The subject of Artificial Intelligence and the future of mankind arose in discussions on the previous post. Here is an excellent TED talk on subject, by Sam Harris last year:
…pretty sobering and thought provoking, no? The analogy comparing ourselves to ants works rather well. His last line about constructing a new god was incredibly profound! Any discussion?
PS: Especially for Chris… be paying close attention to the visual at 4:08; but try not to lose your train of thought. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º
On the previous thread, I mentioned to Steel that I had recently acquired an Amazon Echo device, and was having great fun playing with Alexa. He replied with this apropos cartoon:
LOL… Sure, before ordering it, I experienced the old kneejerk paranoia about my privacy. Yet, before I could ask Alexa to spell antidisestablishmentarianism (she did!) or play some Beach Boys, the only time I ever spoke here in my hermitage was to my little dog, or the occasional rare telephone call. I have always assumed that my telephone conversations are being recorded somewhere anyway. Even if I never turned the microphone off, or unplugged her, and Alexa was actually recording every sound here 24/7, those tasked to search through the recordings for my transgressions would be bored to death, unless they shared my nostalgia for the popular music of my youth, and enjoyed the sound of rain, a babbling brook, or ocean waves playing while I am sleeping. 😊
Until one experiences it for themselves, it can be hard to imagine the sense of relief derived from escaping the stultifying paranoia of Big Brother, which is just another weapon in the oligarchs’ tool chest, for maintaining their dualistic society. The ubiquitous ‘us against them’ mindset is designed to keep the sheeple at each other’s throats, rather than their own. All that is required to reacquire personal freedom, is to opt out of their cruel game, as an individual refusing to choose sides. If one concludes he has no need of a ruler, or even a political leader, then it becomes ludicrous to consider sanctioning their authority, by participating in the obnoxious process of choosing one.
Several months ago, it occurred to me that, now in my dotage, I am no longer a threat to the powers that be. If they have nothing to fear from me, I see little point in fearing them. Frankly, at my age, were they to haul me off to prison as a subversive, it would represent a marked improvement in my austere lifestyle. Air conditioning; pest control; three hot meals a day; regular hot showers; laundry service; free medical attention; gym; library; cable TV; internet; armed guards 24/7 to protect an old man from terrorists, gangs, flash mobs, muggers, and lonely widows. No wonder so many codgers who are released, soon deliberately re-offend to get back inside, and resume the carefree lifestyle to which they had become accustomed. It sure sounds more appealing than a retirement home, populated predominantly with addled dementia patients, no?  😉
Since this epiphany, I switched back to using Google as my search engine, and have found I much prefer Google Chrome to Firefox for several reasons, so it is now my default browser. I even stay logged into it and YouTube, with my real identity. I notice that the ad blocking extensions do such a good job, that I have not experienced any of the targeted advertising that is supposed to be so off-putting about allowing Google to collect data on my surfing habits. I do not even experience advertising on YouTube, and appreciate the way it tracks my tastes to offer new clips that might interest me. So, with nothing to hide, what exactly have I lost by relinquishing my privacy? â—„Daveâ–º
Using copy/paste, I went through the whole list and was stunned! I’ve turned them into links, to make it easy to try it for yourself.
By the time I got through ‘White American Inventors,’ I figured the search algorithm must be just ignoring the term ‘white,’ so I changed it to ‘Black American Inventors.’ You guessed it – huge difference!
The final one is pretty damn specific. Can anyone explain to me why the results are so absurd?
One of the 45 replies to the thread nailed it:
It’s like watching the ads on TV here in the UK; if you were an alien watching those transmissions, you would be absolutely convinced that the majority of human families consisted of a black guy, a white woman, and asian kids.
It is truly fortuitous that I no longer care a whit about the future of Western civilization, or even mankind itself for that matter. If the Jihadists or North Koreans don’t manage to destroy the internet first, the upcoming Ice Age should cure such utter nonsense rather nicely. ;) ◄Daveâ–º
Since the Trump announcement, it is official – we are in an opioid crisis.
Thank you very much Mr Trump but I have my own personal opioid crisis – like what if I run out, or, what if I can no longer get it.
