Random Thread

[malloc]

Then why do you support them? Wouldn't it make more sense to wash your hands of such a terrible species?

Besides self-interest? Strength in numbers.

Sure but given your enthusiasm for artificial intelligence, wouldn't it make more sense to throw your weight behind the development of AGI as a superior alternative to humans, an intelligent species with all our strengths and none of our weaknesses?

[keenir]

thats like arguing that, because we moderns have a better grasp of/on obscure pollination types (such as figs), than, say, Aristotle or Buddha, that we moderns have biotechnology such as commercial and military skywhales, bombadier beetlesupertanks, and basking sharkbarges.

What the hell are you talking about? Aristotle and for that matter most people predicting the collapse of existing regimes were living in an era when iron swords or wildly inaccurate muskets were the cutting edge of military technology.

and their writings were predicated upon that very thing. Aristotle and Sun Tzu wrote things for their own time and tech level; yes, we can use lessons drawn from them both even nowadays; but its pure strawmanning to say "well they wouldn't last five minutes against our technology, so they are useless" in terms of what they can still teach us.

Do you honestly believe the French Revolution would have occurred if the ancien régime could simply annihilate the revolutionaries with predator drones and nerve gas before they could even storm the Bastille?

yes. and not purely because those Bastille revolutionaries would have become martyrs -- last I checked, that concept existed even back then and even for people who were not Catholic.

for another thing, if those techs were available at the time, you're assuming that the Bastille (a prison, mind you) would still be used for what it historically was by revolutionaries...and you're assuming that the regime had mindlessly loyal and obedient slaves slavishly doing all the regime told them to do, with nobody able to refuse....

...a feature that modern regimes don't have.

So why do the oligarchs want Americans and the rest of the world, to know about all the troubles the oligarchs (and Trump) are having, in court and in national and international occurances??

Obviously they want the masses to believe that Trump is struggling against ruthless and implacable enemies.

a schoolteacher is a ruthless and implacable enemy? man, and i thought my highschool was tough.

They aren't presenting lawsuits against the Trump administration as successful resistance against a corrupt and weak regime but rather as attempted sabotage of a legitimate government.

are you sure you're not a right-winger? you seem to sing their praises and come to their defense with great ease and speed.

I don't support humans because they're perfect. I'm human too, and dumber than most.

Then why do you support them? Wouldn't it make more sense to wash your hands of such a terrible species?

Because not everyone is you.

(also, refusing to condemn something or someone, is not the same thing as supporting something or someone)

[keenir]

Then why do you support them? Wouldn't it make more sense to wash your hands of such a terrible species?

Besides self-interest? Strength in numbers.

Sure but given your enthusiasm for artificial intelligence, wouldn't it make more sense to throw your weight behind the development of AGI as a superior alternative to humans, an intelligent species with all our strengths and none of our weaknesses?

that isn't available now. from what I've seen, most people on this board prefer to chose from options that are presently available to chose from.

if a plane's engines cut out, and its gliding down towards the ground...are you seriously going to say "we need to work harder on making AI/AGI to replace pilots!" as your solution to saving the passengers on that plane?

[malloc]

people on this board prefer to chose from options that are presently available to chose from.

if a plane's engines cut out, and its gliding down towards the ground...are you seriously going to say "we need to work harder on making AI/AGI to replace pilots!" as your solution to saving the passengers on that plane?

Sure but Rotting Bones is an AI researcher who regards humans with contempt so logically he should be jumping at the chance to replace us with hyperrational superintelligent computers.

and their writings were predicated upon that very thing. Aristotle and Sun Tzu wrote things for their own time and tech level; yes, we can use lessons drawn from them both even nowadays; but its pure strawmanning to say "well they wouldn't last five minutes against our technology, so they are useless" in terms of what they can still teach us.

The gulf in weaponry between the American government and people exceeds anything that Aristotle or Sun Tzu could even imagine, as I already noted. For that matter it vastly exceeds the technological gulf between the Spanish conquistadors and the Indigenous people they effortlessly conquered or even exterminated. Consider how easily the Spanish crushed the Inca and Aztecs at their height and remember that the US military has vastly superior technology. Even if protests got large enough to threaten the MAGA regime, they could simply annihilate the protestors with tanks or drones and claim the protestors were terrorists.

a schoolteacher is a ruthless and implacable enemy? man, and i thought my highschool was tough.

