-
Posts
7059 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
159
Everything posted by Eiuol
-
Will AI teach us that Objectivism is correct?
Eiuol replied to happiness's topic in Metaphysics and Epistemology
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. You aren't getting it. If you want to define machine as or including "non-volitional entity", then clearly if you build something that is volitional, it would not fit under the concept 'machine'. Or, you have to redefine 'machine'. Both would be valid. You seem to keep thinking about building a volitional entity in terms of how AI systems are built, but this is wrong. It wouldn't be artificially intelligent, it would be intelligent. It wouldn't be built like robots or AI systems we have today, they would be built in new ways. Totally new ways, not just improvements of the same thing. There are enough developments out there that we know it's possible to implement the necessary elements of consciousness. -
Will AI teach us that Objectivism is correct?
Eiuol replied to happiness's topic in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Existence isn't something that is created, especially because existence isn't an entity or object. It is the sum total of everything that does exist. Of all the entities that exist, they all could be created again, or any attributes that they possess (supposing the necessary conditions are met). To be precise, it's not consciousness per se that is created, but entities which are conscious. It appears that the necessary conditions of consciousness could be established in a machine, that is, there is nothing in principle that prevents a machine from ever having all the attributes that make something conscious. It might turn out though that you would need to use biological materials (because of whatever properties those materials have) but in any case, it would result from a man-made method and a purposeful intention. And by that point, any questions about what this artificial (man-made) consciousness would do is the same as speculating about what an alien species would do, or a creature that evolves thousands of years in the future. The facts of reality are the same, what constitutes knowledge is the same (broadly speaking, in terms of things like contextual certainty), but the code of ethics for that creature and how it forms concepts would be different, meaning that their proper politics and aesthetic theory would be based on their unique cognitive nature or even unique biological nature. It wouldn't tell us the one and only true ethical theory that is absolutely true for all conceptual creatures. -
Will AI teach us that Objectivism is correct?
Eiuol replied to happiness's topic in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Which is just an argument that the concept "machine" would not work. You can argue that something doesn't fit the definition, but that doesn't mean you can argue that the definition can't change as you discover more about the nature of the referent. You could have argued that dolphins are not mammals because they live in the water, many centuries ago, but the concept 'mammal' has been made better over time. In terms of what you're saying, if a "conscious machine" were ever created (since consciousness exists, you know that it could be created somehow) you would need a new concept besides machine, or you would have to change the definition of machine. -
I wouldn't call that accelerationism. Withdrawing from society of course will cause problems to that society, but the strikers in the book were not pushing the collapse to go further and faster. Accelerationism could maybe describe Francisco, since he bought San Sebastian mines and deliberately ruined them by doing even more of the collectivist nonsense all around him. Accelerationism I see more like a communist amplifying capitalism to the furthest degree, because they would predict that this would lead to a collapse of capitalism from itself, as Marx predicted. I'm saying that accelerationism is about amplifying. Okay, this is why not supporting Ukraine would have benefits. But you are also talking about supporting Russia, which is different than staying out of the conflict. What would be beneficial about Russia's success?
-
Will AI teach us that Objectivism is correct?
Eiuol replied to happiness's topic in Metaphysics and Epistemology
I'm not sure that you're thinking about it in the right way. This is hypothetical thinking, that's all. -
Will AI teach us that Objectivism is correct?
Eiuol replied to happiness's topic in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Right, so that's why AI would have to be made in a very particular way. Grames specifies some of the characteristics it would need. I agree with that. Well yeah, talking about a sufficiently advanced AI already implies something that doesn't yet exist. For the thread, the important point is that if any such AI came about, it would have a different code of ethics. It could say what is the correct code of ethics for a human, but that's about it. -
It's not as if Russia is on another planet and there is utterly no impact on world affairs and spread of different ideologies. The fact that you say you support Russia in this conflict is enough evidence that you really do think Russia has some kind of impact, namely that America can be harmed by Russia. But then you would have to explain why supporting Russia's interests in the Ukraine is preferable to supporting America's interests. A general sense of American imperialism is not great, but on the other hand, how would Russia's success help you in any way? It seems like you support something like accelerationism, anything that would help hasten the collapse of America would be the best way to bring about the type of country you want to live in. I find that to be a very very bad method. If you don't support that, then how would Russia's succeeding in the Ukraine possibly bring you closer to a freer life for yourself? Escalation is not the same as starting a war. It's antiquated to think that world wars would get "started" anymore, because in a real sense, a world war has been going on for a very long time. If you are worried about a world war starting, you missed the boat. And besides, historically speaking, wars begin over specific violations of agreements or specific events. They don't begin because someone sent arms.