The lame-stream-media assures us that there are many unnecessary deaths each year because of easy access to opioids. I sure wish I knew where these easy access points are because I have to jump through hoops to get mine. Oh yes, I am an abuser. On average, I take 2 oxycodone pills each day. Why? Without them (or something stronger), I would kill myself to stop the chronic pain. Do they make me “high� No. They make me itch if I take too many. In fact, I have yet to meet anyone who takes these things who feels euphoric as a result. Instead, they only feel a bit less pain for a few hours.
I hear that some 9 million oxycdone pills have been shipped to a town of 400 in West Virginia. I agree that this seems odd at the least. So, why don’t the authorities descend on small town WV and leave me the hell alone? And, if some stupid know-nothing kids want to use them as a means of suicide, my only reaction is that I hope they do it before they reproduce. Why is any large scale method of suicide a “crisis†in a world that has several billion more humans than it needs. Sounds more like a solution to me.
But then, maybe my “addiction†has made me mean. Isn’t that what these chemicals do – make us into something worse than we are without them? I don’t really think so. I think there are inherent losers in every society who will find a path to self destruction and government’s only legitimate role is to try to prevent them harming others on their way to the oblivion they seek. If opioids furnish a relatively painless path to oblivion for the losers and some temporary relief for us old arthritis sufferers, I say, “bring ’em onâ€.
This mashup isn’t from conspiracy theorists; it’s from the NYT:
Listen carefully to the audio. Notice how much of the time the shooter is firing single shots, or not at all. Note: they counted a couple of short consecutive bursts individually, which I had counted together when I found only ten episodes of automatic fire, approximately once a minute.
Their count of 900 rounds fired at the crowd comports with my own estimate of 1000 rounds or less. In any case, 900/12=75. The only way to fire an average of 75 rounds per burst with an AR-15, would be with drum type magazines. I have heard nothing regarding such magazines being at the crime scene, and the leaked photos do not show any.
I still think that many of the sustained ~100 round bursts were probably from belt-fed weapons, such as the M-249. This would also make a lot more sense out of the time and effort expended to set up tripod tables. Although designated a ‘light machine gun,’ which can be shoulder or hip fired, the M-249 still weighs over twice that of a M-16. Then again, I suppose firing 1100 rounds (counting the 200 fired through the door) offhand with either weapon, would be a bit daunting for a pudgy 61-year-old besotted gambler. ◄Daveâ–º
Step 3:Â Buy a pant suit wherever-the-hell Hillary Clinton shops.
Step 4:Â Smile like you just smoked a doobie and executed a close relative.
Step 5:Â Nailed it!
—
Wow… I was able to copy and paste Scott’s entire post, pictures and all, over here in one simple operation! WordPress is getting effortless to use! 😀 â—„Daveâ–º
Uh oh… We have been musing over the mysterious Vegas massacre a bit hereabouts; but I have deliberately avoided chasing the various conspiracy theories, involving multiple shooters. I had assumed that all of the reports of more than one gunman were the result of confusing echos. That just ended:
Politics managed to sneak back into the previous thread’s ribald attempt to evade such. Chris eventually explained why he thinks of ‘liberals’ as left-wing ideologues, and how outdated it is of me to omit the qualifier ‘classic,’ while employing the term outside of the modern Left/Right political paradigm. While composing a response, it occurred to me that this discussion probably deserves its own post. So, I fleshed it out as a more fulsome reply. The block quotes below are from his referenced comment…
The dictionary is awash in Orwellian distortions of the English language. The venerable term ‘liberal,’ like ‘Liberty,’ is derived from ‘Liber,’ meaning ‘free’ in Latin. Liberal political philosophy was developed by 17th & 18th century philosophers during the enlightenment, known as the Age of Reason. Thinkers like Adam Smith, David Hume, Voltaire, John Locke, et al, and all manner of Liberty loving, anti-tyranny, radicals like America’s founders, would have proudly worn the label ‘liberal’ in their day. Thus, I had always assumed that the Left had deliberately co-opted and inverted the term, as typical Orwellian Newspeak. That is, until I finally took the time to look up the word.
