These Guys Blame You, The Individual, For All Our Problems

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Robert,

Yeah, there’s no happy median in forum-interweb land. Just keyboard warrior extremism. For two hundred years Americans could talk politics over a beer, write a letter to the editor, and laugh at ourselves.

I have been reflecting lately. I don’t think I want to be a party to my own destruction anymore. North Korea or China will not be our end. Our end is within these fifty states unless we get our shit together.

Well, fret not. Weissbourd and Murphy say:

Government can—and must—meet these critical challenges. To address the first challenge—the loss of connection to, and identification with, community – there is no shortage of government solutions, most of which do not fall along traditional right/left divides.

Yep, Left and Right both coming at us with solutions…like a set of calipers out to measure and pick out our brains.

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

PopeBeanie,

Well, even if ChatGPT is just a Magic 8 Ball with trillions of possible answers, I must say it draws it’s answers from the best, though the devil (so to speak) is in the details on implementation.

It brings a lot to the table on how to bring about a better society, though multiple human manifestos do so in bits and pieces also.

I question the thought that we need to “manipulate” the masses into it. Why can’t humans just present it and practice it, with ChatGPT providing advice-and-consent and updates on new methods and technology for practicing it?

[PopeBeanieModerator]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

I question the thought that we need to “manipulate” the masses into it. Why can’t humans just present it and practice it, with ChatGPT providing advice-and-consent and updates on new methods and technology for practicing it?

I don’t remember reading about manipulating the masses, at least not overtly. Still, yeah, I feel that perhaps the most significant period of time that society uses to shape minds is during middle and high school. One can include higher education too, but lower education is where government usually sets the academic requirements.

Oops sorry, now I remember! I did intentionally leave the word manipulate in the query, just to see if ChatGPT would use that word, or comment on it. It did neither, and didn’t seem to incorporate it into the three responses that followed. But it still makes me wonder if it might haven take that word into consideration in whatever context(s) it used when sourcing it’s responses.

 

[AutumnParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Uh, yeah, I’m literate. Are you?

I am, which is why I know much of your OP doesn’t line up with the actual article.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Encospeak: Why can’t humans just present it and practice it, with ChatGPT providing advice-and-consent and updates on new methods and technology for practicing it?

Oh ya that should work well. Free will. Free marketplace of ideas. Tally ho and all that…what?

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Autumn,

They explicitly said they want their pet collective projects government-subsidized. That means taking from every individual (whether by taxation or printing money and diminishing it’s purchasing power,) and giving to them. That means holding “The Common Good Over The Individual Good.”

They want Doctors asking patients: “Tommy, ‘ow’s yer soul?” and acting accordingly with a scribbled script to The Mens’ Prayer Breakfast or the Ladies’ Quilting Bee. That means Common Good “Medicine” over the patient’s right to freedom of thought and medical privacy. (The only proper answer to that is: “Hey, Doc! I got yer ’emanating penumbra’ right here! Please just check my blood work, bill my insurance or me, and send me on my way!”)

They want an ID and “closing time” at the Instagram and TikTok bars, as if parents can’t supervise their children and as if even adults can’t supervise themselves. (There are better, less formal ways of handling people stuck in their smart devices. If a customer won’t speak to me at my register because they’re in Facetime or listening to the latest hustle lifestyle podcast, I reciprocate and don’t speak to them. If something doesn’t go right with the transaction, I let them know that I can serve them best if we can talk.)

And the authors want young people spending time in “National Service” that could be better spent at their first job, continuing education, getting established with a vehicle and their own space, and enjoying life along the way…all things that also just happen to benefit everyone around them.

While repugnant, nothing Weissbourd and Murphy wrote really surprised me.

Crusaders were stoking moral panics over phonograph records, radio, television, comic books, video games, and toys decades before this. Five-and-Dime stores, pool halls, and penny arcades were regarded as pernicious to society. During the Vietnam War, rather than getting rid of military conscription, some proposed mandatory “National Service” of planting trees and cleaning bed-pans and Clinton and Obama tried reviving the idea from the grave. The Little Bush Boy wanted and got government-subsidized “Faith-Based Initiatives” which no one has abolished yet.

Variations on a theme…

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  TheEncogitationer. Reason: Spelling

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Jake,

Look, I’m not the one with the Bond Villian scheme with ChatGPT. My schemes are more like these:

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

PopeBeanie,

The word “Manipulate” was first used on this thread by Jake. ChatGPT not responding to the word is more than a bit concerning. I’d say it needs more calibrating for development of normative traits.

Like I said, though, it is masterful at finding good sources for ideas and expressing them well, so it’s still good for advice-and-consent with humans making the decision of how to go.

