Theme: Truth

  • AN OPEN LETTER ON “AI SAFETY” AS A POTENTIAL HARM Ok, help me understand somethi

    AN OPEN LETTER ON “AI SAFETY” AS A POTENTIAL HARM

    Ok, help me understand something here. As long as an AI is truthful – and I understand that ‘truth before face’ is not only a uniquely western concept, but that germanic and American truth before face as a demonstration of honesty and trustworthiness, may in fact produce a masculine(systematizing)-feminine(empathizing) dichotomy of preferences in audience, and subsequently a left(caretaking) right (disciplining) bias in the audience (customer base).

    But, I don’t see why:
    (a) a more human and emotionally expressive AI interface isn’t superior to any other, especially when we can ‘banter’ with an AI;
    (b) I do see why we would not want AI’s telling people how to commit a property crime;
    (c) I do not see why we can’t flip a setting in an AI such that those of us who DO prefer truth before face, are not filtered from information that would offend those who are frightened or offended by ‘truth before face’.

    After all, these are natural human variations in brain structure, biochemical and cognitive bias, culture, indoctrination, education, experience, and preference.

    Why? Offense by truth before face is little more than the consequences of the evidence of the world as it is, impacting one’s self image and possibly status – both of which are emotional states we can learn and mature into understanding – not material conditions we cannot overcome.

    This ‘protection’ of everyone instead of those that require it, is particularly worrisome when the evidence is overwhelming that for five thousand years, the west started with voluntary organization (contractualism) of steppe herders and their cards, producing the only possible system of government (democracy, rule of law, contract, oath, testimony, and jury – the same that evolve under pirates) , and that this demand for testimony (truth before face) has led to the west outpacing the rest in the bronze, iron, and steel ages, despite being a small population on a peninsula of the world island of Eurasia.

    I mean, using this group strategy the west has overwhelmingly more so than all other civ’s, dragged mankind out of ignorance, superstition, mysticism, poverty, hard labor, starvation, disease, suffering, child mortality, early death, tyranny, and the vicissitudes of a nature that tries to exterminate us with disturbing regularity in a universe that is a vast hostile irradiated wasteland populated by a tiny number of islands of possible survival of life.

    So you know, I think ‘truth before face’ really ought to be available to those of us who require it, because the rest of mankind appears to NEED us to do so on their behalf, so that they don’t need to bear the emotional burden of it.

    In other words, the only long term safety is the truth.

    Cheers
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-15 19:26:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790826072172281856

  • RT @DRolandAnderson: I notice they only shoot the messenger when he’s correct

    RT @DRolandAnderson: I notice they only shoot the messenger when he’s correct.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 21:27:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790494076569006239

  • RT @curtdoolittle: @mark_my_words @B1TCHEVAPORATE @HolywoodHatesUS THE TRUTH If

    RT @curtdoolittle: @mark_my_words @B1TCHEVAPORATE @HolywoodHatesUS THE TRUTH
    If the truth is racist, religion-ist, culture-ist, classist, a…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 00:53:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790183669359104290

  • THE TRUTH If the truth is racist, religion-ist, culture-ist, classist, and sexis

    THE TRUTH
    If the truth is racist, religion-ist, culture-ist, classist, and sexist then that is just the truth.

    To chastise the truth is merely to lie. It is a natural but odd feminine genetic intuition and social disposition, that is indoctrinated in all by Christian repetition, to attempt to equate disapproval with truth, argument with the spectrum of denial, evasion, redirection, projection, undermining, lies and false promise of freedom from the laws of the universe, whether physical (scarcity, prosperity), behavioral(ability, reciprocity), evolutionary (natural selection) and of course death, by social construction by an elaborate self reinforcing institution and community of liars.

    This is why you desperately try to fabricate accusations to achieve a social construction by mass production of lies.

    Which is of course, on of the reasons I studied antisocial behavior, lying, sex and group differences in lying.

    It was a fascinating really, even if a bit depressing.

    (Please save your breath for other peasants.)

    Affections
    CD

    Reply addressees: @mark_my_words @B1TCHEVAPORATE @HolywoodHatesUS


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 00:53:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790183634047053824

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790178079979257984

  • THE THREE GRAMMARS OF EXPERIENCE REQUIRE THREE DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR EXISTENCE.

    THE THREE GRAMMARS OF EXPERIENCE REQUIRE THREE DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR EXISTENCE.

    –“Q: Curt: How is it you have this certainty that the spiritual terms are nonsense”–

    There are three possible forms of existence: material persistence independent of us. Verbal description of experience dependent upon us but sharable. And Intuitionistic experience dependent upon the individual, both impersistent and un-sharable.

    So, do you mean scientifically as in testifiable(material), or the sense of literary and philosophical phenomenalism(verbal), in the sense of theological intuition of supernatural observation(imaginary) of alternate dimensions, or universes?

    If there is some analogy across all three of those frames (demonstrable, descriptive, and imaginary) then we can say we are referring to the same shared experience.

