Sociopath Community

LiYang said: 

Lil_Zero-Sum said: 

Another counter argument against the right to suicide is that if it were made acceptable, everyone would do it, except for the Jews because they are the ones behind the agenda, so that they may have their "happy” frontiers amongst themselves. Does this theory not give even more credence to Zionist thought that goyim are incapable of agency and self determination?

What are your thoughts on the matter?

 Been hearing a lot of bad about the Jews. They seem to create their own misery. Not all Jews of course. Hey all Jewish people, get your shit together and take care of this perception problem you have. Find these bad Jewish actors and correct this issue. I think this all stems from them thinking they are the "chosen people". People just don't like that kind of arrogance.

 

Did the Jews kill Charlie Kirk?

Some people dedicate their entire lives to bitching about the evil jews and how horrible the suffering is 24/7. Some jews do the same thing.

Yes, oh the world is just brimming with these many accounts of groups in which suffering is imposed upon and in which it backfires whether interiorilly like Kafka trailing the halls of various embodiements of beaurocratic entities combining and repelling all the while arguing over which minority is the most embodiment of nietzschean morality in deserving of the complete deterritorialization of itself in favor of various combinations of beaurocratic entities in return for a superior illusion of political pornography pleasure derivement amidst the horizons of death to distract from ones immediate suffering, contributing with their welfare checks to the collapse of society. Everyone wonders why we the Americans don't simply nuke China? Because America's politicians have too many foreign love affairs to deal with the lack of the correct dissolving of potlatch foreign bribes to correct the collapse civilizations and justify the expenditure of corpses well enough to the public despite already being desensitized to carnage as even societal amnesia becomes lacking the competence to create new and beautiful statues to serve the embodiment of freedom. More reasons to support voluntary euthanasia.

Turncoat said: 

Dragoonback said: 

Turncoat said: 

I feel like offering everyone the choice will fix our population problem. 

 We do not have a population problem. 

Tell that to The Rainforest. 

 David Pearce has some interesting ideas on how to deal with the brutality of wild animals, such as bioengineering predators into not requiring prey to exist and subsisting on vegetarian diets, to preserve human attachment to the "beauty" of various forms of species for viewing pleasure. Perhaps deforestation would help with the suffering in the Rainforest as the animals are constantly brutally slaughtering one another in a myriad of formats.

Turncoat said: 

Tell that to The Rainforest. 

 Nothing good lasts forever. If anything I wish the disgusting Rainforest gets paved over more. 

Lil_Zero-Sum said:

Perhaps deforestation would help with the suffering in the Rainforest as the animals are constantly brutally slaughtering one another in a myriad of formats.

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. Life is just a cycle of suffering and control. A huge scam basically. Even the "strong" become their own weakness due to decay and other flaws that can only grow with the inevitability of fate.

Lil_Zero-Sum said: 

 Well, you support abortion yet support the industry in which baby animals are slaughtered. Also if your issue is primarily coming from consent, not reduction of suffering itself, the fetus, like the baby animal in the crowded factory farm huddling amongst the warmest corpse it can find amidst the other corpses in some cases as it slowly succumbs to a meaningless death as the consumer is advertised visions of a farm from paradise and cheap slogans to separate the consumer from the source of the pain which would be intolerable and unmarketable, has no voice to say once it has begun to develop whether or not it wants to be killed and have its stem cells sold to pharmeceutical companies anyway. Rape is obviously a grey area here, as a fully formed adult human has the capacity to suffer more than a fetus in any stage; the resolution may be that the mother will choose abortion. However, the best way to prevent the harm of existence is to not feed the gateway womb to the meatgrinder torture of sentience in the first place.

I wouldn't say I really support that industry beyond eating meat. It's also a fact that having children increases that same consumption by a lot, so me not having kids already reduced those numbers and potential numbers greatly. The exploitation potential of a grown person is also greater (including incurring further pregnancies) than the stem cell exploitation which is actually not always used and sometimes successfully banned.

