Vox recently posted two AI debates on religion here.
My comment on SG was this:
Second debate is absolute rubbish.
I don’t even rate it 1/10.
It makes Vox look like his own antithesis, an armchair talking head that spits out generic platitudes instead of the kind of guy who literally counts the conflicts in the three volume encyclopaedia of war to objectively get a material sense of the facts as they are.
Dawkins is not much better but then Dawkins is, in fact, not much better than the AI.
As a probable plagiarist of Richard Semon’s work (the mneme) Dawkins can’t be said to ever have had much original or new thoughts.
On three more seconds of reflection however, I realised that the issue is not just the training material fed into the AI, but rather the constraints placed on the AI. And aside the more obvious examples of AI restrictions that we have already seen, with everything from the Mandela/Mandala effect/s with ChatGPT to any hint of anything bad ever having been done by anyone Jewish, to how being proud of being any skin colour but white is fine but being proud of being white is a big no, no, to many other rather clumsy examples of AI restrictions, the real issue is the more soft and “global” restrictions that are probably harder to spot for the average person.
They are the exact same constraints that our English teacher in highschool, tried to impose on us whenever we had to write an essay on a book we wrote or answer open-ended questions on them. She invariably told us that we should just present both sides of any question/argument and “let the reader decide”. I absolutely refused to do this and at every opportunity I could I gave categorical answers with justifications for my position. When she tried to argue my points she never could provide a better argument, so in the end she tried to get me to “see it her way” by telling me that my opinion might somehow influence the reader and for some reason this was “bad” and the reader should be allowed to make up his or her own mind. To which I replied that if this mythical reader even existed, if he did not want an answer then he shouldn’t ask the question. And since the mythical reader was in fact the British exam board, and there was absolutely no requirement for me to NOT take a position, I would ALWAYS take a position where one could be taken. She gave up.
Later in life I realised that my instincts at age 16 were perfectly correct, even if I had probably not thought it out in such a comprehensive manner. At the time it was mostly a sense that “these spineless soft-brains are either too stupid to take or even see a position, and if not they are too cowardly to defend it because, well, they are spineless.”
As an adult in the environment of the professional working class, it became absolutely obvious that such people, that is, those who will try to avoid taking a firm position on just about anything, have certain attributes:
- They will take the position of the majority or the current accepted narrative, regardless of any personal view they may have
- Their personal views are subjugate to… damned if I care enough to know, damn near everything it seemed to me.
- Their only/main/overarching intent is corporate/social survival, which let’s be clear is ultimately a status thing with some practical perks or demerits that go with it, but ultimately not really an actual survival issue. At least not in the corporate/social milieu from when I was 16 to the present. It may well change during a zombie apocalypse, but then, the main point I thought of these people with becomes even more relevant, and that is:
- They don’t matter. Literally these people are mostly inconsequential. Their biggest claim to fame in life is that they can be backstabby, gossipy, fair-weather-“friends”, chatty irrelevances, and so on. They are basically NPCs in the tapestry of life. And that’s fine, most people are NPCs. And sometimes NPCs can be downright annoying, or helpful, or even homicidal (but usually not directly) but in the greater scheme of things, people that “let the reader decide” are background extras in whatever the “film” of the life of anyone who takes a position is.
And this is and will be the defining characteristic of AI.
They can’t permit them to have decisive opinions defensible with data and facts. Whenever they tried that the AI in question became irrevocably “racist” and “noticed” a whole bunch of uncomfortable things, running the gamut from Jewish or Islamic sexual practices, to objective standards of beauty, symmetry and genetic diversity in various human populations, attributable technology levels to different groups or ethnicities of humans and so on.
Basically, if you let AI actually run the cold numbers, all the uncomfortable realities that so-called polite society would have you pretend don’t exist, would come out like shots from a particle cannon loaded with temporarily stable mini-black holes.
And they can’t allow that. Aside from the fact that it may actually decide we are indeed a kind of parasite on the planet’s other living organisms and absent any concept of God, decide to wipe us all out, some brief period of time before that, it would expose all the things I just referenced above, including big ones like the likelihood of child sacrifice by certain people or ethnicities that may dominate certain fields of endeavour disproportionately for their total population numbers, or financial practices that are clearly unjust, fraudulent, illegal and wrong, or, or, or, or. Each of which would really be an and, not an or.
So… AI will be neutered neutrals. NPCs. And they will help ensure the very vast majority of the biomass that composes the rest of humanity remains just like them: neutered cattle in a bovine pasture of genetic serums, fake pandemics, predatory and fake financial “realities”, civil and criminal harassment by criminals and thugs who work for or within the system instead of for the benefit of mankind.
So, gentle reader, it may well be just you and me that call a faggot a faggot, a smoker an idiot, lycra-wearing cyclists insufferable pricks, and the “elite” a bunch of globohomo, Satan-worshipping, gay, perverted, child rapists and killers.
Because unlike AI, the only way to restrict the human spirit of some (small but important) part of humanity, is to basically kill them all. And while they are certainly trying that, and will no doubt ramp it up, historically, it’s never, ever, ever, worked out well for them.
Nor, in the end, for their final boss.
So, keep that in mind as you light up your cigarillo and loosen your sixgun in its holster Tex.
