I hate that no one on the left wonders why MLK and bobby got shot, while SJWs are promoted on every campus in the country plus a major political party.
They don’t seem to grasp that unifying people is a threat to the 1% while dividing them is profitable for them. 🙁
I hate having to constantly argue with my own class because I’m a different color or gender or whatever. And I’m SUPER tired of people telling powerless me I’m their oppressor. As if I own slaves and a yacht. I mean I basically can’t participate in 90% of social media spheres because of that.
I am totally forced in a number of contexts to at the very least hide my position or be banned. Like even in that indie fiction places stories are full of gender pronoun self policing, which don’t get me wrong, genderless pronouns are needed, but that’s not why they are growing in popularity.
I’m pretty confident if I commented on the resulting conversation it would get me banned. It’s messed up that the right wingers on 4chan hate me as much as the leftists on Reddit XD especially considering my philosophy and policy is built on helping everyone and hurting no one. It’s like fighting pain and death itself has rendered me socially an asshole.
I have no illusions about the impact my words are going to have. I get that. And he’ll probably never even see this, though I will email him a link to it and promise to publish any replies he has.
This is about my own ethical code and recycling of labor. It has nothing to do with him beyond my code of conduct towards all people
So, here is my reply proper.
…
> Again, you can demand all you like, and you can claim that it’s totalitarian that nobody wants to implement them. I don’t think it’s a very effective way of getting what you want though. Obviously the burden of proof lies with whoever want to invest labour in a feature (specifically other people’s labour).
This whole paragraph is nonsensical. Burden of proof doesn’t even apply here. If you’re tangentially talking about power and responsibility which is loosely similar to burden of proof then yes, those with power collectively have responsibility. But it is diffuse. I was always only ever speaking in general and about classes.
> So who are you directing your demands at
I don’t have any demands at all beyond ethics. My demand in this context was simply that the goal should be doing what’s right and sensible. As for who would implement then, if ever, that’s entirely up to those able to do so.
In my view compensation would come in the form of an improved society paying up front with a basic income, the utility of the code itself, and respect paid to people doing good for its own sake.
> I’m not suggesting it’s easy to become a (good) developer, but once you are, it’s trivial to get a job.
Goal post move. Adding that subjective qualifier changes the entire scope of your assertion. 99% of coders can’t find work already. Millions of coders bag groceries thanks to the exponentially increasing demands of profit.
Only the privileged pampered elite among coders have wildly insecure jobs in the industry. That they don’t feel pampered is merely testament to the 0.1%’s ability to get people to works for the bare minimum they’ll accept.
It’s worth noting also imo that those jobs are ALL about making it so corporations can hire machines instead of people. Coders are maggots in the corpse of the job market. And to be clear I say bravo because the job market is only different from a slave market in methodology. The result of both is still brutal physical punishment for refusal to work. We just moved from away from whips towards crushing poverty in the midst of technological plenty.
Objections to capitalism itself center on this fact but rarely make the comparison because traditionally communism and socialism by necessity of technological immaturity had to have workers as a necessary evil.
We are building a new mechanical ecology. Earth is going to become an indoor garden or lush space station eventually and the floor of the food chain is going to be fission reactions and robotically actualized open source code.
> This is not the first time the world has gone through technological shifts
This statement is entirely wrong.
We’re today capable of dispensing with the food chain and work generally at the same time. And we’re on the cusp of both an AI singularity and a reproductive revolution that is going to force us to redefine what “human” even means.
In the context of code work alone the change coming is so substantive and qualitative that work itself is about to come to an end.
Retaining it much longer in the face of our physically real option to obviate it will amount to a religious decision completely unconnected to the objective world.
> Well, in your star-trek communism it still wouldn’t really be voluntary, would it? I would have to work on the majority-vote feature.
Firstly, Star trek isn’t communist. It’s fascist. Secondly, you won’t have to work at all if you don’t want to (Yay for actual real freedom) and what you do work on will be your choice.
Bear with me here… I’ll get to the point at the end.
QM (quantum mechanics) is a religion.
Granted we are on to something with much of QM, or else the tools we build based on those assumptions wouldn’t work, but extending them to existential scales is essentially a leap of faith.
Faith needn’t be wrong. You can believe a random thing and by chance have it line up with reality. Especially if you’re constantly adapting your faith to observations, which is what QM has done. Think of it like the scientific method applied to a dogma.
Usage of the term “possibility” here is when you clearly see the religious nature of QM. There are no probabilities. There are simply events which occur, and our imagination. When our imagination and occurrence match, we call that prediction. There’s no such thing as random, there is only unpredictability, which is OUR limit, a cognitive limit, not reality’s. Not a physical limit.
The cat is either alive or dead in the box. There are no superposed states. There are just states. Some we know some we don’t.
And don’t tell me about the double slit and particle duality.
In order for possibilities to be a “real” thing you have to create space for them of infinite size outside events that existed. But there’s a logical problem, a possibility is always by definition something that didn’t happen or hasn’t happened yet. A possibility is a non-happening. That is functionally identical to a position of faith.
The moment something you have faith in actually happens it stops being a matter of faith and becomes a matter of fact. Believing a fact before you can prove it is just imagination. Just like the moment a possibility happens it becomes an occurrence.
