I tried to warn you about AI... Now we're all gonna die!

[Willibab]

Hey.....Sometimes that's just the way the cookie crumbles

 

[Tai_MT]

@Tai_MT
Please read the whole thing before you reply. Because otherwise you might get the wrong idea. Im trying to burry the hatchet.

Please do the same.

Spoiler

I dont want clash... I just feel like I have to defend myself against you constantly. You missquote and twist my words, so I have to explain that Ibsaid things differently. Dont say you do it on purpose, but you do it.

Spoiler

If you think I have misquoted you, then point out where I have done so. There's a reason I use "quote" on users sometimes.

1. So I don't get what they said wrong and can properly argue the point.

2. So I don't have to keep scrolling up and down to reply to what was said.

If you think what I say is wrong, even though I often include my scources (and yes, they are often youtube videos, but just as often they are trusted scources like wikipedia, universities, etc) then proof me wrong before you assume I am wrong.

The problem is that "citing a source" isn't always proof of being correct. It depends upon the quality of the source, or even who took the source.

Let me put it to you this way:

I've seen an unsettling number of people cite Einstein's Theory of Relativity (INCLUDING ACTUAL SCIENTISTS! WITH DEGREES! AND PUBLISHED PAPERS!) as "proof that time travel is possible". This, of course, ignores that the entire point of the "theory of relativity" is simply to explain the TIME DILATION EFFECT of light... namely... why we can still see stars in the sky that have exploded thousands of a years ago. And that's the "layman's terms" version of what that theory does (or, maybe, the heavily cliffnoted version of it while missing a lot of other things its meant for)... Said "scientists" and such also forget that they're using "the speed of light" as a constant and the formula they cite falls to pieces the instant you change "what the speed of light" is... and said people also think "going faster than the speed of light is impossible", despite the fact that there are classroom experiments and even studies that prove you can make light move slower.

Put simply, sometimes people cite sources and don't really understand what it is they're citing or how it connects to other things.

If you would like to cite sources, then be my guest. But, if you want me to debate those sources, we might run into some problems since the places that tend to provide those sources aren't actually providing all the necessary data to come to an independant conclusion. Or, it's being used by some sensationalist user/publisher/outfit/whatever to "get clicks" and doesn't represent what it is they were discussing in the first place.

My point for most of this thread has simply been this:

What you are citing sounds alarming and scary... but it relies on the person consuming the source to not actually know anything about AI, about Turing Tests, or about programming, to fall into the trap and believe it.

If you can convince me with anything other than your personal conclusion, that what I say is in fact wrong, then I would accept that. I would even find that interesting.

Here's the problem with that. It's the same argument I've used once-upon-a-time. When I was an early member of the forum, I used to say that all the time in order to have to keep from admitting I was wrong.

"If you can convince me via X, Y, or Z, then I'll admit I'm wrong". Basically, demanding someone else put forth an enormous amount of effort on their part for something that wouldn't even guarantee I would "accept that kind of proof".... and knowing that they wouldn't do it, so I would "win by default".

I had to learn the hard way that I was just being stubborn. That I was just counting on other people to give up. That I was just demanding others play by my rules.

But, it comes back to the point:

Would you REALLY admit you were wrong if I flooded you with sources, classes, and "my own experts"?

Because, if the answer is "yes", then why don't you search those things out on your own? Why must I do it for you? If you're asking me to "prove you wrong" in this fashion, then surely you can do your own legwork and don't require me to do it for you.

Right?

That's the catch. The hard lesson I had to learn. That's what someone on YouTube told me once-upon-a-time:

"If you were at all interested in being proven wrong or admitting you were wrong, you'd do the research yourself. You wouldn't ask other people to do it for you while expecting that they won't do it."

One of the reasons I typically ask people to "explain their lines of logic" to me, instead. Because, I'm not going to ask them to do a ton of research for me. Just like I'm not going to go do a ton of research for someone else.

I, personally, want there to be AI, because I am overjoyed at the thought of interacting with "alien life" and what I could learn from it. But, I know we aren't there... and nobody has figured out a way to even approach it yet. Which, is sad.

