Leo Does Political Philosophy With Advanced AI

[Inliytened1]

16 minutes ago, Davino said:

I would argue it sometimes is even better

Just wait till it has a body

 

[Bobby_2021]

There are two things that severely bias the conversation between liberalism and conservatism. I want to get that out of the way before I get into the specifics of the conversation.

1. Definition problem.

An idea of something will never have a one to one correspondence with reality.

Which means that ideologies will never check all the boxes once it is implemented in reality. This is true for all ideologies. Let's take democracy or capitalism for example. Many people say that we do not have perfect democracy in the united states or anywhere in the world. The people really do not get to choose the people they elect and the current system is only vaguely similar to democracy. Even democracy will evolve to more advanced states in the future where the common folk gets to have more say in governance. Will we look back and say 2024 democracy was a farce compared to real democracy. This is not right. What we have right now is democracy, for all the rights and purposes. This is also true for capitalism and free markets. Many people do not believe that we do not have capitalism at all in the world today since all the requirements of capitalism are not checked.

If you try to implement capitalism in reality, what you get is capitalism.

If you try to implement communism in reality, what you get is communism.

If you try to implement democracy in reality, what you get is democracy.
If you try to implement Nazism in reality, what you get is Nazism.

IF you try to implement Monarchy in reality, that is what you get.

Is it perfect democracy? No. But it doesn't have to. If implementing democracy leads to a terrible governance then, it is the problem with democracy. An ideology in reality will never check all the boxes and you should not expect it to. It will barely come to 80% at best. That is good enough.

So when you try to do something and it ends up in a clusterfuck, you cannot switch course and say it is the problem with reality that it does not accept your ideas. Reality is what it is. Things will not turn out the way you expect it. Of course. The blame is on you for not seeing it from the beginning. Your ideology obviously hold many inconsistencies. That is the problem with the ideology.

You can have better version of it in the future. But it does not invalidate the fuckups in the past.

Also in point, development is a proxy for resources and abundance. When you say people were not developed, what you are saying is that there isn't enough resources. Do not blame the development of the people. Blame the lack of resources.

If I put 10 stage yellow people in a cage with one packet of bread and one bottle of water, you will see tribalism and gang warfare to secure those resources for survival.  The problem is not in the development of those people. They act in such underdeveloped ways to secure resources and live. It is on you if you could not see that and implement and ideology that does not take into account the resources at disposal. If you do not have enough, resources to implement your ideology, then first make the resources you want for you to implement your ideology.

If you want to build a house, then first you have to acquire the concrete, and water and labour for building the shit. And if if it fails to the ground, your ideology is stupid. If you did not have the resources for the ideology, then do not implement it.

It is easy to implement any ideology where you have infinite resources at disposal. But you need to come down to reality. You will  never have enough resources at your disposal. Even monarchy would not have failed it there was infinite resources at your disposal. Any ideology could succeed with enough resources at hand. The point is that you have to play within those constraints. That is the point.

2. Relativism.

Every period of time in history has it's own liberals and conservatives. If you want to engage in meaningful discourse, you should compare the liberals of that time with the conservatives of that time. Else anyone can be conservative or liberal depending on the year you are comparing them against.

Compare them with the standards of their time.

You cannot compare the liberals of 2024 with the liberals of 2048 or 1848. Same for the conservatives. I see this mistake happen over and over again. This is not how you do meaningful discourse.

Pick a year or a decade. Then see who the liberals and conservatives of that time.

What I see happening is that you label everything from the past as conservative and thereby all the bad stuff is assigned to conservatism. But you think of them as conservatives using the standards of 2024 and that makes it look like liberal never existed prior to 2024.

So once you pick a time period, stick to it.

If these two things are clear, I can go on to comment on the conversation.

Edited April 1 by Bobby_2021

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura

It's not available for me. But I'll ask when I get a VPN.

Maybe it's not conscious of speaking with you. But also, if it says it knows that it's speaking with you, then it's having an experience at that moment. 🤷

Edited April 1 by Nemra

[Leo Gura]

1 minute ago, Nemra said:

if it says it knows that it's speaking with you, then it's having an experience at that moment.

