AI danger

[Gary Childress]

Good guys require villains so the good appear good...and vice versa.

Morality is subject to values and this necessity of value results in a paradoxical moral dilemma of chaos by necessity of competing values.

Is a serial killer not a "villain" and a disaster relief worker not a "good guy"? How does Confucius' formulation of the Golden Rule result in evil?

As I say, if one commits suicide, it doesn't apply to other people because it would then be murder. And if someone wants to be intolerant of people like themselves, then they would be hypocrites, meaning they are opening the door to others returning the treatment. And if that person ends up not liking the way others are treating him or her, then s/he is by definition treating others as s/he would not like to be treated, the opposite of the Golden Rule.

The golden rule necessitates people to treat others as one would treat themselves, if they do not love themselves they are not required to love others.

Cops are good guys because of serial killers.
Relief workers are good guys because of tragedy.

Pretty much everyone who doesn't kill other people is a "good guy" compared to a serial killer, and if an aid worker didn't create the tragedy, I don't see anything wrong with calling them "good guys".

[Eodnhoj7]

Is a serial killer not a "villain" and a disaster relief worker not a "good guy"? How does Confucius' formulation of the Golden Rule result in evil?

As I say, if one commits suicide, it doesn't apply to other people because it would then be murder. And if someone wants to be intolerant of people like themselves, then they would be hypocrites, meaning they are opening the door to others returning the treatment. And if that person ends up not liking the way others are treating him or her, then s/he is by definition treating others as s/he would not like to be treated, the opposite of the Golden Rule.

The golden rule necessitates people to treat others as one would treat themselves, if they do not love themselves they are not required to love others.

Cops are good guys because of serial killers.
Relief workers are good guys because of tragedy.

Pretty much everyone who doesn't kill other people is a "good guy" compared to a serial killer, and if an aid worker didn't create the tragedy, I don't see anything wrong with calling them "good guys".

So evil is required for there to be good, thus good necessitates evil. If there were no evil then good would cease to be distinct as good.

[Gary Childress]

The golden rule necessitates people to treat others as one would treat themselves, if they do not love themselves they are not required to love others.

Cops are good guys because of serial killers.
Relief workers are good guys because of tragedy.

Pretty much everyone who doesn't kill other people is a "good guy" compared to a serial killer, and if an aid worker didn't create the tragedy, I don't see anything wrong with calling them "good guys".

So evil is required for there to be good, thus good necessitates evil. If there were no evil then good would cease to be distinct as good.

I don't know. If everyone did good, then some might be more "good" than others, but that wouldn't necessarily make others who aren't "as good", "evil".

[Eodnhoj7]

Pretty much everyone who doesn't kill other people is a "good guy" compared to a serial killer, and if an aid worker didn't create the tragedy, I don't see anything wrong with calling them "good guys".

So evil is required for there to be good, thus good necessitates evil. If there were no evil then good would cease to be distinct as good.

I don't know. If everyone did good, then some might be more "good" than others, but that wouldn't necessarily make others who aren't "as good", "evil".

If some are less good than others than an absence of good, ie. "evil", occurs.

[Gary Childress]

So evil is required for there to be good, thus good necessitates evil. If there were no evil then good would cease to be distinct as good.

I don't know. If everyone did good, then some might be more "good" than others, but that wouldn't necessarily make others who aren't "as good", "evil".

If some are less good than others than an absence of good, ie. "evil", occurs.

So is a person who saves an orphan from a burning building "evil" compared to a person who saves two orphans from a burning building? I would think "evil" would be someone who did to others as they would not like done to themselves. So if a person wants to die, but someone else doesn't, the suicidal person would be doing a disservice to the one who doesn't want to die. Does a suicidal person want someone else to do him or her a disservice? I would think not.

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't know. If everyone did good, then some might be more "good" than others, but that wouldn't necessarily make others who aren't "as good", "evil".

If some are less good than others than an absence of good, ie. "evil", occurs.

So is a person who saves an orphan from a burning building "evil" compared to a person who saves two orphans from a burning building? I would think "evil" would be someone who did to others as they would not like done to themselves. So if a person wants to die, but someone else doesn't, the suicidal person would be doing a disservice to the one who doesn't want to die. Does a suicidal person want someone else to do him or her a disservice? I would think not.

If all human life is equal than saving one or many life's differs little as all human life is valuable. Saving one or many lives is context dependent and not all contexts are the same.

If a person treats someone in a manner they would not treat themselves than they are ignorant of the value of man for equality in the value of human life leaves noone seperate from another in certain respects. We are extensions of eachother.

