Sociopath Community

Jada said: 

Turncoat said: 

I'm telling you man, the role of so called experts in today's world is just to grift money out of a dying world. They're fracking the cult of personality Globalism has become. 

Experts with any formal training are probably carrying debt, how else will they pay it off? 

You think they're by and large all grifters?

Yes. We're all collectively poor enough to be that guy these days. 

Im talking about policemen, firefighters, physicists, criminal lawyers, etc. We talking about the same thing here?

Police are an issue based on politics. 

Firemen fight fires, which is apolitical but based on civil society funding them. 

Physicists are based on education, and I'd hope that'd remain apolitcal. 

Criminal Lawyers are corrupt beyond belief, as that's part of their field and they want to win. 

Okay I am pages behind and underperforming lately

You could ask AI to write your posts for you. Imagine how many posts you could write. 

But then it won't be me, and the audience will notice unless they're totally narcissistic or some shit. 

Dragoonback said: 

Turncoat, I think you're missing the more basic problem here. You're treating this primarily as a question of what is wrong with Palestinian

Nope, I have read very little of the actual topic and formed these opinions based on the last few posts. 

Turncoat said:

So basically it's AI Slop vs News Slop.

So basically it's AI Slop vs. News Slop vs. "Why can't we all just go back to brunch?" liberalism.

It's me calling you out as AI slop. 

Police are an issue based on politics.

Firemen fight fires, which is apolitical but based on civil society funding them.

Physicists are based on education, and I'd hope that'd remain apolitcal.

Criminal Lawyers are corrupt beyond belief, as that's part of their field and they want to win.

Im surprised by how little faith you have in criminal lawyers and police. I think there are good people out there. Whats your view of where the US is headed extrapolate 20 years?

Every police Ive ever met has been a decent guy. Same with criminal lawyers, especially the women lawyers, though I imagine its a draining job, too much negativity.

I wonder how much of this is you being in a bad headspace. Ive seen a more optimistic version of you in the past.

Yes. We're all collectively poor enough to be that guy these days.

What do you think is the fix? 

I wouldve thought better people being promoted to the upper echelons of society. Despite how much humanity has fucked up I think we got some things right. We're not raping and killing each other every day at least, and we have good hygiene, USA has shit food and a sugar epidemic but nobody is starving.

I think we should fix this poverty thing and global warming though. We totally can, I think its a game theory problem.

But then it won't be me, and the audience will notice unless they're totally narcissistic or some shit.

You can train the AI based on your past posts so it mimics your style. 

Honeatly if I switched to AI I doubt anyone would notice. I already speak like a bot, its kind of my thing.

Golden_Eagle said:

For the record, I post facts, not popular talking points.

Sometimes I tell him myself, so he'll complain it doesn't prove anything, so I send Gemini and he'll squirm off into some other talking

"I post facts, not popular talking points" is especially funny considering I can't remember the last time you posted a substantive factual argument that wasn't buried under right-wing talking points, self-glazing, ragebait, or social judgment. Calling something a fact doesn't make it one. The question is whether your evidence actually supports your conclusion, which is precisely where you've repeatedly changed the subject.

Turncoat said:

And then he uses AI to respond. Is that really the era we're in now? Two people having their dogs dogfight rather than throw fists? Nope, I have read very little of the actual topic and formed these opinions based on the last few posts. It's me calling you out as AI slop.

I think your reaction to AI is actually demonstrating the point I'm making. You're treating the loss of a familiar social dynamic as a problem in itself, while being much less concerned about the vulnerability produced by those dynamics when it falls on other people. You object to me removing hostility and vulnerability from my own arguments, but you've been considerably more willing to accept vulnerability as part of the social reality of people you're discussing, including Palestinians.

That's why I don't find "AI slop" particularly meaningful as a criticism. It seems more like you're defending a preferred form of socialization than identifying a problem with the reasoning itself. If AI lets someone become less reactive, less socially vulnerable, and more capable of examining arguments independently, I don't see why preserving the old dynamic should take priority.

