Solarflares
Roadie
- Messages
- 125
The Official Original Artificial Intelligence We're All F***ing Doomed Thread
- Thread starter mbenigni
- Start date
- Messages
- 2,268
- Messages
- 11,349
Quite glad that monument is gone. But you know for sure there are still people that believe that wacky bollocks; there are still people who believe in the overpopulation hoax too!
- Messages
- 2,268
Well, I included only this quip from the Guidestones as I think it is 100% relevant to what is being discussed here ;~)) There are elements to the Guidestones that make me shake my head negatively, but several of them have me enthusiastically nodding yes. The above is one of them!
Solarflares
Roadie
- Messages
- 125
Let’s leave the politics out of it.
We are here not only for music - but because of it.
Harmony shapes our very existence.
We should work hard to find this within ourselves.
If there are ideas to be shared here - then they really should have the love of music as their backdrop.
- Messages
- 11,349
Referring to humans as cancer is anti-human and psychopathic. Every single one of those points on those stones is rooted in crazy woo-woo thinking, anti-science, anti-human, cleanse the earth bullshit. Fascism with a smile and a few root crops.
- Messages
- 10,641
Even if there were a few points on the stones you could go "that's logical, sensible"... the whole thing gets overshadowed and rightfully so by "maintaining human population under 500,000,000..."
Now how exactly do you do that?
- Messages
- 2,268
- Messages
- 2,268
You don't do that! And that is why I stated that some of the elements on the Guidestones have me shaking my head no. But to say everything said on the Guidestones is worthless because of one of the 10 statements, is unfair IMO. Now if it was "accept them all or none", then certainly, I would reject the whole lot as several of them are an emphatic no, but I do not see them (or the 10 commandments) in such a way. Most of the 10 commandments are good stuff, but the first few are cult talk as far as I am concerned.Even if there were a few points on the stones you could go "that's logical, sensible"... the whole thing gets overshadowed and rightfully so by "maintaining human population under 500,000,000..."
Now how exactly do you do that?
- Messages
- 11,349
"Protect people with fair laws and just courts"
Already the goal of most modern systems. Stating it and slapping it onto some concrete block is a piece of piss. Actually making it happen means pragmatically dealing with enforcement, corruption, and power imbalances.
"World court for external disputes"
Yeah, classic global governenance idea. But who enforces decisions? What happens when poweful nations ignore rulings? What about cultural and legal differences across nations? Without enforcement, it is purely symbolic. With enforcement, it becomes global tyranny.
"Avoid petty laws and useless officials"
Completely subjective. Who defines petty? Who defines useless? Bureaucracy exists because systems and societies are complex. 1-dimensional solutions are ignorant, and this point is just populist oversimplification; not a real workable policy.
"Balance personal rights with social duties"
Sloganeering, and exactly the sort of think that inspired my artist name of Sloganyear. So many people are happy to live life through slogans and superficial masks. But this simply isn't a solution. Every political ideology claims this anyway; even fascism. So where does that leave us?
.... now... let's do the others quickly:
"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000…"
Okay.. how? It implies eliminating 94% of humanity. So how? There is no ethical, voluntary, or realistic mechanism to achieve that at scale.
"Guide reproduction wisely"
Eugenics with soft word play.
"Unite humanity with a new language"
Sounds harmless and noble right? What about existing languages? Existing cultures? Existing identity? This is the sort of thing Caesar would say in Fallout New Vegas. And he's definitely a baddie; not in the sexy way.
"Rule passion - faith - tradition with tempered reason"
Humans are not purely rational. Culture, tradition, and belief systems are core stabilisers. Tempered reason is just code for wiping the slate clean and starting again.
"Prize truth, beauty, love…"
Naval gazing philosophical fluff. Nothing actionable, nothing measureable, and it means different things to different people anyway. All it does is tug on the heart strings; woo-woo thinking. Which is ironic when coupled with the tempered reason ambition. It is basically a nonsense point.
"Be not a cancer on the earth"
Super dangerous framing. Humans are not a cancer and not something to be reduced or controlled. Historically this thinking leads to justification for extreme measures and dehumanisation. The environmental concern is valid. But the framing is literally the same kind of justification for some of the worlds biggest atrocities.
The entire thing is a philosophical and ideological wishlist that quietly assumes centralised control over humanity. And once you add real-world implementation, it becomes deeply illiberal and dystopian. Honestly, pure nightmare fuel.
Already the goal of most modern systems. Stating it and slapping it onto some concrete block is a piece of piss. Actually making it happen means pragmatically dealing with enforcement, corruption, and power imbalances.