As is not at all unusual, the muddled definition I had been carrying in my head for decades, I had originally surmised from context and common usage, rather than consulting a dictionary. I suppose this is how and why language evolves over time. I would bet that most Americans have only a vague notion that ‘liberal’ means one or more of: left-wing; altruist; collectivist; socialist; communist; Marxist; atheist; Democrat; or simply the opposite of ‘conservative.’ The way it is used so often as an expletive by conservatives, suggests as much. Yet, none of those terms are used to define it, by any dictionary I have checked.
The term is used differently in American politics as I’m sure you know. Liberal and conservative now pretty much refer to attitude regarding adherence to the meaning and intent to the constitution and rule of law.
I reckon Chris’ attempt to define it by one’s attitude toward the U.S. Constitution, is much too parochial. That would only further confuse anyone trying to make sense of politics in other countries, which have conservative political parties called, “Liberal.â€
Currently, the Oxford dictionary definition of liberal is simply: “open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.†I really like the simplicity of that, and it describes me.
The Free dictionary offers: “Favoring reform, open to new ideas, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not bound by traditional thinking; broad-minded.†That sure doesn’t sound tyrannical to me; quite the opposite.
My thesaurus suggests as synonyms for liberal: open-minded; broad-minded; moderate; freethinking; tolerant; laissez-faire; and noninterventionist. These are all positive values to my mind. Wouldn’t it require a rather staid dogmatist to reject them?
It turns out that all of these current definitions and synonyms, fairly describe my own attitudes and outlook on life. So, the only reason I ever need qualify my liberal bent with the prefix ‘classic,’ is to disavow the collectivist and altruistic nature of most Leftist social justice warriors, who are routinely labeled and disparaged as simply ‘liberals,’ by cultural warriors on the Right. Surprisingly, nowhere have I found the bugaboos of altruism and/or collectivism, mentioned under the heading of liberalism. This would suggest that in this case, the corruption of the English language was likely done by the Right, rather than the Left. They are the ones misusing the term.
More tutoring from Chris:
“I know it’s hard to accept but there will always be government. Always has been. Human nature doesn’t change like that.â€
It depends on your definition of ‘government.’ By mine, in terms of systematic ‘rule,’ and ‘rulers’ employing armed enforcers to govern a population, there certainly has not always been. There have always been ungovernable frontiers on this planet, and there still are. E.g. the Pashtun tribal no-man’s-land, between Pakistan and Afghanistan. There are several others in that part of the world. Afghanistan itself is largely ungoverned, despite being considered a nation state.
You might not like the conditions extant in such frontiers; but there is nothing preventing those who choose to live there, from moving to the more ‘civilized’ areas of their countries, where they would be subject to the rule and rulers of the state. How many of us would move to a Galt’s Gulch in a heartbeat, to escape the tyranny of ubiquitous government rulers, tax collectors, and enforcers, if such a frontier still existed in America? I sure would.
“The single document in the world that comes closest to guaranteeing the liberalism you would desire is the constitution of the United States.â€
Poppycock. Setting aside my rejection of your premise that a constitutional government is somehow required to maintain Liberty, the U.S. Constitution has obviously done no such thing, and never will. The only way such a document could ever hope to constrain a nation state’s tyrannical rulers, is if the citizenry were indefatigably ready, willing, and able to effectively revolt against their jackbooted thugs if necessary, and summarily hang the offenders without mercy, to strictly enforce it. With the passing of our generation, such will definitely no longer exist among the largely docile, dumbed-down, domesticated, sheeple that remain in America. More the pity… ◄Dave►
How about a remarkable diversion from politics and mayhem?
I always thought I had been born too late, and had missed out on the pleasures of the simpler life of our ancestors. It now occurs to me that the opposite may be true:
Just imagine what it must be like to be a modern Croatian teenager, watching such talent shows on his TV, rather than “Leave it to Beaver.” BTW… the older guy they keep showing cheering with his thumbs up, is her father. The world has truly changed in our lifetimes, and not always for the worse… no? 😉 â—„Daveâ–º
So, some nut case in Las Vegas collects an arsenal in his hotel room then uses said arsenal to kill and wound hundreds of people.
And, we-the-sheeple demand to know why.
