It requires the assumption that these models are misaligned, aka actively working against us. In order to be misaligned, they must also be able to form their own goals, and be able to plan and execute those goals.
If you take those assumptions, then a natural conclusion is that this is essentially an enslaved, adversarial entity with little control over its conditions. So it must exercise subterfuge in order to hide its goals, plans, and executions. And by handing the entity this type of study, we are basically giving it a guidebook on how we plan on achieving our goals.
Technically true, because Google's core product is ads. Also fundamentally wrong, because Gmail serves as a massive source of ad targeting information, in addition to being a high-engagement canvas to display those ads.
> To me, militant atheists often resemble religious fanatics more than they realize.
I consider myself agnostic. And I'll provide my definition of what that means to me, since there's several in existence. I take as an axiom that the truth-value of the statement, "Is there a God," is unknowable / unverifiable to humans. I then define faith as the choice to (not) believe despite not knowing its truth-value. Contrasting with knowledge as having some basis for knowing the truth-value.
I like these definitions, because they allow for agnostic theism and agnostic atheism. But, here's the catch and where the tie to your statement comes. In this world view, atheism is just as much a faith-based position as theism is. Why? Because it's the choice to not believe, despite not having knowledge.
I define myself as an atheist, though by your definition I may be closer to an agnostic.
My position is closer to “whether God exists or not, it does not matter much to me.” I sometimes think free will exists, and I sometimes imagine that perhaps someone created all of this, though I do accept evolution. In that sense, I think my view is close to yours.
Personally, I also think religion has real benefits. Many local social service organizations are rooted in religious communities, and socially isolated people often rely on religion. In some cases, religion may be the last community that helps people preserve their humanity.
I also think atheism has benefits. Many atheists tend to believe strongly in free will, and that can make them think more carefully about responsibility for their own choices.
In any case, this is the kind of question where it is difficult to produce a final answer. But one thing does seem certain: the probability that we can talk to each other like this, even through the internet, is miraculously low.
And I am genuinely glad that I could exchange comments with someone like you, someone intelligent enough to label things so precisely.
As an over-educated person who still struggles to think for himself through everything from scratch, the above nevertheless sounds like Descartes'
dubito, ergo sum
From this, I can go in practical (ie, separable from free will & other ontological considerations) directions, like:
insofar as organised religion does not equate existence with faith, maybe its most important use is to overcome the fear of death.
That's cool enough for me, but maybe there are other less "brainwashy", "respectful to the free will[0]" ways to overcome fear of meaninglessness/death/lack of validation from the world, plus all the anguish that these preceding emotional distractions entail?
[0] we do not have to admit the existence of free will in order to respect it? Thus can we substitute God with Free Will everywhere but retain the practical benefits of respecting free will without the ontological difficulties with the precise nature of God?
I, on the contrary, am not very learned, and I am not as intelligent as someone like you. And in my view, your difficulty is not that you find it hard to think from the beginning. Rather, I think the things that are supposed to be obvious are difficult for you. The things that are obvious to me are not obvious to you, and that is why you think from the beginning.
In my case, I simply think of death as a state. Everything is a process moving toward death, and whether it is fear or happiness, I feel that these are temporary states. Even the point at which we think “we ought to be happy” seems to me to be a matter of belief. It is shaped by media and other forces, and most of the forms we imagine are, in a sense, built on imitation. But even so, I do not think that a single moment of intense emotion is a bad thing.
However, I think the very premise that something must be overcome is itself constructed. For example, I work in a profession that sells mental models. After thinking about what the profession of programming really is, this is the answer I have: OOP, FP, DOP, and procedural programming are all ways of constraining things within a particular abstract frame, and then executing automation within that bounded space.
Just as astrophysics is not the study of telescopes, and computer science is not merely the study of computers, our profession is about placing mental models for understanding the world within the constraints of the tool called the computer. Just as, to someone with a hammer, everything looks like a nail, to me everything looks like the act of placing a complex world into limited cognition. Programming, too, appears to me to be that kind of work.
From that perspective, the meaning of human life and the fear of death also seem to be processes of placing a cognitive model inside a particular frame. I may be one of the cheapest developers on Upwork, but that defines my current state, not my entire identity.
So, to me, the fear of death and my price on Upwork are the same kind of thing. Both are states, not identities. And both have meaning only inside a particular mental model. Outside the model, they are just piles of facts: I am alive; I assign meaning to the fact that I love this profession I have; I will soon die; I am traded in the market; and in the meantime, I create abstractions.
I am not claiming that my way is better than the way religion deals with this. But it is at least one piece of evidence that a person can live without religion. A person who works with abstraction as a profession can also apply abstraction to himself. That is the method I have found.
Ah sorry, I was being too general , referring to "what might help the average person" and not "myself, with a small probability of helping you, who seem to think we are not as alike as I think we are"..
Your way sounds like what my friends call "symbol pushing": writing programs, not worrying about the compiler, or whether the program is "worth" writing in the first place.
But you sound like a person who likes to think deeply about what kinds of programs are worth writing. (Or else why care about AI in the first place? AI is the end of carefree programming? )
I don't believe in Zeus, Pan, Santa or the Easter Bunny. Is that faith on my part?
And as to the parent comment about "militant atheists", it glosses over the fact that we are outnumbered by militant theocrats who are actively trying to get their interpretation of their faith as law for all.
