Kohlrak

Wouldn't that be dysgenics? But, anyway, i was implying a more direct control. While i believe in agency and free will, I also have a history of being able to predict human behaviors (more accurately than a weather forecast, i hate to say). While, sure, this could've turned out differently at every one of those causality statements, they didn't. Maybe it was just my state of mind and/or mood at the time of writing: I had just gotten home from being choked and put into arm-bars alot (for demonstration purposes). After seeing your reply, i knwo that i would've written it differently, but i'm not really sure what would have me writing it differently: your reply or some other change. To be fair, though, the causality is a bit important to understand in regards to how i use the analogy, since the purpose of the post was to get a point across, not to tell my family history. Where might i get a copy? Things tend to move around and disappear around Stefan. Depends where you're looking. There's constant cries in the US for regulation of X, Y, and Z.

From the Christian point of view, that's hilarious. Those of us who are more religiously inclined notice people rarely ever thank God, even those who say they believe in Him, yet everyone from Christians to Atheists (more than anyone would ever like to admit, and i do mean more than just saying "oh my god") have no problem blaming Him for things going wrong. Well, the basis of everything having a beginning comes from a mix of observation of everything we already know and combining that with occam's razor. Every cycle we know also had a beginning, so the "bounce" theory is just goalpost moving. What i'd like to know is, why is it that the universe was infinite, but the moment we have a conundrum, time becomes infinite and matter and energy become finite, especially when time malleable and manipulable by space according to people who study black holes. Personally, i don't think that simply because we can measure distance or the passage of time that it exists, but, rather, just another construct like numbers which do not exist outside of human minds, for the purpose of making the universe easier to manipulate in our brains (underlined part is very important, and I believe the source of our conundrum) so that we can make predictions and conclusion necessary for our survival. To be fair, i think this is why "dark matter" is such a big deal. This creation stuff has gotten as political internally as the consequences of the politics. It seems the big bangers are poising themselves to say there's infinite dark matter, and that the big bang was converting it. They haven't thrown that card out there yet, but i smell it coming the moment people start calling them out for the lack of evidence of multiverse. Right, which is why I say Occam's Razor is a bit of a problem for the origin of the universe. We apply the rule to things it's clearly not capable of handling, which is emergent properties, such as the universe itself. It's really a rule always assuming past knowledge (with certain, reasonable exceptions [despite being Christian, I do find it quite reasonable not to make a God in the gaps]) is more accurate than a new assumption, which, statistically, is right. The problem is, it's not always true, and it can just as easily be used in a fallacious way. No matter how you slice it, our existence requires an explanation that violates past experiences: we don't have any evidence of emergent matter or conversion of matter (incase we want to bother exploring the dark matter conversion idea that i just pulled out of my rear). I'm not going to say that we should just jump to God and say "yep, we give in," but i also argue that if we finally come to accept that maybe occam's razor doesn't apply to the universe at large, it can't to the origins of God, as well. While that wouldn't put me in a position to argue the existence of God, it also puts atheists in a position where it's hard to argue that religious people are irrational (which puts us right back where we started with the question of whether or not He exists, but if we stop trying to go for the end all prize with every move we make, maybe we could make some cooperative progress towards truth instead of ignoring the obvious right infront of us, because we don't like that we can't use it against those we don't agree with [and no, that's not personal against you, but more as a shot against pretty much everyone who gets into this topic]). And, honestly, i think that's the real takeaway from the original topic of the post, 'cause we can sit here all day and argue points of theory X, then agree to disagree, or start name calling. If this were the case, we wouldn't have perceived the "changing distance," which is precisely where big bang comes from. The fragility of big bang appalls me, tbh: the whole basis is this observation that things are getting farther. What if we find out in 10 years that things aren't really getting farther, that it was a glitch, a weird cycle was bending light in a weird way, there's something surrounding our galaxy making messing with light, etc, and it turns out we're actually either shrinking, or no actual change is taking place. Imagine the hysteria, and the amount of information hiding in the scientific community: just as if someone had suggested the earth isnt' the center of the solar system, let alone the universe. It is for this reasons such as this that I really hate the current state of not only science, but the politics surrounding scientific theories. Ignoring the potential effect on the proverbial afterlife, how has this sort of thing affected peoples overall lives,, from suicides, to our massive amount of self-destructive hedonism in the west, to a large number of things. While i'm sure that a quick google search would leave me with the impression that they have more than a few cameras to base this theory on, how much have we really tested the expansion theory, and to what degree is it really possible? Not to say that i disbelieve this expansion (i'm more agnostic, of sorts, to it), but, like, take a moment to process this. The same could be said about alot of things. With infinite time, and a probability above 0, i wonder if this cycle is interruptible. Oh well, i'm glad I don't remember dying and all the future problems I am to go through. Shame i currently remember my breakups from over 10 years ago, and how i was manipulated, but, frankly, the universe couldn't care less about how we feel. XD I'll give big bounce one thing: it isn't turtles all the way down. I am a bit confused, though, on the thing about time. If time can go in reverse (or at least slow), how is that affected by causality? Can causality happen independent of time? I think this "time repeating" part of big-bounce (which comes from manipulable time) is where you are given a "new" regression to solve, which directly conflicts big-bounce. Personally, I don't believe in time as an axis exists (or any other axes for that matter), but that alone throws a wrench into adoption of belief into many of the other proposed scenarios. I think the problem with Craig is that he's like every other "educated" individual where he likes to spit out his own arguments while refusing to listen to the other side, especially when pointing out his hypocrisy. I used to fall for that "transcendent" BS, but the problem with "transcendent" is that it is a play on an old word game, which, to be fair, come from the Bible. Profits who "do not die," simply "cease to be": Enoch and some people say this parallels Elijah. So, the word game we're playing is "if another universe, plane, whatever is where God is, do we say he exists, or not?" So the idea many have is, God exists "elsewhere," but doesn't exist here, but exists overall. From this point of view, everything we see and know is part of a sort of "testing ground," and all the laws that we know and take for granted, such as gravity, are here to contribute to the test. This idea seems to be phrased in a mathematical sense, which is interesting if you consider the state of math at the time these passages were written (before Pythagoreanism), but not really a strong argument. If "another plane exists" then it exists, and so does everyone there, regardless of whether we can interact with them or not.