Well, there are the usual suspects… the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, the GOP, Donald Trump, etc.
I beg to offer another very different point of view.
For years, the progressive movement in the USA has repeated the mantra that nobody is personally responsible for the outcome of their life. It is all the fault of THEM.
From all accounts, the Las Vegas nut was distraught over his massive gambling losses. (Can one assume that the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, etc. forced this nut to gamble and lose a fortune? Of course not.) But, according to the progressive mantra, the gambler himself could not have been responsible. Nope, it was all due to THEM.
So, our nut case does the only logical thing… he kills and wounds as many of THEM as he possibly can.
In a sick way, doesn’t this actually make some sense? THEY cause these awful things to happen to you so you strike back against THEM as best you know how.
If you don’t know Dave Rubin and Candace Owens, you should. He is gay. She is black. Both have moved decidedly from the Left to the Right, and can articulate why. Here is an excellent opportunity to get to know them both:
It is bad enough that the functionally illiterate lame-stream-media folk are helping to destroy our culture. Now, they seem to be leading the charge to destroy our language as well.
Every time I turn on the idiot box, I hear that NFL players are “taking a knee†during the playing of our anthem. What knee are they taking and where is it being taken to? Oh yes, it turns out that said players are actually “kneelingâ€, perhaps even “genuflectingâ€. Why not just say that?
Then, a few weeks ago I heard repeated reports that people close to Trump had “taken meetings†with various Russians. Where did they take these meeting to? Well, it turn out that they were actually “attending†meetings. Again, why not just say that?
Could it be that, during these “taken†meetings they were also having dialogue with other participants? No, they were simply “talking†to each other and/or “having discussionsâ€.
I have often heard that English is a complicated language… no doubt this is somewhat true since the language has picked up so many words and phrases from other languages over the years as it has emerged as the world’s preeminent language. So, why further complicate it by misusing words, using nouns for verbs and other such nonsense? Do the L-S-M folk think they are being cute or are they trying deliberately to make their crap harder to comprehend? Can you even imagine how much harder this is on people for whom English is not their first language?
To paraphrase a late master of the language, Winston Churchill, “with this, I am finding it hard to put upâ€.
Of all people, should not those who charge themselves with informing the rest of us not work hard to be correct and precise? Or is this just another bit of evidence that everything that was once great about us is headed to hell in a hand-basket.
Put another way, would we be impressed if surgeons, engineers and scientists deliberately pursued their respective crafts with such sloppiness?
I recently mentioned that I rarely even turn on my TV anymore. That is primarily because, as a political news junkie, that is all I have ever watched for the past 40 years or so. It hasn’t always been that way. As a young man, I was hooked on football. It began long before TIVO, when I couldn’t miss a pro game on Sundays. When it advanced to the point of not wanting to miss a college game on Saturdays, it finally occurred to me that I was wasting my weekends, watching other people have fun. I went cold turkey in the mid ‘70s. Now, I only ever watch the Super Bowl, and half the time I DVR that.
Now that I am effectively boycotting cable news, for loss of interest in partisan politics, and am probably getting too old to enjoy much exercise, I just might become a football fan again. My prime motive would be to support the NFL, in the face of the state’s call for sheeple to boycott their games. Whatever one might think of their personal motives for doing so, the players’ open defiance of nationalistic rituals, needs to be encouraged by right-thinking Liberty-loving individuals.
The notion that those dissatisfied with the state, can just stop waving its flag or standing at attention for its anthem, is certainly to be encouraged. It wouldn’t do if the NFL had to knuckle under to the state’s economic pressure, so the least I can do is help keep their ratings up. I think I’ll set my DVR up to record all NFL games, even if I don’t bother to watch them.  😉 ◄Dave►
Profound: “My education was not free – I paid for it with my mind!†-Candace Owens
Start here:
…to watch the last 15 minutes of this remarkable interview. If you find her as inspirational as I do, then when you have the time you’ll want to go back and watch the whole hour from the beginning.