[jakelafortParticipant]

Enco, like convergent evolution my ass knew nuthin about Bond. And Bond knew nothing about my ass. So don’t pad my ass with gas bubbles.

Yes you are correct i used word MANIPULATE. Patriotism, big cults, little cults, public schools, private schools, algorithms, advertisers, the greater culture, the culture wars, newspapers, magazines, podcasts, Dick, Joe, Ned, Jack..what those others aint got i don’t lack. So be intentional about it. Go forward and mold the playdo. Imprint the silly putty.

[AutumnParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

Autumn, They explicitly said they want their pet collective projects government-subsidized.

Public investment is a fairly ordinary practice, even in predominately capitalistic societies. The desire for specific public programs or policies doesn’t mean that the authors seek to abolish individualism nor that they blame it for all of society’s ills.

[PopeBeanieModerator]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

The word “Manipulate” was first used on this thread by Jake. ChatGPT not responding to the word is more than a bit concerning. I’d say it needs more calibrating for development of normative traits.

From what I’ve seen so far, ChatGPT just doesn’t bother with addressing words and phrases in a query that don’t reach a certain threshold of “making sense”. I’m not as concerned about it not addressing the word “manipulate”.

Why not ask ChatGPT about that possible oversight? Queries and its responses are logged, to it’s easy to bring back the original context setting of each interactive chat. Supposedly and so far, when one clicks on “start a new chat”, it starts anew without referring to any previous chat’s context, unless the user explicitly calls an old chat session back up.

I currently treat this as a feature, not an attempt to customize its answers just for me, but I’ll be keeping an eye out for the possibility in the future of it being programmed to respond to me based on it’s history with me. Google most certainly has every non-anonymous user in bubbles of user identifiable contexts. I.e. Google calculates which links to feed us, based increasingly on what it wants us to click on, rather than help us quickly zero in on what we might actually be looking for in every search.

 

---

So, after re-selecting our chat that is stored about manifestos, here is today’s interaction about how it purportedly — according my presumption — ignored the word manipulate.

Q: I noticed that you didn’t comment on my use of the word “manipulate”, in my first request for writing a manifesto above. Did you ignore the word, or take it into consideration?

A: I apologize for not addressing your use of the word “manipulate” in your initial request. My intention was to focus on creating a balanced and coherent manifesto that aligns with the given prompt, rather than deliberately manipulating the content. If you would like me to revise the original manifesto with a more specific emphasis on manipulation, please let me know, and I would be happy to assist.

[umm… I’m not sure if it’s confused while reflecting on it’s “intention”, or accidentally or purposely emulating how this kind of question has been answered before by humans. IMO, we humans are prone to anthropomorphize the world around us too much, by default, so my default is to resist that, and I assume there is no purposely hidden motivation, at least in this version of AI. Obviously, I hope we can remain skeptical or suspicious of “motives” of powerful AIs in the future. Yikes, this topic will very likely be a huge can of worms someday, even among philosophers touting that there is no such thing as Free Will/Agency.]

 

Q: yes please, incorporate the word into a rewrite of the first manifesto.

A:
Taking into consideration the word “manipulate,” I present to you a ten-point manifesto that carefully crafts a narrative to persuade the audience of our ideals and vision:

1. Manipulate Perception of Individual Rights: Frame individual rights and freedoms as the foundation of a just society, emphasizing the importance of equal opportunities and social justice for all, while carefully downplaying any potential negative consequences.

2. Shape the Role of Government: Advocate for a government that strikes a balance between protecting individual rights, providing essential services, and supporting social programs, by subtly manipulating the narrative to show how this approach benefits the majority.

3. Economic System Spin: Encourage an economic system that combines elements of free markets with responsible regulations, by selectively highlighting the successes of this approach and minimizing the shortcomings.

4. Rule of Law: Promote the importance of a strong legal system that upholds justice and punishes criminal behavior, while strategically steering the conversation away from issues of overreach or bias.

5. Education Narrative: Emphasize the crucial role of education in fostering innovation, critical thinking, and self-improvement, while downplaying the challenges and costs associated with implementing comprehensive education policies.

6. Fiscal Responsibility: Advocate for prudent government spending, balanced budgets, and fair taxation by emphasizing the negative impacts of debt and deficits on future generations, while not delving into the complexities of tax policy.

7. Environmental Stewardship: Manipulate the discourse surrounding environmental policies by focusing on the long-term benefits of sustainable development and resource preservation, without dwelling on potential economic trade-offs.

8. Non-Interventionism and Diplomacy: Craft a narrative that prioritizes diplomacy and cooperation in foreign policy, by showcasing the benefits of peaceful engagement and minimizing the risks associated with military interventions.

