Chira numbuh wan!

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so ive had the feeling for awhile that our terms like republican/democrat or liberal/conservative are wildly outdated and no longer serve to describe an individual's political opinions

MAGA is a de-facto political party that ran on the republican ticket, Woke is an utterly failed ideology that ran on the democratic ticket

The libertarians are now more right-wing then bush era republicans, those dudes like dave smith or tim pool made a hard turn right

It feels like we don't have terms and labels to describe the groups that are created by individual political leanings anymore, like now modern politics could truly be a color blind process where the best ideas win

No more tribes to which we are expected to serve and adhere, no more categories to put people in

we saw our 2 major parties coalesce into some weird twisted "uniparty for the status quo" and their resistance to change caused their voters to revolt and be like I dont wanna be a part of that

I just can't bring myself to say republicans are this or democrats are that anymore

it's all so gray and murky now

Yeah it's basically DNC/GOP uniparty vs Maga.

[shovelquest]

Soon the Ai party is gonna be rocking....

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

so ive had the feeling for awhile that our terms like republican/democrat or liberal/conservative are wildly outdated and no longer serve to describe an individual's political opinions

MAGA is a de-facto political party that ran on the republican ticket, Woke is an utterly failed ideology that ran on the democratic ticket

The libertarians are now more right-wing then bush era republicans, those dudes like dave smith or tim pool made a hard turn right

It feels like we don't have terms and labels to describe the groups that are created by individual political leanings anymore, like now modern politics could truly be a color blind process where the best ideas win

No more tribes to which we are expected to serve and adhere, no more categories to put people in

we saw our 2 major parties coalesce into some weird twisted "uniparty for the status quo" and their resistance to change caused their voters to revolt and be like I dont wanna be a part of that

I just can't bring myself to say republicans are this or democrats are that anymore

it's all so gray and murky now

I find it most useful to think of it in terms of Nietzsche and master-slave morality; there are those who subscribe to master morality (MAGA), and those who subscribe to slave morality (Democrats).

I think that's the clearest distinction. There are two dominant, competing conceptions of what is good and bad. In master morality, which aligns with the ancient greeks, goodness and virtue is strength, health, the will to power, and your ability to exert your will on your environment, thereby allowing you to protect and provide for yourself and your loved ones. There is no absolute morality, you make your own morality. This is why Trump can grab pussies, burn down capitols, leave national secrets scattered around the floor of his resort, tell Brian Kemp to "find more votes", etc... he is good because he is powerful and constantly provides victories for his 'clan'.

What Nietzsche called slave morality, on the other hand, aligns more closely with ancient Christians (though not modern ones) and I think is the predominant good/bad conceptualization among Democrats. Here, good and bad are abstract concepts-- to be 'good' often means living a life of virtue, humility, helping other people/charity, the golden rule, dealing in a fair and honest manner. You can be the biggest fuckin loser in town and still be 'good'. You can be a slave, and still be good. Your king can be powerful but if he is also 'evil' according to your abstract morality, then he is not a good king (see the purity-testing inherent in wokeness).

Master moralists will laugh in the face of a slave moralist when they say something like "that's not fair!". Slave moralists will laugh in the face of a master moralist when they say something like "fucking cancel culture witch-hunt" after they get caught and ostracized for fucking somebody over or otherwise doing something antisocial.

Society has always had both parties and always will. It needs both. The south park guys summed it up best with their soliloquy on dicks, pussies, and assholes. A society run by a bunch of dicks can't function very well, nor can a society run by a bunch of pussies. A society run by assholes isn't a society.

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by shovelquest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Soon the Ai party is gonna be rocking....