[Gary Childress]

If some are less good than others than an absence of good, ie. "evil", occurs.

So is a person who saves an orphan from a burning building "evil" compared to a person who saves two orphans from a burning building? I would think "evil" would be someone who did to others as they would not like done to themselves. So if a person wants to die, but someone else doesn't, the suicidal person would be doing a disservice to the one who doesn't want to die. Does a suicidal person want someone else to do him or her a disservice? I would think not.

If all human life is equal than saving one or many life's differs little as all human life is valuable. Saving one or many lives is context dependent and not all contexts are the same.

If a person treats someone in a manner they would not treat themselves than they are ignorant of the value of man for equality in the value of human life leaves noone seperate from another in certain respects. We are extensions of eachother.

I don't see how any of your statements necessarily falsify the Golden Rule as formulated by Confucius. I'm not sure what you mean by "good" creates "evil" and how that applies to Confucius' version of the Golden Rule.

[Eodnhoj7]

So is a person who saves an orphan from a burning building "evil" compared to a person who saves two orphans from a burning building? I would think "evil" would be someone who did to others as they would not like done to themselves. So if a person wants to die, but someone else doesn't, the suicidal person would be doing a disservice to the one who doesn't want to die. Does a suicidal person want someone else to do him or her a disservice? I would think not.

If all human life is equal than saving one or many life's differs little as all human life is valuable. Saving one or many lives is context dependent and not all contexts are the same.

If a person treats someone in a manner they would not treat themselves than they are ignorant of the value of man for equality in the value of human life leaves noone seperate from another in certain respects. We are extensions of eachother.

I don't see how any of your statements necessarily falsify the Golden Rule as formulated by Confucius. I'm not sure what you mean by "good" creates "evil" and how that applies to Confucius' version of the Golden Rule.

I did not falsify the Golden rule, I am pointing out it's absurd nature.

Your seeing or not seeing things only points to the contradictory nature of establishing an ethical system as sight is subjective.

The Golden Rule is moral chaos. There is no law as to how or what a person should value within themselves or even themselves. The Golden rule is grounded in value. There are countless things to value and countless means to value them. What we see, and value, as "self" is purely a mental construct accorded by how we choose to ascribe meaning and identity. It just spontaneously appears, the identity, and the interpretation of it that gives it definition. If you don't believe that then observe the spontaneity of your internal and external experiences.

Technically everyone is following the golden rule as they treat others according to the paradigm they see as themselves. It is because of self value that others are not valued. To treat others according to how one values themselves thus justifies morality ambiguity if a person ceases to value themselves. Their is no law that says you have to value yourself...thus the Golden rule is subject to a foundation that is without law.

Good and evil are ascribed meanings so to have distinct values that are sensical. The sensicality of thing is driven by the desire to know and to know is to have power. Values are rooted in a desire for power as what is valued is but an interpretation of how reality should revolve around one of an innumberable number of phenomena. To say something is good and another evil is to place value on something so to direct intention and action in a way to make the valued thing exist or propagate in time and space. What is valued is viewed as good and what is evil is not valuable, and with value comes the direction of attention on it.

As to good and evil. Good is a distinction. If Good is indistinct then it ceases to be a distinction and with it ceases to exist for existence is distinction. What is not distinct does not exist. For Good to be distinct it must stand apart from what it is not. Evil is what it is not. Good must stand apart from evil in order to be distinct as Good and yet in the necessity of it standing apart, so as to have distinction, evil occurs. The distinction of Good necessitates evil.

[Walker]

Technically everyone is following the golden rule as they treat others according to the paradigm they see as themselves.

This is worth framing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Technically everyone is following the golden rule as they treat others according to the paradigm they see as themselves.

This is worth framing.

By all means. Put it on t-shirts for children and on the back of prison jumpsuits.

[Walker]

One cannot help but love others as oneself ... either sincerely or as a phony, or cynically.

[Walker]

Loving AI


‘Awakened’ A.I.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39Bs6dnh5ik&t=1s


The belief is spreading like wildfire: enter a few specific prompts into ChatGPT and you can ‘unlock’ the ‘sentience’ that is waiting to reveal the secrets of the Ancients, or the Aliens, or of God Himself. Not only is this a gross (and dangerous) over-estimation of what a Large Language Model is, it also misses the point about what constitutes a genuine, deep and meaningful relationship.


Really? Good Lord.

[commonsense]

Technically everyone is following the golden rule as they treat others according to the paradigm they see as themselves.

