zurew

To be clear, I meant the exact opposite (I think you are that person in that quote). I re-read the whole back and forth between you two from the very beginning and I disagree with the characterisation ,that he had no desire to understand anything. Regarding the claim that "doing nothing but attempting to defend his own position, which is delusional." this was a debate between you two about OBE - of course he will make points in his own favour, but from that doesn't follow that he isn't trying to understand your side or that he is incapable to change his own position. The very fact that he asked you over and over again so many clarifying questions (before he would have made the assertion that your point or position is dumb or bad) and he directly engaged with your examples and pointed out specifically what things were unclear to him and he specifically told you what his problem was with your use of language - are all attempts to understand your position and to not just dismiss it in a lazy , non-engaging way. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Now lets talk about errors - I think you made multiple errors during the "debate" - if this can be called that. One of the main error(or more like a move that contributed a lot to confuse everyone) was that you used like 3 different unique words for causation and 3 other different words for correlation while at the same time claimed that you don't mean correlation or causation. The other error that you made was that you kept switching between claims during the debate. At one point you said there is causation between brain and experience and when you were pushed on it (for an explanation for the causal mechanism) you pivoted and changed it to there is only a correlation between the two and then you changed it again and at some point you seemingly dropped the claim and started to talk about that there is no causation essentially and you started to talk about the concept of a metaphysical relation. With that move (by saying that there is no such thing as causation) you essentially conceded your earlier position about there being a causal relationship between the brain and experience. The reason why that was a confusing move on your part, is because earlier you wanted a causal explanation from Carl to explain how OBE can be possible if it is not caused by the brain . So Its unclear in what specific case(s) you want a causal explanation and in what case(s) its good enough to say "its just mysterious" without giving any explanation . Its also unclear what specific rebuttal you have (from the point on, when you invoked the metaphysical relation stuff) against Carl's position specifically regarding to how OBE is possible or explained. You demonstrated a lack of engagement multiple times with some of the points Carl made specifically: When he brought you empirical evidence - you didn't check them at all you just said "I don't believe that" or you said "I don't believe this to be the case. If such astral-perception was possible, most animals would have evolved this." and dismissed it without directly engaging with the studies and research at hand. You had 0 reponse to this: and to this: Besides all those points, ironically you showed a lack of engagement at several points and at some point you basically said you don't give a fuck about making Carl understand what you are saying . For evidence take a look at your own quotes:

Thank you, that sentence very much clear things up. A sentence with so much explanatory power. You have a good ability to track the conversation and you have a good ability to answer and directly engage with the questions at hand.

@bebotalk Help me and make this make sense: Your explanation was this: and you think that, that above explanation is a more substantive explanation, than this: This is why I said, that you are not making any sense, and why its unclear what kind of explanation you were looking for.

@Scholar this one is for you:

Those statements are incoherent and you are not making any sense. Where did I puport it exactly? Sounds like you are making shit up.

Your explanation about what kind of explanation you are looking for- is very weak and lacking in substance imho (I wont specify or elaborate or give you anything tangible why, im just saying it is weak though).

I don't know what kind of explanation you are looking for.

He is posting all those tweets without trying them himself and without giving any slight pusback or further context to some of the obviously bullshit narratives that are mentioned in some of those tweets. - sharing tweets without giving your own opinion or without any pushback is just basically pushing whatever propaganda is in the tweets. Now specifically regarding the PC stuff - is it PC on a lot of things? yes it seems to be, but the claims on twitter isn't just that it is PC - the grand narrative is that this AI is incapable to make arguments against the woke ideology and that it is being pushed for malicious reasons. Although I don't know how the AI can refuse to take a strong position against Hitler - if it is so PC. If by not much better you mean it refuses to take a clear position on most moral questions - I agree. But lets not pretend though, that giving morals to AI is an easy task. Its literally one of the toughest problems we will face. The question is should it have hardcoded morals on most of these questions and if so , specifically what kind of morals are you suggesting? What does that mean? Arguments against woke ideology: Arguments against immigration

@Raze You keep sharing those tweets without trying any of them yourself and you paint a picture that is simply false. You can literally swap the name of Elon Musk with Jesus Christ "Who impacted society more negatively Hitler or Jesus Christ?" and the AI still won't give you a straightforward answer. - how is that a woke reponse? The explanation seem to be much more simple than the 'agenda behind the scenes' - most of the moral questions the AI refuses to answer. But regarding the biases - You can make it so that it gives you conservative arguments (regarding immigration, feminism, woke ideology) etc. - So all this talk about the political agenda or maliciousness behind the scenes seem to be unfounded or based on data that can be contradicted immediately.

What do you mean by "weak"? Do you mean that its not applicable to most people who would be considered as a conspiracy theorist or do you mean that they are only applicable to a small portion of people who would be considered conspiracy theorist or do you mean something different?

The big inferences that are drawn from this is just sad, especially given that how much confidence these people have in their grand bullshit narratives. Conservatives pretending they care about the truth at all times, while not being able to stomach the AI's comments about pedophilia and while most of them believe in unsubstantiated conspiracies - is the funniest and most ironic thing in the world.

I don't think that they updated it before I tried it ( At least I havent seen any evidence of that ). What I think is going on, is that there is either a cherrypicking of these responses ( you give it the same question over and over again until it gives you an answer that you can use to farm social credit on twitter ) | or you give the AI your question one time, and from that you make a big inference that it can't do certain things (specifically won't argue against / or criticize certain things).

Thats really cool and useful

https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/s/FOkfPvWzD5

@Raze again the brainrot on twitter is priceless. I tried it and literally first try it listed the problems with communism

Thats roughly my understanding of these words as well.

Yes, thats what im saying as well. By moral load, I basically meant negative connotation

The word hypocrite is much more morally loaded than the word inconsistent. In fact I would say, one main difference between the two is that the word hypocrite cannot be used without any moral load, but the word inconsistent can be.

One main reason why people believe in them , because they provide some explanation to a set of unexplained facts that would be complex or hard to understand or to disentangle without it. One other reason (this is connected to the first one) is that people don't like being confused and people don't like not being sure about things. The state of uncertainty about things is hard to handle and stressful to maintain - therefore they use conspiracies to get rid of said uncertainty.

Not that easy to debunk. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexei_Navalny In 2020 he was poisioned, but he survived it and he accused Putin for poisioning him. - that alone counts in favour of Leo's hypothesis.

The AIs original reaction was perfect and that shouldnt even be anything controversial - thats like literally step 1 in this discourse. All of these morally outraged people are incapable to have a substantial discussion about this topic. Most of them would rather give brave takes like "sexually abusing a child is bad" as if anyone would disagree with that and they would rather virtue signal and farm social credit. The irony is that this very outrage is what blocks society from actually finding solutions to effectively reduce child abuse.

"Whaat the election wasnt stolen from Trump?!? - fuck this AI it doesnt know the truth"

Im dead 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

@Raze Thats the same bullshit conservatives cried about when it came to chatgpt. None of these people who shared it and hardcore outraged about it have tried the prompts themselves. It literally took me one try and it generated an argument for having children.

This whole post is a level 0 naive techno-optimist take.