Artificial Intelligence: What it portends

[Age]

So, what's the solution?

The Last Resort

Here we have A TYPICAL "american" 'solution'. That is; guns, weapons, AND VIOLENCE will 'fix' and 'solve' EVERY thing.

As was just mentioned, 'the real malevolence lies in the sheer foolishness of humans, LITERALLY, only focusing ON' the above here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Like Nietzsche, I'm wary of intellectual aristocrats...your guru companions whose views you seemingly accept without critique...or nearly none!

You are completely, not partially, but completely wrong.

If you were convinced you’d made a wrong assessment, what would you do then?

You are just attempting a jibe because you think, wrongly, that Evola or O y G, or anyone, has become my ‘guru’.

You are talking out of your asshole, not your intelligent head. How does that serve you?

[Age]

Yet here is an important consideration. According to José Ortega y Gasset what has most marked our time (the last 150 years) has been the rise of the Mass Man. Technology, medicine, liberal politics and education have brought this Man into existence. Prior to that this Man did not have existence.

This view is so simplistic it's worthless! The so-called Mass Man has always existed wherever there is conformity to a society. When you see all the stalls in the Colosseum occupied watching executions, gladiators mutilate or kill each other and the mass killing of animals as entertainment, there you have a perfect example of Mass Man from 2000 years ago.

As Mass Man comes onto the scene, he determines the scene. Society and culture are now molded to his purposes, needs, wants & desires. He sees this as inevitable, necessary, good and proper. His values and ideals dominate. Nothing like this has ever happened and this is one reason why “modernity” is so extraordinary. But also fragile.

In nations like China, is it the "Mass Man" or the CCP that determines the scene?

The question has been raised before: Do you ever analyze or only accept what you read?

The Mass Man phenomena has always been with us in one form or another. Every one of them considered themselves as inevitable, necessary, good and proper. The main difference is the Masses are far greater now than they ever were before. In 1800, it's estimated there were 1 billion people on the planet. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion. To claim that Mass Man did exist prior to 150 years ago is to default to a complete misconception or outright lie!

It is GREAT to SEE some OPEN, CLEAR, and Correct VIEWS here in this reply and other replies from 'this one', instead of the usual FEAR and WORRY driven CLOSED or LIMITED VIEWS, from "others" here.

[Age]

The Mass Man phenomena has always been with us in one form or another. Every one of them considered themselves as inevitable, necessary, good and proper. The main difference is the Masses are far greater now than they ever were before. In 1800, it's estimated there were 1 billion people on the planet. In 1950 there were 2.5 billion. To claim that Mass Man did exist prior to 150 years ago is to default to a complete misconception or outright lie!

My suggestion for you would be to become more familiar with his work before you jump to these conclusions. Again, it is beginning to get irritating.

What could be REAL 'irritating' here "alexis jacobi" is if one did NOT ALREADY EXACTLY KNOW HOW and WHY 'you' are SO CLOSED and SO BLIND here.

What "dubious" has been SAYING and POINTING OUT here is FAR MORE Accurate AND Correct, then what 'you' are SAYING and CLAIMING here.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Whoa! It looks like PUBLIC OPINION is SWAYING to support of DUBIOUS!

I am CRUSHED!

[Age]

Jorge Luis Borges once wrote that to live in a time of great peril and promise is to experience both tragedy and comedy, with “the imminence of a revelation” in understanding ourselves and the world. Today our supposedly revolutionary advancements in artificial intelligence are indeed cause for both concern and optimism. Optimism because intelligence is the means by which we solve problems. Concern because we fear that the most popular and fashionable strain of A.I. — machine learning — will degrade our science and debase our ethics by incorporating into our technology a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge.

Here, in regard to either flesh and blood human intelligence or artificial machine intelligence, I come back to dasein. And, in particular, in regard to moral and political value judgments in the is/ought world.

But there is ONLY One Intelligence, of which 'It' does NOT exist in NON sentient materials. AND, which ONLY exists in ONE sentient animal, or creature, known of, by 'them', in the days when this was being written.