-
Will AI teach us that Objectivism is correct?
Eiuol replied to happiness's topic in Metaphysics and Epistemology
I mean, you could argue that you would need a different concept instead of artificial intelligence if you managed to create a machine that is conscious. But as I always say, that consciousness exists at all is proof that it could be created. Just because it's created naturally (through development) doesn't mean it can't also be created artificially and intentionally. "It's a machine" isn't an argument. If you want to get pedantic, then it just isn't a machine. Use a different concept. -
Will AI teach us that Objectivism is correct?
Eiuol replied to happiness's topic in Metaphysics and Epistemology
...because it is sufficiently advanced. The kind that doesn't exist yet. Your premise seems to be that by nature, an AI system can only work in a deterministic way. That's true of how they are now, sure, but there is an incredible amount of research going on to make them even more advanced, even in terms of the ability to alter its own programming. -
What you call suppression I call sensible content moderation. Not really, that's how justice works. People do things. You judge them for it. Sometimes that judgment properly includes "these types of behaviors and beliefs are toxic, so I don't want those behaviors and beliefs in this community." I guess I'm saying that you might see this as bad business practice, but most evidence suggests that it's bad business practice to not bother with content moderation. That's all that's really going on, content moderation. And in fact, there are plenty of platforms that have utterly no content moderation if that's the way you want your social media. ...we do. Unsubstantiated claims like that usually should be deleted and this would be in the website policy. It would count as suppression if I knew that they figured out the truth, so then I decided to delete their posts. Depending on the way the post was written, I might even say it was promoting a toxic and irrational way of holding communication. Because the alleged suppression is separate from the investigation. Why might Twitter talk to the FBI? Investigation. Why might Twitter moderate content related to things that the FBI might care about? Because after talking to the FBI, they happen to be aware of what bad actors might exist out there that they didn't consider before. You can't rule out actual collusion, but you can't say that it did happen for sure either. Just because 2 events aligned doesn't mean that they had to be coordinated. Yes, I agree, but only if the attempted justification is preventing other people from being exposed to the ideas. I'm fine with banning the promotion of certain ideas in private affairs not because I want to prevent exposure that will corrupt the minds of the pure and innocent, but that the people who promote these ideas have intentions that I think are harmful and toxic to a community.
-
I'm aware, I'm also aware that those like Hamilton argued that not only was it unnecessary, but possibly a threat because in the future people might perceive it as "these are the only rights that exist, therefore the government has free reign over everything else". I agree with this. My point is that lacking a Bill of Rights doesn't mean not caring about rights. Sure, I feel the same way, but I also think that Russia puts the state of foreign affairs into disarray in such a way that the ideologies of autocratic governments are promoted even in the US. Here you sound like you aren't really addressing the reverberating effects of Russian policies in the long run, only addressing the immediate effects on American imperialism. I don't believe you, but if you are sincere, your interests seem to align with Russia in many more ways than just the Ukraine. A greater ideological commonality than with America.
-
Unless of course the form of government is itself operating by means of essentially initiating force. As far as I know from other discussions, you would say that imperialism in large part doesn't care about rights, and operates by initiating force. If the "American orbit" is alignment with American objectives, then I don't think that can be characterized as imperialism. America would have to dictate the way other countries operate, not just by expressing the minimum standards of forming an alliance, but forcing other countries to obey. I think this was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Ukraine I really don't think so. This certainly happens within American foreign policy, but the idea that Russian imperialism harming America (in its entirety) is superior than other means of harming American imperialism (a specific piece of American foreign policy) doesn't make sense to me. Then again, I get the sense that you really do think that the current state of America is so bad and harmful that the autocracy of Russia appears to be helpful when it follows its interests.
