Zephyr

The timing is suspiciously perfect that humanity is committing global suicide at the exact same moment it’s creating machine life not dependent on the environment.

Are you sure? The rich have always wanted slaves they could control. All of this is mainly to end the dependence in the masses to create society. I highly suspect a coordinated depopulation event if AI becomes sufficient enough.

Make a script that checks for it and removes it? Linux has its pains but it doesn’t have these pains.

Sounds better than splitting the internet into three and forcing biometric verifications. Although that may end up happening for different reasons, aka a human only internet, a human & AI internet and a mainly AI only internet.

Dude, AI content is now getting past me. Like all the tells are gone. Audio is clear, what they’re saying makes sense, video doesn’t have any strange artifacts. The only real tell is if the content is too extreme in some form or fashion.

Yeah, but it still begs the question of if the statement that sparked all of this was itself generated or not. I definitely use AI myself in research but in the same way I use Wikipedia, like a starting point. Its tough to imagine a content creator who likely has a whole team of professionals that he pays just letting it go to waste. Maybe his team has become overly reliant on AI and instead of calling them out he’s chosen to take the heat.

In the end it’s a worthwhile discussion to have for the young and weak willed on the issues of AI usage , kinda similar to the discussion on social media usage or just internet usage all together.

I read it before writing. The article just brings up he said something that sounds like maybe it was written by AI.

I read the article and the “getting caught part” seems to just be that he said something that seemed like it was possibly written by an AI

Wait, the controversy is that he said something that was maybe AI generated or maybe it wasn’t or maybe his use of AI rubbed off on his talking patterns? I kinda feel like he’s th type that would admit to reading off responses generated from AI.

He said something that was maybe AI generated or maybe it wasn’t or maybe his use of AI rubbed off on his talking patterns. That’s the drama.

Let’s get back to the beginning here. We were talking about Marxism-Leninism and how it is superior to vulgar empiricism and of course I’ve kept on with my original point from the beginning of using the scientific method to determine the best policies and political structures for governance, best in those that measurably increasing human wellbeing.

I guess you could bring in something like the double slit experiment and lot of esoteric science in which there isn’t a clear way to tell which interpretation is the correct one or if it really maps to reality to begin with aka maybe the math works but that’s not actually what’s happening. Although I wouldn’t see the connection between that and deciding how best to structure a city.

It really doesn’t take much to see if people are healthy and happy, are prospering and living in a better state of being than they were before a policy was implemented.

I mean that really doesn’t have to do with what I’m speaking about though and I’ve already addressed that. Like yeah if one is set on a particular political philosophy or collection of policies that’s going to seriously limit the solution space. That’s more so the issue with that example than it being an issue with using the scientific method as a means of governance.

Sure but can you give one singular real world example? I keep asking and again you are deeply convinced of your idea so I’m assuming you have many real world cases that exemplify exactly what you’re talking about.

Assuming ones scope of testing is limitied to a specific political paradigm or collection of policies I would agree but that’s not what I’m speaking about. We’re still lacking legitimate real world examples of your claims. Once again you seem thoroughly convinced so I imagine you have quite an awareness of legitimate real world examples to prove these ideas. Where exactly does science fail and Marxism-Leninism succeed in providing better outcomes for society and people, particularly in regards to human and societal wellbeing. Please keep in mind I mean science with the soul focus of increasing individual and societal wellbeing and not science for any purposes whatsoever.

You skipped giving an example. What tangible real world examples do you have to back up your claims? You seem well convinced so you must have many good examples to support your case where material science failed at increasing human wellbeing while dialectic material science produced a better outcome.

I mean yeah if we viewed starvation as some uncontrollable demonic force of the body then that would change things but would that be better or worse than the scientific approach? Maybe you have an example to better hit home the point you’re getting at.

All forms or attempts of understanding reality aren’t early science as in they weren’t employing the scientific method in full but observation, testing, and measuring are basic aspects of being alive and aware. I know my nose is on my face through observation, testing, and measurement.

I’m aware reality can be strange, there’s a plethora of epistemological arguments to show one the limits of science, but we’re not talking about what lies beyond measure and testing or at least I’m not. There’s lots of philosophical ideas about things we can not measure or test. Once again what does not appreciably effect reality measurably is worth awareness but not as much as what can be measured and directly influenced.

I wouldn’t suggest one use science to attempt to understand epistemology but I would suggest it for methodically increasing societal wellbeing. The view one takes may change their behavior but it won’t change physics. They can believe they can fly unassisted but will fall to their death all the same when leaping from a building.

Once again you can say it isn’t but it indeed very much is a philosophical framework stemming from the philosophical foundations of logic and reason. Is it better to have a particular outlook on starvation or to actively be ending it through the most optimal means via evidence informed planning and practices? Reality doesn’t care what we think about it. You can take any angle you want on it but it’ll be there as it is.

As for change its always been guns, germs and steel. The philosophy you’re speaking of was an inefficient middleman towards change and development. If for instance a society follows a diety who says cleanliness is holy and they were more clean aka more biologically fit then they were accidentally discovering something true which could have been directly discovered via science. Them having that faith helped but not as much as having a framework for determining facts.

You can say it isn’t but science is a philosophical framework and science with the application of measurably increasing human wellbeing is even more so. I’m not sure which philosophy will change facts around physiological wellbeing like starvation, lack of access to basic necessities, measurable cognitive health and so on. You can be of any political affiliation yet reality will still be there waiting for you.

I agree, the underlying philosophical framework I’m talking about is measurably and methodically increasing individual and societal human wellbeing through metrics like the human development index, gross domestic product purchasing power parity, and environmental impact. Few policies will be a win across the board but there can be an optimization of multiple metrics to increase wellbeing individually and overall.

I don’t think we need anything more than just that, or some self referentially true quasi religious faith in abstract concepts. Let’s get back to actual real world measurable and quantifiable wellbeing of people and humanity. We don’t need faith in politics or governance when we can have facts. Afterall what is the actual goal of society? Is It for individuals to have their philosophy win or is it to increase the wellbeing of humanity?

Sounds a bit like the Bible in that it’s self referentially true. If there’s a hypothesis, measurement, and test then that’s science. If one takes that and adds other ideas onto it it’s science plus some other ideas. So far I haven’t seen anyone use Marxism-Leninism to discover new particles, new methods of computation, medical treatments, and so on.

You can have whatever ideas you want but ultimately there will be some outcome from them that’s measurable, even faith (or lack thereof) has measurable outcomes in the psyche and physiology of an individual or even a populace.

You see even science is used to legitimize these ideas within your own comment. That is we know ultimately through the scientific method if something is valid. If something has no measurable effect on reality then it can be noted but it’s not of much concern. Like for instance maybe on the tip of every match is ten thousand angels doing the moonwalk, if it has no effect on anything it’s not awfully important.