Philosophy Now Forum

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 1:27 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 12:08 pm Eodbhodg wrote:

The logical end of AI is to make mankind unified as a hive mind by nature of thought control under the terms "convenience", "safety" and "unity".

Not so ; no machine is autonomous . No machine incorporates an "end" if by "end" you mean autonomous purpose. AI machines reflect no more than the purposes of their trainers.

Human values are embodied in the human past and in humans' place in the whole natural ecology.

There are ways we can protect and conserve the human against weaponising , or dehumanising influence of, machines, in particular AI machines.

Those roles are undertaken by poets, hackers, law makers, and keepers of memory such as historians.

Whose power isn't 0.1% of social media.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 5:51 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 1:27 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 12:08 pm Eodbhodg wrote:


Not so ; no machine is autonomous . No machine incorporates an "end" if by "end" you mean autonomous purpose. AI machines reflect no more than the purposes of their trainers.

Human values are embodied in the human past and in humans' place in the whole natural ecology.

There are ways we can protect and conserve the human against weaponising , or dehumanising influence of, machines, in particular AI machines.

Those roles are undertaken by poets, hackers, law makers, and keepers of memory such as historians.

Whose power isn't 0.1% of social media.

AI determines friend recommendations, search results, potential entertainment options, summarized answers to questions, etc. Ai directs the flow of social media.

To control thought is to direct its flow, thought is inevitable thus rather than repressing it it is better to redirect it. That which distracts wins.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 6:57 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 1:27 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Aug 09, 2025 12:08 pm Eodbhodg wrote:


Not so ; no machine is autonomous . No machine incorporates an "end" if by "end" you mean autonomous purpose. AI machines reflect no more than the purposes of their trainers.

Human values are embodied in the human past and in humans' place in the whole natural ecology.

There are ways we can protect and conserve the human against weaponising , or dehumanising influence of, machines, in particular AI machines.

Those roles are undertaken by poets, hackers, law makers, and keepers of memory such as historians.

Whose power isn't 0.1% of social media.

Hollywood itself is often poetic, historically accurate, and influences ideas . All those John Wayne films are built on the theme of rule of law. Popular arts reflect and influence how people behave.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 11:45 am Your reply, Martin, is incomprehensible. Hollywood ,while certainly not Ars Gratia Artis, reflects popular culture and always has done. If you know of any Hollywood production that undermines the rule of law you should say so. I know of nothing of the sort.

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 2:26 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 11:45 am Your reply, Martin, is incomprehensible. Hollywood ,while certainly not Ars Gratia Artis, reflects popular culture and always has done. If you know of any Hollywood production that undermines the rule of law you should say so. I know of nothing of the sort.

We have different Hollwoods obviously. But yes, in the main, it's part of the machine. If not totally. Read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, 1931. The ruling class are smart enough to allow pathos at injustice. Whilst ensuring law and order for tax payers.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 7:48 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 2:26 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 11:45 am Your reply, Martin, is incomprehensible. Hollywood ,while certainly not Ars Gratia Artis, reflects popular culture and always has done. If you know of any Hollywood production that undermines the rule of law you should say so. I know of nothing of the sort.

We have different Hollwoods obviously. But yes, in the main, it's part of the machine. If not totally. Read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, 1931. The ruling class are smart enough to allow pathos at injustice. Whilst ensuring law and order for tax payers.

The judiciary must be separate from political power, so as to have the final word. Freedom for the powerful must give way to real equality. Real equality is defined by John Rawls' veil of ignorance.

The ruling class , if by ruling class we mean capitalists, must allow that AI companies are overseen by citizens who are disinterested in commercial profits
The armoury of control over AI includes hackers who are Captain Swings for the age of AI.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 7:48 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 2:26 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Aug 10, 2025 11:45 am Your reply, Martin, is incomprehensible. Hollywood ,while certainly not Ars Gratia Artis, reflects popular culture and always has done. If you know of any Hollywood production that undermines the rule of law you should say so. I know of nothing of the sort.

We have different Hollwoods obviously. But yes, in the main, it's part of the machine. If not totally. Read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley, 1931. The ruling class are smart enough to allow pathos at injustice. Whilst ensuring law and order for tax payers.

The judiciary must be separate from political power, so as to have the final word. Freedom for the powerful must give way to real equality. Real equality is defined by John Rawls' veil of ignorance.

The ruling class , if by ruling class we mean capitalists, must allow that AI companies are overseen by citizens who are disinterested in commercial profits
The armoury of control over AI includes hackers who are Captain Swings for the age of AI.