LimpyLoo

I came to Alien^3 as a huge Roc/Charles S. Dutton fan And since Charles S Dutton was in it, I was not disappointed

Doublename Doublenamerson

Yeah but he's a double-namer, and double-namers are sketchy as fuck Like mate, what are you hiding with that double-name?

I don't trust a composer whose last name is just a variation of his first name. (Robbie Robertson and Kris Kristopherson are also highly suspect imo)

The ptsd vets are the ones with the oxy/heroin habits But either way...this is what happens when society's decisions aren't tethered to empirical findings You get some politician's moralistic gut-feeling deciding policy

Withdrawal sweats?Yeah I've been sweating through my clothes and sheets nonstop for 3 days I get that if I drink too heavily over the weekend. I used to get seizures as well but those have stopped. Props for getting clean, keep that momentum! Thx! (But you've got me worrying about you, now)

Withdrawal sweats? Yeah I've been sweating through my clothes and sheets nonstop for 3 days

I'm on day 3 of no opiates. (It's been...shit, years and years I guess.) I feel amazing. (I don't smell amazing though lol)

I've got my birthday hat to keep me company.

Great book by a great thinker However, the general AI conversation is rife with blind spots Everyone seems to assume that if you just create a smart brain and give it some senses, all of its beliefs about the world will naturally be 100% true, and it will thus act like economists used to think humans acted pre-Behavioral Economics (i.e. with perfect and complete information, perfect rationality, perfect self-control and perfect regard for their future) Well, no AI will be susceptible to superstition and mental illness Because those things aren't uniquely human Rather, they emerge as a result of limited information about the environment Coupled with preferences/motivational states and personality Why did Skinner's pigeon exhibit superstition when you punished (or rewarded) it in random intervals? Well, it's not because pigeons are stupid Imagine what it would require for the pigeon to have accurate beliefs about its situation: it would have to understand Skinner's mind, and whatever randomness generator he was using to dole out random punishments This probably sounds daft, but AIs will suffer trauma (The potential for trauma emerges simply from having preferences) AIs will have delusions (delusions are simply 'pigeon superstition' in the face of limited information about the environment) AIs will display OCD and PTSD Because these things are not uniquely human They are emergent properties of simply having preferences

... Since what you're quoting there is the second part --- What does that mean? 1) I am officially lost 2) it means we're trying to figure out what the hell we're talking about

I agree with this and I gotta retract that remark I made that merely consuming content is harmless - because as Limpy said it helps normalize certain opinions and attitudes and could be the start of a slippery slope, yadda yadda - but at the end of the day the best you can do is just discuss the vids in a way that pulls people into your way of thinking and away from Sam's, a goal which a 30 post tirade is certainly not going to accomplish. There's also the problem that plenty people here are already predisposed to disagree with limpy cause of previous posting history, etc - and at one point, if you just keep posting and not pulling people to your 'side', you're accomplishing the opposite, which is to make people dismiss points they would have otherwise accepted and I'm not saying you should stop posting; just saying that if the current way you're approaching this is making people go "just shut up already" maybe you should change your approach You should read my posts from 2-3 pages ago Because I was explicitly preaching the opposite of what you think I am

Okay well that's the best I can do then.

No, it was: Me and you aren't talking about the same Span post, it seems. I'm not exactly advocating that we ignore Sam Hyde. I think the solution is (as usual) merely to have a decent model of whatever it is we're talking about so we can make good decisions about it, and also so when we talk about it we're talking about whatever it actually is, and in as high a resolution as possible.

I think you're getting at one of the most problematic things about this type of stuff - lots of us do feel that way, and that's why we can laugh at it. But others think that the punchline is "______ are not human" because they sincerely hate them. And it does seem ridiculous but there really are people like this... lots of them.I want to reiterate that people aren't always aware of what they believe. Racist people, for example, don't consciously think "I hate black people." Maybe 10% of racist people have thoughts like that. So the problem isn't people watching something and thinking "haha this is funny because I hate Jews." I don't think beliefs work like that. I think people adopt norms and patterns of behavior from culture by osmosis. (The classic example is always that you never consciously decided to buy into the tradition of having a Christmas tree every year, you're just enacting a pattern of behavior you unconsciously absorbed from your culture) That's probably also a good point, although I'm not aware of anyone acting like Sam Hyde just because he's not, uh, "cool", right? It seems to me like part of his shtick is that he's kind of a gross dude. Or... are there people who actually emulate him? Also, I personally haven't purchased a Christmas tree in years! I don't think we first evaluate people on their coolness per se and then decide whether to emulate them. I think we decide people are 'cool' almost as an afterthought, because they embody some aspect of our own predicament(s) and seem to have a better strategy for it than we do.

