The Official Original Artificial Intelligence We're All F***ing Doomed Thread

[DrewJD82]

I see a lot of kids growing up quite differently than I did, and it's also a massive bummer. (And this in spite of the fact that most of the kids I observe today are far more privileged than I was.)

Also definitely true!

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

Guide to authoritarianism:

1. Invent problem (humanity fucked everything up, overpopulation, etc)
2. Offer solution (here's some handy guidelines for a post-catastrophe world, that I the guideline writer, happened to have a hand in bringing about!)
3. Control the population.

Give me one instance throughout history of a good society that didn't devolve into hell, that proclaimed the kinds of dystopian things that the stones describe, and then maybe I'll take your viewpoint seriously. But to me right now, it not only presupposes a conclusion in a very anti-scientific way, it also indirectly encourages us to do the very things that would positively result in a civilisational catastrophe.

I don't even take issue with the "maintain" bit. I take issue with the "permanent balance with nature bit" - it's absolute fucking hogwash.

What hell did the Native Americans devolve into (other than not having the guns to fight it's invaders - or do you not consider them a society)? They were certainly in line with the ONE that I originally stated and started this hatred for ideas.

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

Yeah... sorry, no. I've read the Gulag Archipelago. I know where all of this thinking leads. It leads to North Korea, and selling your children's corpses as food on the streets of Russia. It leads to the Holodomor, and it leads to Mr. Moustache himself.

Utopianism is authoritarianism disguised.

So what is the solution then? Do we not propose ideas for what we think is best for society and even if we do, do not pursue them? Do not talk about them? How do we move forward or is all cool as is?

 

[Orvillain]

So what is the solution then? Do we not propose ideas for what we think is best for society and even if we do, do not pursue them? Do not talk about them? How do we move forward or is all cool as is?

I've not made any proscriptions along any lines like that, and I'm not even at the point of trying to answer those questions. I'm critiquing the guidestones, nothing more.

 

[Orvillain]

What hell did the Native Americans devolve into (other than not having the guns to fight it's invaders - or do you not consider them a society)? They were certainly in line with the ONE that I originally stated and started this hatred for ideas.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. You're gonna have to be a bit less emotional and a bit more communicative please.

 

[mbenigni]

My only true Guidestones. And coincidentally (on-topic, even!), the only thing I've ever made using AI:

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

Same with Al Gore saying that we'd lose the ice caps by 2016. Never happened. There are all these little anti-science chicken Licken types running around proclaiming the sky is falling down. It never does. A lot of high-profile population doom predictions were overstated, and some were flat-out wrong. This is no different.

And to think we have only lost half of the arctic ice cap in the last 45 years. What an idiot Gore!

​

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

I think our best chance of dealing with it is through technological progression, not through control systems designed to completely change our way of life.

So a new technology is invented. Naysayers do not want to adopt it, but it is an obvious way to reduce the harm humans are inflicting on the planet. Thus this new technology is forced upon them against their will and completely changes their life. So technological progression, unless forced upon people is worthless I would imagine in many cases, but that would change their way of life. What do we do then with the new technological progressions that will help us deal with problems?

 

[DrewJD82]

What hell did the Native Americans devolve into (other than not having the guns to fight it's invaders - or do you not consider them a society)? They were certainly in line with the ONE that I originally stated and started this hatred for ideas.

There’s been several civilizations that were pretty good at being not-us, none free from warring with other humans, though. Or even other humanoids, as we now know our ancestors were at war with our predecessors….and sometimes bangin’ them. While the Mayans and Incas often went to war with other tribes, they took great care of their own community and very little poverty existed. Same for the Egyptians.

Sometimes I wonder if the “hidden/stolen history” crap that’s spewed as “ancient technology” is actually nothing more than “everyone worked together as a society because of a shared respect for their situation, knowing they were stronger working as one rather than trying to cut each other down”

How many years was it believed the pyramids were built using slave labor, only to find out the builders were actually extremely well taken care of and slavery had nothing to do with it. The builders cared as much about the job as the pharaoh requesting it.

Alas, Rome couldn’t handle Egypt being as badass as it was and Spain couldn’t allow all those silly tribes to play with all that gold.

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

I've not made any proscriptions along any lines like that, and I'm not even at the point of trying to answer those questions. I'm critiquing the guidestones, nothing more.

And I am asking what is the solution if what is said on the Guidestone's is ALL wrong and a dystopian nightmare fuel wishlist. What do we do to talk about these things if not make suggestions and philosophize about solutions?

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

I'm not sure what you're referring to. You're gonna have to be a bit less emotional and a bit more communicative please.

Your quote was:

Give me one instance throughout history of a good society that didn't devolve into hell, that proclaimed the kinds of dystopian things that the stones describe, and then maybe I'll take your viewpoint seriously.

I am saying that the first post from the guidestones that set you off, was very much in line with the Native American culture and view of nature. So their way of life was one of the "dystopian things that the stones describe". And I am not aware of their society devolving into hell (except by the hands of the Europeans). So you asked for an example, and I was providing you with one to try to ease your mind that such a society that adopts one or more of these principles, can avoid devolving into a hell (by their own actions).

 

[Orvillain]

And I am asking what is the solution if what is said on the Guidestone's is ALL wrong and a dystopian nightmare fuel wishlist. What do we do to talk about these things if not make suggestions and philosophize about solutions?

And I'm asking you to relax and engage in good faith, I won't engage if you're just going to keep gish galloping and hurr-durring your way through this.

To answer your question, we do exactly what we do already - we engage in debate to win positions over policy that slowly shift the societal overton window (to use a metaphor) while at the same time investing time, money, resources, and energy into finding solutions. We already have a process for this. We debate. We argue. We test ideas against reality.

We also need to be very careful about who gets to define the solutions and how they’re enforced.

