|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Oh boy, when people take your statement on one thing and use it to argue another and your off to sleep so you can't correct them...
Someone said Communism can never work, I disagree because as far as I know the biggest issues with Communism is human greed and an inability to keep up with changing markets. Both issues could be fixed with AI.
No, I don't think a robot communism should replace basic capitalist principles.
I think society is doing pretty good in general. There are still a lot of issues tho and many of those issues aren't going to go away because they are tied to what makes us human.
AI technology can seriously better our society by helping mitigate the problems that arise from those in charge being human.
For a concrete example just look at the tax bill. That's the product of humans being in charge. "Handouts for me and my rich donors and fuck the rest".
That's what I hope AI technology will let us limit in the future, and if that's a utopia then so be it.
|
By large, Danglars, and anyone ardently supporting Trump, act in total bad faith. People have this thing called a value system. For most people, it extends beyond "winning" and "f*** you got mine". Not Danglars. Inconsistency and bad faith arguments make complete sense, from the perspective of someone who has no rhyme, care or reason to care about anything extending beyond those values.
Clearly any sense of broader morality or care for their constituents (or indeed the system as a whole there to represent them) is absent from the Republican leadership. There is no actual point in arguing with someone who has all the facts and still aligns with them. Because you are trying to argue for ideas and alignments they simply don't have. Telling someone that possibly millions of people will suffer slow and painful impoverished deaths due the destruction of healthcare as a direct result of the actions of the current republican administration is a waste of letters. Solidly arguing that to someone merely uninformed may work, because they may care. But the issue here is not lack of information. So let's not pretend making such an argument to Danglars will ever yield a real concession.
|
On December 04 2017 19:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh boy, when people take your statement on one thing and use it to argue another and your off to sleep so you can't correct them...
Someone said Communism can never work, I disagree because as far as I know the biggest issues with Communism is human greed and an inability to keep up with changing markets. Both issues could be fixed with AI.
No, I don't think a robot communism should replace basic capitalist principles.
I think society is doing pretty good in general. There are still a lot of issues tho and many of those issues aren't going to go away because they are tied to what makes us human.
AI technology can seriously better our society by helping mitigate the problems that arise from those in charge being human.
For a concrete example just look at the tax bill. That's the product of humans being in charge. "Handouts for me and my rich donors and fuck the rest".
That's what I hope AI technology will let us limit in the future, and if that's a utopia then so be it.
Regrettably, the same problem will precipitate into AI through those who program it and instill it's axioms/principles.
|
On December 04 2017 19:27 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
By large, Danglars, and anyone ardently supporting Trump, act in total bad faith. People have this thing called a value system. For most people, it extends beyond "winning" and "f*** you got mine". Not Danglars. Inconsistency and bad faith arguments make complete sense, from the perspective of someone who has no rhyme, care or reason to care about anything extending beyond those values.
Clearly any sense of broader morality or care for their constituents (or indeed the system as a whole there to represent them) is absent from the Republican leadership. There is no actual point in arguing with someone who has all the facts and still aligns with them. Because you are trying to argue for ideas and alignments they simply don't have. Telling someone that possibly millions of people will suffer slow and painful impoverished deaths due the destruction of healthcare as a direct result of the actions of the current republican administration is a waste of letters. Solidly arguing that to someone merely uninformed may work, because they may care. But the issue here is not lack of information. So let's not pretend making such an argument to Danglars will ever yield a real concession.
Well, I have read a lot of really disturbing things by Danglar but the dialog: "A: Failing ACA must go. B: But your guy makes it fail on purpose! C: HA, so you admit it's failing, so I'm right, let's move on!" is beyond anything I have ever witnessed. It's so dumb and dishonest it's almost genius.
In general, I'm sorry to say that I think Danglar is not here for good reasons, and that I have never read anything he was involved in that made this discussion one bit more interesting. It's just partisanship at its most debilitating degree, and level 0 of dialog and conversation. He wants to stick it up to liberals and win. Trump could fucking nuke the world, he wouldn't budge one bit. With that attitude, I think r/thedonald is really a better place than this thread to "discuss" politics, and every time he enters a conversation (which is 50% of all that is talked here) it's petty bickering with all the necessary sickening bad faith and utter lack of listening.
On December 04 2017 19:42 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 19:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh boy, when people take your statement on one thing and use it to argue another and your off to sleep so you can't correct them...