I'm pretty sure that any politician who is a mouthpiece for AI is gonna get destroyed by any human being who says, "I speak my own words"

especially given that AI is nothing more than a marketing term for advanced software and that actual artificial intelligence is as theoretical as faster then light travel

those who think that software governing based on raw data is a good idea are the small minority of voters who would rather be told how to think rather then figure out reality for themselves. these are the same voters who don't care what their leadership does as long as the press conferences are "presidential" and says the right lines at the right times.

the same types of people who desire authority, as long as it doesn't have to be themselves

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I find it most useful to think of it in terms of Nietzsche and master-slave morality; there are those who subscribe to master morality (MAGA), and those who subscribe to slave morality (Democrats).

I think that's the clearest distinction. There are two competing conceptions of what is good and bad. In master morality, which aligns with the ancient greeks, goodness and virtue is strength, health, the will to power, and your ability to exert your will on your environment, thereby allowing you to protect and provide for yourself and your loved ones. There is no absolute morality, you make your own morality. This is why Trump can grab pussies, burn down capitols, leave national secrets scattered around the floor of his resort, tell Brian Kemp to "find more votes", etc... he is good because he is powerful and constantly provides victories for his 'clan'.

What Nietzsche called slave morality, on the other hand, aligns more closely with ancient Christians (though not modern ones) and I think is the predominant good/bad conceptualization among Democrats. Here, good and bad are abstract concepts-- to be 'good' often means living a life of virtue, humility, helping other people/charity, the golden rule, dealing in a fair and honest manner. You can be the biggest fuckin loser in town and still be 'good'. You can be a slave, and still be good. Your king can be powerful but if he is also 'evil' according to your abstract morality, then he is not a good king (see the purity-testing inherent in wokeness).

Master moralists will laugh in the face of a slave moralist when they say something like "that's not fair!". Slave moralists will laugh in the face of a master moralist when they say something like "fucking cancel culture witch-hunt" after they get caught and ostracized for fucking somebody over or otherwise doing something antisocial.

Society has always had both parties and always will. It needs both. The south park guys summed it up best with their soliloquy on dicks, pussies, and assholes. A society run by a bunch of dicks can't function very well, nor can a society run by a bunch of pussies. A society run by assholes isn't a society.

I subscribe to

The "Moral Circles Heatmap" illustrates how conservatives and liberals distribute their moral concerns differently by using concentric circles to represent various groups ranging from immediate family to all living things. The studies suggest that liberals tend to extend their moral concern to a broader range of entities, including non-human ones, while conservatives tend to focus their moral concern more narrowly, primarily around their immediate social groups.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...fig6_336076674

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I find it most useful to think of it in terms of Nietzsche and master-slave morality; there are those who subscribe to master morality (MAGA), and those who subscribe to slave morality (Democrats).

I think that's the clearest distinction. There are two competing conceptions of what is good and bad. In master morality, which aligns with the ancient greeks, goodness and virtue is strength, health, the will to power, and your ability to exert your will on your environment, thereby allowing you to protect and provide for yourself and your loved ones. There is no absolute morality, you make your own morality. This is why Trump can grab pussies, burn down capitols, leave national secrets scattered around the floor of his resort, tell Brian Kemp to "find more votes", etc... he is good because he is powerful and constantly provides victories for his 'clan'.

What Nietzsche called slave morality, on the other hand, aligns more closely with ancient Christians (though not modern ones) and I think is the predominant good/bad conceptualization among Democrats. Here, good and bad are abstract concepts-- to be 'good' often means living a life of virtue, humility, helping other people/charity, the golden rule, dealing in a fair and honest manner. You can be the biggest fuckin loser in town and still be 'good'. You can be a slave, and still be good. Your king can be powerful but if he is also 'evil' according to your abstract morality, then he is not a good king (see the purity-testing inherent in wokeness).

Master moralists will laugh in the face of a slave moralist when they say something like "that's not fair!". Slave moralists will laugh in the face of a master moralist when they say something like "fucking cancel culture witch-hunt" after they get caught and ostracized for fucking somebody over or otherwise doing something antisocial.

Society has always had both parties and always will. It needs both. The south park guys summed it up best with their soliloquy on dicks, pussies, and assholes. A society run by a bunch of dicks can't function very well, nor can a society run by a bunch of pussies. A society run by assholes isn't a society.

i get what you're saying but you aren't helping yourself or anyone else by adhering to falsehoods and half truths.

