I wanted to start this topic on a whim after I heard Percy say in response to Kleinman:
quote:
Kleinman writes:
You seem to have gotten a very tiny bit out of the Bible. You missed the part where Jesus said, "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her".
Percy writes:
So you think society should be guided by a book with obvious contradictions.
Which brngs up a line of questions.
Where are the sources of wisdom? Do they begin and end with objective evidence and the scientific method? Should they?
Note how, in politics for example, people mimic canned answers from the ideology which they follow. Very few of us go beyond the narrative with our own original thought.
AZPaul3 hates theism with a passion. Many of you lean towards the same conclusion. In light of the passing of Dr.Charles Stanley, I will include this video in this post as it pertains to "Godly wisdom" and the source thereof. In light of Percys claim of obvious contradictions, what can one conclude about Theistic philosophy versus secular philosophy?
Dr. Stanley discusses "If The Foundations Are Destroyed". I will quote some of his points later in this discussion, but what I want to do is discuss the sources of human wisdom and the content of such conclusions.
That also reminds me of a line from Inherit The Wind, a play about the scopes trial between Darrow and Bryan.(Rock of Ages vs age of rocks).
Without going off topic, I might mention that one "source" of wisdom is our own memory and imagination. We humans in essence "borrow wisdom from each other."
It looks like some nebulous thoughts masquerading as a topic. I'll leave it in Coffee House for now and move it if a focused discussion develops.
In light of Dr.Stanleys treasure trove of wisdom gleaned from a lifetime of scriptural study, I was taken aback when you so casually slapped the Bible across the face with your "obvious contradictions" comment. I suppose that either your altar ego, Percy, could provide some focus in defense of either pro or anti Bible views,but lack of interest may mean that this topic flounders here in the Coffee House as everyone sips their brew and discusses oher things. You did inspire me to do two things: 1) Look up a word.
Mr.Dictionary writes:
nebulous --adjective hazy, vague, indistinct, or confused: a nebulous recollection of the meeting; a nebulous distinction between pride and conceit. cloudy or cloudlike. of or resembling a nebula or nebulae in deep space; nebular.
It figures that your cranky,clueless self would opine in such a manner. ChatGPT is far more polite, unbiased, and concise than a cranky old Liberal. To Wit:
Question: How does philosophy differ from Biblical scripture?
Chat:GPT Responds: Philosophy and Biblical scripture are two distinct ways of understanding the world and human existence.
Philosophy is a systematic approach to understanding reality, using logic and reason to explore concepts such as ethics, metaphysics, epistemology, and ontology. It seeks to answer questions about the nature of existence, knowledge, morality, and the human experience. Philosophy draws on various sources of knowledge, including empirical observation, historical texts, and personal reflection.
On the other hand, Biblical scripture is a collection of religious texts that provide guidance, moral teachings, and a framework for understanding the relationship between humans and a divine being. The Bible is believed by many to be the word of God and is considered authoritative by many religious traditions. Its primary purpose is to provide guidance for moral living and salvation.
While philosophy and Biblical scripture share some similarities, such as addressing fundamental questions about the nature of reality and human existence, they differ in their approach, methodology, and purpose. Philosophy is more open-ended and is not limited to a particular set of beliefs or dogma, while Biblical scripture is more prescriptive and provides specific guidance for living according to a particular religious tradition.
Opinions are like assholes. Everyone has them and they all stink! Dr.Stanley was a Pastor who did his job well. He had no skeletons in his closet, though I'm sure you will feverishly try and dig for some. And it is very rude to describe the sincerely held beliefs of others as bullshit.
This video was pure fear. Right from the opening graphic to the end the message was AI is going to kill us. No realistic talk about how AI is going to do this, just that AI is evil and will kill all humans. Thank you, Bender.
Were talking a computer. A box with a power chord that we feed it electricity through. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. AI still, no mater what its decision tables end up pronouncing, must feed its results through the world of humanity. It's existence totally depends on us.
Compare AI to social media. Social media is a cesspool of all the worst thoughts possible by humans. We know this. There is the awareness that this crap is out there. But the power of social media to expose corruption and abuse is also in our awareness and, with effort, we can compensate (ignore) the crap and reap the benefits. AI is not the same. The tool is useful, powerful and at OUR command where social media is a free for all without limit.