But if you just say what I found is wrong, because you dont trust experts, then yes, that is a flaw. There is no defense against that.

This is actually a separate point. My argument against "experts" is one against "argument from authority". Well, and also, that a great many "experts" in recent years tend to be pants-on-head levels of stupid as well...

I am by no means "intelligent" at all. Ever watch "Idiocracy"? Yeah, every day I feel more and more like the main character of that while the rest of the world is chanting about Brawndo and how it's got the electrolytes plants crave.

It is disconcerting when a couple "common sense" questions immediately dismantle arguments from "experts". Or, at least, to me it is.

Anyway, back to the point. Anyone can claim to be an expert. There was a story about a guy who claimed to be "an expert" who got a bunch of different reputable news agencies to publish his "revised food pyramid" and actually believed his lies. Now, tell me, if Joe Rando can accomplish that in an afternoon... do you really feel comfortable trusting so-called experts?

I don't. Not one bit.

I'm telling you to "exercise caution" in who and what you source. I'm telling you that "blindly believing" is dangerous. Blind faith is scary. People use that to make others drink Cool-Aid.

I want to stop arguing all the time. If you really think I am the one starting it, and I think you do, then lets just not argue.

I don't think you're "starting an argument". What I think is happening (correct me, if I'm wrong) is that when I state whatever it is I'm stating, you perceive it as an attack on you, personally.

On the other side of your screen, this is what it looks like:

"Hey, I'd like to correct you or caution you. X, Y, Z because of A, B, C. Let me also remove room for misinterpretation or alternative interpretations of the data. H, I, J, and K."

This is the mindset I am in when I post something most of the time. You might even be able to spot it if you go back through my posts and where we had arguments. My initial post pretty much always universally follows that standard.

Replies that are blatant disrespect to me tend to earn the user the same treatment in return. You get out of me what you put into me. Most of the time. Well, unless your "disproving" of something I'm saying is rooted in pure delusion or wishful thinking... Then I get out my "I am talking to a literal child" phrasing.

However, I am not above just being a blatant a-hole and jerk by accident or even on purpose. In those instances, you are welcome to just tell me I'm being a jerk for no reason. It might not seem like it, but I am self-aware, and I do worry how I come off on the forums sometimes. It is RARELY my intent to insult someone, unless I think they have insulted me first. So, if you feel like I'm insulting you and you didn't deserve it, then tell me, and we can hash it out.

I do not come onto the forums and go, "who can I make angry today! Let's see who's skin I get under now! MWA HA HA HA HA HA HA!". Believe it or not, I show up and go, "Oh, that's interesting, let me type my reply to it" and then 3 replies later I'm going, "why is this person so upset with me over what I said when I didn't say anything controversial or even incorrect at all?".

So, just tell me if what I said insults you and explain how it insults you, and I'll apologize. Or, if I don't, I'll basically just tell you where I think you insulted me first. Then, we can have a mutual apology session.

Truly, it is fine to disagree. But you just said you assume everyone talks "out of their butt", then that is not a good reason to come tell everyone (at lwast me) wrong all the time.

I'm sorry you're on the receiving end of a lot of "you are wrong" posts from me. But, go look through a lot of my post history. A lot of it is just "stand alone opinions". Neutral stuff. Not accusing anyone of being incorrect at all.

Honestly, I don't correct much of what you say at all. Not unless you're trying to directly talk to me (by @ or by Quote). There's a bunch of posts you've made in here that I haven't said anything about. A bunch that I've skipped replying to.

I've mostly been just offering an alternative point of view unless you want to debate some particular point with me, then I'll engage.

Even with your "writing prompt" topic, it was the same. An alternative point of view to the "Me too!" posts everyone else was making. I decided that the prompt made zero sense and thus spun it on its head so that it did make sense. But, look at the subsequent posts after it and what prompted them.

I get that you might have been upset that I pointed out how "flawed" the writing prompt even was and chose not to engage with it the way you wanted me to do so (writing a set story you wanted written, rather than using it as a springboard for something I might want to write). But, I'm not sure the appropriate response was "doesn't matter what you write, you die anyway, 'cause I say so".