Someone said Communism can never work, I disagree because as far as I know the biggest issues with Communism is human greed and an inability to keep up with changing markets. Both issues could be fixed with AI.
No, I don't think a robot communism should replace basic capitalist principles.
I think society is doing pretty good in general. There are still a lot of issues tho and many of those issues aren't going to go away because they are tied to what makes us human.
AI technology can seriously better our society by helping mitigate the problems that arise from those in charge being human.
For a concrete example just look at the tax bill. That's the product of humans being in charge. "Handouts for me and my rich donors and fuck the rest".
That's what I hope AI technology will let us limit in the future, and if that's a utopia then so be it. Regrettably, the same problem will precipitate into AI through those who program it and instill it's axioms/principles.
Really all depends on what one hears by artificial "intelligence". The way it's looking and where it's going, I totally agree with you, because it's no intelligence at all.
As for an AI that could take better decisions than us and truly influence where society is going by thinking it through better than us, that's total science fiction for now, and maybe for ever. None of the computer programs we call AI is any closer today to take a decision or formulate a judgment the way we do than my grandmother's old clock.
|
On December 04 2017 14:01 CHEONSOYUN wrote:
all this talk of socialism and economic systems and i sit here simply wishing for this tax bill to not be signed into law
I think it is funny that all the people in this thread who defend capitalism as good, natural, inevitable and beyond ideology are also the same people that over and over again display their ignorance on all practical matters relating to public policy, such as whether this tax bill is defensible or not. The only way they can win the argument is by using some sophistry to equate capitalism with everything attained by human ingenuity, while then turning around and arguing homeless people should have made less bad decisions in their lives, and yes, wealthy people are better than you.
|
|
|
This just in, Republicans need an accused pedo because compromising with democrats to reach a bipartisan deal is unacceptable.
|
On December 04 2017 19:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh boy, when people take your statement on one thing and use it to argue another and your off to sleep so you can't correct them...
Someone said Communism can never work, I disagree because as far as I know the biggest issues with Communism is human greed and an inability to keep up with changing markets. Both issues could be fixed with AI.
No, I don't think a robot communism should replace basic capitalist principles.
I think society is doing pretty good in general. There are still a lot of issues tho and many of those issues aren't going to go away because they are tied to what makes us human.
AI technology can seriously better our society by helping mitigate the problems that arise from those in charge being human.
For a concrete example just look at the tax bill. That's the product of humans being in charge. "Handouts for me and my rich donors and fuck the rest".
That's what I hope AI technology will let us limit in the future, and if that's a utopia then so be it.
The problem isn't just greed - and to define it as greed is really silly, we're merely talking about people following their own self-interest.
You have one other issue which is the role of the price mechanism in the efficient allocation of resources. Without it you end up with central planners doing stuff that in hindsight looks batshit crazy (ie. great leap forward). This is essentially a problem of distribution of information which is solved elegantly by markets and the price mechanism.
To hope that AI one day fixes all of these issues and allows us to live in true Communism is to hope to live in a massive techno-surveillance state - the AI needs to have all the information possible in society - where machines make all decisions for us because they already know what we want. We could call it The People's Republic of Facebookgooglistan.
|
On December 04 2017 22:48 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 19:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh boy, when people take your statement on one thing and use it to argue another and your off to sleep so you can't correct them...
Someone said Communism can never work, I disagree because as far as I know the biggest issues with Communism is human greed and an inability to keep up with changing markets. Both issues could be fixed with AI.
No, I don't think a robot communism should replace basic capitalist principles.
I think society is doing pretty good in general. There are still a lot of issues tho and many of those issues aren't going to go away because they are tied to what makes us human.
AI technology can seriously better our society by helping mitigate the problems that arise from those in charge being human.
For a concrete example just look at the tax bill. That's the product of humans being in charge. "Handouts for me and my rich donors and fuck the rest".
That's what I hope AI technology will let us limit in the future, and if that's a utopia then so be it. The problem isn't just greed - and to define it as greed is really silly, we're merely talking about people following their own self-interest. You have one other issue which is the role of the price mechanism in the efficient allocation of resources. Without it you end up with central planners doing stuff that in hindsight looks batshit crazy (ie. great leap forward). This is essentially a problem of distribution of information which is solved elegantly by markets and the price mechanism. To hope that AI one day fixes all of these issues and allows us to live in true Communism is to hope to live in a massive techno-surveillance state - the AI needs to have all the information possible in society - where machines make all decisions for us because they already know what we want. We could call it The People's Republic of Facebookgooglistan.