Really, what's the difference between them if neither of them in a No God world is able...either philosophically or scientifically...to establish a moral assessment that could actually be demonstrated to encompass behaviors that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous.

BUT considering the Fact that there can NOT be 'a world' WITHOUT 'God', solely because of what the 'God' word ACTUALLY REFERS TO and ENTAILS, the rest of what you wrote and/or asked here IS MOOT.

Chomsky will no doubt suggest that capitalism reflects "a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge" as it pertains to rational and virtuous behaviors. Whereas the Libertarians and the Objectivists among us, while agreeing that philosophically, politically, morally there is an optimal frame of mind, will insist instead that this is precisely what capitalism encompasses.

So, Mr. Flesh and Blood human being or Mr. Chatbot...which is it?

MOOT.

[Age]

Whoa! It looks like PUBLIC OPINION is SWAYING to support of DUBIOUS!

I am CRUSHED!

Whether one or MANY people AGREE WITH a 'point of view' IS of NO REAL IMPORTANCE here. What is of REAL IMPORTANCE is that what "dubious" has been SAYING and POINTING OUT here is IRREFUTABLY True. Whereas what 'you', "alexis jacobi", have been SAYING IS NOT True.

And THAT is HOW the WORDS here ARE ACTUALLY CRUSHED, or NOT.

[Age]

Why would this create a "mass man" conception or interpretation if not meant to sound somewhat derogatory? Furthermore, it wasn't specific to Europe but also to the U.S. whose Founding Fathers were completely immersed in European thought together with their own unique laminations of it.

I don’t give a flying fuck what ‘other people have noted’ and using this sort of argument tactic is fallacious. Quote those ‘other people’ if it is that relevant to you. Or stick to your own fucking opinions.

You ask me to explain O y G’s position? Read his bloody book if it seems important enough to you. It is one of those seminal texts that should be read . I think you’d appreciate it.

He is both admiring of the arrival of this mass man, and genuinely concerned by the power mass man wields. He is an intellectual aristocrat, this must be remembered. If you wonder why I align my own views with is it is because, after analysis, I have determined that it is best to align with upper-level intellectual views. You question my analytical capabilities but it is after many years of analysis that I hold to this idea.

But it does NOT matter for HOW MANY YEARS one came to HOLD TO an idea. VERY PLAINLY and VERY SIMPLY IF an idea is False or Wrong, or ABSURD, then 'it' IS False or Wrong, or ABSURD.

Mass Man -- and here I mean you and me and many who are products of mass engineering -- need to look at ourselves very differently.

I TOTALLY and ABSOLUTELY AGREE that it could become a MUCH BETTER 'world' IF 'you' ALL DID take a LOOK AT "yourselves" VERY DIFFERENTLY.

We need to make choices on the basis of other criteria.

The US is an extension of Europe. And it is in America that (in my view) mass man can best be seen and isolated.

But rather than just LOOKING AT VERY SMALL 'snippets' of the WHOLE, WHY NOT just LOOK AT 'this', and "yourselves", VERY DIFFERENTLY, by LOOKING AT 'the WHOLE', INSTEAD?

[Alexis Jacobi]

This just in: I’ve been asked to take over Tucker’s show. Starting at 20 million annually.

Decisions, decisions ….

[Age]

...not unlike your effect on others which began a long time ago.

Bring those 'others' here and let them speak. I do not admire that tactic of argumentation. Argue your own points, don't refer to others. It's a cheap shot.

'you' are SO BLINDED here "alexis jacobi" that 'you' are NOT SEEING and thus MISSING OUT what IS ACTUALLY BEING POINTED OUT and SHOWN here.

Your Ortega quote is mostly, I say MOSTLY water under the bridge, essentially an older European type of conception which is in the process of changing radically. In summary, these old European centered paradigms are undergoing gradual dismemberment.

Opinion noted. So talk about this, asshole.