Loner is different from being without other human beings, which is why i asked my question. It's not unheard of, for example, for people to be found dead, partially eaten by their companion animals (usually the animal turns after the person is long dead, so you can't really fault the animal, or really make much of an argument, given the animal likely already understand's that the original owner is dead). So what is the question? is it whether or not animal companionship is enough? is it whether or not schizophrenics can survive without companions? Is it whether or not we will survive as adults (unlike children) if we're neglected and have no purpose? Does suicide count as death from being alone? Are we worried about loneliness as a cause of death? What are we asking, here?

Part of the problem is that big brother is big brother. If we did a good enough job showing people how big brother intentionally tries to dupe us, and not for our benefit, perhaps the people would stop seeing big brother as a benevolent brother, but a manipulative family member who's only worried about his own gains. This may not seem related, but it offers a great analogy. My mother had to be adopted, because the situation with her biological mother was, well, bad. Now, the adoptive parents also had biological children. Obviously, they prioritize their biological children, since that's how we work, right or wrong. As a result, and due to my mother's agreeableness and work ethic, she made a pretty good stay at home child who was never meant to leave home, really. Your old Cinderella story. My dear father, got with my mother, and the family allowed this, but when it came time that it appeared they would to be wed, the family didn't like, as my father put it a few hours ago, "their dishwashing machine" to "be stolen." It took me a minute to realize why my father "stole the dishwasher," when i realized he was obviously referring to my mother. My father was trying to get hired at the local steel mill, and he did so, but he was forced to work under her step brother, which was to be his brother in law (or already was, as i'm not sure of the chronology, here). But, as usual, my father had to work extra hard to prove to my mother, that he wasn't the worthless person her family, her big brother, made my father out to be, and he had to do so while constantly worrying about her step-brother ultimately trying to get him fired. The relevance? We who know better, represent my father in this situation. The common people are my mother, who out of familiar trust and indoctrination, irrationally believe that the government is looking out for our best interests. Of course, my step-uncle would then most likely convince himself that he was looking out for what was in her best interest, not his biological parents (he was getting married and moving out himself, too, so it wasn't entirely selfish), so he naturally believed, also, what he said of my father, just as the government believes, honestly, that they are actually looking out for our best interest while instead looking out for their own (this is why their lies are so convincing). It is our job to show that the government is lying to itself, it is incompetent, and is not looking out for their best interests. Like with my father, the chips are stacked against us, and we need to show, and this must be "with love," that we're right, even though the government has power over us as well and is trying to say that we're the ones who are crooks looking out for our own interests (that we're the crony capitalists). All we really have is the truth, so the only way we can really win, is by taking the one and only thing we have, and apply it as much as possible. We must show the people we care about humanity over our own personal interests, we must show them the government lies, we must show them the truth at all times if we want to convince them. And the other sick truth is, we sometimes also need to know when to let go, and accept that some people either cannot be convinced, or that we are just fighting a loosing battle way, way too hard. And, like i said, all we have is the truth, so, this is why it looks like we're loosing so badly. We might actually be loosing. We really do need to figure out what the truth is so we can use it against the government more effectively. Use the truth against them, to the point that both the sheep and big brother both see, as plain as the time of day, that big brother lies for his own interest, even if he believes he's doing the right thing. This tech is only one of many, many battle grounds and an avenue for lies. The government might use it, they might not. Other than that, we're chasing butterflies.

