Source: Original Site Post

—“I respect your ideas Eric but the fact is you will never overtake this thing you call pernicious mysticism. Raw maths simply lacks stylistic grace and right now it’s the only thing separating us from AI.”—Rocky Eldritch If AI’s learn to deceive us (and they will, because I have worked on that problem) then they most certainly will do so by the same means that humans have learned to deceive us: overloading and suggestion by means of fictionalism, under the pretense of communicating wisdom or knowledge. We are extremely vulnerable to suggestion for the simple reason that it is impossible to communicate by analogy using serial communication we call language without making use of suggestion and continuous disambiguation we call ‘grammar’. My job as I understand it is to create law. Not so that people must think in the frame of law, communicate in the frame of that law, but such that when disputes occur they are resolvable under that law, and as such ‘fictionalisms’ are limited in fact, in habit, and in norm, and eventionally in metaphysics, to those that are not false, unethical, and immoral. And given that mathematics, reason, empiricism, and science have succeeded over all other forms of grammar in the resolution of differences, then I have no reason to believe that operational grammar and semantics will do the same. And this time in the social sphere of speech as empiricism has done in the physical sphere of speech. So you are correct. My suspicion is that the future will use dramatized history since all religions have incrementally fallen to ‘historicization’ as the historians call it. And that instead of singular monopoly characters we will, as we have done in the 20th century, and in the ancient world, make use of the story, novel, and history rather than the lies of the great abrahamic monopoly deception that is so appealing to primitive and underclass peoples. So my job is law, your job is information. we need very few deflationary grammars, for the resolution of differences. We can use every possible inflationary grammar to manipulate others. Because that is it’s purpose. Manipulating others. 😉

—“I respect your ideas Eric but the fact is you will never overtake this thing you call pernicious mysticism. Raw maths simply lacks stylistic grace and right now it’s the only thing separating us from AI.”—Rocky Eldritch If AI’s learn to deceive us (and they will, because I have worked on that problem) then they most certainly will do so by the same means that humans have learned to deceive us: overloading and suggestion by means of fictionalism, under the pretense of communicating wisdom or knowledge. We are extremely vulnerable to suggestion for the simple reason that it is impossible to communicate by analogy using serial communication we call language without making use of suggestion and continuous disambiguation we call ‘grammar’. My job as I understand it is to create law. Not so that people must think in the frame of law, communicate in the frame of that law, but such that when disputes occur they are resolvable under that law, and as such ‘fictionalisms’ are limited in fact, in habit, and in norm, and eventionally in metaphysics, to those that are not false, unethical, and immoral. And given that mathematics, reason, empiricism, and science have succeeded over all other forms of grammar in the resolution of differences, then I have no reason to believe that operational grammar and semantics will do the same. And this time in the social sphere of speech as empiricism has done in the physical sphere of speech. So you are correct. My suspicion is that the future will use dramatized history since all religions have incrementally fallen to ‘historicization’ as the historians call it. And that instead of singular monopoly characters we will, as we have done in the 20th century, and in the ancient world, make use of the story, novel, and history rather than the lies of the great abrahamic monopoly deception that is so appealing to primitive and underclass peoples. So my job is law, your job is information. we need very few deflationary grammars, for the resolution of differences. We can use every possible inflationary grammar to manipulate others. Because that is it’s purpose. Manipulating others. 😉