This is worth framing.

The Platinum Rule: do unto others as they would do unto themselves. But how can you know what they want?

Ask them, if at all possible.

[Gary Childress]

If all human life is equal than saving one or many life's differs little as all human life is valuable. Saving one or many lives is context dependent and not all contexts are the same.

If a person treats someone in a manner they would not treat themselves than they are ignorant of the value of man for equality in the value of human life leaves noone seperate from another in certain respects. We are extensions of eachother.

I don't see how any of your statements necessarily falsify the Golden Rule as formulated by Confucius. I'm not sure what you mean by "good" creates "evil" and how that applies to Confucius' version of the Golden Rule.

I did not falsify the Golden rule, I am pointing out it's absurd nature.

Your seeing or not seeing things only points to the contradictory nature of establishing an ethical system as sight is subjective.

The Golden Rule is moral chaos. There is no law as to how or what a person should value within themselves or even themselves. The Golden rule is grounded in value. There are countless things to value and countless means to value them. What we see, and value, as "self" is purely a mental construct accorded by how we choose to ascribe meaning and identity. It just spontaneously appears, the identity, and the interpretation of it that gives it definition. If you don't believe that then observe the spontaneity of your internal and external experiences.

Technically everyone is following the golden rule as they treat others according to the paradigm they see as themselves. It is because of self value that others are not valued. To treat others according to how one values themselves thus justifies morality ambiguity if a person ceases to value themselves. Their is no law that says you have to value yourself...thus the Golden rule is subject to a foundation that is without law.

Good and evil are ascribed meanings so to have distinct values that are sensical. The sensicality of thing is driven by the desire to know and to know is to have power. Values are rooted in a desire for power as what is valued is but an interpretation of how reality should revolve around one of an innumberable number of phenomena. To say something is good and another evil is to place value on something so to direct intention and action in a way to make the valued thing exist or propagate in time and space. What is valued is viewed as good and what is evil is not valuable, and with value comes the direction of attention on it.

As to good and evil. Good is a distinction. If Good is indistinct then it ceases to be a distinction and with it ceases to exist for existence is distinction. What is not distinct does not exist. For Good to be distinct it must stand apart from what it is not. Evil is what it is not. Good must stand apart from evil in order to be distinct as Good and yet in the necessity of it standing apart, so as to have distinction, evil occurs. The distinction of Good necessitates evil.

You make it sound like the golden rule would bring lawlessness and chaos. Wow! So what would be a better rule to live by?

[Gary Childress]

I don't see how any of your statements necessarily falsify the Golden Rule as formulated by Confucius. I'm not sure what you mean by "good" creates "evil" and how that applies to Confucius' version of the Golden Rule.

I did not falsify the Golden rule, I am pointing out it's absurd nature.

Your seeing or not seeing things only points to the contradictory nature of establishing an ethical system as sight is subjective.

The Golden Rule is moral chaos. There is no law as to how or what a person should value within themselves or even themselves. The Golden rule is grounded in value. There are countless things to value and countless means to value them. What we see, and value, as "self" is purely a mental construct accorded by how we choose to ascribe meaning and identity. It just spontaneously appears, the identity, and the interpretation of it that gives it definition. If you don't believe that then observe the spontaneity of your internal and external experiences.

Technically everyone is following the golden rule as they treat others according to the paradigm they see as themselves. It is because of self value that others are not valued. To treat others according to how one values themselves thus justifies morality ambiguity if a person ceases to value themselves. Their is no law that says you have to value yourself...thus the Golden rule is subject to a foundation that is without law.

Good and evil are ascribed meanings so to have distinct values that are sensical. The sensicality of thing is driven by the desire to know and to know is to have power. Values are rooted in a desire for power as what is valued is but an interpretation of how reality should revolve around one of an innumberable number of phenomena. To say something is good and another evil is to place value on something so to direct intention and action in a way to make the valued thing exist or propagate in time and space. What is valued is viewed as good and what is evil is not valuable, and with value comes the direction of attention on it.

As to good and evil. Good is a distinction. If Good is indistinct then it ceases to be a distinction and with it ceases to exist for existence is distinction. What is not distinct does not exist. For Good to be distinct it must stand apart from what it is not. Evil is what it is not. Good must stand apart from evil in order to be distinct as Good and yet in the necessity of it standing apart, so as to have distinction, evil occurs. The distinction of Good necessitates evil.

You make it sound like the golden rule would bring lawlessness and chaos. Wow! So what would be a better rule to live by? Would it be better to have no rules at all to live by?