-
I don't see what you would consider to be an achievement of the Constitution if you think that it was how the alleged American empire was designed. If you mean mean that it codified rights at least in name, I can see that, but if imperialism is essentially bad, and America is essentially imperialist, then America is essentially bad.
-
Is there a point in American history where you say the country finally descended into an empire? Clearly you are saying that there were no safeguards to prevent the US from becoming ideologically driven by imperialism, but when do you think that transition happened?
-
The notion of world wars is antiquated. There is a constant state of war, but mostly turning towards economic war these days. It's both stupid and hyperbole to suggest that sending arms would instigate World War III, as Biden did, because the reality is, sending arms doesn't start wars. So, I don't know what you're on about. Not to mention that of all conflicts to get worked up about, you pick one where the primary instigator is Russia? That somehow sending arms to Ukraine would start World War III, but that invading Ukraine in the first place isn't instigation? The fact that you don't write out "fucker" makes your post comical. This makes you sound like a confused leftist. A leftist at least knows that they are condemning capitalism. Workers of the world unite! The military-industrial complex!
-
If the people you are referring to are those who literally have no trust in reason whatsoever, sure. But those people have no issue with force anyway. What they could do privately with their own property is besides the point, what the government could do is besides the point, because force is a tool for them that is perfectly valid. I think it comes down to what you call punishment. All you did is put in scare quotes, but left it very vague. Judging people negatively and then punishing them by retracting employment or private privileges, this is good. If you mean punishing as in "sit in that corner until you say the words I want you to say, simply because I disagree" isn't good, but it's not the abandonment of reason such that they believe the government needs to be issuing that punishment. So, what kind of punishment are you even talking about? All you really said is "some people want to kick people out of restaurants for bad reasons which also could be used to justify government censorship!" True, but it's not insightful.
-
I don't know if the word empire here refers to imperialism as an ideological outlook, or simply descriptive as all-encompassing. Which of the Federalist papers makes this claim, and what's the context? My initial reaction is that it's probably some passage that denigrates the antifederalists or those who don't want a federal government, and making a comparative case of resembling an empire like Rome. Still, you are saying that the United States of America is and always has been illegitimate? I mean, you are basically saying even the Constitution is trash and designed by people who want empires. The Constitution is the design of America after all. Biden is a hypocrite, yes.
-
Why is it wrong for 2 companies to seek a common goal about communication? That's what you want to happen, and this is an example of communication you would want. You say it as if it's obviously wrong, but my whole point is that not only is it legally permissible, but should be morally desirable. And it is also the responsibility of each individual to decide what healthy environments of communication will discourage or encourage a rational discussion. I can't have a rational discussion when everyone around me is poisoning the well. There are standards of rational discussion, or even discussion that isn't abusive or hostile. Except, the government wasn't. Twitter seems to have reacted to communication with the FBI in such a way that they, independent of the FBI, decided that certain voices were harmful or causing issues to the platform they wanted to have. The FBI investigates things, that's the point. They are going to talk to people, and sometimes, people respond to the information they infer from the FBI talking to them. It would be different if Twitter offered privacy information or violated property, but that doesn't seem to have happened. Building on that, when it comes to illegal actions or violations of rights, there should be no discussion on the right way to present that information, except to say everything is presented completely. If there are earth shattering revelations between Twitter and the FBI, there is no reason to throw breadcrumbs starting with circumstantial evidence. He was out of his element. You can say he made a debacle out of Twitter, failing to bring about the changes he promised, or even failing to show the pathway towards change within Twitter. Social media companies don't operate like a tech company. When the product is people talking to people, I don't think Musk has a good handle on things. But just because he ended up as a big disappointment with Twitter doesn't mean he isn't capable of leading tech companies. Public communication is not his strong suit.