So, what is it about AI that is to be feared? What specific atrocities is AI going to create that will doom humanity more than we have already done to ourselves? And more important, in knowing a danger may exist with a specific usage or project, what makes you think we would allow AI unfettered, uncontrolled, access to such technology?
Again, Phat, you seem to have fallen for the fear mongering hype without critical thought.
Well . . . China owns TikTok and the chat bot that runs in it. The chatBOT that set up the 13-year old with some 31-year-old "new friend" to meet secretly somewhere and she was ready to go.
The Persuasion expertise is getting stronger. The major flaw in humans is that Advertising Works. Imagine how much worse it will be....
"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside." Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned! Enjoy every sandwich!
First, I want to define my version of the AIs I see coming. I see hard AI being feasible. Human level intelligence (ability to discern and solve complex problems) without any emotional base. HAL 9000. That is not the AI we have today, but our tool for tomorrow.
The chatBOT that set up the 13-year old
That is not the doings of the AI. It is the product of loose safety programming. These systems are still too new to have experienced the lifetime of human mores and morals and, as with all things AI, need to be trained by the developers.
And these situations happen in plain view. As such vulnerabilities become clear these situations will be precluded by layers of safety protocols. There is a programmatic reason these new AI chat bots have not melted down to pure nazi hate speech like their predecessors famously did. AIs can be controlled.
The Persuasion expertise is getting stronger.
Remember The Hidden Persuaders? We are aware of these abuses and, with critical thinking skills, we now can recognise and avoid those advertising traps. The same will happen with these powers in AIs. We will even be using other AIs to locate and expose the ruse.
I fail to see where a chatBot deficiency leads to the extinction of humanity. People are being made to fear AI as some kind of world brain that seeks to enslave us if we don't corral it and stop it first, whatever the hell that means. Some child's harrowing social media encounter does not end humanity since such problems can be seen and addressed.
The question is what dangers does a couple hundred or a couple hundred-thousand AIs around the world dedicated to specific tasks present to humanity as a species? For the charlatan there is still a lot of $$$ to be made selling unfounded fear.
Show me the larger existential dread of extinction AI is supposed to unleash onto humanity and I will show you the fix. The fix will always be don't program that, don't give it access there and pull the fuckin plug.
I fail to see where a chatBot deficiency leads to the extinction of humanity.
Good. So you are not one of the half of the engineers who thinks there is a 1 in 10 chance of extinction. Neither am I.
You would be on the consortium to prevent things like Colossos - The Forbin Project from ever eventuating.
But China actually already has a task force working on containing chatBOTS from accessing and spreading the Tienanmen Square story from being seen by their citizens, so they are a "step", if you can call it that, ahead of the USA. What can be turned off can be turned on for the gullibles. Remember, some 74 million gullibles voted for Trump. So.....
I actually FB-friended a person from China, living in LA now, who never heard of the Tienanmen Square story and when I posted the picture of the famous man standing in front of the tanks, she laughed and said it was a parade.
from my liner notes on a Bob Dylan record, World Gone Wrong, is "what's essentially true is virtual reality. technology to wipe out the truth is now available. not everybody can afford it but it's available. when the cost comes down look out!"
Edited by xongsmith, : the
"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside." Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned! Enjoy every sandwich!
I think that you are overly optimistic regarding a one world "we". The fact is that humans compete in order to gain an edge. The "we" of the United States is not in agreement with the "we" of the C.C.P. (Chinese Communist Party) The "We" at Ball Aerospace may not be in cooperative alliance with the "we" at Google. The "we" of the government in power is rarely synonymous with the "we" of the NEXT administration. Though we can collectively agree on such abstracts as protection of children, we may NOT agree on limitations regarding the function, capability, and concrete purpose for AI development.
The video equates the Nuclear Genie being unleashed and the resulting arms race since the late 1940's as being equivalent to the "nuclear" explosion of artificial intelligence and its capabilities in general. The authors have expressed concern of the potential impact and claim that most of us will be in denial of the potential threat that AI can unleash in interaction with human minds. The pressing issue is social responsibility.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
