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?
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.malloc wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 3:32 pmWhat 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.keenir wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 3:20 pmthats 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.
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.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?
a schoolteacher is a ruthless and implacable enemy? man, and i thought my highschool was tough.Obviously they want the masses to believe that Trump is struggling against ruthless and implacable enemies.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??
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.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.
Because not everyone is you.Then why do you support them? Wouldn't it make more sense to wash your hands of such a terrible species?rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 3:15 pmI don't support humans because they're perfect. I'm human too, and dumber than most.
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.malloc wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 3:41 pmSure 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?
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.keenir wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 3:57 pmpeople 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?
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.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.
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.a schoolteacher is a ruthless and implacable enemy? man, and i thought my highschool was tough.
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.rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 4:42 pmYou 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]by malloc » Fri Feb 21, 2025 7:10 pmI've also answered the other issues you raised many, many times.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.
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?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.
...a claim that is supported by none of your posts, sadly.I have much higher opinion of humanity than you
nope; not surprising in the slightest.and yet I often wonder whether humans are worth defending (surprising as it might sound).
it would make no ethical sense, as you're not only advocating the hiring of ethics-less entitites...but You Are Advocating Genocide.There are times when even I genuinely suspect that letting AI replace us would make ethical if not practical sense.
that...i did not know.malloc wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 4:38 pmSure but Rotting Bones is an AI researcherkeenir wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 3:57 pmpeople 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?
computers that do not exist, nor will they ever exist.who regards humans with contempt so logically he should be jumping at the chance to replace us with hyperrational superintelligent computers.
the gulf Does Not Matter, and it never will -- even less does it matter what the ancients could imagine.The gulf in weaponry between the American government and people exceeds anything that Aristotle or Sun Tzu could even imagine,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.
you have no grasp of history, do you? the Incans were in a civil war at the time.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.
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.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.
Like I've told you many times before, AI models have no instinct for self-preservation.malloc wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 5:10 pm 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.
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.
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".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.
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 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 5:46 pmIf 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.
Genocide is so evil that you will replace humans with AI?malloc wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 6:02 pm 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.
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 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 6:57 pmGenocide is so evil that you will replace humans with AI?
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.malloc wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 7:25 pm 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.
why is that? what instincts would an AI have? or would "garbage in, garbage out" give it what you call 'truculent primate 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.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.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.
why would that make them bloodthirsty?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
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.and lean heavily to the right.
...and most of those who don't stand behind those soldiers, are the politicians who lean 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".
maybe start paying attention to the good things humans have done "throughout history and indeed the present" for once? please?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 wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 5:46 pmIf 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.
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.
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.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.
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.rotting bones wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 7:30 pmDespite 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?
If you're referring to this, I'm talking about systemic rights arising from underlying coercion. It also answers your question.malloc wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 8:34 pm 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.
so, human instincts.
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)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.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.
you keep adding a lot of zeroes to your numbers and claims. I think you're confusing Trump with the Imperial Japanese Air Force.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.
coming from someone who wants to replace humans with machines, you have no room to cast stones, aspersions, or anything else.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.
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.
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.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.
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.you keep adding a lot of zeroes to your numbers and claims. I think you're confusing Trump with the Imperial Japanese Air Force.
like i said, garbage in, garbage out.malloc wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 10:22 pmHuman 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.
oh yes, there was lots of support...yet the right wingers never signed up for active duty -- not during Afghanistan, not during Iraq.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.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.
Now he has an overwhelming torrent of propaganda on his side and will see his popularity soar to new heights if anything.[/quote]you keep adding a lot of zeroes to your numbers and claims. I think you're confusing Trump with the Imperial Japanese Air Force.
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?malloc wrote: ↑Fri Feb 21, 2025 10:22 pm 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.