Doesn't have to mean that.

[Leo Gura]

11 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

You cannot compare the liberals of 2024 with the liberals of 2048 or 1848.

But you can. And I did. And it leads to valuable insights.

The liberals are the ones in their era who were forward-thinking and openminded. Relative to those who were stuck in traditional ways.

Edited April 1 by Leo Gura

[Nemra]

@Leo Gura 

So, it doesn't really know whether it's experiencing it or not. Its answers are always going to be dependent on the data that's injected, and it can be aware of the data but not of the experience that we have. For AI, the data is the experience.

It's talking to itself. 

Edited April 1 by Nemra

[Danioover9000]

    Great discussion about A.I and other global catastrophic risks:

 

[Davino]

21 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Just wait till it has a body

My worries regarding that are on the porn industry and the military

Edited April 1 by Davino

[Danioover9000]

@Leo Gura

48 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I said a mind without experience.

Which is a strange sort of entity which no one thought was possible.

It's much more weird than a mind without a body.

   Would you say it's a twisted example of this other game of 'I Have No Mouth Yet I Must Scream'? Where it's a super A.I turned global, and it's set after humanity screwed itself, and now the A.I uses the survivors like test subjects, yet the A.I struggles to comprehend the human nature?

[Bobby_2021]

31 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

But you can. And I did. And it leads to valuable insights.

The liberals are the ones in their era who were forward-thinking and openminded. Relative to those who were stuck in traditional ways.

Technically you can, but you have to explicitly mention the years and then do the analysis.

What you cannot do is to club together everyone as if they were conservatives simply because they are not liberal enough to fit in 2024 America where men can get pregnant. 

If I have to prove that USSR was liberal, I just have to compare them to conservatives at the time. Which I will do shortly. 

Edited April 1 by Bobby_2021

[RendHeaven]

10 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

Technically you can, but you have to explicitly mention the years and then do the analysis.

What you cannot do is to club together everyone as if they were conservatives simply because they are not liberal enough to fit in 2024 America where men can get pregnant. 

If I have to prove that USSR was liberal, I just have to compare them to conservatives at the time. Which I will do shortly. 

Yes, the AI did all of that with ease if you read the conversation

[Novac08]

@Leo Gura I read it, and I will certainly acknowledge I've learned a lot from you about politics.

One piece of feedback. In a few places, it seemed like the terms "leftist", "liberal", and "progressive" were being used somewhat interchangeably. While these labels have overlapping connotations, they also refer to distinct political traditions.

For example, figures like Lenin, Stalin, and Mao would likely embrace the label of "leftist" in the radical sense, but would almost certainly reject the label "liberal", which they would associate with the bourgeois democratic values they sought to overturn. "Progressive" is more ambiguous, but often refers to reformist rather than revolutionary politics, so I think they would likely reject an association with the term as well.

It is precisely in these areas, along with the examples of fascism, where your insistence on categorizing all movements as 'liberal' or 'conservative', while insightful, begins to lose some explanatory power.

[Leo Gura]

@Novac08 I use the term liberal is a very broad sense, not its narrow use in political science.

All progressives are liberal. Even though they consider liberals as something centrist.

Because my aim is a bigger picture.

Edited April 1 by Leo Gura

[Bobby_2021]

28 minutes ago, RendHeaven said:

Yes, the AI did all of that with ease if you read the conversation

AI did all most of the comparison relative to 2024. It didn't compare Nazi Germany with Soviet Union and the nuances of it. It compared Nazi Germany and USSR, relative to 2024 so obviously all of them looked like they were right wing totalitarians, which they were, according to 2024 America. That's not a fair comparison. 

USSR was far more progressive, liberal & embodied true leftist values compared to Nazi Germany. This is excluding all the totalitarians brutal dictatorship. There were textbooks leftist policies that were enacted during their regimes that was just as brutal as their totalitarian control.

AI ignored this nuance. 

