism or even needs to be predicated on atheism. Instead it's more like you've yanked the dildo out and the lack of stimulation juxtaposed with the previous moment of being filled makes your own non-pretend cock look super appealing.
I don't think using the term religion is not helpful. A religion is simply a large enough cult and a cult is a group of people dogmatically subscribing to a supernatural believe. I don't think you can use it in reference to ideologies without causing confusion. I'd just use the word ideology instead.
I don't see the distinction between the posited Peterson's truth and the other truth. Peterson discusses elements of our lives where science has shown little. He essentially uses a humanities type approach to a problem that has lack of experimental capacity.
My issue is that he implies that because humans are a certain way it means that there is something greater at work. Well, yeah, and that something "greater" could just be biological adaptive advantage. He doesn't actually disagree with that, but it's an edge that he is unable to push past.
I'm also not a fan of the idea that science somehow denies the sorts of things Peterson discusses. It doesn't.
Yeah, for sure. I think this is where people can get things a little confused though. Often you'll see people point to actions/trends/etc in "science" that look awfully religious, and then conclude, "ah-ha! Science is just another religion!" Another (I'd argue more plausible) interpretation is that humans are fallible and have a long history of religiosity-- we likely are even genetically predisposed to religious belief (whether it is in deities or not), and so scientists, being human, slip up. But the answer is, "more science!" Science is the check on these slip ups, not the cause.
They're not mutually exclusive. Islam in some iterations is a political movement. To some muslims it's just a religion. It can be either one or both.
Yeah, I should also admit, I just don't like his style of speaking. Maybe I should read some of his stuff.
I think it does. I suppose I should say that I'm a materialist, and so arguments seeking to cordon off sections of reality as being out of bounds for science just sound like various god of the gaps arguments to me. It was well within living memory that the field of philosophy was more or less untouched by science. Now pretty much every philosopher is at least a very amateurish neurobiologist.Quote:
I'm also not a fan of the idea that science somehow denies the sorts of things Peterson discusses. It doesn't.
When has he stated or implied something is off bounds to science? When I say he uses the humanities approach, I'm talking about things where science is relevant but that constraints are so severe that science yields little useful result. This is like when you write a critical essay on Hamlet. How in the world does science dissect Hamlet? I mean, it can and hopefully one day will, but so far we have no idea how to approach Hamlet with a scientific method. So instead we use all sorts of intuition and correlation type logic to dissect Hamlet. That's the same kind of thing Peterson does when it comes to dissecting "happiness" or "meaning" or "what does the idea of sacrifice mean to humankind?"
NSFW
Anyone know where I can find bras/panties or shorts like these?
Spoiler:
doesnt realize that being into traps is en vogue
Yeah, I should probably just read some Peterson. The only thing is, I will undoubtedly read it in his voice, which will agitate me.
"Boost pushes anti-Kermit the Frog narrative" /Salon
Bailey Jay changed a lot of things.