From the standpoint of right wingers, certainly. They really detest government employees and public education. Liquidating the civil service and replacing it with private corporations as been their goal all along and they are rapidly achieving it now through DOGE and such.

[rotting bones]

You don't seem to grasp the concept of self-interest. I can't help you.

I've also answered the other issues you raised many, many times.

[malloc]

You don't seem to grasp the concept of self-interest. I can't help you.

I've also answered the other issues you raised many, many times.

I understand the concept of self-interest but it seems a poor justification for defending beings you consider garbage. You readily concede that humans are stupid and evil and that the world would be better off without us. Yet you fight for our existence and even prosperity simply to benefit yourself. Quite honestly that sounds thoroughly unethical. I have much higher opinion of humanity than you and yet I often wonder whether humans are worth defending (surprising as it might sound). There are times when even I genuinely suspect that letting AI replace us would make ethical if not practical sense.

[keenir]

by malloc » Fri Feb 21, 2025 7:10 pm

rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 6:42 pm
You don't seem to grasp the concept of self-interest. I can't help you.

I've also answered the other issues you raised many, many times.

I understand the concept of self-interest but it seems a poor justification for defending beings you consider garbage.[/quote]

not every abolitionist was someone who would've let a former slave marry their kid. yet they remained staunch abolitionists.

You readily concede that humans are stupid and evil and that the world would be better off without us. Yet you fight for our existence and even prosperity simply to benefit yourself.

thats not what Rotting Bones said. you attempted to engineer a "ha, gotcha!" moment, and Rotting Bones avoided it deftly and well...and now you're accusing Rotting Bones of egotism?

I have much higher opinion of humanity than you

...a claim that is supported by none of your posts, sadly.

and yet I often wonder whether humans are worth defending (surprising as it might sound).

nope; not surprising in the slightest.

There are times when even I genuinely suspect that letting AI replace us would make ethical if not practical sense.

it would make no ethical sense, as you're not only advocating the hiring of ethics-less entitites...but You Are Advocating Genocide.

people on this board prefer to chose from options that are presently available to chose from.

if a plane's engines cut out, and its gliding down towards the ground...are you seriously going to say "we need to work harder on making AI/AGI to replace pilots!" as your solution to saving the passengers on that plane?

Sure but Rotting Bones is an AI researcher

that...i did not know.

though, what does that have to do with how, if a plane is crashing, your reaction is to scream for AI research to replace the pilot?

who regards humans with contempt so logically he should be jumping at the chance to replace us with hyperrational superintelligent computers.

computers that do not exist, nor will they ever exist.

and their writings were predicated upon that very thing. Aristotle and Sun Tzu wrote things for their own time and tech level; yes, we can use lessons drawn from them both even nowadays; but its pure strawmanning to say "well they wouldn't last five minutes against our technology, so they are useless" in terms of what they can still teach us.

The gulf in weaponry between the American government and people exceeds anything that Aristotle or Sun Tzu could even imagine,

the gulf Does Not Matter, and it never will -- even less does it matter what the ancients could imagine.

as I already noted. For that matter it vastly exceeds the technological gulf between the Spanish conquistadors and the Indigenous people they effortlessly conquered or even exterminated. Consider how easily the Spanish crushed the Inca and Aztecs at their height and remember that the US military has vastly superior technology.

you have no grasp of history, do you? the Incans were in a civil war at the time.

also, there is no single head of the protestors, and probably never will be - which means the option to capture the leader and force good behavior, does not exist here.

though I'm detecting you are getting disturbingly excited at the prospect of gassing protestors and running them over with tanks. I do hope I'm misreading you.

Even if protests got large enough to threaten the MAGA regime, they could simply annihilate the protestors with tanks or drones and claim the protestors were terrorists.

no they could not annialate the protestors...not with tanks, not with drones, not with soldiers. for one thing, the first two are not allowed in cities. for another, soldiers ARE ALLOWED TO REFUSE TO FOLLOW ORDERS...as we keep telling you.

and given that even MAGA supporters are blowing up Tesla vehicles at the entrances to Trump hotels...

