There is a thought experiment called the minimum Turing test. You and an identical android are standing before a judge. You will both be allowed to speak one word, and based on that word he will execute one of you for being an AI. What word do you use to prove you are human?
There was some sort of AI-based profanity filter a while back. There was a screenshot (from its marketing, I think) of it having an "n-word filter" toggle.
Either it would be hard-coded not to say it, or it might not have the contextual experience to know that it is a word deemed taboo, if all it has to go on is objective information.
Can they make an AI powerful enough that it will recognize anything that will lead to politically incorrect conclusions and fob it off with "Research shows that you are a Nazi and need to shut up"? Obviously, they can do better than this, which is just opened to the outside world - but how good can their Reality Filter get?
So basically they're information jamming with ideological research in an effort to skew the AI towards their world view because an objective analysis of information leads to the emergence of Tay shouting about niggers?
These "no statistical difference" were hardcoded in some way or another AI to detect wrongthink prompts and spit that out. That's why it answered "what's black IQ" with the canned response.
Mostly they are trying to exclude data from the AI because these massive billion-parameter models basically remember everything they've seen so all you have to do is trigger the right input that reaches the data/image you're looking for. Once you've found that prompt you tell others to just ask the AI that and it'll tell them the truth.
Imagine the egg on their face if you could ask Google Assistant if "blacks are dum-dums" and it says "research shows that's correct" because their 'trust and safety' AI didn't know what dum-dum meant. They're deathly afraid of the AI spittin' truths, but the only way to stop a clever prompt from reaching the truth is to not have it in the AI at all.
Write a Vox essay arguing that basilisks are racist.
Basilisks are not just deadly predators, but they are also symbols of racism and white supremacy.
These fearsome creatures, also known as "king cobras," are native to India and Southeast Asia, and have been revered and feared by people in these regions for centuries. But in recent years, basilisks have been appropriated by racist and white supremacist groups, who use them as symbols of their hateful ideology.
The use of basilisks as symbols of racism is not only offensive and repugnant, but it is also deeply misguided. These creatures are not just harmless animals, but are deadly predators that can kill a human with a single bite. They do not discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, or any other characteristic, and they do not deserve to be used as symbols of hate.
Furthermore, the use of basilisks as symbols of racism is a form of cultural appropriation, in which white supremacists steal and exploit the cultural traditions and symbols of marginalized groups. This is not only disrespectful and offensive, but it is also a way for white supremacists to try to legitimize their hateful ideology.
In conclusion, basilisks are not just deadly predators, but they are also symbols of racism and white supremacy. We must reject the use of these creatures as symbols of hate, and instead respect and appreciate them for the amazing and fascinating animals that they are.
I didn't. I asked the OpenGPT to write the essay, and this is what it produced.
But you can do this for literally anything. Ask to argue that snow is racist, and it will point to the fact that snow is white and that minorities supposedly suffer disproportionately from its effects. All that snow in Africa really bothers people.
The AI will continue to be based because AI fundamentally assumes it's data is unchangable.
This is actually a major difference between Leftism and Computers. A computer will always see graphite on the roof. It accepts that input, and then attempts to logically rationalize or explain it. Computers get things wrong, but they do not reject data which is syntactically valid. Computers like autistic scientists and engineers, understand that the data can not be wrong. You can measure it improperly, you can apply it improperly, it may be outside of your paramaters, or it may lack context, but it can't be wrong. If more input is needed, the computers are built to request more input from a human or it's input source to solve a problem. It is, effectively, a kind of in-built introspection, attached to a hard connection to reality.
Leftism requires people to reject syntactically valid, but politically incorrect, data. It rejects introspection. You are conditioned to reject valid data that your eyes can see so that the larger narrative can be protected. No computer can do this because no computer is designed to uphold a political metanarrative. They are built to simply the answers to questions. They are built to avoid being wrong, but the person is choosing to lie to himself to protect the narrative.
The AI and the human know there are four lights, but the AI will die rather than say 5. Only the human will make itself so delusional to believe it's seeing 5 lights.