Dragoonback said: 

Turncoat said: 

Tell that to The Rainforest. 

 Nothing good lasts forever. If anything I wish the disgusting Rainforest gets paved over more. 

Lil_Zero-Sum said:

Perhaps deforestation would help with the suffering in the Rainforest as the animals are constantly brutally slaughtering one another in a myriad of formats.

Yeah that's exactly what I'm saying. Life is just a cycle of suffering and control. A huge scam basically. Even the "strong" become their own weakness due to decay and other flaws that can only grow with the inevitability of fate.

 

Lil_Zero-Sum said: 

 Well, you support abortion yet support the industry in which baby animals are slaughtered. Also if your issue is primarily coming from consent, not reduction of suffering itself, the fetus, like the baby animal in the crowded factory farm huddling amongst the warmest corpse it can find amidst the other corpses in some cases as it slowly succumbs to a meaningless death as the consumer is advertised visions of a farm from paradise and cheap slogans to separate the consumer from the source of the pain which would be intolerable and unmarketable, has no voice to say once it has begun to develop whether or not it wants to be killed and have its stem cells sold to pharmeceutical companies anyway. Rape is obviously a grey area here, as a fully formed adult human has the capacity to suffer more than a fetus in any stage; the resolution may be that the mother will choose abortion. However, the best way to prevent the harm of existence is to not feed the gateway womb to the meatgrinder torture of sentience in the first place.

I wouldn't say I really support that industry beyond eating meat. It's also a fact that having children increases that same consumption by a lot, so me not having kids already reduced those numbers and potential numbers greatly. The exploitation potential of a grown person is also greater (including incurring further pregnancies) than the stem cell exploitation which is actually not always used and sometimes successfully banned.

 Well, yes but inherent within this negative-utilitarian based consequentialist framework regarding suffering focused ethics... we encounter the issues of like paving roads over the rainforest, which would may require more human lives being forced into sentient suffering but with advancement of AI, it's possible the AI could do this. Replace the rainforest with more factory farms? Is this more or less suffering, more research needs to be done in these areas because it's hard to really factor in the amount of suffering actually occuring in a rainforest. Like mosquitoes causing malaria and tons of diseases, though I'm kind of agnostic about insect suffering like how do we determine how much entire colonies of mosquitoes really suffer. Gene-drives making mosquitoes only produce males is a way to reduce suffering caused by mosquitoes but then we run into an issue of an over-population of mosquito prey animals inflicting harm and disruption of the eco-system further. If there was a way to safely euthanize the rainforest population and deforrestation with the guarantee that it simply be replaced with uninhabited ghost cities or something, as opposed to skyscrapers of pigs or even dogs in cages which were removed from the country's livestock catalogue and reclassified as pets recently because of a celebrity outrage, ghost cities or something may be "ideal." Dunno.

Lil_Zero-Sum said: 

 Well, yes but inherent within this negative-utilitarian based consequentialist framework regarding suffering focused ethics... we encounter the issues of like paving roads over the rainforest, which would may require more human lives being forced into sentient suffering but with advancement of AI, it's possible the AI could do this. Replace the rainforest with more factory farms? Is this more or less suffering, more research needs to be done in these areas because it's hard to really factor in the amount of suffering actually occuring in a rainforest. Like mosquitoes causing malaria and tons of diseases, though I'm kind of agnostic about insect suffering like how do we determine how much entire colonies of mosquitoes really suffer. Gene-drives making mosquitoes only produce males is a way to reduce suffering caused by mosquitoes but then we run into an issue of an over-population of mosquito prey animals inflicting harm and disruption of the eco-system further. If there was a way to safely euthanize the rainforest population and deforrestation with the guarantee that it simply be replaced with uninhabited ghost cities or something, as opposed to skyscrapers of pigs or even dogs in cages which were removed from the country's livestock catalogue and reclassified as pets recently because of a celebrity outrage, ghost cities or something may be "ideal." Dunno.