-
Collusion by definition is something deceitful or manipulative. What you describe is cooperation, and if 2 companies would like to cooperate in order to promote better science communication, this is a good thing. And the alleged collusion with the FBI is, from our limited perspective, mostly cooperation in terms of investigating crime, along with compensation for volunteering time.
-
You can pressure, as in pressure an autocratic regime to stop being autocratic through different diplomatic measures, and being defensive about if regimes dare to do anything outside their borders. Which is what's happening. No one is invading Russia, for good reason. But notice that you are responding to me saying that autocratic regimes really are inferior by nature. Not just worse, worse in terms of being illegitimate. Of course you can criticize the West if it wants a forceful introduction of democracy, but the fundamental disagreement here is that you think Russia is a legitimate regime. I'm perfectly glad to criticize Western foreign policy in a harsh way, but I'm not going to do that by defending or trying to legitimize Russia. I'm going to criticize Russian foreign policy just as harshly, and probably worse because the regime is autocratic. You don't need to phrase it like it would be wrong or improper if American crews were operating them. And besides, it doesn't eliminate moral responsibility. Sure, indirect support through arms or funding shows less of a commitment than direct involvement, it still shows intention to harm Russia - which is a good thing.
-
I mean, yeah, autocracy is always inferior to democracy/constitutional republics. This isn't controversial. We already went over objective criteria. The criteria that Rand provided. To some extent, yes, it would be better for everyone if the Russian government adopted generally Western standards of democracy. This is a good thing.
-
Just to clarify, it's right what you want from another person, but it becomes second handed when what you want is something you didn't help create, and you don't think about what you offer them.
-
I said appeal to, as in, request help or make others aware. Which is fine, but "saving the Ukrainians" isn't "doing what's best for Russia". Well yeah, authoritarian and autocratic regimes are not respected. This is a good thing. We already went over how it doesn't matter how many people consent, autocratic and authoritarian regimes are still not legitimate.
-
There are numerous NGOs, many other countries, watchdog groups, and so on, that a country can appeal to. But it's strange that you talk about this, because that would mean Russia is being altruistic. It all comes down to whether or not you think Russia is a legitimate government. How you interpret facts really depends on that. Defensive action with some degree of support without NATO membership, because the Putin regime is seen as bad. We've talked about this. Sounds fine to me. The Ukraine isn't Russian territory and the population within the Ukraine are not Russian.
-
In a way. Perceived aggression was used as justification to attack the Ukraine. Whether or not you decide that it was aggression going on, or defensive action, the fact is that whatever it was, it was indirect. No overt violence. Manipulative, maybe, but it puts Russia in a bind. If Putin was being baited, there are many things he could have done besides attack the Ukraine with less cost in human lives and less reason to expect that anyone would intervene. He chose violence. (You might say that Putin was trying to save Russian people in the Ukraine, even at great cost to individual lives. Doesn't change the fact that violence was the route chosen, rightly or wrongly.) Of course involvement now has to do with wanting to damage Russia in some way. That really is the point. What the conflict amounts to is whether or not you think Putin's Russia is a legitimate government. Intervention is not morally required if Russia is not legitimate, but some involvement is appropriate if Russia poses a risk for the promotion of liberty (not just liberty in the abstract, but for shaping the governments that influence your life right now directly where you live). Damaging or weakening Russia is a very good thing, you say it as if it's a bad thing. The only question that really matters is whether the cost is worth it, where isn't self sacrificial or altruistic. If your argument is that the West is being too self sacrificial or altruistic, that's fair. It's a good question. I don't need to get into that though, because you weren't even trying to ask about liberty or achieving liberty. Mostly you have been on about how Russia has made legitimate choices given its context. As if autocracy and deliberately leaning away from liberty is totally excusable and understandable because apparently, there is no way for Russia to transition into a full-blown democracy 30 years after the fall of the USSR! As much as I absolutely hate Grames' position, at the very least, he's thinking about achieving liberty in his own life. Well, maybe that's also distorted and twisted when it comes to Russia and liberty, so I guess I would just say that he makes an argument with legs.