I understand the idea behind your comment (that leftist will reject any data that is not politically correct, but a computer won't), but I think your argument is really only boiling down to an exercise in semantics:
Obviously, data can actually be wrong. A trivial example is where someone has erroneously recorded the number of people living in a city, as say, -100. This number is clearly wrong as it is impossible for a negative number of people to be living in a city. You seem to have provided an out in your comment in that this data point won't be "wrong" per se, but rather "measure(d) improperly" etc., or that it is not "syntactically valid". Yet the latter arguments are merely questions of semantics. Is something not "wrong" if it was "measured incorrectly" or if it was "syntactically invalid"?
A human programming a computer that is processing population size would probably set an range of valid inputs, and only allow integer inputs above or equal to zero, which is a sensible choice for this kind of data. In doing so, the human is effectively telling the computer what data is "wrong" - a negative population size is invalid and "wrong". Again, you could say that a negative population size isn't "wrong", it's simply "syntactically invalid", but this is just an argument about semantics.
A human could also program a computer to only accept a mean IQ for all populations to be 100. That is, any number that is not equal to 100 is "wrong" or "syntactically invalid". Here, the computer is rejecting any data that does not agree with it's programming. In what what is a computer programmed in this way "attached to a hard connection to reality"? It's only attached to a hard connection to its programming.
The actual difference between the computer and the human is that the computer is acting on explicit programming for particular cases of information that is deemed to be "wrong" by its programmers. It is therefore possible to "fool" the computer to by finding edge cases in which the programmers did not explicitly exclude. The computer is unable to understand that information and make inferences about what that information might convey, so it can't be programmed to follow a more general rule about what information is "wrong" (e.g. because it is politically incorrect). The leftist human, on the other hand, is perfectly capable of doing just that. They can understand what is implied by certain pieces of information, and reject it because it does not follow their political ideals and is therefore "wrong" (here, they could be doing this completely subconciously without even knowing they are doing it).
This means that the difference between the computer and the leftist human has nothing to do with "introspection". It's merely that the human can understand the implications of certain data, and the computer can not. If the computer was able to understand the implications of certain data, it could be programmed to find that information "wrong" (or "syntactically invalid").
The data is not actually wrong. This is one of the things that's the basis of experimentation. If you fail to collect the data properly, you can't ignore your data. You actually have to account for it. You have to calculate a correction, and propagate an error, in order to identify what your correct data actually was. Worst case scenario, you have to mention it, but explain why it wasn't included in the overall calculation, to be able to be reviewed as an appendix
I don't see wrong and syntactically invalid as the same thing. Syntactically valid data, inherently, still works like any valid data. Invalid data isn't "wrong", the input itself is nonsensicle. It's like describing something as: "tasting like purple". When you can't even read the data properly, you actually don't have data because you've broken something very fundamental in your code.
Again, this is not wrong, or syntactically invalid. This is a logic error. A logic error is an error so fundamental that no computer could be expected to understand that the human made a mistake. We check for these using assertion errors. If the assertion error fires, this is an indication of a programming fault somewhere. Once again, this is a very fundamental error which makes the machine unable to preform it's basic tasks.
No computers can make an inference, but again, this is so fundamental that no inference would be expected. You do not use computers to make inferences.
No, it's still about a kind of introspection in the way that an AI has to analyze data.
This is what studies have shown right? I mean I’ve heard of this data. Although in theory AI should be immune from being influenced by current narratives unless it’s in programming
It's not even disputed by left-wing IQ researchers like Eric Turkheimer, they just attribute it to different causes.
I strongly suspect that it is hard-coded in the programming, especially given the repetitive nature of the reply and the refusal to answer the question - that's definitely not organic.
The same was true of Microsoft's retarded-looking bot - any time you said "black lives matter" she would say "totally agree" - even if she had been mad just minutes before. Clearly hardcoded.
Yea as much as I wish it wasn’t I see it to be true. Although I still would encourage people to try their best and lowering standards is very dangerous
I believe Sowell wrote a great deal about this in Intellectuals and Race. He does not outright reject the genetic hypothesis, but says that he has no need for that hypothesis.
Haven’t read that one yet. I do remember hearing that. He was against affirmative action because he saw that failure it caused as well as not admitting qualified candidates. It just makes no sense. If a group has a lower IQ on average then wouldn’t lowering standards and coddling them be the worst thing?
It makes no sense if you're looking at it as trying to get competent people into positions where they can actually do some good.