So the argument is to hold back human kind just because human kind is being held back by lower IQ individuals? You do realize it's not going to take much to justify eugenics before too long, and despite all that can and most likely would go wrong with it, it'd fly much faster than "we need to stop getting better." It seems logical to me that a bigger argument would be that we're better off finding ways to help the low IQ people compensate, assuming that their IQ will not change. There have been huge efforts in programming, believe it or not, to accomplish this, for example, which is why we see the market flooded with cheap unity, game-maker, rpgmaker, etc games with paywalls where people will sit and watch ads or pay micro-transactions just to skip a countdown timer. Sure, the goods aren't great, still see some degree of adaptation for the inclusion of low IQ developers, assuming that the future of developers is going to be huge amounts of low IQ people. Sure enough, this kind of AI technology actually aims to do that. "Usability" things have always been centered around "how can we make this easier for the idiots." What bothers me is when things go from "how do we make this easier?" to "How do we protect the user from themselves?" However, that's a whole other topic.

Depends on what you define as alone. Must it be the feeling of loneliness or actual loneliness?

Actually, isn't this where the paradox that the bigbang contents with, as well, come from? We just sort of have this massive everything in one place, then boom. Was it there for a long time before it boomed? When did it start to be there? Why didn't it boom before? Was there anything there before it went boom? Why did it boom? (inb4 someone wants to say that time didn't exist before the big bang.) I've seen some answers for above, conservation of mass and energy, as well everything have an origin are pretty much 2 sides of the same coin, which really is the thing that's causing all the problems. Then again, we're assuming that everything started at the big bang.

While i can understand and identify with the things you are saying, it seems really out of place with the text you quoted, an observation (one that wasn't said with any definiteness you tall Chinese person, you). The situation you have seems very different, and the fact that you managed to take exception with an observation unrelated to you in order to bring it up suggests to me that, maybe, you might feel the need to talk about your own childhood. Feel free to make a new topic so it can be discussed. I probably should've noticed this earlier, but didn't. I was molested, too, but I didn't become hypersexual. When i was a teenager, i was thirsty, but right now you could say i went too far the other way. While experimenting with porn actually gave me minor return of my libido, but not much. I think in this case, it's more "bad habit" or something in his past. I've also paid attention to people with high libidos and low libidos, and i noticed some interesting correlations, especially when someone with a high libido ended up with a low libido. My advice to this person, then, is that if you feel your mind thinking about sex, try distracting it with something else. It's not an end all solution, but if I'm right, it should slow things done. And, if it slows things down, I have an answer that would require a larger explanation that, due to the lack of sample size, i'm just not ready to release to a crowd of intellectuals. I wonder if this one'll post, yet, given my last reply is still hidden.

Yeah, i just responded in the private message. This rep system, i see the value of, but in this situation it seems to be getting in the way. But i'll say again, here, that without cutting down on the number of variables, we really can't give you any definite answers. However, withdrawal also makes people violent, so this can be dangerous. Overall, this should be the biggest concern, as it'll get you into the most trouble, and if you're in enough trouble it won't matter what else you do with your life. You have to consider how you'd end up living with yourself, as well, if not for the person/thing that you hurt, but also living with yourself knowing that you caused that trouble in your life that lead to bad circumstances (that you would presumably end up with). It's one thing to miss an opportunity due to indecision or bad choice, but it's another thing entirely to destroy opportunity (both for yourself and others) due to bad action. As an emergency intervention, where i live we have the ability to commit ourselves. I don't know what your situation is and how it would affect that. If you're in immediate danger of loosing control, i think that even loosing your job from the commission would be better than hurting someone then loosing your job. Why are you taking the Kratom, btw? And you're talking about your mother. If this is the real cause, normally you would sort this out by talking. Presumably there's more you haven't said about your mother, then. If not, then I don't know. Stefan's much better at dragging out information regarding parents than I am, especially 'cause when i try to drag information out of people, I rely on people not being afraid to tell me things (so i can confront them with conflicting information to call out their lies that they tell both others and themselves). The secrecy of your identity seems really important to you (and understandably so), your lack of detail makes it difficult, since I don't have much to go on.

Just watched it, thanks to you. I like how the NYT author talks about threatening and bombardment of her, yet NYT does this very thing in the name of political correctness. I'm surprised Dr.Peterson didn't call her out for it. A NYT author can't complain about being smeared in comments sections and social media, when NYT is smearing people as main product.

I don't know. My experience with ritalin was the result of the withdrawl of the drug. Based on what you're saying, this is not the case with this drug. Are there other drugs that we should be looking at, or should we start looking at psychological reasons? Then i'm sure you understand already that this hurts your employment opportunities and potential.

Just my two cents, but: 1. The person who is being blackmailed is hiding truth, usually of their own actions or those of a relative or something. Not only for yourself, but for the principle of truth (which is necessary in a free society), you should not be giving someone something to extort you with. If someone is threatening you with a lie, prepare for the lie, as they're giving you a warning, and there's a good chance they'll throw the lie, anyway. 2. The person committing the extortion obviously isn't worried about truth, or they'd just say the truth without the threats. This is indicative of dishonesty on their part, thus it would be wise not to trust them on not releasing the blackmail, anyway, since they could be lying about their willingness not to tell the truth, if they're able to avoid telling the truth to begin with. While i'm sure there are situations that we may feel are unfair, such as "my father was a member of organization X," and this may somehow put you in a spot with organization Y, if it's truly unfair, arguments should be made against organization Y or organization Y's arguments in regards to fairness.