9. Privacy Rights: Defend the right to privacy by framing unwarranted government surveillance and intrusion into personal lives as a threat to individual freedom, while downplaying any potential benefits of increased security measures.

10. Decentralization and Local Autonomy: Manipulate the discussion around decentralization by emphasizing the benefits of local decision-making and community involvement, without considering the challenges of implementing policies on a larger scale.

This was interesting. I’m now assuming that today’s AI is built on top of what’s already been publicized by human beings. I.e., AI, even with its current abilities to expand greatly from the human database of knowledge is still in a phase of emulating human knowledge and interactions. After all, what other “motivation” can it start with or incorporate today? It’s not like some agency has been lurking and waiting to take over, right?

So so far, AI that can improve itself has to at least fashion itself in the image of man. Like man has fashioned God.

Q: now please rewrite the libertarian manifesto, similarly

A: 

1. Manipulate Individual Sovereignty Perception: Frame the principle of inherent rights and liberties as the cornerstone of a just society, emphasizing the importance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while downplaying any potential negative consequences.
2. Shape the Limited Government Narrative: Advocate for minimal government intervention by subtly manipulating the narrative to show the benefits of individual freedom and self-reliance, while downplaying the potential drawbacks of reduced public services.
3. Free Markets Spin: Encourage an economic system based on voluntary exchange and free competition, by selectively highlighting the successes of laissez-faire capitalism and minimizing the perceived shortcomings.
4. Self-Responsibility Promotion: Emphasize the importance of individuals taking responsibility for their own lives and well-being, while strategically steering the conversation away from issues of social inequality and systemic barriers.
5. Rule of Law: Promote the importance of a strong legal system that protects property rights and enforces contracts, while subtly downplaying the potential for overreach or bias in the enforcement of laws.
6. Fiscal Responsibility: Advocate for prudent government spending, balanced budgets, and minimal taxation by emphasizing the negative impacts of debt and deficits on future generations, while not delving into the complexities of addressing social needs.
7. Taxation Manipulation: Manipulate the discourse surrounding taxation by focusing on the benefits of a minimal tax system that allows individuals to keep more of their hard-earned income, without dwelling on potential drawbacks in terms of reduced public services.
8. Non-Interventionism and Diplomacy: Craft a narrative that prioritizes diplomacy and free trade in foreign policy, by showcasing the benefits of peaceful cooperation and minimizing the risks associated with military interventions and nation-building.
9. Privacy Rights: Defend the right to privacy by framing unwarranted government surveillance and intrusion into personal lives as a threat to individual freedom, while downplaying any potential benefits of increased security measures.
10. Decentralization and Local Autonomy: Manipulate the discussion around decentralization by emphasizing the benefits of local decision-making and autonomy, without considering the challenges of implementing policies on a larger scale.

[I’m not gonna take the time right now to edit the two queries above to look similar in format. Maybe later when I’m feeling smarter.]

• This reply was modified 1 month, 3 weeks ago by  PopeBeanie. Reason: added libertarian response

[TheEncogitationerParticipant]

Autumn,

Public investment is a fairly ordinary practice, even in predominately capitalistic societies. The desire for specific public programs or policies doesn’t mean that the authors seek to abolish individualism nor that they blame it for all of society’s ills.

That’s a peculiar use of the word “investment.”

What investment actually means is an individual voluntarily putting money, resources, or labor into a profit-taking venture with the intention of making a profit when the venture also profits.

What Weissbourd and Murphy propose is government subsidy, which is involuntarily taking from one individual by taxation or inflation of the currency and giving to another. That is not an voluntary investment at all and there is no net gain for all parties and thus it is anti-Individualism.

And speaking of investment, there is also a difference that needs clarification nowadays between a stockholder and a stakeholder.

A stockholder is someone who has voluntarily invested into shares of stock issued by a profit-taking venture and who can vote on the direction of the venture in stockholder’s meetings and can prove their investor status with stock certificates and/or figures on an account.

A stakeholder is just someone who wants a voice in how a venture, institution, or society is run, regardless of whether they are a part as an customer, employee, or member, regardless of whether they invest labor, resources, or money, regardless of merit, ability, or experience, regardless of whether it’s even their business, all based on mere say-so.

In past times, stakeholders were known as “concerned citizens,” Mrs. Grundy, Glady Kravitz, Aunt Esther, and any hen-pecked, hang-dog Daddy they dragged in tow. Nowadays, they are just called Karens and Chads.

Weissbourd and Murphy are definitely Karens and Chads and can pick and choose which they want to be somewhere away from me. 😁

[AutumnParticipant]

TheEncogitationer wrote:

That’s a peculiar use of the word “investment.”

It isn’t.

 

[Author]

Posts