Again, why Communism?
|
John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.
The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has every right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
Keep reading 379 words
Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."
Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.
One top D.C. lawyer told me that obstruction is usually an ancillary charge rather than a principal one, such as aquid pro quo between the Trump campaign and Russians.
But Dems will fight the Dowd theory. Bob Bauer, an NYU law professor and former White House counsel to President Obama, told me: "It is certainly possible for a president to obstruct justice. The case for immunity has its adherents, but they based their position largely on the consideration that a president subject to prosecution would be unable to perform the duties of the office, a result that they see as constitutionally intolerable."
Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."
Bob Woodward tells me this "is a legal thicket and really has not been settled":
"I think a president can only be reached through impeachment and removal. But the House and Senate could conclude a president had obstructed, and conclude that was a 'high crime.'"
"In Watergate there was political exhaustion — plus, as Barry Goldwater said, 'too many lies and too many crimes.' These questions are now, in the end, probably up to the Republicans. The evidence was in Nixon's secret tapes. Is there such a path to proof now is one way or the other? We don't know."
Be smart: The one thing everyone agrees on is that the House of Representatives, with its impeachment power, alone decides what is cause for removal from office. For now, at least, the House is run by Republicans.
Editor's Note: Get more stories like this by signing up for our daily morning newsletter, Axios AM.
www.axios.com
|
Lol that's some all hail the great leader and his vision bullshit.
|
On December 04 2017 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 22:48 warding wrote:On December 04 2017 19:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh boy, when people take your statement on one thing and use it to argue another and your off to sleep so you can't correct them...
Someone said Communism can never work, I disagree because as far as I know the biggest issues with Communism is human greed and an inability to keep up with changing markets. Both issues could be fixed with AI.
No, I don't think a robot communism should replace basic capitalist principles.
I think society is doing pretty good in general. There are still a lot of issues tho and many of those issues aren't going to go away because they are tied to what makes us human.
AI technology can seriously better our society by helping mitigate the problems that arise from those in charge being human.
For a concrete example just look at the tax bill. That's the product of humans being in charge. "Handouts for me and my rich donors and fuck the rest".
That's what I hope AI technology will let us limit in the future, and if that's a utopia then so be it. The problem isn't just greed - and to define it as greed is really silly, we're merely talking about people following their own self-interest. You have one other issue which is the role of the price mechanism in the efficient allocation of resources. Without it you end up with central planners doing stuff that in hindsight looks batshit crazy (ie. great leap forward). This is essentially a problem of distribution of information which is solved elegantly by markets and the price mechanism. To hope that AI one day fixes all of these issues and allows us to live in true Communism is to hope to live in a massive techno-surveillance state - the AI needs to have all the information possible in society - where machines make all decisions for us because they already know what we want. We could call it The People's Republic of Facebookgooglistan. Again, why Communism?
You said it could work with AI. Which I don't necessarily disagree with, but just wanted to point out that that scenario is pretty much a robot surveillance state. We might get there without noticing as analytics and AI further infiltrate and impact policy-making.
|
On December 04 2017 23:17 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 23:02 Gorsameth wrote:On December 04 2017 22:48 warding wrote:On December 04 2017 19:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh boy, when people take your statement on one thing and use it to argue another and your off to sleep so you can't correct them...
Someone said Communism can never work, I disagree because as far as I know the biggest issues with Communism is human greed and an inability to keep up with changing markets. Both issues could be fixed with AI.
No, I don't think a robot communism should replace basic capitalist principles.
I think society is doing pretty good in general. There are still a lot of issues tho and many of those issues aren't going to go away because they are tied to what makes us human.
AI technology can seriously better our society by helping mitigate the problems that arise from those in charge being human.
For a concrete example just look at the tax bill. That's the product of humans being in charge. "Handouts for me and my rich donors and fuck the rest".
That's what I hope AI technology will let us limit in the future, and if that's a utopia then so be it. The problem isn't just greed - and to define it as greed is really silly, we're merely talking about people following their own self-interest. You have one other issue which is the role of the price mechanism in the efficient allocation of resources. Without it you end up with central planners doing stuff that in hindsight looks batshit crazy (ie. great leap forward). This is essentially a problem of distribution of information which is solved elegantly by markets and the price mechanism. To hope that AI one day fixes all of these issues and allows us to live in true Communism is to hope to live in a massive techno-surveillance state - the AI needs to have all the information possible in society - where machines make all decisions for us because they already know what we want. We could call it The People's Republic of Facebookgooglistan. Again, why Communism? You said it could work with AI. Which I don't necessarily disagree with, but just wanted to point out that that scenario is pretty much a robot surveillance state. We might get there without noticing as analytics and AI further infiltrate and impact policy-making.