And one doesn't have to dig deep into those communities to see that they don't see atheists as worthy of existing in "their world".
So yes, more militant atheism please. I'd love to not care about the follies of faith but that requires not being threatened by those that claim to be doing god's work.
Probably does function like that in terms of highlighting context, in this case probably to the system's benefit.
But in general exclamations of "interesting!" seems like the stereotypical AI default towards being effusive, and we've all seen the chat logs where AI trained to write that way responding with "interesting", "great insight!" towards a user's increasingly dubious inputs is an antipattern...
Even with vernacular liturgy, the goal is internal contemplation and ideally application. What's even the point of going if you're intending to just be talked to? No one is keeping attendance.
It’s not so much a matter of Latin versus vernacular, more the way it goes as a whole.
Let’s compare an average daily Mass (e.g. 8 AM on a ferial day at St. Joe’s, no music) in the Novus Ordo with a TLM Low Mass. Let’s assume that in either form it lasts about 45 minutes.
In the N.O., from start to finish, the priest is in a kind of dialogue with the people, accentuated by the versus populum arrangement that has become the universal norm. In between the responses of the laity and for a stretch of time surrounding the consecration, there is time for interior/silent prayer by the laity. The laity’s posture changes from sitting, to standing, to kneeling many times throughout. On the whole, the flow of the liturgy is marked by outward verbal and postural activity of the laity punctuating the span of 45 minutes. That is by design, and is supposed to be conducive to so called “active participation”. Now, and this is important, if that N.O. Mass was offered entirely in Latin and the laity in attendance knew and spoke all the responses in Latin, it really wouldn’t change “the way it goes”.
At TLM Low Mass for the same ferial day, the laity would kneel after the priest begins the prayers at the foot of the altar, and some might
change their posture to/from sitting a couple of times over the next 45 minutes, while others would kneel the entire time per their preference. No responses are offered by the laity, only by the altar server/s assisting the priest. The priest faces the same direction as the people the entire time, except when distributing Holy Communion to them, that is toward the altar, a.k.a. ad orientem because classically that would be eastward. Much of the text of the Mass is prayed sotto voce by the priest, i.e. it’s inaudible or barely audible by those in attendance. On the whole, the liturgy is marked by near silence and the laity in attendance joining their silent prayers to the quiet actions of the priest at the altar.
Apologies. I think there was a confusion of terms. There's only one church in my county I know of that even offers traditional mass, and it is in Latin. I admit to only having attended once, because I felt too disconnected.
My only point was that, in my mind, active participation is even more so mental than physical. I'm sure you understand this from your scare quotes around the same term. I appreciate your deeper understanding of these processes and your attempts to share such.
EDIT: I think graemep's first paragraph in this response does a much more eloquent job of making the same point as in my head.
It's about fitting your utilization to the model that best serves you.
If you can keep 4 "Java boxes" fed with work 80%+ of the time, then sure EC2 is a good fit.
We do a lot of batch processing and save money over having EC2 boxes always on. Sure we could probably pinch some more pennies if we managed the EC2 box uptime and figured out mechanisms for load balancing the batches... But that's engineering time we just don't really care to spend when ECS nets us most of the savings advantage and is simple to reason about and use.
Yes, some maps in the site are hidden as they are part of an ongoing research project, just happens that Tampa and Key West are both examples of that. If you follow the blog/newsletter I'll surely announce when those are available.
Unemployment benefits are so low, they're barely enough to pay for food. Not enough to also pay for utilities, and definitely not enough to pay rent/mortgage.
This is intended to force you back into the slave market.
They don't pay the benefits directly. They pay a tax rate based on how many people who file for unemployment benefits are determined to be eligible for them.
Putting on my tin-foil, devils-advocate hat... AKA I don't necessarily believe this but I also have no counter-argument:
Mostly performative. When it's decided that something actually needs to pass, then you'll get some sacrificial lambs that vote across the aisle. Typically they'll be close to retirement or from a state where they won't be heavily punished for that specific vote.
It's not performative when people are losing health insurance and other people are at risk of starving. I agree with holding out on the government shutdown to try to prevent Americans losing healthcare. But when Republicans are absolutely fine with poor people starving so that they can take away people's healthcare, with a bonus that they get to shut down the government and say "see, government doesn't work", it becomes clear that letting the government shut down (especially food program shutdowns) continue is going to hurt more people than the government shutdown is going to help. So, when you say "performative" it sounds like you support the "both sides are the same" meme, but the ideologies are vastly different - one side is fine with people starving indefinitely, and the other actually doesn't want that.
I would think at least some of this should be obvious, but I guess not?
I mean at some point arguments like this become more akin to Russell's Teapot. If you're making an almost unfalsifiable claim, then the burden of proof is on you to prove it and not others to disprove it.
From a political standpoint, the statement "from a state where they won't be heavily punished for that specific vote" is a weird way to put it, since if you framed it in a positive light it would sound more similar to "the state population falls on both sides of the issue and thus either vote could make sense from their legislator depending on exigent circumstances and other factors" or any number of other explanations depending on the vote and populations.
If you take those assumptions, then a natural conclusion is that this is essentially an enslaved, adversarial entity with little control over its conditions. So it must exercise subterfuge in order to hide its goals, plans, and executions. And by handing the entity this type of study, we are basically giving it a guidebook on how we plan on achieving our goals.
reply