Hopefully you can see why there was some conflict there now.

Anyway, the premise of "I come tell everyone they're wrong all the time" is a false one. I rarely make a post to "disagree" with people, mostly because people don't tend to handle "disagreement" that well. Or criticism.

But, every once in a great while, I get this thought in my head that "you know, maybe someone out there might want an alternative point of view, or might be able to handle some criticism, and they might get something out of what I say" and so I do it. I'm usually proven wrong... but I'll keep trying.

Maybe they didnt realizing they were doing it. But this is kind of how I feel like. In every post I make, you are there till things blow up.

I only respond to things I think are worth responding to. If you make a post to "get attention", and it gets my attention... then I'm there.

You might have noticed that I'm really not in all that many of your own posted topics. Or, even, that I'm rarely even talking to you or addressing even your posts.

If you go back through things, you might actually notice that you're addressing me first more often than not. You might even notice that when I do address you, it isn't to criticize you, but to disagree with a single point you're making, or to offer some different point of view, or some cautionary warning.

Heck, the entire talk about "experts" in here between you and me started as me saying, "Uh, hey, you probably don't want to believe in experts so blindly. You should probably question things."

This is kind of why I am on defense all the time. Because this always only happens in my topics. In nearly every topic I make. So when I see you show up, I instantly feel like things go out of control, and then they do.

I'm not in that many of your topics. So, if it's other people also doing this to you... then maybe the problem is "you"?

I mean, I know why I tend to get in a lot of arguments. I'm basically very hard to get along with online, especially if people turn it into a debate. I can get downright mean and nasty once people turn things personal. I also don't leave a lot of room for people to "wiggle" when I argue and force them into corners. Put simply, I am (very) good at making people uncomfortable and feeling trapped.

I'm a good person, but I play to win. Most people do not like people who "play to win" like I do. Understandably so. Unless you want to be a lawyer, you probably shouldn't aspire to be anything like me. Or, maybe CEO or something.

But, back to you. If you see it happen in a lot of your topics, then perhaps the common denominator in all those topics is "you"?

I'm reminded of an old ex girlfriend I had. Gave me some fun words of wisdom once upon a time: "If every girl you've ever been with has cheated on you, it's 'cause you're a screw-up. Not all women cheat, and most don't. So, if you're picking women who do cheat, you're either giving them very good reasons to do so, or you are just really good at picking all the losers in the dating pool".

Put simply, the problem in all those relationships was me.

If you truly are not pre-assumed I am wrong, to start an argument, then that is my mistake. Just feels like whatever I say, you are there to say it is not so.

Even if you are wrong, I don't always say so. Sometimes, I let it slide because I don't care enough. Or, someone else has already addressed it. Or, whatever. Or, even sometimes, you're just not wrong. Or, there are times when I just have nothing to say to whatever it is you posted, so I don't reply or don't post.

It is what it is, my man.

The problem with "it feels" is that it's based heavily on your own perception.

Let me put it into gaming terms.

Does blowing on your dice actually help you roll the numbers you want?

Realistically, no. It does nothing. But, if a person "rolls what they wanted" after blowing on them, then they might start believing that they are somehow generating their own luck. So, they'll blow on the dice every single time. Even though it does nothing.

Pokemon had it's own "blow on dice" thing forever ago. Someone wrote online, "If you press Up+B right as the ball throw animation plays and then hit and hold A after it closes, it shuts the ball extra tight and you are guaranteed a capture. But, it only works when you get the timing EXACTLY RIGHT."

Can you guess how many players did that? Go on, try to guess. I'd wager it was more than half. I was one of those players that bought into it.

Why? Because... SOMETIMES IT WORKED. Sometimes things would catch at full health on the first throw, with the worst ball, if I used that technique.

I mean, in reality, I had just gotten lucky and the RNG was in my favor. But, it didn't FEEL like that.

So, there's a big problem in relying on "your perception" of things in certain cases. I can recall only two topics I've corrected you recently and only 3 actual corrections I've made to you across those two topics. But, you still "feel like" I'm always there to say you're wrong.