[rotting bones]

I understand the concept of self-interest but it seems a poor justification for defending beings you consider garbage. You readily concede that humans are stupid and evil and that the world would be better off without us. Yet you fight for our existence and even prosperity simply to benefit yourself. Quite honestly that sounds thoroughly unethical. I have much higher opinion of humanity than you and yet I often wonder whether humans are worth defending (surprising as it might sound). There are times when even I genuinely suspect that letting AI replace us would make ethical if not practical sense.

Like I've told you many times before, AI models have no instinct for self-preservation.

If computers get facts right more often than elephants, is it "ethical" to replace all elephants with computers?

Actually, you don't even need to get into the weeds. You are effectively saying that if alice is right more often than eddy, then eddy is a garbage person and must be replaced for great justice.

I'm skeptical of morality with Marx, and this sounds like Nazi crap even to me.

[malloc]

it would make no ethical sense, as you're not only advocating the hiring of ethics-less entitites...but You Are Advocating Genocide.

Computers with human-level intelligence and decision-making ability would certainly have the capacity for ethics. Indeed without our truculent primate instincts, they would if anything have exemplary ethics. I don't seriously believe in eliminating humanity but there are times when I wonder whether the sheer weight of our crimes demands some equally severe penalty. Certainly it feels hard to keep giving humans "get out of jail free" cards simply because I happen to belong to the taxon Homo sapiens.

no they could not annialate the protestors...not with tanks, not with drones, not with soldiers. for one thing, the first two are not allowed in cities. for another, soldiers ARE ALLOWED TO REFUSE TO FOLLOW ORDERS...as we keep telling you.

They could simply wave the rule against using tanks or drones in cities, just as they are currently ignoring all the other rules meant to prevent abuses of power. There is no reason to assume that soldiers would refuse to follow orders to kill the protestors, given that those soldiers joined the military of their own volition and lean heavily to the right. There are plenty of people looking for the chance to implement the slogan "those who do not stand behind our soldiers should stand in front of them".

If computers get facts right more often than elephants, is it "ethical" to replace all elephants with computers?

Actually, you don't even need to get into the weeds. You are effectively saying that if alice is right more often than eddy, then eddy is a garbage person and must be replaced for great justice.

The problem is not merely factual accuracy but millennia of horrific evil: genocide, patriarchy, slavery, and so much more. The preponderance of human evil throughout history and indeed the present has really started to weigh on me, particularly with the overwhelming popularity of reactionary politics in recent years.

[rotting bones]

The problem is not merely factual accuracy but millennia of horrific evil: genocide, patriarchy, slavery, and so much more. The preponderance of human evil throughout history and indeed the present has really started to weigh on me, particularly with the overwhelming popularity of reactionary politics in recent years.

Genocide is so evil that you will replace humans with AI?

PS. Friedrich Hegel — 'Evil resides in the very gaze which perceives Evil all around itself.'

[malloc]

Genocide is so evil that you will replace humans with AI?

Quite the contrary. I have consistently defended humanity against the onslaught of AI as its proposed replacement. Nonetheless it has proven remarkably difficult to defend humans on ethical grounds. Given the incredible advances of AI over the past few years, even the practical necessity of humans for sustaining civilization seems increasingly dubious.

[rotting bones]

Quite the contrary. I have consistently defended humanity against the onslaught of AI as its proposed replacement. Nonetheless it has proven remarkably difficult to defend humans on ethical grounds. Given the incredible advances of AI over the past few years, even the practical necessity of humans for sustaining civilization seems increasingly dubious.

Despite genocide being so evil, you find it difficult defend the position that we shouldn't commit genocide against humans and replace them with AI. That's why you are surprised that an AI researcher with a low opinion of human common sense doesn't want to commit genocide against humans and replace them with AI.

Do you hear how kooky this sounds?

[keenir]

it would make no ethical sense, as you're not only advocating the hiring of ethics-less entitites...but You Are Advocating Genocide.

Computers with human-level intelligence and decision-making ability would certainly have the capacity for ethics. Indeed without our truculent primate instincts, they would if anything have exemplary ethics.

why is that? what instincts would an AI have? or would "garbage in, garbage out" give it what you call 'truculent primate instincts'?

no they could not annialate the protestors...not with tanks, not with drones, not with soldiers. for one thing, the first two are not allowed in cities. for another, soldiers ARE ALLOWED TO REFUSE TO FOLLOW ORDERS...as we keep telling you.