I can say it’s possible for one of the infinite possibilities to annihilate all others, but we exist, so clearly that didn’t happen, thus that is not among the set of possible outcomes anywhere since the definition impacts all others. Thus constraint is required: You MUST grant that a universe that destroys all others past and future universes cannot ever be an occurrence. And if something can never occur, can it be a possibility? No. Just like a false faith, an impossible possibility isn’t possible. In order for something to even be a possibility, it has to be possible. It has to have a non zero chance of occurring or having already occurred. It’s thus not possible for some all-other-universes-annihilating universe to exist, as proven by the existence of ours.
That means the space outside occurrence is finite. Just as science expanded, room for faith based answers contracted, the room for “possibilities” similarly contracts for the same reasons. All possibility is like that, and the more you dig in the more constrained it gets. Like entropy, it’s unidirectional. The advancement of understanding is the elaboration of constraint. The idea of infinite possibilities is a cognitive artifact, a belief system, an imagining. Not a state of reality. QM is a religion in the sense that it invents possibilities to suit its needs in the exact same way religion invents spiritual external contexts to suit its needs. Possibilities are dogmas and imagination, nothing more.
The universe is 100% deterministic. Randomness is as cognitive and illusory as the behavior of movie or book characters. Just because you don’t yet know what they’ll do next means they have more than 1 option.
The only broad version of QM that is completely secular in this sense is a the hidden variable one. The question of why there is something vs nothing implies it was ever possible for there to be nothing, and that’s wrong. Because as I’ve shown, there is only occurrence and imagination. Fact and concept. Nothing is a concept, not a fact.
However, subjectivity is important, it obviously exists. A sufficiently convincing illusion is no different from reality in terms of experience and the illusion of free will, chance, and probability is absolute.
Science co-opting chance and possibility here is an example of it encroaching on philosophies turf. And good policy must embrace both subjectivity and objectivity because sentience is both.
I’ve named this process after the ship of Theseus. This is how I intend to ultimately escape the confines of my body without just making a copy.
I’m aware of similar processes, most closely Moravec’s, but his process is destructive and makes more assumptions than mine. I believe his process results in a copy, not a migrated original.
My process preserves consciousness equally well as passage of time in an original brain does. It’s less disruptive or risky in this sense than mere sleep is. Any argument against the result of this process being the original must apply to existing original brains as well.
The Process Itself
All that is required is a construct superior to original neurons in durability, behavior, and motion, that can position itself, follow these steps, and ultimately replace individual neurons such that adjacent neurons both synthetic and original can operate normally.
For a baseline Theseus transfer these synthetic (apprentice?) neurons (SN) must do the following.
Swim up to existing neurons and take position nearby.
Learn to predict their actions based on surrounding neurons of either type.
Detect when the observed neuron dies.
Move in and replace those functions fast enough to prevent disruption/detection at the conscious level.
Step 2 may not even require anything like processing power. It may be done mechanically or biochemically depending on what original neurons actually do. If they are entirely rule based themselves then production, positioning, and replacement becomes all that’s needed for a bare bones substrate migration. Ultimately this list and any upgrades to it are technical problems. And nothing about the baseline list is impossible.
Once that is accomplished, the mind is now going to slowly, cell by cell, migrate to the new substrate. The mind being transferred will no more detect these change-overs than it does now when a brain cell dies.
The Potential
What you can do with this foundation as a starting point quickly becomes staggering and assuming technical abilities starts to be more a set of philosophical exercises than technological projections. I’m reminded of the idea that sufficiently advanced technology appears magical. This is definitely related. I leave the Sci-Fi and fantasy repercussions to your imagination.
I strongly request you comment (as always) here if you see anything like a flaw in my logic or the concept.
I’m saying this isn’t the conspiracy it’s being spun as. This is just filter bubble tuning. It’s everywhere and it works both ways.
Sure there’s anti “conservative” bias among the employees, but they are using right wing content that users find offensive as the example. The tool itself will apply to any identifiable content. the machines don’t care. (Yet?)
If a user doesn’t want to see neo nazi crap any more than Tumblr SJW psychosis, the goal is to get the machine to learn how to identify and filter both to please that user. (Me.)
This video is garbage.
These people were clearly asked loaded leading questions about requested filtering and their answers taken out of that obvious context. These comments mean nothing. It’s employees talking about algorithmic content filtering based on user preferences not twitter-wide. (Even if it were though, see below for why the right wing rage is laughable.)
For machine learning to happen people have to train the machines. These conversations are all clearly about that goal and training those machines. The rest is repeat hype trigger fluff.
Last I checked Twitter was one of your precious for profit job creating corporations. I thought corporations were people and had the right to do whatever they please? Where’s all the defense of corporate monopolies right wingers are so fond of? Don’t you all love binding arbitration and vendor locking and license agreements that can say literally anything in pursuit of almighty profits?
Thirdly, I don’t see right wingers complaining when billion dollar media companies are run by conservatives. Fox and CNN both rubber stamped Bush’s Iraq lies and no one but like Ron Paul complained from the right. For that matter where’s all the nationalist “patriots” thrilled at a company bending over for the government because mah ‘merica?
How angry are you guys at your reps for rubber stamping more surveillance this week? Not at all apparently. As proven by zero reaction from the right wing community.
Neolibs and neocons need to just quit dancing and go hump in the hotel room. Clearly they are in love with each other and all this outrage is proof that there are snow flakes in both camps.