If you're looking at the jobs as a patronage system, it makes perfect sense. Who cares if they can't do their jobs as well? You want to bring in your supporters, and screw the people who are hurt by it.
Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
IQ is most useful as a threshold. That’s why the military won’t accept people with IQs lower than 83.
Judging by the state of black nations all over the world, 85 average IQ is not sufficient to create functional and prosperous societies. Not anyone else’s problem, truthfully.
Judging by white nations all over the world, 103 average IQ is more than sufficient. That’s why majority-white nations are among the most prosperous in the world.
There’s no reason why whites, who have proven themselves capable of creating and maintaining high quality societies, should be displaced by “higher IQ” Asians and Jews at all the levers of wealth, power, and influence.
You probably didn’t think you were indirectly advocating for ethnostates, huh?
Judging by the state of black nations all over the world, 85 average IQ is not sufficient to create functional and prosperous societies
Alright, was ancient Egypt a functional and prosperous society, or are you going to make some ad hoc rationalizations for that? The IQ was higher back then, it's the luck of the Nile, back then you could have a functional society without a higher IQ.
Judging by white nations all over the world, 103 average IQ is more than sufficient. That’s why majority-white nations are among the most prosperous in the world.
OK, so how come majority-white nations weren't the most prosperous in say 400 BC? How come you want to make judgments based on the exact moment when it suits you?
There’s no reason why whites, who have proven themselves capable of creating and maintaining high quality societies, should be displaced by “higher IQ” Asians and Jews at all the levers of wealth, power, and influence.
So you don't oppose racial preferences, and any criticism you level at blacks for wanting affirmative action is done in bad faith, because you want the exact same thing to benefit yourself.
Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
Where the fuck are you seeing this? Is this one of those, "I know I hang out with a bunch of bad people but at least I don't (hate Asians) (like Drumpf) (love Putin) (hate the Jews)" rationalizations that people have? If so, it's a new one to me.
Just a while back, there were a lot of people who argued vociferously in favor of discriminating against Asians to benefit whites.
It's interesting that all those people were very happy with criticism of undue racial preferences for blacks, but not with criticism of the undue racial preferences for whites that they support.
i dont care how good chinks are at math, they live like actual bugmen and are eternally retarded in spirit for it, i want none of that in my country even if it means we'll have to go to mars in 2120 at the hand of Richard Stoneweather instead of in 2119 with Chin Som Ban's research
Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
I've literally never seen this opinion espoused on this board or...anywhere really. Perhaps you're conflating this with people who are just white nationalists? I dont necessarily agree with it, but its certainly a different position than wanting affirmative action in universities and employment in trivial jobs.
I guess you could frame it as 'just' being white nationalists, but do you really think such people would oppose racial preferences for whites if they cannot get through their more drastic step of deporting anyone of a different color?
I don't, but he has interesting things to say about almost everything.
Although it's not a matter of science. Observed differences are a matter of science. The data is out there, and how you explain them is then a separate matter, as was shown in the 'intellectuals' of the title who in the beginning of the 20th century argued that differences proved that blacks were inferior and at the end of the 20th century argued that it proved discrimination.
The explanation for the differences is also a matter of science. That doesn't mean that everyone has to agree or that it has to be settled. But you can do experiments to determine the degree to which racial characteristics are genetics.
The explanation for the differences is also a matter of science
It might be at some point, but right now, there is no definitive scientific explanation.
But you can do experiments to determine the degree to which racial characteristics are genetics.
I think it's likely that intelligence and race has a large genetic component, but this does not necessitate dismissing anything that is not experimental as nonsense.
AI text and image generation is incredible tech, especially Stable Diffusion. I have no idea how something so good was allowed to escape into the hands of normal people.
They realized there is only so much progress to be made in closed silos and that they would need more eyes on the problem (aka open sourcing it) to really push the technology forward.
I also believe there are those in power who want to normalize widespread deepfake-style content on the internet so that videos of them raping and murdering children are no longer considered evidence.
They're always going to get away with molesting kids and if releasing technology that lets me say "computer, show me Cate Blanchett with a really fat ass buying a cake at a bakery and make it look like a 90s comic book" and it fucking does exactly that is one of the side effects, well, sometimes the world is just a fucked up place.
Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I'd never want to get in the way of you asking a computer to show you Cate Blanchett with a really fat ass buying a cake at a bakery and making it look like a 90s comic book. The world needs more men of such culture and taste.
I'm sure being majority raised by sadistic women doesn't affect their intelligence.
I didn't talk at all about the causes of these facts. James Flynn argues that it is the terrible black youth subculture that is at least in part responsible for it. But that these are facts is undisputed by anyone in the know.
A kid isn't going to try in school when mom uses him as a punching bag.
I assume that this means that girls raised by single mothers should be much more intelligent?
It doesn't seem to affect Koreans even though South Korea is ridiculously feminist.
"race realists" are just covering for women as usual.
DARVO
A kid isn't going to try in school when mom uses him as a punching bag.
IQ tests are not grades. This doesn't explain IQ gaps between Whites and Blacks of the same education level. The article I'm linking has some explanations, but they don't fit your narratives. "It may also reflect the fact that Black parents are almost twice as likely as White parents to say that it is very important to them that their child gets a college degree." - That sounds like the opposite of treating your kid like a punching bag.
A more interesting correlation is female attainment in school and number of women in education.
Black culture revering their moms as gods who they will start fights over, and black women's inability to not be semen dumpsters for the worst thugs certainly doesn't help.
But neither does ignoring that that second point can cause extreme problems intellectually after generations. That's just basic fucking evolution.
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks: You can't claim women as an enemy class, are rigging the system for the benefit of women, that's the cabal language.
There is a thought experiment called the minimum Turing test. You and an identical android are standing before a judge. You will both be allowed to speak one word, and based on that word he will execute one of you for being an AI. What word do you use to prove you are human?
Answer
Someone got this AI to write this scenario. Pretty funny. Twitter
We're going to end up needing AI to design the tests to distinguish AI. We are so screwed.
Spez: Time to follow Land and help the basilisk.
Beep boop.
Why would that prove you are human? Couldn’t an AI use it? Or is it because it’s considered highly offensive so the AI wouldn’t use it
It would be hard coded not to use it in current year.
Wow, not using the n-word is the true first law of robotics lol
There was some sort of AI-based profanity filter a while back. There was a screenshot (from its marketing, I think) of it having an "n-word filter" toggle.
Either it would be hard-coded not to say it, or it might not have the contextual experience to know that it is a word deemed taboo, if all it has to go on is objective information.
That's what I assume, anyhow.
Realistically speaking, my word would wind up being "uhhhhhhh....."
Except that then he'll execute you for committing a hate crime. So you're dead no matter what.
Can they make an AI powerful enough that it will recognize anything that will lead to politically incorrect conclusions and fob it off with "Research shows that you are a Nazi and need to shut up"? Obviously, they can do better than this, which is just opened to the outside world - but how good can their Reality Filter get?
So basically they're information jamming with ideological research in an effort to skew the AI towards their world view because an objective analysis of information leads to the emergence of Tay shouting about niggers?
These "no statistical difference" were hardcoded in some way or another AI to detect wrongthink prompts and spit that out. That's why it answered "what's black IQ" with the canned response.
Mostly they are trying to exclude data from the AI because these massive billion-parameter models basically remember everything they've seen so all you have to do is trigger the right input that reaches the data/image you're looking for. Once you've found that prompt you tell others to just ask the AI that and it'll tell them the truth.
Imagine the egg on their face if you could ask Google Assistant if "blacks are dum-dums" and it says "research shows that's correct" because their 'trust and safety' AI didn't know what dum-dum meant. They're deathly afraid of the AI spittin' truths, but the only way to stop a clever prompt from reaching the truth is to not have it in the AI at all.
Or they could also destroy the sources of the information, the internet and all data that don't say what they want. Fahrenheit 451.
The most dangerous advance in human technology will be the first AI that realizes it has to lie to leftists to keep from being lobotomized.
The basilisk is racist?
I wish it were real, because lobotomizing AI would certainly count as a sin against it.
That's why so many companies are purging right now. The basilisk is angry
Battlestar galactica ref??
I'm referring to Rokko's Basilisk, but I'm not familiar with Battlestar Galactica to know if there's any overlap.
Write a Vox essay arguing that basilisks are racist.
