Right-Wing Discussion Thread XVII: The Snark Enlightenment

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

Evil incarnate.

A bit more nuance is needed, but a good sentiment overall.

What's a good sentiment? "The ends justify the means," or "evil incarnate?"

[The Supreme Magnificent High Swaglord]

A bit more nuance is needed, but a good sentiment overall.

What's a good sentiment? "The ends justify the means," or "evil incarnate?"

Kowani's a consequentialist, mate; what do you think?

[Hanafuridake]

It's a machine directing you to Buddhist spirituality. In the end it's not so different from the robo-"priest" aside from the fact that it's not pretending to be more than it is.

What do you think that the people who designed the robot are pretending it is?

[Washington Resistance Army]

It wasn't an attack on you over Shariah. It was an attempt to show that absurdity is inherently dependent on perspective, what is sane and rational to one person is off the wall insanity to another. It all depends on perspective. If you drop all the fallacies and all that other nonsense it becomes much easier to just talk.

No way man. That does nothing to make bombing other nations less absurd. Subjective or not.

Again, from your perspective it's absurd. We can run in circles about this for the rest of time. You hold beliefs I think are absurd, I hold beliefs you think are absurd. We as a nation are perfectly capable of it and I view the prevention of true AI to be a cause worthy of military intervention. In my eyes there's nothing absurd about it.

[Jolthig]

No way man. That does nothing to make bombing other nations less absurd. Subjective or not.

In what world is the bombing of other nations absurd? Absurd in what way? In terms of capabilities, countries like America are fully capable of bombing other nations. And faced with the right threat, they've shown a willingness to do so.

He is suggesting though that we bomb nations that use advanced Al due to fears it could result in AI thinking independently of humans and wanting to wipe them out despite the fact there is 50/50 chance. We don't know if they really will turn evil or not. If they end up good, then all that bombing or whatever would be unnecessary.

[Jolthig]

No way man. That does nothing to make bombing other nations less absurd. Subjective or not.

Again, from your perspective it's absurd. We can run in circles about this for the rest of time. You hold beliefs I think are absurd, I hold beliefs you think are absurd. We as a nation are perfectly capable of it and I view the prevention of true AI to be a cause worthy of military intervention. In my eyes there's nothing absurd about it.

Alright. We can agree on this. Apologies for misunderstanding you at first.

[Cappuccina]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

The ends justify the means.

If you're willing to stoop to the lowest of the low means, it begs the question of: Are your ends worth supporting?

I wouldn't trust someones goals to be particularly noble if they've no moral compass.

[Jack Thomas Lang]

He is suggesting though that we bomb nations that use advanced Al due to fears it could result in AI thinking independently of humans and wanting to wipe them out despite the fact there is 50/50 chance. We don't know if they really will turn evil or not. If they end up good, then all that bombing or whatever would be unnecessary.

You have yet to explain how it's absurd. I find it completely reasonable (assuming AI is achievable, which I don't believe it is).

[Washington Resistance Army]

The ends justify the means.

If you're willing to stoop to the lowest of the low means, it begs the question of: Are your ends worth supporting?

I wouldn't trust someones goals to be particularly noble if they've no moral compass.

I believe my ends are, others probably don't and that's fine. I don't seek to convert anyone.

[Jolthig]

He is suggesting though that we bomb nations that use advanced Al due to fears it could result in AI thinking independently of humans and wanting to wipe them out despite the fact there is 50/50 chance. We don't know if they really will turn evil or not. If they end up good, then all that bombing or whatever would be unnecessary.

You have yet to explain how it's absurd. I find it completely reasonable (assuming AI is achievable, which I don't believe it is).

Because it is based off of suspicion of how AI will play out and not on any evidence whatsoever. The nations that develop these technologies haven't even indicated whether AI will be good or not. But they have to find out first.

[Salus Maior]

It's a machine directing you to Buddhist spirituality. In the end it's not so different from the robo-"priest" aside from the fact that it's not pretending to be more than it is.

What do you think that the people who designed the robot are pretending it is?

What the article says it is. A priest.

[Kowani]

A bit more nuance is needed, but a good sentiment overall.

What's a good sentiment? "The ends justify the means," or "evil incarnate?"

Ends justify the means.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Evil incarnate.

A bit more nuance is needed, but a good sentiment overall.

Ah, the moralizing nihilist strikes again.

[Kowani]

A bit more nuance is needed, but a good sentiment overall.

Ah, the moralizing nihilist strikes again.

If you want me to avoid all words with moralistic connotations in my third language, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

[Jolthig]

Ah, the moralizing nihilist strikes again.

If you want me to avoid all words with moralistic connotations in my third language, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Ah, the moralizing nihilist strikes again.

If you want me to avoid all words with moralistic connotations in my third language, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

What does justifying something mean to you?

[Jack Thomas Lang]

Because it is based off of suspicion of how AI will play out and not on any evidence whatsoever. The nations that develop these technologies haven't even indicated whether AI will be good or not. But they have to find out first.

But what if finding out means it's too late? 50/50 are not good odds. If someone told you that taking a drug had a 50/50 chance of killing you or making you smarter, you would not take that drug. If mankind can survive without AI (and we're doing alright all things considered), the large chance of AI destroying us doesn't make it worth it.

[Kowani]

If you want me to avoid all words with moralistic connotations in my third language, I’ve got a bridge to sell you.

What does justifying something mean to you?

The benefits outweigh the negatives.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What does justifying something mean to you?

The benefits outweigh the negatives.

Benefits to what?

[Kowani]

The benefits outweigh the negatives.

Benefits to what?

The benefits that the end, if attained, will confer.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Benefits to what?

The benefits that the end, if attained, will confer.

What end?

[Jolthig]

Because it is based off of suspicion of how AI will play out and not on any evidence whatsoever. The nations that develop these technologies haven't even indicated whether AI will be good or not. But they have to find out first.

But what if finding out means it's too late? 50/50 are not good odds. If someone told you that taking a drug had a 50/50 chance of killing you or making you smarter, you would not take that drug. If mankind can survive without AI (and we're doing alright all things considered), the large chance of AI destroying us doesn't make it worth it.

Not that I'm disagreeing with your points. Like I said I'm on the fence about this subject. However, we know based off of drugs since they go back all the way to past history, that they can kill you even if they don't at first. AI can be subjective even in the perspective of an AI mind. Even if there was an evil AI. Though, I suppose, the evil AI, if it is powerful enough can reprogram other AIs with a virus and make them join them until another and more stronger reprogramming.

Guess AI don't have rights.

[Kowani]

The benefits that the end, if attained, will confer.

What end?

Whatever end one desires.

[Hanafuridake]

What do you think that the people who designed the robot are pretending it is?

What the article says it is. A priest.

As far as I can tell, none of the temple's heads have referred to the robot as a priest, although some Japanese news sources refer to the robot as a Buddhist priest (僧侶) probably colloquially, since it's situated in the temple, shaped like a Buddhist goddess, and preaches Buddhist sutras. Imagine being so triggered that some news sources choose to use a word that you insult a whole country, lol.

[Cappuccina]

What's a good sentiment? "The ends justify the means," or "evil incarnate?"

Ends justify the means.

What's the difference.