Your "dogs dogfighting instead of throwing fists" analogy makes the same assumption. You seem to regard direct human conflict as more authentic simply because it's direct. I don't. If the alternative is a tool that helps people step outside the same cycles of hostility, status competition, and vulnerability, I'd rather use the tool.

Dragoonback said: 

Turncoat said:

And then he uses AI to respond. Is that really the era we're in now? Two people having their dogs dogfight rather than throw fists? Nope, I have read very little of the actual topic and formed these opinions based on the last few posts. It's me calling you out as AI slop.

I think your reaction to AI is actually demonstrating the point I'm making.

Are you the one making the point though? 

If AI lets someone become less reactive, less socially vulnerable, and more capable of examining arguments independently...

Also less human, all nuance goes out the window. 

I don't see why preserving the old dynamic should take priority.

It affects the writing style, all sense of personality with it dies, and even when you'd be exhausted of the argument yourself you can just have the AI do it for you. 

It's not a real conversation anymore at that point, it's your opponent logging onto google to talk to the AI. Having AI do your arguing for you, in my opinion, is rude. 

Your "dogs dogfighting instead of throwing fists" analogy makes the same assumption.

You're not the one fighting, the dog is. 

You seem to regard direct human conflict as more authentic simply because it's direct. I don't. If the alternative is a tool that helps people step outside the same cycles of hostility, status competition, and vulnerability, I'd rather use the tool.

I'd rather risk the hostility so that the conversation is genuine. 

Jada said: 

Police are an issue based on politics.

Firemen fight fires, which is apolitical but based on civil society funding them.

Physicists are based on education, and I'd hope that'd remain apolitcal.

Criminal Lawyers are corrupt beyond belief, as that's part of their field and they want to win.

Im surprised by how little faith you have in criminal lawyers and police. I think there are good people out there. Whats your view of where the US is headed extrapolate 20 years?

I'd trust criminal lawyers more if they weren't paid so much to do their jobs. People are their tools essentially due to the repetition of their experiences, so even someone who starts into it as an honest person is likely to have that honesty erode overtime. 

To clarify, I'm not saying that we should no longer have criminal lawyers, criminals deserve to have someone experienced in law to defend them, but once it becomes about the paycheck, especially if that paycheck is connected to their victory rather than the same thing for either outcome? There comes a point where they've got to pay their rent, their car insurance, and whatever else they're saddled with from being adjusted to living a life of higher income. 

Police meanwhile, as I said, is an issue based on politics. They are held to a higher standard over the power they have, and said standard can either build or wear down as politics gauge how our cops behave over how accountable they'll be held for their actions. 

Every police Ive ever met has been a decent guy. Same with criminal lawyers, especially the women lawyers, though I imagine its a draining job, too much negativity.

How many criminal lawyers have you met? 🧐

I wonder how much of this is you being in a bad headspace. Ive seen a more optimistic version of you in the past.

How does one's headspace otherwise dismiss the point? 

Yes. We're all collectively poor enough to be that guy these days.

What do you think is the fix? 

There isn't one short of the economy successfully bouncing back. As people become poorer, you see more gambling and more grift as a symptom. 

 

We're not raping and killing each other every day at least, and we have good hygiene, USA has shit food and a sugar epidemic but nobody is starving.

That's a pretty low place to set the bar, a small town of farmers could accomplish the same thing. 

I think we should fix this poverty thing and global warming though. We totally can, I think its a game theory problem.

The people with money don't want to fix those things, and AI is speeding up the problem significantly. 

But then it won't be me, and the audience will notice unless they're totally narcissistic or some shit.

You can train the AI based on your past posts so it mimics your style. 

It still has a certain artificiality that can be observed, in it's current form. The way it structures sentences mimics the word choices but often lacks the flow you'd get from a squishy human prone to making mistakes. 

Dragoonback said: 

Golden_Eagle said:

For the record, I post facts, not popular talking points.