Well I disagreed with the premise of the beginning of Span's post. His premise (if I'm not mistaken) is that we need to be strong enough in our convictions and beliefs to not be taken in by (e.g.) Neo-Nazism. While that's definitely partly true, I'm arguing that beliefs aren't (merely) cognitive. Here's the Rationalist idea of beliefs: Your rationality is like a bouncer at a bar, and bad ideas are like obnoxious drunk people, and as long as the bouncer knows what he's doing then everything's fine Well, again, how many of your behavioral habits have you applied your rationality to? Do you use your rationality to decide whether to bite your fingernails or not? I think it's much more accurate to conceptualize racism (etc) as patterns of behavior...rather than as logical beliefs, or cognitive software, or worldviews, or any of this

I think you're getting at one of the most problematic things about this type of stuff - lots of us do feel that way, and that's why we can laugh at it. But others think that the punchline is "______ are not human" because they sincerely hate them. And it does seem ridiculous but there really are people like this... lots of them. I want to reiterate that people aren't always aware of what they believe. Racist people, for example, don't consciously think "I hate black people." Maybe 10% of racist people have thoughts like that. So the problem isn't people watching something and thinking "haha this is funny because I hate Jews." I don't think beliefs work like that. I think people adopt norms and patterns of behavior from culture by osmosis. (The classic example is always that you never consciously decided to buy into the tradition of having a Christmas tree every year, you're just enacting a pattern of behavior you unconsciously absorbed from your culture)

Maybe we need to strengthen our defences (powers of reason) against Neo-Nazism if all it takes to normalise it is people like Sam Hyde influencing us - but then, I think Zizek's answer works - that if you take these kind of people on in an argument, you have already lost because they are determining the terms of the argument. Better that we see Neo Nazis as laughable idiots. I don't think Sam Hyde is a Neo-Nazi although he - at least identifies himself as - a right winger, but if you want to repudiate his position, maybe better to stop taking him seriously, and see him for what he really is? But then, I'm not sure I understand who he really is Not taking Nazism seriously didn't work out too well the first time And even worse than that: the idea that Nazism initially won out the first time *wasn't* because everyone (or even most people) were Nazis: 1) Many of the people carrying out the actual horrors weren't committed Nazis, they were just normal law-enforcement/military folks who didn't wanna abandon their cohorts, and/or were simply given impossible choices.,. 2) I actually think you could have a society that acts out Nazism without any individual person actually consciously holding Nazi beliefs...the reason being that beliefs aren't merely cognitive constructs like we usually take them to be...rather, people act out destructive patterns all the time whose causes and consequences are completely hidden from them...e.g. you can have 4Channers en masse sending death threats and pictures of gas chambers to Jewish journalists, and they might go their whole life thinking that any harm that came was the result of the over-sensitive journalist...you push that far enough and you get 'Hated in the Nation' where society is murderous/genocidal, but any given individual is not

What's that old Greek/Latin/Roman saying? "I came, I saw, I didn't like what I saw so I killed myself" something like that anyway

Yeah totally. Just to be clear: I listen to right-of-center opinions all the time (And occasionally agree with them) But I am fucking grossed out by how cozy folks like Sam are with (actual literal) white supremacists and Neo-Nazis (This I why I don't laugh at Sam's David Duke jokes) Like, I think one big problem we're experiencing right now is that many people think that civilization is way less fragile than it actually is, and that outside of politics proper nothing is high-stakes. Well, how do think Neo-Nazism gets normalized throughout a population? Well it looks to me like the answer is through the propagation of 'harmless' culture (how else could it?). Haha I somehow missed these posts last night

You could say that about almost anyone saying almost anything, almost anytime. For instance: Why did you bother to post that response, Span? I mean hey it's not gonna change the world, and the universe is ultimately gonna go cold and die, so what's even the point? Let's all just mass suicide because of the meaninglessness of it all.

I don't think I'm being an asshole (for once in my life) I am bummed that you think so, though

If you think I'm wrong, you should point out where exactly I'm wrong Because "please" is not a convincing argument

Oh sweet jesus lol

Tough crowd