(Title Censored)

Homepage Forums Politics (Title Censored)

This topic contains 156 replies, has 10 voices, and was last updated by  Unseen 1 month, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 157 total)
  • Author
  • #42492


    Autumn i assume you are thinking of the pandemic.

    My guess is that left leaning people would embrace empiricism. On the other hand i think the idea is too radical to gain acceptance except in a tiny minority. For the most part those of us who value rationalism and strive to be reasonable would find a good way to critique the reliability of various sources. It might in turn help to make speakers more circumspect before averring BS so that they do not end up wearing a dunce cap. In short it might help to eliminate some of the tendentious nonsense disinformation.

    The far right who are already qanon and their ilk would incorporate the AI into their conspiracy theories.




    Your “Here’s an idea” idea is the beginning of the nightmare described in 1984 and THX 1138.

    Right now, AI is used in drones to find targets and kill them, and if sent on one mission, to recognize a higher-value target and attack it instead. Yes, AI can be trained to use pattern recognition to identify low-value targets like noncombatant adults and children and make them part of the calculation, though I’m afraid what that would amount to is how many innocents are simply a tolerable cost of doing business (AKA “collateral damage”). Killing a senior terrorist leader is or lower-level terrorists on their way to a terror attack are worth 20 collaterals but a lower-level leader or a couple potential terrorists is worth only two collaterals. That sort of thing. We let machines decide to kill human beings. I’d rather trust a human drone operator equipped with empathy and a capacity to assess a situation from a human perspective.

    What’s good for the goose, as they say. It will only be a while until our skies are patrolled by very similar drones operating under an algorithm with no capacity for empathy much less horror.



    Not the pandemic specifically. I just find for every issue I follow, we get a public figure saying something sensationalistic, then there is a big backlash which is met with cries of ‘freedom of speech’ because we need to ‘have the conversation’. But….

    …what conversation is being had? What exchange of thoughts? It feels more like a war of attrition through noise.

    What I see is a lot of propagandistic content, or content curated because it elicits a quick emotional response. It’s a product like refined sugar and we can’t stop eating it even as it makes us sick. Or what I see is a lot of heavily marketed content that is entirely geared toward consumption at absurd and unsustainable rates.

    All I’m getting at is our minds can be easily provoked toward unhealthy and non-productive interactions. And while I feel both those things are a right, when it becomes a culture consuming tsunami of noise, it’s disconcerting.



    Unseen, i was not contemplating drones or addressing anything beyond speech. Also this general idea only occurred to me this morning so it may have more chincs than a primitive shelter on naked and afraid. And no doubt introducing the notion of AI in connection with speech would be met with many criticisms including the slippery Orwellian hill.



    Let me ask you all: Is concern over long-term vaccine effects a wacko conspiracy theory that nobody should worry about?

    Have you ever heard of a drug called Thalidomide?



    Autumn i like your perspective.

    It’s all for nothing if we can’t address ourselves and the breakdowns in how we process and communicate information. What I see is a lot of propagandistic content, or content curated because it elicits a quick emotional response. It’s a product like refined sugar and we can’t stop eating it even as it makes us sick. Or what I see is a lot of heavily marketed content that is entirely geared toward consumption at absurd and unsustainable rates.

    What is clear to me is that there are only a tiny tiny number of humans who think well-who are not unduly influenced by dreck, by propaganda, through the influences of ideology and capitalism. I knew right off the bat the Ukraine war was gonna sell and it would be covered ad nauseum while other major issues received nothing. In turn that coverage and the sentiments elicited feed the narrative and impact policy.

    The echo chambers of the internet cause competing voices to be silenced. A frenzy ensues like bullfrogs mating. And clearly the free market place of ideas is just silly. The fact that so many putative intellectuals continue to espouse it suggests how silly the idea is. So what if we have a constant barometer of truth? Or at least something that is purely mathematical and has no skin in the game. The Goebels lesson is taken by Putin and Trump. It is an absolute shit storm of propaganda and truth is subjective! I think it is conceivable the entire dynamic might change if we utilized AI intelligently.



