Joshe

We need a thread to keep track of all the loyalist/sycophants being installed. I'll kick it off with this: A Fox News host just got appointed to oversee the DOD, the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force. Official title: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth: Served in the National Guard, so that's how they're justifying it. Additionally, reports indicate that the Trump transition team is considering a draft executive order to create a "warrior board" tasked with reviewing and recommending the removal of senior military officers deemed unfit for leadership. This move is seen as an attempt to purge "woke generals" and could lead to a restructuring of military leadership to align more closely with Trump's policies. They're going to corrupt every facet of government and they're moving very fast. It seems like the people will know their mistake much sooner than I thought.

Small tasks, sure. But current AI doesn’t have a big enough context window or memory to handle much complexity at the same time. If there’s just one thing to solve, it can do it. But if it has to track and manage, say, 5 things, each with 10 variables, it’ll screw up—every time. Even if you show it exactly where it’s likely to fail, it’ll still make mistakes. AI is great at predicting the next thing, but it’s focused on one thing at a time. It doesn’t know how or where to look for potential pitfalls because doing that would mean effectively handling 1,000 moving parts just to get one complex request right. Chat: Why Skepticism Is Warranted Sequential Prediction Isn’t Understanding At its core, AI is pattern recognition and next-token prediction. It doesn’t "know" or "understand" in the way humans do. General intelligence requires causal reasoning, goal-setting, and an ability to model the world beyond patterns in data. There’s no clear path from sequential prediction to these capabilities. Lack of Intentionality and Agency Intelligence involves agency—the ability to set goals, prioritize, and act autonomously. Current AI has no self-directed goals; it reacts to inputs based on pre-trained patterns. Adding intentionality requires fundamentally different approaches that are not yet well understood. The Frame Problem In AI, the "frame problem" refers to the challenge of knowing what information is relevant in a given situation. Humans instinctively filter out irrelevant details, but AI has no innate mechanism for this. Without solving this, it’s hard to imagine AI managing the complexity of real-world reasoning. Emergence ≠ Generality While emergent abilities in large models are impressive, they are still narrow and task-specific. There’s no evidence that simply scaling models will lead to truly general intelligence. Extrapolating from current trends may be overly optimistic. Human Cognition Is Not Purely Sequential Human intelligence is multi-modal, involving memory, sensory processing, emotion, and intuition—all deeply interconnected. AI lacks these "soft" aspects, which are critical for general intelligence. Philosophical and Ethical Limits Intelligence isn’t just computation. Some argue that aspects of consciousness, subjective experience, or biological embodiment are essential to intelligence and cannot be replicated by machines.

There will be no Christian democracy. It will be Christian Nationalism, and it is authoritarian. Christian’s will take by force, and their aim is to stamp out your fancy ideas and convert you to their way. They will force Christian mythology onto the children of atheists and other religions and they will use their mythology to strip rights, remove good laws and install regressive ones in accordance with their delusions, and diminish science and institutions. This is an overt attack on the constitution and a blow to the heart of America. The whole point of the US is to not be under tyrannical rule. When the time comes, you should advocate for rebellion, not passive acceptance.

I would currently define woke as an ideology that recognizes injustice and unfairness and seeks to address them in misguided and immature ways. These approaches stem from underdeveloped egos that derive purpose and meaning by entrenching their identity in the cause, resulting in outward expressions and solutions rooted in self-righteousness and moral indignation. These often cluster: Identity politics Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Cancel culture Virtue signaling Language policing Privilege checking LGBTQ activism Social justice activism I live on the east coast of the US and it doesn't seem very prevalent here. It seems to mostly be embraced by younger, less mature, and undeveloped people in cultures where religion and conservatism aren't the norm. But those cultures are not the norm. So I'm just curious, how prevalent is it really? I wonder if woke TV shows, advertisements, and social media make it seem larger than it is. I realize it's hard to quantify, so I'm just looking for opinions, really.

@What Am I I decided the guy was full of shit after listening to him speak, not because Kyle proved it. It is a bit of a hasty judgement on my part and I’m not highly confident in it, but a billionaire goes on a conspiracy theorists platform and talks conspiracies where the bogeyman is the left. Plus, his conspiracy sounds absurd on the face of it and I did pickup on some idiocy. TBH, I am relying on some quick heuristics, so I should have said “I think this guy is full of shit”. Lol. I agree about Kyle. He’s far from advanced. I didn’t mean to convey his analysis is perfect, but I think he made a couple strong points. The reason Kyle is useful to me is because he’s more educated on politics and political history than I am and I believe him to be sincere and more integrous than most, even if not the brightest. I actually think his wife is brighter, but less integrous.