This kind of 'attitude' or 'speak' is a GREAT SIGN of one's OWN Wrongness or IGNORANCE here.

What you don't seem to fathom is that there is a great wall emerging which vastly separates the influences between East and West. The ecumenical doctrine of Globalization is unraveling. That's the Realpolitik at this time, likely to last for a long time, assuming we have that long!

If there is something I do not fathom, write about it.

What 'you' are NOT 'fathoming' here "alexis jacobi" IS 'mass man' could be a term that relates to EVERY human being, since human being has been IN Existence.

That some human being CREATED the 'label' "mass man" and PUT 'that label' onto SOME human beings WITHIN a SPECIFIC 'time period' does NOT mean that 'that label' STICKS, NOR EVEN WORKS AT ALL.

When "dubious" write "others" before "dubious" was NOT referring to 'those' who are existing and who would 'argue' against your position here, but of 'those' who HAD EXISTED PREVIOUSLY.

But all your references are general and unsubstantiated.

But "dubious" references and/or claims ARE Factual. Whereas, a lot of 'yours' here "alexis jacobi" are NOT and/or just ABSURD.

[iambiguous]

Jorge Luis Borges once wrote that to live in a time of great peril and promise is to experience both tragedy and comedy, with “the imminence of a revelation” in understanding ourselves and the world. Today our supposedly revolutionary advancements in artificial intelligence are indeed cause for both concern and optimism. Optimism because intelligence is the means by which we solve problems. Concern because we fear that the most popular and fashionable strain of A.I. — machine learning — will degrade our science and debase our ethics by incorporating into our technology a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge.

Here, in regard to either flesh and blood human intelligence or artificial machine intelligence, I come back to dasein. And, in particular, in regard to moral and political value judgments in the is/ought world.

But there is ONLY One Intelligence, of which 'It' does NOT exist in NON sentient materials. AND, which ONLY exists in ONE sentient animal, or creature, known of, by 'them', in the days when this was being written.

Really, what's the difference between them if neither of them in a No God world is able...either philosophically or scientifically...to establish a moral assessment that could actually be demonstrated to encompass behaviors that all rational and virtuous men and women are obligated to embrace if they wish to be thought of as rational and virtuous.

BUT considering the Fact that there can NOT be 'a world' WITHOUT 'God', solely because of what the 'God' word ACTUALLY REFERS TO and ENTAILS, the rest of what you wrote and/or asked here IS MOOT.

Chomsky will no doubt suggest that capitalism reflects "a fundamentally flawed conception of language and knowledge" as it pertains to rational and virtuous behaviors. Whereas the Libertarians and the Objectivists among us, while agreeing that philosophically, politically, morally there is an optimal frame of mind, will insist instead that this is precisely what capitalism encompasses.

So, Mr. Flesh and Blood human being or Mr. Chatbot...which is it?

MOOT.

All of which prompts me to wonder if AI chatbots can themselves become afflicted with one or another "condition".


Note to others:

Again, I never, ever read anything that Age posts. Philosophically and otherwise, he appears [to me] to be a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

On the other hand, that may not be the case at all. So, sure, if he does post something that you believe might actually impress -- challenge? -- me, by all means bring it to my attention.

[Age]

Like Nietzsche, I'm wary of intellectual aristocrats...your guru companions whose views you seemingly accept without critique...or nearly none!

Whatever. It is an empty statement unless you qualify it.

"dubiou's" statement is NOT 'empty' and IS VERY OBVIOUSLY True and Factual, well at least to some of us anyway.

I admire aristocracy of the spirit, and of the mind, above almost all things.

LOL But what you are NOT appearing to FATHOM IS that ONLY whatever you ACCEPT, IS, what you then name, class, or 'label' as 'aristocracy of the spirit' and 'aristocracy of the mind', and then 'try to' "justify" 'those views' as what you 'admire'.