You have to be really careful when you think that way. It can easily lead to a slippery slope of paranoia. People just out to get you. People just out to be mean to specifically you. Or, whatever else.

Lets both try to understand each other better before we assume the other is just wrong or assume the other is picking a fight.

I really only "assume you're picking a fight" with me when you've purposefully disrespected me (I tend to let accidental disrespect slide) as a person. Otherwise, I just assume you're disagreeing with me and are up for a debate using facts and lines of logic.

I'm sorry you don't like that I will check to see if you're actually correct on something you say. I just do not have it in me to blindly believe everything everyone says. Online or otherwise. I've been alive too long for that. I've known too many people for that. It's just a hazard of interacting with me.

As for understanding each other better. I'm not sure. I think I generally understand you quite well, but if there's something about you that you think I don't, feel free to enlighten me on it. You can try to understand me if you like, but I'm not really sure that's possible for anyone.

It's mostly just more important that we understand what each other are saying and spend less time trying to imagine intent behind what we say.

What you write is what you mean. What I write is what I mean. Neither means anything more or less than the stated words. Emotion is not implied. Lines of logic might be implied, however.

And one last thing I want to say... There is no arguing opinion. Opinions can be shared, but but not argued, because opinions are not facts. What someone knows and what someone believes in the difference between what can be true/false or not.

I'm sorry, I just don't ascribe to this belief system. Opinions cannot be proven right or wrong. Beliefs, however, can. "This girl is pretty" is an opinion. "This game is boring" is an opinion. "This game is designed poorly" can be proven. "This news story is true" can be disproven.

The main reason I do not ascribe to this line of thinking is there are too many people who attempt to use it in order to "wiggle out" of admitting they're wrong. As if they're 6 year old children yelling "nuh uh!".

"Well man, that's just like, your opinion". Said to things that are absolutely provable. Said to things where data takes a stage front and center.

I don't buy into this. I never will. I also have low opinions of people who use the word "opinion" like this and in that specific definition.

If someone can disprove your opinion or the reason you hold your opinion... then it's not an opinion anymore, is it? It's a belief. Usually one held erroneously and completely untested (because most people don't bother trying to prove themselves wrong in order to make their arguments stronger).

So I want to propose a peace: you wont come to my topics to just tell me wrong, based on personal opinion, and I wont jump on my defense as soon as you do show up in my topics.

I never have. I show up to the topics to see if there's anything interesting within. If there is, I post. If there isn't, I move along. If someone is making rudimentary mistakes or operating under erroneous logic... I say so.

Dont get me wrong, if you have actuall arguments, to the things I actually said, (so no missquoting, or cropping quotes to change its meaning) then I am truly open fordiscussion.

I don't think I've ever done that to you. I've yet to misquote you. I've also never cropped one of your quotes to change its meaning either.

I take great care and pride in not doing that to users specifically so they can't leverage that accusation against me.

Though, it does happen to me quite a lot... Usually by people who skim my posts rather than actually reading them, so they have no idea where the actual context for what is being said comes from.

This is completely not related to this actual topic btw. This came up because you said everyone talk out of their butt, even experts. That part made me feel like that is why we clash.

Please dont see this as an attack. I nwarly try to explain why I think we clash.

If you have a reason why you think I want to clash, feel free to tell me, so I can keep that in mind as well.

Can we do that?

After this I'll be back on topic, and you're welcome to stay. Just hope we can both discuss this on a mature level.

so, what do you say? End if the clash?

I'm sorry you feel like the reason we clash is because I seek to verify everything and know that most people "talk out of their butts". We are just people, my man. We make things up for a variety of reasons. You, me, everyone. Even people respected in their fields. Nobody is safe.

My advice is just to not have "blind adherence" to whatever you read. That's a fast way to give in to "confirmation bias" and just become a member of a cult.

I don't want to see you walk down that path. I want to point you down the path of challenging your own ideas, ideals, and beliefs so that you can ultimately be a really great critical thinker. I want you to embrace skepticism and then take measures to figure out what is real and true and honest for yourself... rather than just believing someone when they say "I'm honest, trust me".