Bro, this dude is ridiculously full of shit. Because you're pro-Trump, the banks will kick you out. 😂 They'll put politics over money? Got it. I've said before, we're entering a new era where malignant falsehoods like these will continue to proliferate and Rogan will be the most effective propagandist mankind has ever known. Just watch. It's gonna to happen, and fast. This house of cards they're building is going up way too fast. There'll likely be dire consequences for feeding the population malignant lie after malignant lie. What is the consequence of stacking falsehood on top of falsehood, over and over and telling the public the falsehoods are true? Might people become unstable when they realize hundreds or thousands of things they called true were all false? Interesting that Joe is constantly bringing on millionaires and billionaires who attack the Dems and support the right. I guess it's all just organic and the all the skeptical conspiracy-theorists are right not to suspect any fuckery going on with these particular, everyday people who own rivers and have billions. Nothing to see here folks, just some good ole honest, decent folk.

https://www.axios.com/2024/11/12/trump-cabinet-members-tracking

I disagree with Leo here. I've managed to avoid the trap. I've been popular throughout several chapters of my life, so I know what it's like to ride high on that. I don't miss it and I don't want it back. It's all fake bullshit. All selfishness from everyone involved. If you can see that, it's not alluring nor appealing. But I guess you also need wisdom and integrity to go with the awareness.

Not unhinged, but kind of trying to force his way of life or his crusade onto another who clearly didn't want to answer the question of what his pronouns were. I too would be caught off guard if someone asked me what my pronouns were. It's too presumptuous, intrusive, and even disrespectful. A more respectful question would be "Do you prefer specific pronouns?". Vaush isn't an example of the blue-haired SJW Ben Ship likes to belittle for profit, but he is an example of wokeism and I think maybe even more representative of the ideology than the blue hair caricatures. I somewhat like Vaush for his candor and quit wit, but he's clearly a culture warrior. Also, his masculinity mostly disappears in social settings, which is interesting. He turns from hardass to cheerfully giddy.

🤣

I don't think you're employing it, but I think you've unwittingly fell for it. How else would one arrive at the position that RFK's ideas are just as credible/valid as top-notch scientists? How else would one vote for a guy who did everything in his power to steal the 2020 election and who will spend the next 4 years fabricating evidence to justify it? The reasons and justifications you present to support your stance all seem to be explained by the notion of "post-truth". I'm still exploring the idea, but so far, it's tracking really well. I can't believe it took me so long to come across this idea. I mean no disrespect here. I'm just saying what things seem like to me.

I'm pretty sure it's not just meant as "audience capture". For example, the algorithms facilitate alliances as well, but I need to look into his concept more.

It's not taken the wrong way at all. I don't mind being challenged or questioned. It might not seem like it, but I'm careful with what I consider to be true. Most of my judgements on this topic are probabilistic, but there are some things I know to be true that others might find it impossible to believe I could know. It can seem like I'm full of shit or just arrogantly assuming things if prerequisite truths are unknown by the observer. In the grand scheme, no one can definitively say how Trump or Kamala would impact the world. This kind of relativism is the sneaky game being played and it's being used to undermine truth. It undermines critical thinking and blurs the lines between valid assessments and subjective opinions. This I know to be 100% true. This game was played by big tobacco in the 50s. Big oil plays it, hiring think tanks and scientists to do research that sows doubt on actual scientific fact. The same thing is occurring with the embrace of RFK. Relativism is being used to diminish truth and reason. Here's an example of this if you're interested in seeing through it: And if you want a deep dive: https://www.audible.com/pd/Post-Truth-Audiobook/B07CH1GW9M?source_code=ASSGB149080119000H&share_location=pdp "Publisher's summary What, exactly, is post-truth? Is it wishful thinking, political spin, mass delusion, bold-faced lying? McIntyre analyzes recent examples - claims about inauguration crowd size, crime statistics, and the popular vote - and finds that post-truth is an assertion of ideological supremacy by which its practitioners try to compel someone to believe something regardless of the evidence. Yet post-truth didn't begin with the 2016 election; the denial of scientific facts about smoking, evolution, vaccines, and climate change offers a road map for more widespread fact denial. Add to this the wired-in cognitive biases that make us feel that our con9clusions are based on good reasoning even when they are not, the decline of traditional media and the rise of social media, and the emergence of fake news as a political tool, and we have the ideal conditions for post-truth. McIntyre also argues provocatively that the right wing borrowed from postmodernism - specifically, the idea that there is no such thing as objective truth - in its attacks on science and facts. McIntyre argues that we can fight post-truth, and that the first step in fighting post-truth is to understand it."

I picked up a new, useful term from that YouTuber, Vlad, whose videos Leo often shares. "Algorithmic Drift" I think these heuristics are mostly sufficient for predicting one's susceptibility to it: Who they're buddies with Who/what they admire Who/what they're most critical of Who/what they're most sympathetic towards How much they sweep devilry and falsehood under the rug Minimizing falsehood or not being bothered by it (Lex Fridman)

I've wondered why things that are clear as day to me go unnoticed by others. I used to think it was a matter of intellect, analysis, or bias, and it can be, but how do you explain how intelligent people miss what appears to be very obvious? I think it has to do with intuition. People lacking intuition have to rely on thinking to see things, whereas good intuition can serve things up on a platter.