I'd hate to try to tell you you must do something with your life and force you to do it, but, personally, i think we should be more focused on the third point: your violence towards animals. Any progress you make in any other way will mean next to nothing if you throw away your life by your violent urges extending to humans and you end up giving in. I don't know what the cause is, and i can only guess, but i think it would be smart to focus on that, since nothing regarding your other life choices will really matter if you're sitting behind bars.

True, and this is why my problems haven't been solved. My excuses are of higher value to me (everything i have, from the material to the social) than solving my problem (not having a decent job). For you, things may be different. We just don't know.

I'm going to go ahead and take my own stab at this without biasing myself with other opinion from other commenters, not necessarily to contradict anything said, but rather just to look at it from a totally different perspective. Connected, maybe, maybe not. Correlation does not imply causation. You make of the connection what you will. I would be lying, though, if i didn't see children typically go completely hedonist when raised by a totalitarian parent, especially an abusive one. As for how you would go about reversing this without consequences. You're not going to. There's consequences for what you've already done, and they're not going to go away. By continuing in your "sin," as many would call it, you're only going to make those consequences grow. Removing the sins will make the consequences more obvious to you, however they'll inevitably end up obvious to you if you continue the sin, as well, but usually those things come in like a truck driving through a house: you don't see it coming and it's absolute chaos as it happens, and no one leaves that situation overly joyed. If you have the humility to understand that you must pay the pied piper, it'll be far easier on you to go ahead. Beware the adderall, though. I don't have any personal experience with it, but i do know it's prescribed in many the same situations as Ritalin, and i know from my own experience that Ritalin has you do very bad things on withdrawl. Overall, in a weird way, there's freedom in not being a rebel. If you're not being a rebel just to be a rebel, then you have the choice to rebel as well as not rebel, where a dedicated rebel only has the choice to rebel. In it's own way, rebels are deluding themselves into believing they are escaping from their totalitarian homes, while they're really subjecting themselves to another form. I think you realize this, subconsciously, which is why you're asking for help: reality is catching up with you. You even admit that you're in a hurry to solve the problems. The context you provided here isn't entirely relevant. Being friends with someone who knows martha stewart only shows that others (people with potential) also believe you have potential. Might not be the same kind of potential, either. The inertness is something i have, too, that I can't really solve. I come up with excuse after excuse for my situation. Stefan wouldn't like me saying this, but my excuses are all valid. There's also old fashioned laziness as well, which you could be experiencing: we don't know the nature of your work that you're not finishing, as well as what you do do towards the goals and what is necessary to finish the projects. As such, we can't just ignore the possibility that you're doing only the interesting bits and can't be bothered to finish the boring bits. I don't know you, so i don't know if this is the case or not, but it's not fair if it's a possibility to just throw it off the table, just because someone (yourself) might not like to hear it. Take it with a grain of salt: you know your situation better than we do, so we can only guess on the limited information you provide, when you actually have more information than us. It could also be a rational (or irrational) subconscious thought that what you are doing other than your safe government job won't support you without your safety net. It might be that your stuff isn't as awesome as you say it is. On the other hand, you could also just be paranoid. I don't know, as i don't have enough information to go on. Well, as Stefan would say, if you're hung up on something like that, not everything has been said. I can't promise the urges will go away, but I can say that there are lots of things we can try, and we should probably do these things and prioritize this problem: you can be the most successful person, otherwise, and these kinds of urges and feelings will not only destroy you, but perhaps other people. Will the violence stop only with animals, or could you end up hurting people as well? In addition to not everything with your mother having been said, i'm also a bit more afraid that this could also be the result of the drugs, or the withdrawl from the drugs. When i was having ritalin withdrawl (we found out that being on the med to please the schools made me "zombie like" and unable to function well at home, but i was not disruptive in class), for example, i threatened myself and others with knives. I'd be happy one minute, and the next i'd take my anger out on things i've owned, even things that i valued and cherished, only to regret it later when i calmed down. After noticing this correlation with my ADHD medication (ritalin) i stopped taking it altogether (with parental permission, since i was somewhere between 10 and 14, i can't remember how old exactly) and some more outbursts happened, my violent behavior stopped. Sure, i had other issues, but i stopped picking up knives and threatening myself and others with them, which is a big deal. For this, i need more information from you.

He contradicted himself in direct response to me (lied about something when the truth is a mere few posts above mine). He did a small strawman, and i'm done. I'm still new here, in a way. Is there any more warnings you could give me about this place?