That's honestly all I'm interested in. Making you a better version of yourself.

And no, that's not intended as an insult. We should all be dedicating ourselves to being better people tomorrow than we are today.

I don't care what you believe. I only care that you can defend what you believe flawlessly so that nobody can say you're wrong. I don't think there's any merit in believing in something you can't defend that way.

I think you're better than believing in something you can't defend. I think you can do better. I just hope that when you're finally able to do it, I get to watch it in all its splendor. Or, even better, I get to tell you "I was wrong".

Then again, I'm crazy and have that hope for pretty much everyone on the forum. Those I don't... I never interact with.

You are right. Sorry. I hope above Post would solve this once and for all.

 

[SpyroFan67]

I have to add in my opinion here. I think this whole thread is stupid. It's nothing but paranoia and sensationalism, but my biggest problem with it is this-what is the point? So what if robots are going to someday rise up and destroy us? Is speculating and worrying about how bad it's going to be going to change the future? Will it help us solve that problem if it arises? No. It won't. Worrying about something won't change anything and it won't help anything. So I say screw this thread. This is so incredibly stupid, because it's a waste of time because worrying and speculating about something bad that may happen won't stop it from happening. Period. This is ridiculous. JohnDoeNews said it's "fun to speculate about what could happen". Really? Is speculating about how we might all be wiped out in the future and how bad it can get really "fun"? When all it does it get everyone scared and worried and panicked? No. It's not. It's just a waste of time. Stop wasting everyone's time with all this drama and paranoia and let them enjoy what's left of their lives before everything gets lit on fire if it's inevitable that will happen. That's all I have to say. I'm done. Hopefully I didn't offend anyone but I seriously had just put at least SOME practical truth into this thread. Again, why worry about something and how bad it can be? It won't make it any less bad. It won't solve problems. It won't help us survive what's coming. It'll just get everyone all scared and panicked. Period. I think we should spend our time trying to figure out how we would be able to solve this problem rather than speculating about how doomed we are. Because if we do that, we WON'T be able to survive this if it happens. Good day, sir.

 

[Iron_Brew]

I have to add in my opinion here. I think this whole thread is stupid.

This got a hearty chuckle out of me.

A post calling someone else's thread dumb and sensationalist because you don't like the subject matter seems somewhat unnecessary and mean-spirited, and the tone is all over the place in your reply. It's also somewhat ironic given the number of threads you've made.

I dunno, pal - I'm not tryna put the boot in, but posting a big-huffy text-wall is such a baffling thing to do when you could just keep on scrolling and ignore the mud-slinging. This comes from a place of love, and I don't want you to freak out and apologise or anything like that, it's just my two cents.

It's a forum: People can talk about what they want, be it the emergence of AI as a developing technology or which video game company should get the rights to Spyro the dragon. Both topics probably come across as stupid to some users, so my advice'd be to just scroll past the stuff you don't care for.

 

[Willibab]

Sometimes it's just how you word things too, you might lose support even from the people who might agree with you if you seem too agitated. If you are agitated, I would suggest taking a break before responding

 

[JohnDoeNews]

@Tai_MT I guess that is a no. In that case, just stay away from me. Dont reply to my topics. And dont complain about people derailing your topics, when you wont stop doing the same to me.

The problem is you, man. It really is. I dont come to your topics to fight, you come to mine.

@SpyroFan67 if you think the topic is stupid, you dont have to reply, either. Noone is making you.

 

[Dalph]

@Tai_MT
Actually Tai, let me give you a quick and wise hint.
It's something I've been wanting to tell you for years and I'm well known here to be honest when it comes to things like these.

How about just making a game or some resources, uh? Or maybe playing other people's games and give feedback?
That's certainly more productive than always arguing with everyone and everywhere, don't you think?
It's just a suggestion, bro, don't take it personally. Feel free to ignore me but geez, everytime you're in a thread it's like...

 

[Ms Littlefish]

This thread is being closed at OP’s request.