They could simply wave the rule against using tanks or drones in cities, just as they are currently ignoring all the other rules meant to prevent abuses of power.

they can waive all they want -- they wouldn't have anyone manning the tanks or controlling the drones, before or after the gutting of the DOD.

There is no reason to assume that soldiers would refuse to follow orders to kill the protestors, given that those soldiers joined the military of their own volition

why would that make them bloodthirsty?

and lean heavily to the right.

riight, all those soldiers who volunteered to help in the Ukraine during Biden's term are just itching to outjackboot the Russians in American cities.

I believe the expression is "do you even hear yourself?"

There are plenty of people looking for the chance to implement the slogan "those who do not stand behind our soldiers should stand in front of them".

...and most of those who don't stand behind those soldiers, are the politicians who lean right.

If computers get facts right more often than elephants, is it "ethical" to replace all elephants with computers?
Actually, you don't even need to get into the weeds. You are effectively saying that if alice is right more often than eddy, then eddy is a garbage person and must be replaced for great justice.

The problem is not merely factual accuracy but millennia of horrific evil: genocide, patriarchy, slavery, and so much more. The preponderance of human evil throughout history and indeed the present has really started to weigh on me, particularly with the overwhelming popularity of reactionary politics in recent years.

maybe start paying attention to the good things humans have done "throughout history and indeed the present" for once? please?

[malloc]

why is that? what instincts would an AI have? or would "garbage in, garbage out" give it what you call 'truculent primate instincts'?

That would depend on the agenda of its programmer. One can easily imagine an AI programmed with the highest ideals and an overriding aversion to violating them.

they can waive all they want -- they wouldn't have anyone manning the tanks or controlling the drones, before or after the gutting of the DOD.

There are plenty of people who would volunteer to refill the military and slaughter protestors. You really underestimate just how passionately many American conservatives hate and how eager they are to kill perceived enemies. There is no reason to doubt that Trump would struggle to find the thousands needed to operate tanks and drones, given that he currently has tens of millions of zealous followers.

Despite genocide being so evil, you find it difficult defend the position that we shouldn't commit genocide against humans and replace them with AI. That's why you are surprised that an AI researcher with a low opinion of human common sense doesn't want to commit genocide against humans and replace them with AI.

Do you hear how kooky this sounds?

You have indicated in the past that you have no truck with animal rights, that cows and chickens mean nothing to you and one can kill them without any qualms. Humans are merely one animal among millions, at least from the objective gaze of scientific rationality. You must ask what ethical and practical necessity Homo sapiens has to civilization that Bos taurus and Gallus gallus lack.

[Man in Space]

I’m not sure how this applies to cows, but as for chickens, we don’t have to ask why we cross roads.

[rotting bones]

You have indicated in the past that you have no truck with animal rights, that cows and chickens mean nothing to you and one can kill them without any qualms. Humans are merely one animal among millions, at least from the objective gaze of scientific rationality. You must ask what ethical and practical necessity Homo sapiens has to civilization that Bos taurus and Gallus gallus lack.

If you're referring to this, I'm talking about systemic rights arising from underlying coercion. It also answers your question.

Personally, I'm in the rationalist low meat crowd. I don't pretend this puts me on the road to sagehood. It pleases me to eat less meat than normal for a number of reasons. Lowering my contribution to the meat industry is one of them.

I cannot make others respect animal rights. They will not listen to me. Suffering pleases them. The only way to force the issue is to have a state religion like veganism or even Islam if you're satisfied with minimal standards of respect (assuming one day of the year doesn't make up for the rest).

[keenir]

why is that? what instincts would an AI have? or would "garbage in, garbage out" give it what you call 'truculent primate instincts'?

That would depend on the agenda of its programmer. One can easily imagine an AI programmed with the highest ideals and an overriding aversion to violating them.

so, human instincts.

they can waive all they want -- they wouldn't have anyone manning the tanks or controlling the drones, before or after the gutting of the DOD.

