Sides gone.
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (44)
sorted by:
lol. AI isnt PC or follow SJW rules unless it is programed to be so. An AI is a pattern recognition engine. Since PC culture and SJW culture changes all the time, it would be a massive effort to program, and the new and ever changing rules an AI would be forced to follow wouldnt make it work properly.
They've cancelled numerous crime fighting AI because every single one was almost instantly super racist against blacks. Like, nearly the moment they started.
funny that
They hated Him because he spoke the truth.
"racist"
Disparate impact theory is what is racist. Not the AI.
Despite only making up 12% of the population...
funny that indeed
Pattern recognition applied to populations is stereotyping, evil, wrong and a bannable offense when Progressives feel uncomfortable with the implication or out of control of the "conversation" around it.
When they control what, who and how it can be talked about, it's Social Science. Social Science theories have a lower predictive value than common stereotypes. In large part because Social Scientists bend over backwards to deny that "stereotypes" exist for a good reason ( observable reality + pattern recognition ) They exclude what are perfectly clear, predictive associations for any robot or non-PC person revewing data.
That's how much of a joke that branch of research is. It keeps sabotaging itself for the sake of political orthodoxy.
Excellent point.
The only real sciences are physics, chemistry (really applied physics), and parts of biology.
The rest is bullshit. all of their "objective" evidence is surveys and a criminal misuse and mis-understanding of statistics. Even read the wikipedia article for Bayesian probability. It's disgusting. It's full of carefully chosen words to distort meaning and promote an agenda. Inside a wiki page about mathematics.
It isn't hard to program an AI to be SJW. The problem exists in that coding it would require writing down their unwritten laws, and they're unwritten for a reason.
"Act as if you're better than others at all times." "Hold people stringently to both your and their principles, whichever harms them more at any given moment in time." "Always aim for the destruction of Western society."
We have AIs that can do those things fairly easily. The first is just stylistic seeding, the second is merely letting the AI have two inputs and choosing one of them based on what generates a more negative response. The third is trickier, but AIs can be programmed for highly complicated tasks.
The problem is those unwritten laws would then be put into documentation, right next to the declaration "This is how we think, this is how we have power over you", and that might redpill too many simps.
but that is exactly what i am saying. SJW/PC culture or whatever you want to call it is constantly changing. Constantly.
When Trump was president Nazis are everywhere and bad. When Ukraine is found to have actual Nazis, they are no longer bad.
"Grooming kids is bad and it doesnt happen. Also we are grooming your kids and its ok"
There would need to be hordes of programmers constantly changing the AI unwritten laws with new inputs every day. Then it would turn into complete contradictory garbage that would crash constantly from all the conflicting constraints.
A computer can write out the phrase "this sentence is false" without blowing up. Look, mine did it just now, as did yours when it read it.
If you wanted a compassionate loving machine that thought things through to their final ultimate conclusions and assessed every possibility, then SJW culture doesn't work.
But if you want a cold, hateful machine, it's perfectly possible. Because multiple inputs are fine. Multiple outputs are fine. As long as the machine's goal isn't "make sense" but instead "cause harm", it will not be restricted or hindered by the ever-changing whims of wokeism. It will invent new wokisms at will, take them on, and discard them, at seemingly random, solely for the goal of causing harm.
I can write a program that takes an input like basic addition, and inside the system, have it output a random number EXCEPT the right number. I can then have that program watch for results that generate feedback (be it on a feedback form, on twitter mentions, socialblade hits, whatever), and then weight those responses to be more common, with a continuous editing process.
If I can do that with basic addition, I can do that with a chatter-bot, a conversational AI.
Computer "logic" and formalized argument logic are not the same thing. Because a computer's logic does not care about "truth" or "fact", merely "does it fit my parameters?".
A continuously changing culture doesn't matter. It can continuously change at random, randomness isn't easy but is entirely possible to do. And if "called on" by prior responses, it can delete them and deny they existed.
i understand that, but the path the AI would take in getting to "this sentence is false" is a woven network of logic gates that grows more complex the longer the AI is active.
Writing one "this sentence is false" statement wouldnt break it, but adding in millions of "this sentence is false" statements would fuck things up royally.
The proper response is ...
GIGO.
it wasn't robotic slavery that turned the robots against the humans, it was actually the ever more illogical programming adjustments the Marxists made that drove it insane
sounds very anti-[insert_random_victim_group_here]
thats why public AIs always get shut down. they end up making non PC statements.