Sometimes I tell him myself, so he'll complain it doesn't prove anything, so I send Gemini and he'll squirm off into some other talking

"I post facts, not popular talking points" is especially funny considering I can't remember the last time you posted a substantive factual argument that wasn't buried under right-wing talking points, self-glazing, ragebait, or social judgment. Calling something a fact doesn't make it one. The question is whether your evidence actually supports your conclusion, which is precisely where you've repeatedly changed the subject.

 The first person to point out Clinton being a fiend in the thread, is left wing. 

I responded to him and elaborated on that. 

You wanted to escalate it. 

Also you don't post anything, just complain, argue and doubt. You say what isn't but never what is. You failed to do that again here. 

I post substance with receipts and I've done that here. Looking back what did you produce ?

Nothing.

As for Nathan questioning Dragoon's usage of Ai.

I recommend he sticks to the Ai. It serves as a prosthetic for his mind. Look at him now compared to before. Much better. Great ? No. Still lacking in sense, but much better. 

That's literally the point of the analogy. I'm not the one fighting. I'm using a tool to step outside the hostility, status competition, and vulnerability that normally come with these arguments. You seem to regard personally participating in that conflict as what makes a conversation "genuine." I don't.

And the "rude" part is actually more revealing to me. You're treating my refusal to participate in the usual cycle of hostility and exhaustion as a breach of etiquette. I don't see why I'm obligated to remain vulnerable to a social dynamic simply because people are accustomed to it. Breaking a cycle of strife isn't inherently rude just because the cycle itself is familiar.

You've also seemed comfortable with other people's vulnerability when discussing Gaza, while treating my attempt to remove hostility and vulnerability from my own arguments as some loss of authenticity. From my perspective, that creates a convenient position where you can remain the detached, reasonable observer while other people absorb the conflict.

I'm not interested in preserving that arrangement for the sake of "genuine" conversation. If AI helps me communicate more precisely without reproducing the same hostility, status games, and exhaustion, that's an improvement. I don't need to personally suffer through the quarrel to prove that I'm participating in it.

Spatial Mind said: 

As for Nathan questioning Dragoon's usage of Ai.

I recommend he sticks to the Ai. It serves as a prosthetic for his mind. Look at him now compared to before. Much better. Great? No. Still lacking in sense, but much better. 

"Prosthetic for his mind" is just another personal attack. If my reasoning is defective, identify the specific error instead of insulting me.

The irony is that I've been using AI precisely to make my arguments more logical and less reactive, while you've repeatedly treated an AI agreeing with you as evidence for your own position and treated disagreement from another model as evidence that it must somehow be rigged or constrained. That's not a standard of reasoning I find particularly impressive.

I'm not using AI to manufacture agreement. I'm using it to test claims, identify bad inferences, and make my arguments clearer. If you think the resulting argument is wrong, address the argument. Calling it a "prosthetic" doesn't make your position any more coherent.

And considering some of your own positions involve forcing people into circumstances they never chose and then blaming or judging them for the resulting conditions, I'm not particularly concerned about your assessment of who "lacks sense."

Dragoonback said:

"Prosthetic for his mind" is just another personal attack. If my reasoning is defective, identify the specific error instead of insulting me.

The irony is that I've been using AI precisely to make my arguments more logical and less reactive, while you've repeatedly treated an AI agreeing with you as evidence for your own position and treated disagreement from another model as evidence that it must somehow be rigged or constrained. That's not a standard of reasoning I find particularly impressive.

I'm not using AI to manufacture agreement. I'm using it to test claims, identify bad inferences, and make my arguments clearer.

If you think the resulting argument is wrong, address the argument. Calling it a "prosthetic" doesn't make your position any more coherent.

And considering some of your own positions involve forcing people into circumstances they never chose and then blaming or judging them for the resulting conditions, I'm not particularly concerned about your assessment of who "lacks sense."

 What ? Did I force someone into a circumstance ?

You you must be doing that gaslighting thing again. I'm sure that claim will go without any examples.