    Unseen if it is just an inquiry as opposed to unfounded and paranoid thinking it is not a conspiracy.



    We should all take a break and remember that it’s Sunday School day.



    We should all take a break and remember that it’s Sunday School day.

    “The Mississippi Delta
    Was shining like a national guitar
    I am following the river
    Down the highway
    Through the cradle of the Civil War”


    Regarding A.I. and speech take a look at this article on Open A.I. GPT-3 technologies. It can write prose that includes higher level concepts. If you have an NYT sub see this recent article. The following is an excerpt from it:

    For example, when I gave GPT-3 the prompt:

    In 1958, Frank Rosenblatt introduced the Perceptron, an early version of a neural net that could only detect the location of a square on a printed card. Fifty years later, neural nets are capable of . . .

    The software dutifully completed the thought, and then continued on, picking up on the historical framing of the initial text:

    . . . detecting and classifying faces, finding patterns in data, and emulating the human brain. While the neural net matured in academia, it also found its way into the tech industry. In the late 1980s and early 90s, neural nets were used in speech recognition and character recognition applications. The growth in computing power and the ability to collect larger data sets allowed other neural net applications to emerge.

    Also this somewhat abstract challenge:

    When I gave GPT-3 the prompt ‘‘Write a paper comparing the music of Brian Eno to a dolphin,’’ it came back with this:

    Dolphins are aquatic mammals known for their intelligence, playful nature, and vocalizations that often sound like singing. Brian Eno is an English musician known for his ambient and experimental music. Both dolphins and Eno’s music often evoke feelings of joy and serenity.

    Both dolphins and Eno’s music are often described as peaceful and calming. Dolphins use their vocalizations to communicate with each other, and Eno’s music is often described as being designed to create an ambience. Dolphins are often playful and interactive with humans, and Eno’s music is often played in public spaces to create a communal atmosphere.

    Both dolphins and Eno’s music can be described as unique and innovative. Dolphins are one of the only animals known to produce echolocation, and Eno is known for his experimental approach to music. Both dolphins and Eno’s music often defy categorization, and can be difficult to define. . . .

    Parts of the essay are a little ham-handed, possibly because the prompt itself is nonsensical. (That last argument, about defying definition or categorization, is a classic dodge.) But the software makes a number of higher-level connections that are quite subtle, particularly the link between Eno’s technological innovations as a musician and the sonic innovation of echolocation itself. If you gave 100 high school students the same prompt, I doubt you would get more than a handful of papers that exceeded GPT-3’s attempt. And of course, GPT-3 wrote its version of the essay in half a second.

    Soon it will describe new works of art!

    Can we talk about squirrels again please!


    Simon Paynton

    The AI robot is listing facts.  That’s the correct way to begin philosophy in my opinion.


    No, I think the bot is giving a descriptive evaluation or interpretation of facts. That is what Alexa or Siri does but this is  a higher level. Philosophy is also evaluation of facts and their implications. But the best way to begin philosophy is to study philosophy. As Hegel said, the study of philosophy is but the introduction to it.

    Eno is more philosophical recently but still interesting.




    I have a camera (Panasonic Lumix G9) with AI that can recognize animals and birds and autofocus on them. And this isn’t the only camera with this capability.


    Simon Paynton

    As Hegel said, the study of philosophy is but the introduction to it.

    I think philosophy is good at supplying questions that need answering.




    One can argue about the relative merits of our presently standing Copyright laws and whether itis a good thing that Copyrights last for the lifetime of the author plus 50 years….

    But you’ll be arguing it with the “Publish or Perish” Academia crowd and the entire complex of both hard copy and electronic news and communications media, all of whom use Copyright law.

    Even if these industries slant Left-of-Center and may agree with you on many things, I doubt running against their bread-and-butter will end well.

    Just to show you I’m not a “bot.” 😁

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 157 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.