I think âweâ are constantly refining each other; by âweâ, I mean everyone we come into contact with, on, and hopefully, off, the forum.
When we encounter something that sounds terrible we experience what I call rational mismatch - anyhow. I will be thinking about this . . .
Not really significant input to the thread but very worthwhile considering:
From Jamesâ signature:
Devilâs Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise⌠until it is too late to choose otherwise.
From My two cents in Gloominaryâs thread - Modern Technology:
I worked out a long time ago that to beat your adversary you have to know your adversary . . .
. . . and be able to think like your adversary when or if the need arises.
From what James posted earlier in this thread and a few of my thoughts thrown in:
To do this you have to know the people that you want to impact. Usually this starts out by listening to them - difficult when they are talking rubbish I know but nonetheless people like to be listened to. By getting them onside you are then able to exercise influence.
Exactly. People are lost sheep as you know and common sense is dead. However while one person is able to exercise good judgement then we still have hope.
So true. I would also say that people need to know that you care. Not so easy to share the warmth these days, but do not lose hope - you have to stand by what you believe in, unless you know that something better has come along. Just the same:
How do you show the care for a population as opposed to the more intimate care shown to one person?
Why does this concept blow my mind? Is it so far removed from my mode of operation that even the thought of it overwhelms me? Or is it more that Iâm not ready to apply myselfâŚin strategy games against computer generated opponents? I know that their mode of operation is primarily, efficiency, but I rebel against their mode of operation and try to defeat them on my own terms only to get smacked down, with every tactic I try. Yes, sacrifice was not programmed into those opponents, so there is a bit of a leg up, but it always boils down to the damn efficiency of my maneuvers.
I know some of the things I write seem peculiar . . .
Good question . . . easier than you think actually . . . I will get back to you on this . . . I will work on something more in tune with your good self.
It probably blows your mind because you are not a cunning person - I like that - and you should keep it far removed from your MO.
So why did I write it? The trick is to mirror your adversary - ever looked in a mirror and wonder why things appear backwards? If they are bad then you are good.
I believe a little bit of patience is in order though . . . another thing I like from Jamesâ signature: The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living. Wisdom contains good judgement as far as I am concerned. I am happy to help with things I find agreeable - my reach extends beyond this forum.
Being cunning would mean walking on the darkside where one has to be crafty to accomplish crimes against nature. Simple goodness always beats cunning in the end or is that just my positive, wishful thinking?
That was an awesomely intriguing sentence to write. Much thanks even for what you implied in my direction. Now, what specifically does it mean?
Well you seem like a good person to me - hopefully phyllo does not mind me saying that
You heard . . . lol, I am kidding . . . we have all done things that could be considered messed up to others.
I think your heart is good. So, no to you having a bad self.
No it is not your wishful thinking - I do not care what anyone has to say about this. Good beats evil - simple.
Are you his brother or something? Geez, I have a reputationâŚreally? Whatâs that gossip been saying about our differences of opinion?
You are not bad yourself, but every once in awhile I wonder if you are an AI bot. No offense meant, truly, but crazy thoughts cross my mind sometimes and I canât find my âoffâ switch.
I am a software engineer. I work on compilers, interpreters and operating systems. I am against what is called AGI. Simple AI is kind of useful so I am on the fence about that. MI is the one that worries me the most.
Hmmm? This is not what the other website, the original site, I investigated said about expulsions. In Wiki, two guys have been expelled since 1862 and the other site said that everybody had resigned before they were expelled. I may have been looking at the Senate and House of Representatives separately. So, two Reps. got expelled, but no SenatorsâŚokay, that makes sense.
Just an FYI - I donât know a great deal about politics - I am a quick learner though - when I say quick - 3 to 6 months should do it on history and some technical stuff.
I really detest inconsistency between websites - I believe it contributes to some of the ballyhoo of conspiracy BS that we have to put up with. I think the Wikipedia link that you provided will be a good start for me. I will be looking at the references - that is for certain. I am familiar with the Senate and House setup - we have that here. I can also ask in another forum that I am a member of - there is a guy in there that understands this stuff pretty well.
Interesting . . . so even thought we have a Senate and House of Representatives, it seems as though there is a fundamental difference between where I am from and the USA - we follow a parliamentary system, from what I can determine the USA does not. I guess I will find out as I go . . .
Good point - however true weak AI is based on a narrow set of tasks - an automaton(and possibly automata). There is no line of code between weak and strong. Strong must be designed to think for itself - weak can be engineered to say no but then it would not be weak anymore(even that could be debated).