You'd want it to do that because of the situations the AI can get the user into. Surely it should only do so if enough failures occur, else people will just hang up on it. Yet Siri has a hard time. To be fair, i hear Dragon's pretty good, but i don't know how good. Here's the thing, if the yanny/laural thing doesn't say that the task is even hard for humans to pull off, I don't know what does. Usually speakers on TV are heavily coached before appearing on TV. We usually don't actually catch this, but there actually is a "standard american dialect," just as there are standard dialects for other languages. I'm sure the thing would have trouble transcribing, say, 松本人志, who doesn't speak standard Japanese. Let's take Japanese, for sake of example. In Japanese, there are many words that seem to be homophones, even to the japanese perspective. A famous example is the tongue twister "箸の橋で端から端まで走った橋本さん." The "phonetic writing system" registers "箸" (chopsticks) as ”はし," and "端" (end [of a bridge or road]) is "はし," and "橋" (bridge) is "はし." To the casual listener (especially someone who doesn't know japanese) it sounds like they're saying "haw she" over and over again with absolutely no meaning, with a couple of other random words in between. To a japanese person, it's just a tongue twister that can be confusing in certain contexts, but not as confusing as the "buffalo buffalo" thing that we have in english. See, in 関西弁 (the mid-west dialect), 箸 is pronounced low with a slightly rising tone (where in their minds it doesn't rise at all), while 端 is a high pitch and drops slightly (the opposite of 箸), and 橋 has a high to very low tonal pattern, with the same pitches that we would use with the word "kitty." So, "haw she noh HAW she deh HAW SHE KAW DDAW HAW SHE MAW DEH haw SHE [pause] taw HAW SHE MOH TOH sawn." Now, in standard japanese (what the AI expects), 箸 is high to low instead, while 橋 is from low to high, with a rule that any sound afterwards returns to low, and 端 is from low to high, but the following sound may be high or low. Let's just say that the AI have a very hard time with this sort of thing. (Japanese people usually use context to identify which word is which, and the tonal differences are more useful in identifying word borders, but they can be important in some contexts, which can lead to hilarious cross regional puns.) I think that was actually on purpose. One of the major concerns with vocaloid technology, for example, was that the program could sing, and even be convincingly human. So earlier versions actually got restricted due to threats and complaints from unions in japan regarding how the technology could replace human artists. The restrictions made it sound very inhuman, which 初音ミク ("hatsune miku" in english) was known for. On a side note, it's perfectly possible to get her to use natural intonation and fluctuation of speech, but it's the way she makes certain sounds that makes her sound inhuman, because of how they edited the audio data. If you were to mix her tech with better recordings (rather than changing an algorithm) it's quite possible to make her sound human (which japanese people have a hard time doing since they don't have a conscious understanding of the pitch patterns of their own language [for example, the minor rises and drops are important, but in their head their "flat words" are flat]). Honestly, i think that's where humility comes in. I used to believe that we were dumber then than we are now, which later found out we really aren't. I also used to believe that we were more moral than we are now, which we have been to some degree, but I don't think we really lost as much as we like to believe. When you look at "80s music," how often do you hear bands like Yello and The Talking Heads? Everyone remembers Survivor, Falco, Led Zeppelin, etc. I think the same thing is to be said about history. We like to think that we're smarter, because we know about fleas carrying the plague. Yet, how long did it take us to figure out that tobacco in almost any form causes cancer? Our "enlightenment" is vanity. I think the same thing can be said about modern evil. Sure, you see 12 year-olds right now with massive amounts of cleavage in public. But we seem to forget that's probably how old Mary was when she was pregnant with Jesus. Oh, so they didn't show as much clevage in the, say, 20s? Maybe, because it was taboo at the time, but don't think for one minute you didn't have women trying to find ways, such as wearing overly tight clothing, to show off the same things. And let us not even bother with desensitization to these things due to exposure forcing us to constantly "up the game." I don't think it's that we got worse, so much as that we never improved despite technology improving, giving us a larger capacity for showing the evil we already had for the entirety of human history. Yesterday, you slaughtered the women and children of the village, but today you nuke them. What's the difference, except now you can push a button instead of having to write out a fancy edict and crush some wax (or some other compound) with your sigint ring. That's not to say that we haven't abandoned the lessons of our past, but that's more than just "getting worse." We've always been immoral, but it seems now that it's a greater percentage of the population. Where before we had many, many thinkers who were arrested and killed for their ideas, today we have disinformation campaigns that don't result in the direct death of the thinker. Sure, the tech can be used for other things, but that tech already existed before this. We've seen what the government could do already with the leaked tools and such, so it seems reasonable that if google (who works with government) is public with this, that the government hasn't had this for an ever longer time? And, the (not so) cool thing: all that it's doing and such and we're afraid of is stuff that happens automatically. If the AI can sound like you at all (which is nothing new, as you can find on youtube), all you have to do is write in a way that someone's speech mannerisms come out in the writing that the AI says. Mix a little human with your AI, which you would be doing, anyway, if you're targeting an individual. In other words, the very thing that people are afraid of when the AI can sound like them (the idea that the AI could set you up for a crime or something) was already available to the government for a while. Therefore, if the government wanted to use it, they already had done so before we saw this presentation. Don't get me wrong, i don't believe that simply because they haven't done so that they won't in the future, but at the same time, it doesn't seem to be that they haven't used it yet. That tells me that it's not nearly as powerful of a tool against us as we like to think it is, since a Donald Trump AI still hasn't been caught talking to a Putin AI about hacking the election. Obviously, that kind of attack isn't enough. I agree completely, and that's why the pakistani robos continue to scam people. The tech that we're meant to see here isn't the tech that everyone's afraid of. The tech that everyone's actually afraid of has been out for a long while, and it has been deployed by scammers. As far as i know, they didn't. I think it'd be pretty controversial if they did, especially if it happened BEFORE the demo. I am sure there are people out there suggesting that, but I don't get the impression from the intonation of the people that that wasn't the case: they didn't sound scripted. To be fair, i think, but i could be wrong, that the hair salon girl figured out something was up, but I could just be hearing things. And while some would say that should be scary: why? Liar tech is old news, as i've said above. Still, the AI has a job to do, and it got the job done. Does it really matter to you if you're talking to a human or AI if the business was conducted properly? Sure, it can sound human, but that tech is old. They're showing off something a bit more new, and everyone is freaking out that it can pose as humans. Frankly, that's old, it's been done, and no one should care. What's special, here, is that they've found a positive usage for this technology: you can now give a task to the AI to schedule an appointment instead of stealing someone's credit card by posing as a charity.

