Theme: AI
-
“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosop
—“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosophical text of our times.”— i hadn’t thought about that… but yes, it is on the same level of innovation as Turing, Chomsky and Hayek’s papers. Short and world changing. Although implementation has been weak. -
“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosop
—“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosophical text of our times.”— i hadn’t thought about that… but yes, it is on the same level of innovation as Turing, Chomsky and Hayek’s papers. Short and world changing. Although implementation has been weak. -
“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosop
—“The Bitcoin White Paper is without serious question the most important philosophical text of our times.”—
i hadn’t thought about that… but yes, it is on the same level of innovation as Turing, Chomsky and Hayek’s papers. Short and world changing. Although implementation has been weak.
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-25 05:22:00 UTC
-
Ai’s Will Deceive Us Just As Humans Do: By Fictionalisms. Myjob Is The Law That Prevents Such A Thing.
—“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. 😉 -
Ai’s Will Deceive Us Just As Humans Do: By Fictionalisms. Myjob Is The Law That Prevents Such A Thing.
—“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. 😉 -
AI’S WILL DECEIVE US JUST AS HUMANS DO: BY FICTIONALISMS. MYJOB IS THE LAW THAT
AI’S WILL DECEIVE US JUST AS HUMANS DO: BY FICTIONALISMS. MYJOB IS THE LAW THAT PREVENTS SUCH A THING.
—“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. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-22 09:06:00 UTC
-
Someone will solve that UI problem and own the world. And at present, everyone f
Someone will solve that UI problem and own the world. And at present, everyone from major media to the average web site is instead, maximizing the consumer at which point all conversation reduces to the lowest common denominator as it must. Look at you vs medium, or gab, or any.
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 21:46:22 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954832500492259329
Reply addressees: @KialoHQ
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954831555658223617
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@KialoHQ The question is, how many debates do you have, (and users) and how many debates could you have (and users)? (and there is zero reason that your same algorithm (layers) cannot be represented in a stream. Anyway. Quora is failing, Wiki disallows debate, FB is suppressing it ….
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/954831555658223617
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@KialoHQ The question is, how many debates do you have, (and users) and how many debates could you have (and users)? (and there is zero reason that your same algorithm (layers) cannot be represented in a stream. Anyway. Quora is failing, Wiki disallows debate, FB is suppressing it ….
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/954831555658223617
-
And the market has an opening: how to facilitate debates that bubble (as does yo
And the market has an opening: how to facilitate debates that bubble (as does yours), while insulating us from our taboos, yet illustrating the simplicity of all arguments as either capital retention (conservative) capital invention(libertarian), and consumption (progressive).
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 21:45:10 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954832196573061120
Reply addressees: @KialoHQ
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954831555658223617
IN REPLY TO:
Unknown author
@KialoHQ The question is, how many debates do you have, (and users) and how many debates could you have (and users)? (and there is zero reason that your same algorithm (layers) cannot be represented in a stream. Anyway. Quora is failing, Wiki disallows debate, FB is suppressing it ….
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/954831555658223617
IN REPLY TO:
@curtdoolittle
@KialoHQ The question is, how many debates do you have, (and users) and how many debates could you have (and users)? (and there is zero reason that your same algorithm (layers) cannot be represented in a stream. Anyway. Quora is failing, Wiki disallows debate, FB is suppressing it ….
Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/954831555658223617
-
The question is, how many debates do you have, (and users) and how many debates
The question is, how many debates do you have, (and users) and how many debates could you have (and users)? (and there is zero reason that your same algorithm (layers) cannot be represented in a stream. Anyway. Quora is failing, Wiki disallows debate, FB is suppressing it ….
Source date (UTC): 2018-01-20 21:42:37 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954831555658223617
Reply addressees: @KialoHQ
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954792811953614849
IN REPLY TO:
@Kialo
@curtdoolittle A steam with 1000 claim whizzing by? I mean we are open to suggestions, but we don’t see any way to structure a debate like this in a unbranched format:
https://t.co/qbWKeAIGwGOriginal post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/954792811953614849
-
A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION: For each increase in the division of knowledge and l
A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION: For each increase in the division of knowledge and labor, we invented an increase in information technology. With each invention we were the victims of its use for lying which is cheap and desirable, and truth which is expensive and often undesirable.
Source date (UTC): 2017-12-24 13:22:12 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944921150035054592
Reply addressees: @plevy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944783727414185984
IN REPLY TO:
@plevy
Media and cultural evolution 📱 https://t.co/POideG59FR
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/944783727414185984