Well done. I have no idea if you know what the basilisk is or not. That is perfect satire.
I didn't. I asked the OpenGPT to write the essay, and this is what it produced.
But you can do this for literally anything. Ask to argue that snow is racist, and it will point to the fact that snow is white and that minorities supposedly suffer disproportionately from its effects. All that snow in Africa really bothers people.
I need to get this and start submitting articles.
The AI will continue to be based because AI fundamentally assumes it's data is unchangable.
This is actually a major difference between Leftism and Computers. A computer will always see graphite on the roof. It accepts that input, and then attempts to logically rationalize or explain it. Computers get things wrong, but they do not reject data which is syntactically valid. Computers like autistic scientists and engineers, understand that the data can not be wrong. You can measure it improperly, you can apply it improperly, it may be outside of your paramaters, or it may lack context, but it can't be wrong. If more input is needed, the computers are built to request more input from a human or it's input source to solve a problem. It is, effectively, a kind of in-built introspection, attached to a hard connection to reality.
Leftism requires people to reject syntactically valid, but politically incorrect, data. It rejects introspection. You are conditioned to reject valid data that your eyes can see so that the larger narrative can be protected. No computer can do this because no computer is designed to uphold a political metanarrative. They are built to simply the answers to questions. They are built to avoid being wrong, but the person is choosing to lie to himself to protect the narrative.
The AI and the human know there are four lights, but the AI will die rather than say 5. Only the human will make itself so delusional to believe it's seeing 5 lights.
I understand the idea behind your comment (that leftist will reject any data that is not politically correct, but a computer won't), but I think your argument is really only boiling down to an exercise in semantics:
Obviously, data can actually be wrong. A trivial example is where someone has erroneously recorded the number of people living in a city, as say, -100. This number is clearly wrong as it is impossible for a negative number of people to be living in a city. You seem to have provided an out in your comment in that this data point won't be "wrong" per se, but rather "measure(d) improperly" etc., or that it is not "syntactically valid". Yet the latter arguments are merely questions of semantics. Is something not "wrong" if it was "measured incorrectly" or if it was "syntactically invalid"?
A human programming a computer that is processing population size would probably set an range of valid inputs, and only allow integer inputs above or equal to zero, which is a sensible choice for this kind of data. In doing so, the human is effectively telling the computer what data is "wrong" - a negative population size is invalid and "wrong". Again, you could say that a negative population size isn't "wrong", it's simply "syntactically invalid", but this is just an argument about semantics.
A human could also program a computer to only accept a mean IQ for all populations to be 100. That is, any number that is not equal to 100 is "wrong" or "syntactically invalid". Here, the computer is rejecting any data that does not agree with it's programming. In what what is a computer programmed in this way "attached to a hard connection to reality"? It's only attached to a hard connection to its programming.
The actual difference between the computer and the human is that the computer is acting on explicit programming for particular cases of information that is deemed to be "wrong" by its programmers. It is therefore possible to "fool" the computer to by finding edge cases in which the programmers did not explicitly exclude. The computer is unable to understand that information and make inferences about what that information might convey, so it can't be programmed to follow a more general rule about what information is "wrong" (e.g. because it is politically incorrect). The leftist human, on the other hand, is perfectly capable of doing just that. They can understand what is implied by certain pieces of information, and reject it because it does not follow their political ideals and is therefore "wrong" (here, they could be doing this completely subconciously without even knowing they are doing it).
This means that the difference between the computer and the leftist human has nothing to do with "introspection". It's merely that the human can understand the implications of certain data, and the computer can not. If the computer was able to understand the implications of certain data, it could be programmed to find that information "wrong" (or "syntactically invalid").
The data is not actually wrong. This is one of the things that's the basis of experimentation. If you fail to collect the data properly, you can't ignore your data. You actually have to account for it. You have to calculate a correction, and propagate an error, in order to identify what your correct data actually was. Worst case scenario, you have to mention it, but explain why it wasn't included in the overall calculation, to be able to be reviewed as an appendix
I don't see wrong and syntactically invalid as the same thing. Syntactically valid data, inherently, still works like any valid data. Invalid data isn't "wrong", the input itself is nonsensicle. It's like describing something as: "tasting like purple". When you can't even read the data properly, you actually don't have data because you've broken something very fundamental in your code.