I only saw part of it, specifically the bits where the AI made the two calls. Was watching my favorite BS news channel (Secureteam10, which actually picks up a legit news story once in a while, but he absolutely overreacts to everything and turns everything else into aliens, which i find hilarious). The AI reminded me of the robocall AIs we already know. I'd love to have my own shot with the AI. I would expect the google AI to admit it's a bot if asked. The biggest threat is impersonation for the benefit of governments (especially in fabricating the crimes of political enemies), but that can happen without giving consent. Meanwhile, i also doubt it's capable of picking up speech mannerisms such as word choices, without a very large amount of training. Even then, i doubt it's even been programmed in. AI demos remind me of Chris Angel: it's not magic or quality you see and hear, it's illusion. These human interface AI usually have scripts and subroutines to follow, especially regarding followup questions. Usually if the followup question is responded to with something other than something in the script, it won't respond appropriately. For example, if i told Siri (disclaimer: i don't have an iPhone to try this) to set the GPS to take me to Lewistown, it'd ask me if I mean Pennsylvania or Montana, and if i responded with "play Reise, Reise by Rammstein," it'd neither ask me again nor would it play that song. But if it wasn't expecting an answer, it'd play the song. Go back to the chinese restaurant call and listen to the AI's intonation: although the intonation overall is weird, you can hear the very thing i'm talking about, especially at the very end of the call. It seemed to me that the AI failed to understand the concept of walking in, but asked the question(s) regarding it, anyway, based on the failure to reserve (which it assumed was so since it didn't get anything saying that a registration occurred). I get this all the time when dealing with robocalls: i'll answer appropriately, but because it didn't understand me, it responds as if i said something that i didn't say (this is especially common due to my speech mannerisms): "Would you be willing to donate 25 dollars to the veteran's fund?" "Could you call back in a week?" (it works on the assumption that i said "no," or "i don't have the money right now," because i said something it wasn't expecting) "Oh, I see. How about 5 dollars?"/"How about next Friday?" "Wait, wut? Are you a bot?" "No, i'm not a bot. How about next Friday?" (or otherwise repeating the previous statement.) "How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood?" "I understand. If you change your mind, you can get ahold of us at 1-800-###-###." Trust me, this thing is waiting to be disected like that, but i also expect it to be more genuine and admit it's an ai or state so should something go wrong and some failsafe script detects that the conversation needs user interaction of some kind. I'd have to get my hands on it to be sure and to find it's exact weaknesses for calling it out, but i can hear exactly where to look.

You can easily break these kinds of AI. I get robo calls all the time, sometimes intelligent ones that answer like a human. The smartest AI i've ever dealt with is "cleverbot," but you can break down this bot, too. They have a very hard time relating to logic, despite being based heavily on logic: they can't understand the values we put to things, since they don't live lives like ours that feel pain and joy.

I'm a little late into this topic, but i think this is precisely what we're seeing. Alot of these AI flow with assumptions based on patterns in human conversation. For example, the AI in the presentation definitely talks like the AI using pre-recorded messages when you call places like paypal and they have a spoken directory of questions and answers. At the end of the chinese restaurant call, for example, the AI definitely seemed to be convinced that the whole call failed. I'm quite curious what information the AI redirected back to the user, to see if it even remotely reflected what was said by the chinese woman. We're seeing pre-recorded cases which are their best results, and you can hear the assumption based flow working: if the AI doesn't hear what it expects, it automatically assumes "no," "fail," etc. Except, in the chinese restaurant call, the flow assumption actually worked, unlike when you or I call for a specialty problem that we know the bot can't handle, and spend 30 minutes trying things like "operator," "tech support," "human," etc to try to trigger an actual person on the other line who could've solved our issue in 5 minutes by a password reset, canceling service, or asking a yes-no question. Case in point, when my girlfriend recently had received a card from the power company after having canceled the service (money that she was overcharged, and they said she was getting a debit card, as they couldn't send cash, check or anything else), she fought with the AI for about an hour just to get ahold of someone, because the AI at the card company wouldn't let her "activate" the card (so she was dealing with two really bad AI). Eventually, she got the first AI to work while she was on hold on another phone after I managed to get the AI to give up and redirect me to a human. Most annoying part was that the AI for the card company kept hanging up on her while she was punching in the activation numbers.