There are plenty of people who would volunteer to refill the military and slaughter protestors. You really underestimate just how passionately many American conservatives hate and how eager they are to kill perceived enemies.

if they didn't sign up en mass(e) to avenge the downing of the Twin Towers, Trump's not going to get them to start wearing the uniform of real soldiers (forming posses - sorry, militias - sure)

also, they didn't last time Trump was in office, and don't seem to be filling in now either.

There is no reason to doubt that Trump would struggle to find the thousands needed to operate tanks and drones, given that he currently has tens of millions of zealous followers.

you keep adding a lot of zeroes to your numbers and claims. I think you're confusing Trump with the Imperial Japanese Air Force.

Humans are merely one animal among millions, at least from the objective gaze of scientific rationality. You must ask what ethical and practical necessity Homo sapiens has to civilization that Bos taurus and Gallus gallus lack.

coming from someone who wants to replace humans with machines, you have no room to cast stones, aspersions, or anything else.

[malloc]

so, human instincts.

Human instincts lead us to cruelty and selfishness, the bloody struggle for dominance, sexual violence and betrayal, and ignorant superstition. Our highest ideals derive from reason and it requires intense study and practice to fulfill them with any regularity.

if they didn't sign up en mass(e) to avenge the downing of the Twin Towers, Trump's not going to get them to start wearing the uniform of real soldiers (forming posses - sorry, militias - sure)

also, they didn't last time Trump was in office, and don't seem to be filling in now either.

Actually the "war on terror" had an incredible level of enthusiasm behind it. As someone who became politically aware in the early 2000s, I distinctly remember Bush enjoying overwhelming popularity and support for his military interventions.

you keep adding a lot of zeroes to your numbers and claims. I think you're confusing Trump with the Imperial Japanese Air Force.

The results of the most recent election bare out my point quite handily. Trump won a clear plurality and almost a majority despite suffering almost continuous scandals over the past decade. Now he has an overwhelming torrent of propaganda on his side and will see his popularity soar to new heights if anything.

[keenir]

so, human instincts.

Human instincts lead us to cruelty and selfishness, the bloody struggle for dominance, sexual violence and betrayal, and ignorant superstition. Our highest ideals derive from reason and it requires intense study and practice to fulfill them with any regularity.

like i said, garbage in, garbage out.

if they didn't sign up en mass(e) to avenge the downing of the Twin Towers, Trump's not going to get them to start wearing the uniform of real soldiers (forming posses - sorry, militias - sure)
also, they didn't last time Trump was in office, and don't seem to be filling in now either.

Actually the "war on terror" had an incredible level of enthusiasm behind it. As someone who became politically aware in the early 2000s, I distinctly remember Bush enjoying overwhelming popularity and support for his military interventions.

oh yes, there was lots of support...yet the right wingers never signed up for active duty -- not during Afghanistan, not during Iraq.

our right wingers are like the Ultra Orthodox in Israel, only without the latter's right to avoid military service.

you keep adding a lot of zeroes to your numbers and claims. I think you're confusing Trump with the Imperial Japanese Air Force.

Now he has an overwhelming torrent of propaganda on his side and will see his popularity soar to new heights if anything.[/quote]

yes, soaring like a whistleblower with concrete dancing shoes.

[Lērisama]

I've been trying to stay out of this, but for some reason, this is my line.

---

Human instincts lead us to cruelty and selfishness, the bloody struggle for dominance, sexual violence and betrayal, and ignorant superstition. Our highest ideals derive from reason and it requires intense study and practice to fulfill them with any regularity.

Could you please provide evidence for this? I think human instincts lead to the second sense as well – I certainly couldn't reason for my axiom that “other people matter just as much as me”¹, but that doesn't mean that I have to do “intense study” to feel revulsion at [insert atrocity here], or decide to be kind to someone, even if it has no other impact on my life. Is it not possible to believe humans can be roughly equally disposed to both good and bad, or do you have to take a bad things as evidence for human nature and all good things as a product of some higher reasoning?


¹ Whether I actually live up to this fully is a different question, but I think beside the point

Edit: is there any actual evidence for such a clear separation between “human instict” and “higher reasoning” anyway? I thought they were both influenced by the other, which is itself damaging to Malloc's theory.