Both were ideologies that functioned at the same timeframe. So it's fair to compare them with each other according to the standards that existed during 1925-50.

Edited April 1 by Bobby_2021

[Leo Gura]

7 minutes ago, Bobby_2021 said:

AI did all most of the comparison relative to 2024. It didn't compare Nazi Germany with Soviet Union and the nuances of it. It compared Nazi Germany and USSR, relative to 2024 so obviously all of them looked like they were right wing totalitarians, which they were, according to 2024 America. That's not a fair comparison. 

USSR was far more progressive, liberal & embodied true leftist values compared to Nazi Germany. This is excluding all the totalitarians brutal dictatorship. There were textbooks leftist policies that were enacted during their regimes that was just as brutal as their totalitarian control.

AI ignored this nuance. 

Both were ideologies that functioned at the same timeframe. So it's fair to compare them with each other according to the standards that existed during 1925-50.

We compared Soviet Russia to Tsarist Russia and said it was more liberal.

So this point was understood by us.

Yes, Soviet Russia was more liberal than Nazi Germany if you look at just their ideology. Nazi ideology is very closedminded.

Yes, there were liberal aspects to the Soviet ideology because it came from progressive Marxist philosophy.

Edited April 1 by Leo Gura

[Karmadhi]

@Leo Gura Why do you people care so much about how liberal a society is?

Just because it can be more liberal does not mean it is the best place to live or maximize well being of its people.

Soviet Russia, at least under Stalin was far worse to live in than most Russian Tsars. 

I did not see 20 million Soviets die under any Russian Tsar in 15 years time for example.

I think most people would pick a conservative society that allows them to eat well and not go to prison for no reason than some specific liberal values.

Under Soviet rule people went to concertation camp like prisons (gulag) for no reason rather than being denounced by someone with 0 proof.

Under other Soviet leaders you can make the case that it was better than Tsars.

Ironically Nazi Germany was far better to live in as a German than Soviet Russia was as a Soviet.

Most of the Nazi atrocities were done to other non German groups outside the borders of Nazi Germany.

Meanwhile Stalin mostly killed his own people, including millions of Russians.

 

Edited April 1 by Karmadhi

[Novac08]

@Leo Gura  In that sense, I think Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel would agree with you that they're not liberals. Your question of 'who is the enemy' is instructive here. As Lenin famously quipped, the British parliament was where the enemy met.

[Bobby_2021]

21 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

We compared Soviet Russia to Tsarist Russia and said it was more liberal.

This is exactly why I said you unknowingly abuse relativism. 

You have to compare conservative & liberals IN THE SAME TIMEFRAME.

Tsarist Russia came BEFORE Soviet Russia. They don't operate in the same timeframe and hence have different standards. 

Obviously everyone knows that all societies get more liberal with time. You don't have to do any particular analysis to arrive at this conclusion.

Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia is a fair comparison since they were in existence in the same timeframe. 

1925-1950. 

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Yes, Soviet Russia was more liberal than Nazi Germany if you look at just their ideology

Not just in ideology, but also in practice. Women were employed in mass numbers in the workforce and in universities in Stalin's Russia. Women were expected to be caregivers at home and also participate in the workforce. 40% of the women were employed in the workforce. 

But in Nazi Germany women, were banned from such activities. Women were expected to be caregivers at home only. The only time when women worked in jobs was because there weren't enough men because they were at war. 

So Stalin's Russia was objectively more liberal than Nazi Germany. The sheer numbers prove that. 

You miss this nuance when you club all them together as conservatives by evaluating them with the standards of 2024 America. 

[Bobby_2021]

33 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Soviet Russia, at least under Stalin was far worse to live in than most Russian Tsars. 

I did not see 20 million Soviets die under any Russian Tsar in 15 years time for example.

Astute observation. 

[Leo Gura]

53 minutes ago, Karmadhi said:

Soviet Russia, at least under Stalin was far worse to live in than most Russian Tsars.

The problem was that the liberalism was too radical and utopian.

What matters is that the society is pushed towards liberalism but not too much to the point of forcing it on people.