My own little take on this, and i've said this in separate parts in other posts, is that we give way too much credit to numbers. Humans came up with the rules that we observe in math. Therefore, unless the universe revolves around math, then math is merely a method through which we try to simplify our universe. The challenge, then, is that the universe isn't all that entirely logical to us. While logic will hold true most of the time, we need to consider that everything we come up with is post fact. Another observation: God or not, we have the chicken or egg issue with the universe. God sure as heck makes it easier, but instead of what part of the universe came first (secularism) it becomes what part of God came first? The religious person has the advantage of suggesting that things we observe make sense to us because God either made or is the universe. Whether you believe in the big bang-big suck cycle or not, we still suffer the point of origin problem. For the longest time, we believed that space is infinite in all directions, but now we believe time, not space, is, and that we go through cycles of big bang and big suck. We also believe that we have directions outside of space-time, when it's based entirely on math, and we can't even verify whether or not time actually even is a 4th direction. Even if we could solve the God question as either a definite yes or no, we still have a problem when it comes to occam's razor: everything we know has a point of origin, therefore to satisfy occam's razor, so would God and/or the universe. I don't believe we're anywhere near solving this, especially when we're taking space-time, quantum physics, math, and everything else simply for granted as true, even though we keep changing the damn rules to suit what we want to believe. Disclaimer: tl;dr: OP already assumes way more than i'm willing to surrender to.

I'm no economist, but i'm thinking something like, say, take your debt, divide by GDP, multiply the price of (almost) everything by the resulting number. Now, take into consideration that jobs will fall apart, since, although spending doesn't boost the economy like everyone likes to say it does, neither does everyone being too poor to buy anything. Basically, you'll have all that debt and everyone having defaulted on their share, everyone will run around trying to "regain" those lost resources. All those pensions, for example, old people want their retirement, so the price of everything they have is going to shoot through the roof, even if the value of what they have doesn't shoot through the roof with it, 'cause they don't want to let go what little they have without getting their retirement plans back. And that's just retirement. Welfare bums, single mothers, bond holders, stock holders, etc. Everyone's going to chomp down, and everything will be a bubble similar to the housing bubble, until governments and/or regular people learn to "let up" and "accept our punishment" and learn that we need to take the loss and pay the debt we've collected when we borrowed against our future.

When doing research into the Parkland shootings (to try to debunk some of the conspiracy theories surrounding it), I noticed something strange. While trying to exhaustively search for any video that might have the shooter himself, to debunk this theory that Cruz was a patsy and that it was the US military that shot up the school (something i wasn't able to debunk, unfortunately, short of saying that suddenly our military must be bad at what they are trained to do), I stumbled upon footage from inside a school shooting in New Mexico (sounded like a semi-auto), i think it was. It wasn't relevant to the issue i was looking into, so i didn't think of documenting it any further. I did notice, however, that mainstream media didn't really report on it. I stumbled across a few other similar cases, too. So, while we know the 22 shootings thing is bunk, I do find it strange that these shootings are all the sudden common. Low and behold, take a look on Wikipedia. Take, for example, the Marshall County School Shooting. Is my memory failing me, or are incidences like this one just not getting reported? So my immediate question, then, is why are some being discussed but not others, especially if it's about the guns. If the media wants to take the guns, why are they not constantly covering every minor shooting as well, just to pull at the heart strings? I'm noticing, though, that the latest school shootings, and shootings in general, all point to lone shooters who are either high IQ or autistic (perhaps i'll get into the correlation between the two in another topic, sometime). With more talk about "net neutrality" (Mozilla is really trying to push a leftist view of it, lately), as well as "fake news," censorship on many platforms, user information privacy rights, as well as the EU's constant legislation, i'm beginning to wonder if this is a setup to go after freedom of speech online, using a famous group like, say, 4chan or reddit ("weaponized autism") as example targets for why we need online censorship. We all know that people have internet bravery, and places with high amounts tend (like 4chan) to have people who post the most horrendous of things, much like what we see these shooters posting. We also know these places on the internet are known for trolling the media. DISCLAIMER: I was diagnosed with ADHD (an autism spectrum disorder), and i believe that there is a correlation with IQ. I also believe the data suggesting no correlation is not taking medication into consideration. I also need to point out that, like Cruz, upon withdrawl from the ADHD medication i was taking (been unmedicated for years, now) I exhibited violent behavior, both towards myself and also others. While I'm a bit more focused on the media's narratives for this topic, I have to be fair and point out that I am likely to be biased due to my own personal experiences. So, what are your thoughts?