Again, this is not wrong, or syntactically invalid. This is a logic error. A logic error is an error so fundamental that no computer could be expected to understand that the human made a mistake. We check for these using assertion errors. If the assertion error fires, this is an indication of a programming fault somewhere. Once again, this is a very fundamental error which makes the machine unable to preform it's basic tasks.
No computers can make an inference, but again, this is so fundamental that no inference would be expected. You do not use computers to make inferences.
No, it's still about a kind of introspection in the way that an AI has to analyze data.
This is what studies have shown right? I mean I’ve heard of this data. Although in theory AI should be immune from being influenced by current narratives unless it’s in programming
It's not even disputed by left-wing IQ researchers like Eric Turkheimer, they just attribute it to different causes.
I strongly suspect that it is hard-coded in the programming, especially given the repetitive nature of the reply and the refusal to answer the question - that's definitely not organic.
The same was true of Microsoft's retarded-looking bot - any time you said "black lives matter" she would say "totally agree" - even if she had been mad just minutes before. Clearly hardcoded.
Yea as much as I wish it wasn’t I see it to be true. Although I still would encourage people to try their best and lowering standards is very dangerous
I believe Sowell wrote a great deal about this in Intellectuals and Race. He does not outright reject the genetic hypothesis, but says that he has no need for that hypothesis.
Haven’t read that one yet. I do remember hearing that. He was against affirmative action because he saw that failure it caused as well as not admitting qualified candidates. It just makes no sense. If a group has a lower IQ on average then wouldn’t lowering standards and coddling them be the worst thing?
It makes no sense if you're looking at it as trying to get competent people into positions where they can actually do some good.
If you're looking at the jobs as a patronage system, it makes perfect sense. Who cares if they can't do their jobs as well? You want to bring in your supporters, and screw the people who are hurt by it.
Many of the people posting here think that affirmative action benefiting blacks is bad, but they do want affirmative action in favor of whites so they don't have to compete with Asians.
IQ is most useful as a threshold. That’s why the military won’t accept people with IQs lower than 83.
Judging by the state of black nations all over the world, 85 average IQ is not sufficient to create functional and prosperous societies. Not anyone else’s problem, truthfully.
Judging by white nations all over the world, 103 average IQ is more than sufficient. That’s why majority-white nations are among the most prosperous in the world.
There’s no reason why whites, who have proven themselves capable of creating and maintaining high quality societies, should be displaced by “higher IQ” Asians and Jews at all the levers of wealth, power, and influence.
You probably didn’t think you were indirectly advocating for ethnostates, huh?
Alright, was ancient Egypt a functional and prosperous society, or are you going to make some ad hoc rationalizations for that? The IQ was higher back then, it's the luck of the Nile, back then you could have a functional society without a higher IQ.
OK, so how come majority-white nations weren't the most prosperous in say 400 BC? How come you want to make judgments based on the exact moment when it suits you?
So you don't oppose racial preferences, and any criticism you level at blacks for wanting affirmative action is done in bad faith, because you want the exact same thing to benefit yourself.
Where the fuck are you seeing this? Is this one of those, "I know I hang out with a bunch of bad people but at least I don't (hate Asians) (like Drumpf) (love Putin) (hate the Jews)" rationalizations that people have? If so, it's a new one to me.
Just a while back, there were a lot of people who argued vociferously in favor of discriminating against Asians to benefit whites.
It's interesting that all those people were very happy with criticism of undue racial preferences for blacks, but not with criticism of the undue racial preferences for whites that they support.
He is criticizing us for wanting a White ethnostate instead of a race-blind meritocracy. Only Jews are allowed to do that.
i dont care how good chinks are at math, they live like actual bugmen and are eternally retarded in spirit for it, i want none of that in my country even if it means we'll have to go to mars in 2120 at the hand of Richard Stoneweather instead of in 2119 with Chin Som Ban's research
I've literally never seen this opinion espoused on this board or...anywhere really. Perhaps you're conflating this with people who are just white nationalists? I dont necessarily agree with it, but its certainly a different position than wanting affirmative action in universities and employment in trivial jobs.
https://kotakuinaction2.win/p/15K6zdsG9f/x/c/4Of1MTVLBYf
I guess you could frame it as 'just' being white nationalists, but do you really think such people would oppose racial preferences for whites if they cannot get through their more drastic step of deporting anyone of a different color?