Yeah, AI robot surveillance state is coming with or without the communism. I'd prefer we have a very healthy social safety net in place either way
|
On December 04 2017 22:48 warding wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 19:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh boy, when people take your statement on one thing and use it to argue another and your off to sleep so you can't correct them...
Someone said Communism can never work, I disagree because as far as I know the biggest issues with Communism is human greed and an inability to keep up with changing markets. Both issues could be fixed with AI.
No, I don't think a robot communism should replace basic capitalist principles.
I think society is doing pretty good in general. There are still a lot of issues tho and many of those issues aren't going to go away because they are tied to what makes us human.
AI technology can seriously better our society by helping mitigate the problems that arise from those in charge being human.
For a concrete example just look at the tax bill. That's the product of humans being in charge. "Handouts for me and my rich donors and fuck the rest".
That's what I hope AI technology will let us limit in the future, and if that's a utopia then so be it. The problem isn't just greed - and to define it as greed is really silly, we're merely talking about people following their own self-interest. You have one other issue which is the role of the price mechanism in the efficient allocation of resources. Without it you end up with central planners doing stuff that in hindsight looks batshit crazy (ie. great leap forward). This is essentially a problem of distribution of information which is solved elegantly by markets and the price mechanism. To hope that AI one day fixes all of these issues and allows us to live in true Communism is to hope to live in a massive techno-surveillance state - the AI needs to have all the information possible in society - where machines make all decisions for us because they already know what we want. We could call it The People's Republic of Facebookgooglistan.
I trust AI to make inportant decicions even less than I trust Trump. The hunan society is insanely conplex, and full of inpredictable... humans. Would the AI write laws? Decide how long a maternety leave should be? Decide cultural politics? Negotiate with other countries? Calculate the right actons in case of a general strike or rebellion? I think you are very far away from reality on this one...
There is a very long way from the social democratic metagame in Europe to actual full communism!
|
On December 04 2017 19:27 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
By large, Danglars, and anyone ardently supporting Trump, act in total bad faith. People have this thing called a value system. For most people, it extends beyond "winning" and "f*** you got mine". Not Danglars. Inconsistency and bad faith arguments make complete sense, from the perspective of someone who has no rhyme, care or reason to care about anything extending beyond those values.
Clearly any sense of broader morality or care for their constituents (or indeed the system as a whole there to represent them) is absent from the Republican leadership. There is no actual point in arguing with someone who has all the facts and still aligns with them. Because you are trying to argue for ideas and alignments they simply don't have. Telling someone that possibly millions of people will suffer slow and painful impoverished deaths due the destruction of healthcare as a direct result of the actions of the current republican administration is a waste of letters. Solidly arguing that to someone merely uninformed may work, because they may care. But the issue here is not lack of information. So let's not pretend making such an argument to Danglars will ever yield a real concession.
You show a real lack of consistency with your examination. Read my posts to discover that I oppose the president on several real areas of policy, his tweeting, his lies on subjects large and small, his choice in advisors, and conduct in foreign affairs.
I suggest you let your partisan disdain drop, and recognize the world isn’t out to get you ... that your political opponents don’t have malicious morality and seek heads. It’s more Trump hysteria and Obama sainthood ... like one can do no good and the other can do no wrong.
So get off your high horse, pal, and start thinking and examining. The county could use a little more of that from the left.
|
On December 04 2017 19:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 19:27 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
By large, Danglars, and anyone ardently supporting Trump, act in total bad faith. People have this thing called a value system. For most people, it extends beyond "winning" and "f*** you got mine". Not Danglars. Inconsistency and bad faith arguments make complete sense, from the perspective of someone who has no rhyme, care or reason to care about anything extending beyond those values.