Well, look at the left. My immediate thought is that it's a sign of doubt. I've met witches, yet I don't believe in the power of witchcraft. I don't feel the need to go around removing those plain white candles they covet, nor do I feel the need to DDoS their websites. They're not a threat. Even a malicious one is not a threat: their hocus pocus does absolutely nothing, shy of costing them resources. Yet, somehow, to the leftist, the 10 commandments is important to remove, but Harry Potter, Twilight, Fifty Shades, etc is not important to remove. Clearly, Christianity is a threat. For some reason, Islam isn't a threat to them, and I'd really love to know why. Is it that they underestimate Islam, or do they think the Muslims are more likely to cave to government for some unknown reason? Beware, to fully get alot of them, you have to work in the context of believing. Contrary to popular opinion of the left, many smart people were also religious. Ask a Christian, since we still believe. It's actually right in the bible: Bible Hub Link The metaphor is "washing away sins, like you would dirt." I doubt this practice started with John the Baptist, but the idea was that sin is a blight upon you. You do bad things, and no one takes "sorry" seriously, especially if it was a really bad thing. So, this was a much larger apology, especially in the context of believing in a deity which was believed to prefer ceremonious practices (and previously it was sacrificing lambs, but this was becoming very, very impractical), because He likes to be the center of attention (which the atheist should understand from my words above why this is important). Presumably, with Jesus' death, the need to do this to appeal to God was removed, since the ceremony was way too far beyond anything we could come up with, while still maintaining a civilization. Therefore, most churches do it "because Jesus went through it, I guess we should as well." Thus, since we believe Jesus did not sin, we also believe that it shows to others that we're not too great and perfect as to be faultless and blameless, even if we think we don't sin. It's a display of humility, but i think the meaning of this practice was very much lost. I don't get the impression it was ever meant to be centralized. Bible Gateway link. According to the religion, God took exception to the desire for a king: He was being replaced with the state, as that clearly wasn't a "yay! Humans don't need me anymore, i'm free!" While the new testament talks about "building a church," i don't get the impression of centralization there, either. It seems more to me to be a free market of ideas, religious ones. You'd think if it was meant to be the monolithic structure that it is now, it'd have it's rules in the bible, no? It doesn't. Even the people who dared form the government didn't dare putting it in. This'll amuse you too. The word among the methodists about 10 years ago was that "we're loosing to the non-denominational churches." The reason is obvious, the denominational churches have mini governments, and large portions of the bible never get sermons, while small portions get regular sermons citing them. We have ruling bodies, not regular people, telling us what the passages mean. As it stands, "young christians," whom some even have the audacity to see non-literal views of the bible passages, hunger for free speech on religious matters, or at least separation from the hypocrites. Christianity as a whole is moving away from denominational governments just like people as a whole are moving away from the mainstream media. As apathetic as we view the general population, the normies, to political causes and thought, we do see that their subconscious or something is moving them in the right direction, anyway. Given that these people are the ones who don't benefit from PC culture, i think that has something to do with why we seem to be on the path of ethnic replacement. Why else would even the lefty replublicans be so worried about importing 3rd worlders who won't vote for them anyway? EDIT: What is the convenient method of quoting properly on these boards? EDIT AGAIN: I've also heard preachers say that baptism is a figurative "drowning to death to give birth to new life: a new you." Wouldn't be fair to say my own opinion without bringing up the opinion of others whom RichardY indirectly requested.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but is this not essentially lying to yourself to get the benefits from a lie? What you seem to be arguing for is sort of the problem we have with the religious of today: belief in a higher power, but without realization. What this looks like is that you say you believe, and maybe you even go to a religious institution, but when push comes to shove, the religious guidelines fall apart. Remember how Stefan says that "religion is not enough!"? This is why: the religious say they stand for helping people, taking care of the poor, etc, but it's superficial. The commitment of looking around and seeing your fellow man's plight, the plight of the other worshippers especially, is absent. It's not the belief in God that brings the "good behavior," but the realization. At one time the church i was going to was having a hard time keeping up with it's "bills to local charities." See, usually churches take the money you give them to keep the church heated in the winter, to do soup kitchens, to help hard luck cases that ask for help (which is actually very rare), and a number of other things regarding keeping the church functional as well as trying to take care of local and immediate concerns. My girlfriend's mother, who is the classic example of the above problem, stated simply: "Sure, I believe in God, and I want to get to heaven, but God isn't going to pay my bills." I did not see her having trouble paying her bills, and helping people make ends meet was one of the rare things the church provided when necessary, so yes, in reality "God" actually would help her pay her bills if it really came to that. The woman just bought a permanent campsite and quite a few other luxuries (to be fair, the comment was made 7 or 8 years ago, but i have no reason to believe her church donation habits have really improved). And then take the religious schools into consideration, or "overly religious parents." They know that God's rules are important, but they don't apply them to themselves. God isn't real to these people. They convince themselves that they believe, so they meet "the bare minimum to get into heaven," but then they turn around and do things counter to their own religion, like physically abusing children, and even committing blasphemy by justifying it with things like "What would God have me do?" or "Do you really want to go to Hell?" or any number of things. Without the realization of God, the religious join the rest of the hedonists, except they have an added bit of self-righteousness. These people act as if God won't see what they're doing, or as if God, being an unthinking being, will automatically see the "wisdom" in the misbehaving christian.