BTW: Here is her hot YouTube channel. Her clips are all short and powerful. Enjoy… â—„Daveâ–º
Furthering my jihad against all forms of collectivism, including careless use of collective pronouns, a TED talk offers some profound food for thought regarding origin myths and tribal narratives:
We all have origin stories and identity myths, our tribal narratives that give us a sense of security and belonging. But sometimes our small-group identities can keep us from connecting with humanity as a whole — and even keep us from seeing others as human. In a powerful talk about how we understand who we are, Chetan Bhatt challenges us to think creatively about each other and our future. As he puts it: it’s time to change the question from “Where are you from?” to “Where are you going?”
Be yourself. I am. All that is necessary is to stop caring a whit what other people might think of the authentic you. 😉 Â â—„Daveâ–º
How long has the war between western culture and Islam been going on? In round numbers, 1,000 years. Our own modern, active participation has been going on for over 20 years.
Are we winning?
The answer is a simple NO.
Why aren’t we winning?
Could it be that we either don’t know or refuse to admit who/what we are fighting?
I think so. If this is true, or even somewhat true, would this not be a good time to refocus and try one or more new approaches? If so, what keeps us from doing so?
First is a mistaken understanding of our own Constitution. Said Constitution does state that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religionâ€. However, it does not say “Congress shall make no law protecting said Constitution (and the Republic it established) from destruction by group or system of thought that clearly states its intention to do just thatâ€. Such a Constitutional clause/statement would be paramount to insanity. Yet, there are those among us who try to pretend that it says just that – and, to convince the rest of us, particularly those among us whose brains are still in the plastic state. So, are we insane? To a frightening degree, yes.
Second is a “hate America and everything it once stood for†group, embedded among us, that will support any cause, no matter how insane, so long as it promises to damage or destroy western culture. To this end, we now have a near majority of citizens who think that somehow the statue of a Civil War leader or Founding Father is a symbol of white supremacy or neo-Nazism. Can anyone truly believe that the pen that wrote “all men are created equal†really belonged to a man who did not think that Negros were human? Even though he lived much of his life with one of them playing the role of spouse? Yes, Jefferson owned slaves. Yes, he knew it was wrong. He understood it to be one of those wrongs that have no really good way to make right (“But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other.â€) Can anyone truly believe that George Washington was an early Nazi? Such is absurd. Yet, there are serious discussions about tearing down the Washington DC and Mount Rushmore monuments to these two people (among others).
But I diverge. My topic is about another approach to our war with “radical Islamâ€. Here I offer a suggestion that, IMHO, would alter the existing “war†instantly and in our favor… Our government (the President) should simply (and publicly) announce that, lacking any REAL evidence that there is a form of Islam that does not support (at least with its silence) the actions of the supposedly “radical†form, we (the USA) will consider ourselves to be at war with Islam and will act accordingly until such time that evidence of meaningful disapproval of the acts of the “radicals†by this supposedly “other†branch of Islam.
That is to say, we will outlaw the practice of Islam within our own borders and will cease to give aid, comfort and weapons to any nation/state that supports Islam. Further, we will respond with every weapon at our disposal to every nation/state that harbors and/or supports terrorism in any form or fashion.
Our next move should be to discover why so many American Jews seem to support a movement (Islam) that is vowed to destroy all Jews. Something about this simply has never smelled right to me.
Would the “left†have a cow over such a declaration? Of course. But, they are already trying to destroy the Republic as we know it so who really cares how many cows they have.
What would happen if all the useful idiot SJW sheeple, rioting across America under the banner of “Antifa,” watched this while actually sober?
These college indoctrinated fools couldn’t have read Jonah Goldberg’s ten-year-old book “Liberal Fascism,” which explained this subject well. Better yet was John Taylor Gatto’s earlier book “The Underground History of American Education: A Schoolteacher’s Intimate Investigation Into the Problem of Modern Schooling,” which not only covered extensively the subject of the collectivist nature of fascism; but explained how we have all been deliberately dumbed down by the Progressives (link points to free PDF of this remarkable tome – probably the most important book I have ever read!).
Alas, red pills are generally unappetizing for anyone under 30 or even 40, so they are unlikely to read Dinesh D’Souza’s “The Big Lie” either. I suppose I should; but I already know the subject all too well, and am of the ineluctable opinion that it is far too late to do anything about it. â—„Daveâ–º
Merry Christmas