"World court for external disputes"
Yeah, classic global governenance idea. But who enforces decisions? What happens when poweful nations ignore rulings? What about cultural and legal differences across nations? Without enforcement, it is purely symbolic. With enforcement, it becomes global tyranny.
"Avoid petty laws and useless officials"
Completely subjective. Who defines petty? Who defines useless? Bureaucracy exists because systems and societies are complex. 1-dimensional solutions are ignorant, and this point is just populist oversimplification; not a real workable policy.
"Balance personal rights with social duties"
Sloganeering, and exactly the sort of think that inspired my artist name of Sloganyear. So many people are happy to live life through slogans and superficial masks. But this simply isn't a solution. Every political ideology claims this anyway; even fascism. So where does that leave us?
.... now... let's do the others quickly:
"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000…"
Okay.. how? It implies eliminating 94% of humanity. So how? There is no ethical, voluntary, or realistic mechanism to achieve that at scale.
"Guide reproduction wisely"
Eugenics with soft word play.
"Unite humanity with a new language"
Sounds harmless and noble right? What about existing languages? Existing cultures? Existing identity? This is the sort of thing Caesar would say in Fallout New Vegas. And he's definitely a baddie; not in the sexy way.
"Rule passion - faith - tradition with tempered reason"
Humans are not purely rational. Culture, tradition, and belief systems are core stabilisers. Tempered reason is just code for wiping the slate clean and starting again.
"Prize truth, beauty, love…"
Naval gazing philosophical fluff. Nothing actionable, nothing measureable, and it means different things to different people anyway. All it does is tug on the heart strings; woo-woo thinking. Which is ironic when coupled with the tempered reason ambition. It is basically a nonsense point.
"Be not a cancer on the earth"
Super dangerous framing. Humans are not a cancer and not something to be reduced or controlled. Historically this thinking leads to justification for extreme measures and dehumanisation. The environmental concern is valid. But the framing is literally the same kind of justification for some of the worlds biggest atrocities.
The entire thing is a philosophical and ideological wishlist that quietly assumes centralised control over humanity. And once you add real-world implementation, it becomes deeply illiberal and dystopian. Honestly, pure nightmare fuel.
- Messages
- 10,641
But, with the latter point you mentioned, the first few set the stage for the rest. If you can't do THAT, then the rest don't matter.
The first points on the stones are population control and reproduction. They set the stage for the rest, and are crucial if not mandatory for the utopian dream.
That's my last delve into religion and politics though.
No mas.
- Messages
- 10,641
Well, I do care.
Solarflares
Roadie
- Messages
- 125
- Messages
- 10,641
I'm sure it does. Easy is kind of the problem.
- Messages
- 2,268
So don't even say it or write it because it is just piss? Don't talk about it even though it is the goal of most modern systems, and putting it in writing makes it "pure nightmare fuel"? I disagree. We must have dialogue and be able to state what we think is proper.
Stating a goal does not mean all the solutions for implementation are baked in. Because you believe there is not way to implement such a goal is no reason to discard the validity of said goal. You have to work to achieve goals and it always involves compromise, but having a set goal such as the above is a good thing IMO.
I don't think this could be construed as policy as once again, it is a goal, not a solution with implementation already configured. Framing a goal as unworkable I believe shows a lack of will to put in the time to accomplish said goal. I don't want to be ticketed for crossing the street outside a crosswalk. I don't want to be forced to wear a seatbelt in my car or a helmet when riding my motorcycle. I don't want an official telling me I can't build a shed on the property I own. The US has more laws than any other country in the world last time I checked, and I guarantee we can find 80% of them to be petty and plenty of officials to be useless. Yes, it would take a lot of effort, but giving up on the idea because we are not there at the moment is defeatist and attacking the message does not solve it, it just ignores that the problem exists.
It leaves us with having more work to do to accomplish the stated goal. It is only superficial if we give up on trying to make it so and leave it as a slogan.
100% agreed and these folk were smokin' some whacky shit to think this could ever happen. And where they gathered such a number is beyond me. How the F would they know? For me though, this does not make the other items irrelevant or impossible.
Indeed, a definite "NO" in my book.
Stupid and worthless element of the Guidestones IMO.
Anytime the words "Rule" or "Faith" or "Tradition" are used to talk about people how people should be or act, I start thinking cult. So I certainly want nothing to do with this bullet point.
This one loses me at "Supreme being". Does not tug on my heart strings, but to each his/her own.
Please provide examples where trying to be kind to the earth and nature committed the biggest atrocities. I am serious. What justifications of preventing mankind from destroying the earth have resulted in the horrors you are referencing. Not trying to be flippant, I just don't get what you are referring to.