What 'this' kind of behavior is called, classed as, and 'labelled as' is CONFIRMATION BIAS. That is; what you ALREADY BELIEVE and ACCEPT IS TRUE, you then 'class' ANY 'thing' that ALIGNS with your OWN views 'aristocracy of the spirit', and 'of the mind'.

In all categories. It is a choice I have made. And I can defend it.

BUT you can NOT DEFEND 'it', as you have ALREADY PROVED True. That is; "dubious" has ALREADY ASKED you some VERY SIMPLE and VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD CLARIFYING QUESTIONS in regards to what you have SAID and CLAIMED here. your INABILITY to JUST ANSWER those CLARIFYING QUESTIONS is ENOUGH EVIDENCE that you do NOT YET KNOW what you are ACTUALLY talking ABOUT and CLAIMING here.

you have ALSO NOT been ABLE TO COUNTER nor REFUTE what "dubious" HAS ALREADY POINTED OUT and SHOWN AGAINST what you have SAID and CLAIMED.

Talk about your wariness.

Talk about BLINDNESS, and DEAFNESS.

[Age]

I’d greatly APPRECIATE IT, if someone other than myself would RESPOND, in great DEPTH, to Age.

your WISH to NOT RESPOND to me could be a VERY CLEAR SIGN here.

Or AGE as the case should be.

The ACTUAL Truth IS BOTH ARE ACTUALLY Wrong, AND Incorrect.

[Age]

Thanks, Age, that's very good of you to say.

Dear God, if You exist, protect me from Age’s compliments!

One could say and POINT OUT that 'you' ARE protecting "your" OWN 'self' here from this "alexis jacobi".

By the way, they were NOT actual 'compliments' but just ACTUAL facts, well from my perspective anyway.

[Age]

Like Nietzsche, I'm wary of intellectual aristocrats...your guru companions whose views you seemingly accept without critique...or nearly none!

You are completely, not partially, but completely wrong.

LOL So someone just INFORMS you of what they are 'wary of' and of what you 'seem' to be doing, to 'them', and then you have the audacity to 'TRY TO' CLAIM that 'they' ARE WRONG, and NOT just partially wrong but COMPLETELY WRONG, of ALL 'things'.

I ALSO am VERY WARY of so-called 'intellectual aristocrats', (or ANY human being who BELIEVES that they KNOW 'things'), and WARY OF what you SEEM to have accepted WITHOUT 'critique' or nearly NO 'critique' AT ALL.

Am 'I' ALSO so-called 'completely wrong' here to be WARY OF 'these things'?

If you were convinced you’d made a wrong assessment, what would you do then?

You are just attempting a jibe because you think, wrongly, that Evola or O y G, or anyone, has become my ‘guru’.

Well FROM the VERY WORDS you are USING here, this is how 'it' appears.

OF COURSE you may NOT SEE 'it' this way, but we are just EXPRESSING what we ARE SEEING here.

You are talking out of your asshole, not your intelligent head. How does that serve you?

Is this AN ACTUAL Fact? Or, just how you are SEEING 'things' here?

Would one, REALLY, TELL "another" that 'you are talking out of your asshole', if and when that one was being Truly Intelligent?

AND, is it, REALLY, 'that intelligent', to THEN JUMP TO THE CONCLUSION that 'it' IS ACTUALLY TRUE, and then ASK the MOST STUPIDEST OF 'question', 'How does that serve you?'

Some 'thing' HAS TO BE ACTUALLY True BEFORE 'it' COULD 'serve' someone, OBVIOUSLY.

Also, what can be CLEARLY SEEN here from "alexis jacobi" in 'discussion' with "dubious" is that when one KNOWS, even though not necessarily CONSCIOUSLY knowing, that they are Wrong, then they can and do resort to the kinds of 'responses' that "alexis jacobi" is PROVIDING and SHOWING here.

Instead of JUST backing up and supporting 'its' VIEWS and CLAIMS, or JUST 'arguing' AGAINST "the other", when KNOWINGLY 'being wrong' people tend to respond the way "alexis jacobi" IS here.