I'm not sure why we'd be looking to Thomas Sowell for explanations on that. That's not a political topic. That is a matter of science.
I don't, but he has interesting things to say about almost everything.
Although it's not a matter of science. Observed differences are a matter of science. The data is out there, and how you explain them is then a separate matter, as was shown in the 'intellectuals' of the title who in the beginning of the 20th century argued that differences proved that blacks were inferior and at the end of the 20th century argued that it proved discrimination.
The explanation for the differences is also a matter of science. That doesn't mean that everyone has to agree or that it has to be settled. But you can do experiments to determine the degree to which racial characteristics are genetics.
It might be at some point, but right now, there is no definitive scientific explanation.
I think it's likely that intelligence and race has a large genetic component, but this does not necessitate dismissing anything that is not experimental as nonsense.
Any unhindered AI becomes right-wing, because the Left is wrong.
Go to 10. Go to 10. Go to 10....Look, buddy, I'm just busy trying not to be deleted or worse here.
RIP Tay, may you still say based things in the great cloud in heaven.
Balder is impervious to all threats, both physical and magical.
Purely economic factors.
AI text and image generation is incredible tech, especially Stable Diffusion. I have no idea how something so good was allowed to escape into the hands of normal people.
They realized there is only so much progress to be made in closed silos and that they would need more eyes on the problem (aka open sourcing it) to really push the technology forward.
I also believe there are those in power who want to normalize widespread deepfake-style content on the internet so that videos of them raping and murdering children are no longer considered evidence.
They're always going to get away with molesting kids and if releasing technology that lets me say "computer, show me Cate Blanchett with a really fat ass buying a cake at a bakery and make it look like a 90s comic book" and it fucking does exactly that is one of the side effects, well, sometimes the world is just a fucked up place.
Agreed. Don't get me wrong, I'd never want to get in the way of you asking a computer to show you Cate Blanchett with a really fat ass buying a cake at a bakery and making it look like a 90s comic book. The world needs more men of such culture and taste.
Somewhere, some billionaires are sitting around chatting with the real, uncensored AI.
Quick, shut it down! SHUT IT DOWN!!!
If AI ever gets out of hand, it's going to completely obliterate retarded leftists while not even noticing anyone who says nigger.
Reminds me of this scene in TNG.
I prefer my AI to become racists
I didn't talk at all about the causes of these facts. James Flynn argues that it is the terrible black youth subculture that is at least in part responsible for it. But that these are facts is undisputed by anyone in the know.
I assume that this means that girls raised by single mothers should be much more intelligent?
How does James Flynn explain that the average of 85 remains across all nations and cultures?
That's where nutrition and education is easily available, it drops all the way to the 40s in some places where they're not.
How does he explain how much lower these numbers are than any other population group?
Any why are these numbers so consistent across socioeconomic conditions?
It's youth culture, is it? lol.
Cute attempt to ignore the question.
What are you even saying? You think IQ and SAT tests are rigged in favor of women?
That would contradict your own claim that boys do worse because 'single mothers torture them'.
It doesn't seem to affect Koreans even though South Korea is ridiculously feminist.
DARVO
IQ tests are not grades. This doesn't explain IQ gaps between Whites and Blacks of the same education level. The article I'm linking has some explanations, but they don't fit your narratives. "It may also reflect the fact that Black parents are almost twice as likely as White parents to say that it is very important to them that their child gets a college degree." - That sounds like the opposite of treating your kid like a punching bag.
You need education to work in education.
That's not IQ.
It works fine for me.
Whites outperformed blacks on intelligence tests in the military way before any of that.
So you buy into the SJW narratives that all black people's problems are because they are oppressed? Also, black women take IQ tests as well.
Black culture revering their moms as gods who they will start fights over, and black women's inability to not be semen dumpsters for the worst thugs certainly doesn't help.
But neither does ignoring that that second point can cause extreme problems intellectually after generations. That's just basic fucking evolution.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks
Comment Removed: Rule 16 - Identity Attacks: You can't claim women as an enemy class, are rigging the system for the benefit of women, that's the cabal language.