Clearly any sense of broader morality or care for their constituents (or indeed the system as a whole there to represent them) is absent from the Republican leadership. There is no actual point in arguing with someone who has all the facts and still aligns with them. Because you are trying to argue for ideas and alignments they simply don't have. Telling someone that possibly millions of people will suffer slow and painful impoverished deaths due the destruction of healthcare as a direct result of the actions of the current republican administration is a waste of letters. Solidly arguing that to someone merely uninformed may work, because they may care. But the issue here is not lack of information. So let's not pretend making such an argument to Danglars will ever yield a real concession. Well, I have read a lot of really disturbing things by Danglar but the dialog: "A: Failing ACA must go. B: But your guy makes it fail on purpose! C: HA, so you admit it's failing, so I'm right, let's move on!" is beyond anything I have ever witnessed. It's so dumb and dishonest it's almost genius. In general, I'm sorry to say that I think Danglar is not here for good reasons, and that I have never read anything he was involved in that made this discussion one bit more interesting. It's just partisanship at its most debilitating degree, and level 0 of dialog and conversation. He wants to stick it up to liberals and win. Trump could fucking nuke the world, he wouldn't budge one bit. With that attitude, I think r/thedonald is really a better place than this thread to "discuss" politics, and every time he enters a conversation (which is 50% of all that is talked here) it's petty bickering with all the necessary sickening bad faith and utter lack of listening. Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 19:42 Deleuze wrote:On December 04 2017 19:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh boy, when people take your statement on one thing and use it to argue another and your off to sleep so you can't correct them...
Someone said Communism can never work, I disagree because as far as I know the biggest issues with Communism is human greed and an inability to keep up with changing markets. Both issues could be fixed with AI.
No, I don't think a robot communism should replace basic capitalist principles.
I think society is doing pretty good in general. There are still a lot of issues tho and many of those issues aren't going to go away because they are tied to what makes us human.
AI technology can seriously better our society by helping mitigate the problems that arise from those in charge being human.
For a concrete example just look at the tax bill. That's the product of humans being in charge. "Handouts for me and my rich donors and fuck the rest".
That's what I hope AI technology will let us limit in the future, and if that's a utopia then so be it. Regrettably, the same problem will precipitate into AI through those who program it and instill it's axioms/principles. Really all depends on what one hears by artificial "intelligence". The way it's looking and where it's going, I totally agree with you, because it's no intelligence at all. As for an AI that could take better decisions than us and truly influence where society is going by thinking it through better than us, that's total science fiction for now, and maybe for ever. None of the computer programs we call AI is any closer today to take a decision or formulate a judgment the way we do than my grandmother's old clock.
I’ve got to learn what the new lies are of the left, and how much of Dem propaganda is being swallowed whole. It’s a little harder these days because of higher tribalism. It’s not about what’s good for the country, it’s about how it resists Trump. Maybe sanity returns in 2020 when Democrats actually want to campaign and not slander.
|
The irony of someone saying "we need someone who will agree with me 100% of the time" then saying the opposition is just a puppet is breathtaking
On December 04 2017 23:10 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +
John Dowd, President Trump's outside lawyer, outlined to me a new and highly controversial defense/theory in the Russia probe: A president cannot be guilty of obstruction of justice.
The "President cannot obstruct justice because he is the chief law enforcement officer under [the Constitution's Article II] and has eveary right to express his view of any case," Dowd claims.
Keep reading 379 words
Dowd says he drafted this weekend's Trump tweet that many thought strengthened the case for obstruction: The tweet suggested Trump knew Flynn had lied to the FBI when he was fired, raising new questions about the later firing of FBI Director James Comey.
Dowd: "The tweet did not admit obstruction. That is an ignorant and arrogant assertion."
Why it matters: Trump's legal team is clearly setting the stage to say the president cannot be charged with any of the core crimes discussed in the Russia probe: collusion and obstruction. Presumably, you wouldn't preemptively make these arguments unless you felt there was a chance charges are coming.
One top D.C. lawyer told me that obstruction is usually an ancillary charge rather than a principal one, such as aquid pro quo between the Trump campaign and Russians.
But Dems will fight the Dowd theory. Bob Bauer, an NYU law professor and former White House counsel to President Obama, told me: "It is certainly possible for a president to obstruct justice. The case for immunity has its adherents, but they based their position largely on the consideration that a president subject to prosecution would be unable to perform the duties of the office, a result that they see as constitutionally intolerable."
Remember: The Articles of Impeachment against Nixon began by saying he "obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice."
Bob Woodward tells me this "is a legal thicket and really has not been settled":
"I think a president can only be reached through impeachment and removal. But the House and Senate could conclude a president had obstructed, and conclude that was a 'high crime.'"