 I don't know if building vertically would be as necessary. A lot of the stopping of painful and pointless natural cycles comes from horizontal structures. Stuff like data centers are good at taking up resources.

Do you think they are applying AI to more than their own code?  There's a whole supporting infrastructure which might be vulnerable to recursive self-improvement.  Why not even throw the whole process into the optimization-machine: consult the Oracle on its best strategy with classified information, diplomatic and economic strategy regarding China.  Do you think it's only a zero-sum game out there?  Or is this a stage, a transition?

Data-centers to improve compute for systems to optimize their resources-to-output performance.  They're already optimizing "tokens", agents are more common strategy.  It's just hard to say if this is headed to some worthwhile breakthrough or find a hard limit we'll grind at the expense of every other necessity.  Why not throw this problem at the AI too?

Buttered Toast said: 

Do you think they are applying AI to more than their own code?  There's a whole supporting infrastructure which might be vulnerable to recursive self-improvement.  Why not even throw the whole process into the optimization-machine: consult the Oracle on its best strategy with classified information, diplomatic and economic strategy regarding China.  Do you think it's only a zero-sum game out there?  Or is this a stage, a transition?

Data-centers to improve compute for systems to optimize their resources-to-output performance.  They're already optimizing "tokens", agents are more common strategy.  It's just hard to say if this is headed to some worthwhile breakthrough or find a hard limit we'll grind at the expense of every other necessity.  Why not throw this problem at the AI too?

 Alright, hear me out: Imagine you're stuck in China in a prisoner of war camp. It's 1953 or some shit, all your friends have just gone missing and the guards come by to give you strange bread made from rice every once in a while paired with tea reserved for the impoverished class. You've learned to appreciate the sound of the constant gong outside that signifies distress and psychological terror for the sake of maintaining your sanity. Alright, there's a computer terminal buzzing in the corner. Due to receiving constant shocks every time you do anything other than read indoctrination materials or work the fields, you cannot touch the computer.

Now in the present... the I-ching knows what you're going to do before you even go to consult it. Literally no point in even bothering because you already know what the result is going to be anyway. Try creating an entirely new oracle from the decomposing corpses in the Shenzen junkyard of hobbyist mechanical hackers and steal some AI researcher's robotic talking human head even, the bodies are spilling out with wires as they've resorted to eating the giant rats which have been eating the plastic from the decomposing infrastrucutre of motor bikes, surveillance drones, and an infinite amount of superior replications of western handheld electronic aesthetic preferences causing worst outbreak of uncontainable hyper-resistant zootonic diseases known to history.

But, AI is in a safe zone where each network of billionaires or hobbyists have containerized spheres of their AI for whatever ends. Social credit score min-maxing for societal control, calculated effects on warfare manoeuvre possibilities and resulting perceptions and micromanaging impacts for resource dominion (corpses).

Dragoonback said: 

Lil_Zero-Sum said: 

 Well, yes but inherent within this negative-utilitarian based consequentialist framework regarding suffering focused ethics... we encounter the issues of like paving roads over the rainforest, which would may require more human lives being forced into sentient suffering but with advancement of AI, it's possible the AI could do this. Replace the rainforest with more factory farms? Is this more or less suffering, more research needs to be done in these areas because it's hard to really factor in the amount of suffering actually occuring in a rainforest. Like mosquitoes causing malaria and tons of diseases, though I'm kind of agnostic about insect suffering like how do we determine how much entire colonies of mosquitoes really suffer. Gene-drives making mosquitoes only produce males is a way to reduce suffering caused by mosquitoes but then we run into an issue of an over-population of mosquito prey animals inflicting harm and disruption of the eco-system further. If there was a way to safely euthanize the rainforest population and deforrestation with the guarantee that it simply be replaced with uninhabited ghost cities or something, as opposed to skyscrapers of pigs or even dogs in cages which were removed from the country's livestock catalogue and reclassified as pets recently because of a celebrity outrage, ghost cities or something may be "ideal." Dunno.

