PopeBeanie

AI that exceeds human intelligence will happen. The only question in my mind is who’s interests will it serve? An aggressive nation-state that designs and owns it? An oligarchy? Technocracy? Its cadre of inventors? Glossy-eyed programmer idealists with their own plan for the future?

From the very first paragraph that describes the video on the youtube page Unseen linked to:

A disgusting TEDx Talk trying to normalize pedophilia by declaring that “pedophilia is a natural sexual orientation, just like heterosexuality”.

In fact “normalize” is used deridingly in the (youtubed) TEDx Talk title itself. Note the ignorance shown even…[Read more]

Thinking of a larger context, from (say) a biological systems perspective. Long term, ecosystems survive longest when they evolve to survive in the long term. Almost a tautology, but really, think of the algae bloom that sometimes pops up and grows uncontrollably, sucking up all the oxygen from the water and leaving behind toxins. It’s often…[Read more]

Yeah, this is a Christian Nation entitlism thing; oppression from the majority; and righteous support of capital punishment. I think of these traditions as comparable to Sharia Law. US Armed Forces provide a wider choice of religious services and support, which I haven’t thought enough about, so I don’t feel informed enough to comment.

Good topic.

Calling a dog a  “house n*gg*r” most often results in a wet, slimy face licking.

Perhaps an internet overflowing with supposed “avant-garde” content and circulation pretty much dilutes any specialness it could have had.

However, I don’t see why it couldn’t exist in (say) museums, and other privatized and/or elite venues. After all, upper classes in our civilizations have enriched the possibilities of leisure activity, at lea…[Read more]

Unseen wrote:

Is avant-garde possible anymore? And if not, is it because we are past being able to be shocked?

Perhaps an internet overflowing with supposed “avant-garde” content and circulation pretty much dilutes any specialness it could have had.

Seems Feynman’s point about explaining “why” to someone would also apply to explaining “how”, which makes me wonder more why (whoops!) I’m prejudiced against the word why in a scientific context. I can imagine scientists wondering why an experiment worked or not, and then determining how to manipulate its outcome. Kids like to ask why more than…[Read more]

We’re speaking of probabilities; generalizations about how universal laws can be understood as determinants in the forward flow of time. My life view (currently or increasingly) is to avoid the “why” questions and focus on the “how” explanations. The fact that we can even consider time going backwards is a mystery to me, deserving of a medal or…[Read more]

Simon Paynton wrote:

But an abstraction is different from a construct, and they are more than mere words, they refer to a world of abstraction.

I went here for clarification on the word and context, and perhaps I’m confusing what’s meta (e.g. language) with what’s real (e.g. universal laws of physics), and I’ll admit I’m working above my pay…[Read more]

Finally got my AS degree in Natural Science, back in December. But still taking classes, this semester two in computer science. One of my instructors LOVES a number, called Belphegor’s Prime (and even has a t-shirt for it).

It’s 1000000000000066600000000000001, and it’s palindromic around an interesting center. You can read more devilish intent here.