That’s really my issue with the Guidestones. It’s not that they try to address real problems - resource use, sustainability, long-term thinking - those are valid. It’s that they imply a top-down, globally enforced vision of how humanity should live. And history shows that whenever you centralise that kind of decision-making, you don’t eliminate human flaws like ideology, tribalism, or power-seeking - you just give them more leverage.

Take climate change for example - there is an argument that no-one is doing a bigger job to give us a better future than car companies and energy companies. Car companies are major drivers of decarbonisation for example. Energy companies are essential to the transition, they are heavily investing in renewables, hydrogen, carbon capture technologies. There is no transition without them.

But take the Green Party here in the UK, they focus on trying to control overconsumption (not a goal that is feasible), shift away from car dependency (I keep asking people on LinkedIn just how I'd transport an Ampeg 8x10 from gig to gig using a cargo bike), and other policies that restrict personal freedom and choice. For sure they want to do the obvious stuff like moving to electrics, but so does everyone. They're quite uniquely positioned when it comes to how restrictive they want people to live.

And we have modern day examples of where that leads; look at the China social credit system. Do you want to live like that? I don't.

 

[Orvillain]

Your quote was:


I am saying that the first post from the guidestones that set you off, was very much in line with the Native American culture and view of nature. So their way of life was one of the "dystopian things that the stones describe". And I am not aware of their society devolving into hell (except by the hands of the Europeans). So you asked for an example, and I was providing you with one to try to ease your mind that such a society that adopts one or more of these principles, can avoid devolving into a hell (by their own actions).

Right, so that Native American culture thing isn't really true in the first place. You're relying on a heavily romanticised interpretation of how they lived their lives. And, there certainly were hellish aspects of their society; except we're not just talking about one society. That's a myth too. The Native Americans were a collective of hundreds of different localised cultures and traditions. Grouping it all together seems wrong to me.

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

We also need to be very careful about who gets to define the solutions and how they’re enforced.

Sounds like a global society control structure!

And history shows that whenever you centralise that kind of decision-making, you don’t eliminate human flaws like ideology, tribalism, or power-seeking - you just give them more leverage.

Which is apparently bad!

 

[Orvillain]

Sounds like a global society control structure!

Which is apparently bad!

Okay, you're just not a serious person. I'm out.

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

Right, so that Native American culture thing isn't really true in the first place. You're relying on a heavily romanticised interpretation of how they lived their lives. And, there certainly were hellish aspects of their society; except we're not just talking about one society. That's a myth too. The Native Americans were a collective of hundreds of different localised cultures and traditions. Grouping it all together seems wrong to me.

My point was that they all vehemently respected the Earth. They felt they were one with it and all that lived on this planet. As far as I know, this was throughout the cultures of the thousands of tribes. They did not over consume, they found ways to use all that the land offered them, and took no more than what they needed. I think we as a culture in America and most of the world are beyond that. However, the point was, you asked for an example of a society that followed any of the Guidestones principles that did not devolve into a hell, and I gave you one. Drew provided a few more. But you are not willing to accept that such societies/people could have ever existed.

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

Okay, you're just not a serious person. I'm out.

Please explain why that is not serious. In one sentence, you claim the new technologies need to be controlled by the right people. A couple of sentences later, you are claiming that giving centralized control to groups of people makes things problematic. I do want to know the serious logic in such presumptions. Best I can tell, you gots to pick one.

 

[Orvillain]

My point was that they all vehemently respected the Earth. They felt they were one with it and all that lived on this planet. As far as I know, this was throughout the cultures of the thousands of tribes. They did not over consume, they found ways to use all that the land offered them, and took no more than what they needed. I think we as a culture in America and most of the world are beyond that. However, the point was, you asked for an example of a society that followed any of the Guidestones principles that did not devolve into a hell, and I gave you one. Drew provided a few more. But you are not willing to accept that such societies/people could have ever existed.

That’s too absolute to be historically accurate.

Please explain why that is not serious. In one sentence, you claim the new technologies need to be controlled by the right people. A couple of sentences later, you are claiming that giving centralized control to groups of people makes things problematic. I do want to know the serious logic in such presumptions. Best I can tell, you gots to pick one.

I'm arguing for distributed, accountable systems vs centralised, top-down authority; which is what the stones argue for.

You're far too emotionally invested in this topic for me to be arsed continuing. Have a good night!

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

To answer your question, we do exactly what we do already - we engage in debate to win positions over policy that slowly shift the societal overton window (to use a metaphor) while at the same time investing time, money, resources, and energy into finding solutions. We already have a process for this. We debate. We argue. We test ideas against reality.

Perfect. So I am using elements of the Guidestones to debate 5 of the points that it makes. And you are dismissing them because you don't agree (nor do I) with the other five. Seems quite daft IMO!

 

[ᛗᛜᛜᚺDᛜᎶ Ꮤᛨᚳᚴ]

That’s too absolute to be historically accurate.

Perhaps. I am all ears and eyes if it is untrue and you have evidence to support such a claim.

I'm arguing for distributed, accountable systems vs centralised, top-down authority; which is what the stones argue for.

You're far too emotionally invested in this topic for me to be arsed continuing. Have a good night!

And you studies should have taught you by now that ALL systems with humans involved, when they get large enough, begin to fall apart. So you can distribute and hold "accountable" whoever you think you can, but control by a group of humans will eventually devolve into them who have the control, taking advantage of that control for their own benefit. To quote you:

Actually making it happen means pragmatically dealing with enforcement, corruption, and power imbalances.

So whether it is distributed or centralized, we have the same problem and that is dealing with humans running it. Accountable is a great slogan to try and live by. Good luck making that happen!

And yes, I am emotionally invested, but so are you and your statements throughout this debate have shown as much.