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.
Wait what do you mean by it? Oh AI. I guess that’s my bad for not adding a paragraph. I was saying AI can functionally be used like a parlor wall if someone wanted. As for hunger I was saying we humans can choose to solve world hunger, we choose not to. Also I never said it was a food production issue. You’re right that we definitely produce enough food for everyone yet there’s still starvation. It’s moreso a logistics issue as you pointed out and it’s not as simple as just sending food as that will ultimately have harmful effects on the local economy. You’re right that climate change is an issue and by this point we’re far past solving it by simply changing our behavior, technology will be needed and likely some degree of geo engineering. Worse case scenario we should be planning for a full collapse of the biosphere now. The technology we need for space colonies is about what would be necessary to continue surviving outside of nature just minus the structure and protection from collisions or radiation.
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.
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.
Wait what do you mean by it? Oh AI. I guess that’s my bad for not adding a paragraph. I was saying AI can functionally be used like a parlor wall if someone wanted. As for hunger I was saying we humans can choose to solve world hunger, we choose not to. Also I never said it was a food production issue. You’re right that we definitely produce enough food for everyone yet there’s still starvation. It’s moreso a logistics issue as you pointed out and it’s not as simple as just sending food as that will ultimately have harmful effects on the local economy. You’re right that climate change is an issue and by this point we’re far past solving it by simply changing our behavior, technology will be needed and likely some degree of geo engineering. Worse case scenario we should be planning for a full collapse of the biosphere now. The technology we need for space colonies is about what would be necessary to continue surviving outside of nature just minus the structure and protection from collisions or radiation.