Giving better care to the earth, having less petty laws and government officials, trying to find ways to balance personal rights against the rights of groups of people, letting countries do what they want at home, but not let them mess with others, protecting people with courts who look at law and justice (are you familiar with Jury Nullification) I think are all good goals. Yes, we do not have them at the moment. Yes, they will require work to achieve. Yes, they are philosophical ideas. But all good ideas IMO and to dismiss them because they were next to another idea you did not like AND/OR are going to be hard to achieve is no reason to not have the goals. That is my two cents and I am stikin' to it!
- Messages
- 2,268
I disagree. Once again, if it is all or nothing, I will choose nothing. But to say "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal", etc. is only viable if you go with the "Don't use god's name in vain" and "Keep the sabbath holy", I think good points are being missed. Same thing with the guidestones the way I see it. I can hate some songs from an artist but still love others ;~))But, with the latter point you mentioned, the first few set the stage for the rest. If you can't do THAT, then the rest don't matter.
The first points on the stones are population control and reproduction. They set the stage for the rest, and are crucial if not mandatory for the utopian dream.
That's my last delve into religion and politics though.
- Messages
- 13,196
It’s always been remarkably daft to me to assume the guidestones were meant for us and not for the next civilization to come after we fuck everything up.
And the very line everyone takes umbrage with gives it away; “maintain” does not mean “eliminate”, “murder”, “decimate” or “euthanize”, it means “provide with necessities for life or existence” When you maintain a garden, you don’t go in and kill all the flowers, you keep the weeds out to allow the flowers to flourish.
Framed through our current civilization, I completely agree, it makes zero sense, but I never believed for an instance it was meant for us.
JiveTurkey
Goatlord
- Messages
- 23,687
- Messages
- 10,641
Context matters. "Commandments". They are not suggestions.
You either accept them wholly or not. I mean, they can be cherry picked all day but that's not the point of them.Ok, no mas. Last one. For realz.
Sascha Franck
Goatlord
- Messages
- 11,769
Even if there were a few points on the stones you could go "that's logical, sensible"... the whole thing gets overshadowed and rightfully so by "maintaining human population under 500,000,000..."
Now how exactly do you do that?
I remember reading some rather elaborated (and very science based) stuff saying that Earth would easily be able to support a self sustainable life/future for vastly more than that, IIRC it's been something around those 8 billion humans we are right now.
Very obviously, that however would demand a more or less drastic change in the way ressources are used and how "wealth" is distributed. The most interesting takeaway however being that the authors said that it'd be possible with capitalism still in place (because they seemed to agree that us humans can't completely avoid capitalism), but it'd take a "modified" version of capitalism, let's call it "sustainable capitalism" (for lack of better words).
Anyhow, whatever the number might be, it's absolutely obvious that Earth can't deal with endless people, so there's a certain limit. But it's still completely stupid to come up with any arbitrary figures (such as those 500,000,000), because if we were taking these as our guideline, it needed drastic measures to get there. Some of them very certainly being pretty anti-human.
Personally, I think that population growth would perfectly regulate itself anyway, in case all/most people were fine with their lives, so it'd very likely become a non-issue.
And whatever the final goal might be, there's no way around us having to start with the situation as is. There's no sense in wild speculations about whatever all-humans-are-happy utopias, in the end they may look completely different anyway.
---
Whatever, to get back to topic: AI (along with "robot-ation") so far isn't exactly serving much of the once (and still) promised glory for humans.
The situation regarding AI music pretty much shows that under a lens. Suno has about zero purposes others than making quick money. During the last decades there's never been any shortage of fantastic music of any genre or use case. In fact, the very opposite is true. Even pre-Suno, it's been an overwhelming amount of music to listen to.
There's been no shortage of composers, players, audio engineers, producers and whatsoever.
Oh, sure, there's "but I can't sing so I'm happy about Suno singing for me". But again, that just comes down to laziness and money. There's Fiverr with kickass singers galore if you want to work remotely.
"But that singer doesn't do it as good as Suno!" - so, a) either ask someone else or b) try to get the best out of what you have. These things are part of the very essence of music - not perfection.
And so far it's the very same with each environment that AI is breaking into at this very moment.
It doesn't serve anyone if kids can do their homework via Chat GPT - sure, it's a short time "remedy", but it's still worth noting in the long run.
Being able to create silly videos might be fun for a while - but we're already drowning in them (take a look at TikTok, Instagram and YT) and others than some quick laughs and maybe some quick money for the more successful "creators" there's nothing to be had from them.
Etc.
I said so before: An AI actually serving humans needed to care about humanity's biggest issues (not gonna list them here because that'd take this too much into politics). Taking over jobs, destroying pretty much the entire more or less creative/art scene and what not - none of that has ever been something we needed.
I don't think we will be able to get there, though. For reasons that we can't discuss about here.