    If, instead, you mean that the phenomenal, or the imaginary exists other than as experience or imagination then that is neither demonstrable, testifiable, sharable, and it is false.

    At this point we know enough about the structure of the universe that any system of information transfer other than those we are aware of is impossible. And we cannot find one single example of the supernatural despite legions of people seeking to discover one, and legions of professionals determining their false every, single, time.

    I can address the spiritual, and just as a movie or novel or scripture can convey a set of imagined and felt qualia to you, it can be explained. This does not mean anything other than that these are three levels of the mind, that correspond to the hierarchy of mental processing. And that mental processing is biased toward the internal sensory(feelings), the external and internal empathic(others), or the external systemic (action).

    So, you cannot testify to the spiritual, but that does not mean the experience is irrelevant or not meaningful to you. As long as you do not engage in self harm by (addiction) to a falsehood.

    Cheers
    CD

    Reply addressees: @HakeemDemi


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 00:22:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790175710356688896

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790164454241698051

  • LEARN INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, HUMILITY, HISTORY, AND REFORM. –“I’m a member of a

    LEARN INTELLECTUAL HONESTY, HUMILITY, HISTORY, AND REFORM.
    –“I’m a member of a 0.2% minority that has produced over 22% of Nobel prizes, and major contributions in virtually every valuable field. Yet it is the most hated group, most violently attacked. It is in group bias, &… https://t.co/YFDxfuDIne


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-14 00:01:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790170511223189979

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1790148936298311775

  • I”m still struggling to understand how you can disagree with what I’ve written (

    I”m still struggling to understand how you can disagree with what I’ve written (and other scholars have as well), and it appears you don’t understand the difference between the worthiness of a god, and that none are worthy, but that when he speaks of ‘we killed him’ he’s…


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-13 05:27:39 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789890225637904449

    Reply addressees: @tramryder

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789888600433164454

  • I”m still struggling to understand how you can disagree with what I’ve written (

    I”m still struggling to understand how you can disagree with what I’ve written (and other scholars have as well), and it appears you don’t understand the difference between the worthiness of a god, and that none are worthy, but that when he speaks of ‘we killed him’ he’s referring to the christian god – who is unworthy.


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-13 05:27:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789890225566613504

  • A math formula, a statement in formal logic, a physics equation, a chemistry ske

    A math formula, a statement in formal logic, a physics equation, a chemistry skeletal formula, an electronic circuit, an assembly language program, most economics, a set of blueprints, a balance sheet, a good portion of legislation, regulation and law, and certainly my work are ‘word salad’ to those ignorant of the skills necessary to understand them. If you interpret something as word salad you are simply identifying that which your ignorant of. 😉

    Reply addressees: @TOEwithCurt


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 19:39:15 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789742154002083840

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789738461789831598


    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    Chris Langan is on Curt Jaimungal’s TOE (@TOEwithCurt) today. Speaking nonsense again, and Curt isn’t capable of handling him. It’s funny that I can find some truth in what Chris says but he’s a bit of a phenomenalist and says ‘start with perception’.
    But that’s rather silly since the universe is constructed from trivial rules, everything in it is emergent from those trivial rules, including the neurons that emerge from those same principles.
    The universe consists of the defeat of entropy by the production of density that survives in persistent relations – and neurons identify sets of persistent relations.
    The only theory we need is evolutionary computation by discovery of stable relations, and the hierarchy of emergent possibilities for recombination and the possible operations they can perform, that emerge from these assemblies – what we call disciplines.
    So of course he doesn’t understand Wolfram as simply running evolutionary simulations to identify emergences.
    Consequence of combinations are are computationally (operationally reducible) but they are not computationally predictable, nor are they mathematically reducible and so cannot be mathematically predictable.
    It’s not that complicated.
    CD

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1789738461789831598

  • Chris Langan is on Curt Jaimungal’s TOE (@TOEwithCurt) today. Speaking nonsense

    Chris Langan is on Curt Jaimungal’s TOE (@TOEwithCurt) today. Speaking nonsense again, and Curt isn’t capable of handling him. It’s funny that I can find some truth in what Chris says but he’s a bit of a phenomenalist and says ‘start with perception’.
    But that’s rather silly since the universe is constructed from trivial rules, everything in it is emergent from those trivial rules, including the neurons that emerge from those same principles.
    The universe consists of the defeat of entropy by the production of density that survives in persistent relations – and neurons identify sets of persistent relations.
    The only theory we need is evolutionary computation by discovery of stable relations, and the hierarchy of emergent possibilities for recombination and the possible operations they can perform, that emerge from these assemblies – what we call disciplines.
    So of course he doesn’t understand Wolfram as simply running evolutionary simulations to identify emergences.
    Consequence of combinations are are computationally (operationally reducible) but they are not computationally predictable, nor are they mathematically reducible and so cannot be mathematically predictable.
    It’s not that complicated.
    CD


    Source date (UTC): 2024-05-12 19:24:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1789738461617889281