"In Watergate there was political exhaustion — plus, as Barry Goldwater said, 'too many lies and too many crimes.' These questions are now, in the end, probably up to the Republicans. The evidence was in Nixon's secret tapes. Is there such a path to proof now is one way or the other? We don't know."
Be smart: The one thing everyone agrees on is that the House of Representatives, with its impeachment power, alone decides what is cause for removal from office. For now, at least, the House is run by Republicans.
Editor's Note: Get more stories like this by signing up for our daily morning newsletter, Axios AM.
www.axios.com
So we know his lawyer drafted his tweet AND his lawyer is utterly incompetent. This isn't the Predisent lawyer, is it?
|
especially if you read the post above yours just after. good for a laugh.
|
Yeah, we'll see how well the whole defense works for him. My guess is "he can't be guilty because he's the president" goes down real nice.
On December 05 2017 00:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 04 2017 19:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 04 2017 19:27 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:
By large, Danglars, and anyone ardently supporting Trump, act in total bad faith. People have this thing called a value system. For most people, it extends beyond "winning" and "f*** you got mine". Not Danglars. Inconsistency and bad faith arguments make complete sense, from the perspective of someone who has no rhyme, care or reason to care about anything extending beyond those values.
Clearly any sense of broader morality or care for their constituents (or indeed the system as a whole there to represent them) is absent from the Republican leadership. There is no actual point in arguing with someone who has all the facts and still aligns with them. Because you are trying to argue for ideas and alignments they simply don't have. Telling someone that possibly millions of people will suffer slow and painful impoverished deaths due the destruction of healthcare as a direct result of the actions of the current republican administration is a waste of letters. Solidly arguing that to someone merely uninformed may work, because they may care. But the issue here is not lack of information. So let's not pretend making such an argument to Danglars will ever yield a real concession. Well, I have read a lot of really disturbing things by Danglar but the dialog: "A: Failing ACA must go. B: But your guy makes it fail on purpose! C: HA, so you admit it's failing, so I'm right, let's move on!" is beyond anything I have ever witnessed. It's so dumb and dishonest it's almost genius. In general, I'm sorry to say that I think Danglar is not here for good reasons, and that I have never read anything he was involved in that made this discussion one bit more interesting. It's just partisanship at its most debilitating degree, and level 0 of dialog and conversation. He wants to stick it up to liberals and win. Trump could fucking nuke the world, he wouldn't budge one bit. With that attitude, I think r/thedonald is really a better place than this thread to "discuss" politics, and every time he enters a conversation (which is 50% of all that is talked here) it's petty bickering with all the necessary sickening bad faith and utter lack of listening. On December 04 2017 19:42 Deleuze wrote:On December 04 2017 19:15 Gorsameth wrote:
Oh boy, when people take your statement on one thing and use it to argue another and your off to sleep so you can't correct them...
Someone said Communism can never work, I disagree because as far as I know the biggest issues with Communism is human greed and an inability to keep up with changing markets. Both issues could be fixed with AI.
No, I don't think a robot communism should replace basic capitalist principles.
I think society is doing pretty good in general. There are still a lot of issues tho and many of those issues aren't going to go away because they are tied to what makes us human.
AI technology can seriously better our society by helping mitigate the problems that arise from those in charge being human.
For a concrete example just look at the tax bill. That's the product of humans being in charge. "Handouts for me and my rich donors and fuck the rest".
That's what I hope AI technology will let us limit in the future, and if that's a utopia then so be it. Regrettably, the same problem will precipitate into AI through those who program it and instill it's axioms/principles. Really all depends on what one hears by artificial "intelligence". The way it's looking and where it's going, I totally agree with you, because it's no intelligence at all. As for an AI that could take better decisions than us and truly influence where society is going by thinking it through better than us, that's total science fiction for now, and maybe for ever. None of the computer programs we call AI is any closer today to take a decision or formulate a judgment the way we do than my grandmother's old clock. I’ve got to learn what the new lies are of the left, and how much of Dem propaganda is being swallowed whole. It’s a little harder these days because of higher tribalism. It’s not about what’s good for the country, it’s about how it resists Trump. Maybe sanity returns in 2020 when Democrats actually want to campaign and not slander.
...Ok dude. You tell yourself whatever you have to.
|
I'll be honest at this point I basically skip over 90% of xDaunt snd Danglars posts because it's almost always petty whining, throwing false accusations at the left and never anything of substance or news.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