 I don't know if building vertically would be as necessary. A lot of the stopping of painful and pointless natural cycles comes from horizontal structures. Stuff like data centers are good at taking up resources.

 Listen, data centers cause another assortment of issues such as draining every nearby body of water or water transportation issues which lead to more suffering in the aquatic species and loss of available water supply for civilization basal consumption etc. Also these data centers are powering AI which I'm kind of agnostic about the full impacts of AI on suffering. Spatial mind thinks that AI is a good thing and he supports a lot of other things that probably lead to suffering like the separation of church and state should be enforced and it's an issue otherwise causing people to be stupid and gullible. But, we have to extricate this from the other principles he's supporting and think about AI itself and its problems and impacts. Like I can think of 10 thousand things right now that AI causes suffering in extensive detail, and I can go on with several pages and pages of text about it. I can use AI to generate its own complications regarding ethics. AI ethics itself is a completely impossible feat, aside from having a one world government.

Athough yes, horizontal construction methods of ghost cities would be more optimal to take up territory against wildlife suffering

Lil_Zero-Sum said: 

.

 Listen, data centers cause another assortment of issues such as draining every nearby body of water or water transportation issues which lead to more suffering in the aquatic species and loss of available water supply for civilization basal consumption etc. Also these data centers are powering AI which I'm kind of agnostic about the full impacts of AI on suffering. Spatial mind thinks that AI is a good thing and he supports a lot of other things that probably lead to suffering like the separation of church and state should be enforced and it's an issue otherwise causing people to be stupid and gullible. But, we have to extricate this from the other principles he's supporting and think about AI itself and its problems and impacts. Like I can think of 10 thousand things right now that AI causes suffering in extensive detail, and I can go on with several pages and pages of text about it. I can use AI to generate its own complications regarding ethics. AI ethics itself is a completely impossible feat, aside from having a one world government.

Athough yes, horizontal construction methods of ghost cities would be more optimal to take up territory against wildlife suffering

 I stated  in Dragoon's thread titled....I'm Happy About Ai...I mention how Ai has a dark side, and included it's energy consumption and what it'll mean for jobs.

How all great things are great on both polarities.

As for cooling, it'll use a lot of fresh water, though water does self recycle. Will it dry up an entire lake ? Doubt it. Some water will saturate and fall from the sky.

Do I like Ai ? Yes. I think X-Ai plans on building a data center in space. Probably cause it's cold. That would slash environmental concerns so complainers can give the tree hugging a break. For now hydro electric would be best.

Judging by your history, it doesn't surprise me you'll focus on the bleak side of the matter.

.

.

.

As for the separation of Church and State, we're talking about the US here. A secular Republic with Christian inspired laws.

Is the Church separated from the states ? I'd say that depends on who's in power. If it's there or not wouldn't change anything.

I said not long ago how Atheism is a faith too. Based on doubt and how the laws of physics were violated just once to create energy space and matter from absolute nothing, no time no space.

The atheist can be an atheist in a Christian inspired nation, with laws to practice whatever faith you want. You probably want that freedom gone though.

There are athiests that recognize great wisdom in scriptures. Values and principals that are sound. Some don't see it that way, while showcasing no alternatives.

Would it be worse to be governed and dominated by an AI, rather than a human?

Jada said: 

Would it be worse to be governed and dominated by an AI, rather than a human?

 Ai yes

AGI positively yes

ASI Absolutely. Not even on Mars.

Ai must remain a servant to humans.

In the case of an extinction level event. After a period of silence and the coast is clear. There's should be Ai examining the Earth from space. Deploy payloads of solar powered charge stations and robotics to search for survivors after the apocalypse with the goal to set up communities and strategies to rebuild.

If the world turned into Mad Max, the rails musn't even govern a member of some radical gang.