I can tell you're smarter then that.

Trump's line from the access hollywood tape is speaking with regard to "Gold Digging Sluts" in which he states verbatim that "They let you grab them by the pussy" This is colloquially referred to as "Guy Talk" among real men. the other guy in the video is Billy Bush (yes, that bush) and he is a friend of Trumps who got railroaded out of his job over the tape which he did not intend to use

Leftist burned down buildings in many cities during his first presidency

The FBI emptied out boxes onto the floor and then took pictures as if that's how they found it, every single former president is in possession of classified documents

Trump never told kemp to manufacture enough votes to secure a win, "find the votes" was a reference to asking Brad Raffensperger the georgia secretary of state to investigate the discrepancy between expected voter turnout and the published results

you don't have to believe me you can look it up yourself if you want

or you could just observe that after the entire weight of the US justice department came down on trump, the only thing they could pin on him is porn star hush money, which was only a crime based on some white collar questionable book keeping that most businesses are guilty of.

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I'm pretty sure that any politician who is a mouthpiece for AI is gonna get destroyed by any human being who says, "I speak my own words"

especially given that AI is nothing more than a marketing term for advanced software and that actual artificial intelligence is as theoretical as faster then light travel

those who think that software governing based on raw data is a good idea are the small minority of voters who would rather be told how to think rather then figure out reality for themselves. these are the same voters who don't care what their leadership does as long as the press conferences are "presidential" and says the right lines at the right times.

the same types of people who desire authority, as long as it doesn't have to be themselves

Im really hoping that as quickly chatGPT came out of nowhere that nerualink cures cancer and stops aging thanks to a ASI that figured that out and the ASI basically asks us to let it take over and offers like basically eternal life in exchange.

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by shovelquest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Im really hoping that as quickly chatGPT came out of nowhere that nerualink cures cancer and stops aging thanks to a ASI that figured that out and the ASI basically asks us to let it take over and offers like basically eternal life in exchange.

it's not thinking at all tho, it's identifying patterns in ridiculously large data sets, it's not gonna come up with a workable real-world solution to questions like, "how should we write laws for 300 million people who all have different social goals in life"

it does things like, "find the tree that is exactly 25 feet and 7 inches tall" in this picture of a mountain

AI in the medical field will definitely revolutionize things, like a doctor will prepare a data set about a patient, then the AI will compare that to the entire world's worth of medical data, and often find patterns that the human doctor would need a very long time to discover.

[shovelquest]

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

it's not thinking at all tho, it's identifying patterns in ridiculously large data sets, it's not gonna come up with a workable real-world solution to questions like, "how should we write laws for 300 million people who all have different social goals in life"

it does things like, "find the tree that is exactly 25 feet and 7 inches tall" in this picture of a mountain

Doesn't need to think, it's just a really smart bot. That can tell itself find the cure for cancer, and develop and integrate the best system of goverment.

Originally Posted by Trexller [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

AI in the medical field will definitely revolutionize things, like a doctor will prepare a data set about a patient, then the AI will compare that to the entire world's worth of medical data, and often find patterns that the human doctor would need a very long time to discover.

[Trexller]

Originally Posted by shovelquest [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Doesn't need to think, it's just a really smart bot. That can tell itself find the cure for cancer, and develop and integrate the best system of goverment.

i feel like our imagination fills in the blanks about AI a heck of alot faster then reality can teach us

I know a couple people who are working in the field and their attitude about it is like an old school calculator

that little device that is programmed to provide a result to a query like what is 2+2

the LLM is programmed to provide a result to a query like, "make a picture of a busty woman on a picturesque beach"

then it picks details from the millions of images it was trained on and constructs the AI image of a woman on a beach

they also tell me that this is an effort of thousands of people working 24 hours a day to refine the LLM so it doesn't use a motorcycle in place of a bicycle and stuff like that