Most Americans could care less if some politician cares about them. What the left failed at was not centering their campaign around dismantling post-truth. The American people hopped on the post-truth bus and they're enjoying the ride. That's why Trump won. Because the people can't discern truth from falsehood. This is nothing new. The only thing new about it was the successful attacks on truth from on high. THAT's what happened. How do you explain the people electing a guy when they all knew he tried to steal an election? The answer: lies, obfuscation of truth, and falsehood. The mechanism: a relentless assault on critical thinking and shared reality, fueled by a media landscape that rewards sensationalism over substance. Social media algorithms amplify disinformation, creating echo chambers where belief becomes fact, and fact becomes irrelevant. Politicians and oligarchs exploit this chaos, sowing confusion and mistrust to solidify power. The result: a population unable or unwilling to separate reality from the narratives they’re fed. Truth wasn’t just ignored, it was dismantled. And the people turned a blind eye to it. The point: This is the truth that should frame all analysis, because it's actually why Trump won. If everyone accepted the truth of Trump, he wouldn't stand a chance. CLEARLY!

Why brainwashing? Why wouldn't the next developmental milestone be reached the way they usually are? Which is to suffer the consequences of our ignorance until we see our error. The so-called "woke" contagion has been surmounted by the post-truth contagion, which is a much more transmissible and toxic virus and much less detectable, allowing it to seep deep into the collective psyche. Unlike its predecessor, the post-truth contagion operates covertly, eroding shared realities by fostering confusion, mistrust, and relativism. "By exploiting cognitive biases and the echo chambers of digital media, it creates a fragmented society where individuals become isolated in their own constructed truths. This insidious process not only undermines dialogue and critical thinking but also weaponizes skepticism, turning it into a tool for division rather than understanding. As the boundaries between fact and fiction blur, the post-truth contagion threatens the very foundations of collective decision-making, governance, and social cohesion." Racism and bigotry should be the least of your concerns. We’ve fallen so far backward that standard fare selfishness like racism and bigotry barely scratches the surface of the chaos we’re up against now.

I found a similar line of inquiry useful. On both sides of consciousness, there is nothing, yet here you are. It’s intuitive to me that if I arose from nothing and will go back to it, I would only arise from nothing again, just as I already have. No thing can exist outside of consciousness, including death and non-existence.

Yeah, it’s not very appealing. It seems well-suited for anal retentive sadists.

@Emerald haha, yeah, that’s definitely going on, but it does exist. Someone like Vaush comes to mind. He once invited another YouTuber on for a chat and Vaush asked for the guy’s name and pronouns. The guy respectfully responded with his name only and redirected quickly as to avoid awkwardness. Vaush immediately pushed him again for his pronouns and the guy tactfully redirected again and Vaush went for a third and final push to get the guy’s pronouns. Lol. This is the type of person I would call woke. I know it’s largely used as a bogeyman, but it does exist. What I’m trying to figure out is how prevalent it is. Since I first became aware of it, I’ve believed it doesn’t exist in large enough numbers to warrant a top spot in public discourse, but I sometimes wonder if my intuition is wrong when I hear people like Sam Harris discuss its dangers.

Nice. Thanks for the info. This is what I've been wondering. It doesn't seem like a very appealing ideology. I mean, I can see how people get on board with it, but it doesn't seem to have any real staying power. That combined with I don't see it much IRL, makes me question it's prevalence. I don't get out much these days so it could be widespread AFAIK, but something about that idea just doesn't seem right.

I don't claim to have or aim for a balanced understanding of Musk. My goal was to analyze specific details to assess his integrity. I don’t need to know everything about him to answer "How integrous is he?". This question alone was all I cared about. When I arrived at the answer "He's not integrous", I didn't feel a need to balance that out by seeing his good side. It seems that because you prefer a full, comprehensive understanding, you don't like the idea of a targeted analysis. It's like you assume my narrower focus on particulars inherently leads to a flawed conclusion. The way I see it, the depth of inquiry should match the question you're asking. If your goal is to evaluate a specific trait like integrity, a comprehensive understanding of Musk is not required. A targeted approach is not only sufficient, but much more efficient.

I sense this is his primary driver as well, but I think Leo's read that he's largely motivated by power is also accurate. The right gives him both. Yes, it was clear he was such a character. I was confused as to how it went unnoticed.

Compile a comprehensive list of questions that can be applied to each political ideology. Ideally, plug those questions in a Claude Project for quick analysis. Maybe questions like this: What is X? Provide modern day examples of what it looks like in real life. What are the foundational beliefs and principles that define X? What other ideologies tend to cluster with X? What are the core values of X ideology? How to steelman and strawman X? Are specific cultures predisposed to X? A key thing to understand is that most people are not political, but everyone has inherent tendencies and influences that predispose them to particular ideologies, and all it takes is a big event or some propaganda to arouse their political energy. You can't really understand the ideologies without knowing about the fuel that propels them.

😂 I remember this. To be fair, new information has come to light, but even still, I knew back then the devil that was Musk and I knew he was capable of exactly what he now is, and that it was even likely he would stoop to such a low. I remember arguing that you can use analysis and intuition to see this truth, but Leo and Aurum called me a biased stage green hippy. 😂