4 ms·
I'll say it again: because we do not have any material focus on pragmatic, disagreement structuring effective communications, (people are not taught how to disc
by bsenftner 6mo ago
I'll say it again: because we do not have any material focus on pragmatic, disagreement structuring effective communications, (people are not taught how to discuss disagreement) not only is our current AI being massively misunderstood, the human population do not have the discrete language skills to even use AI without massive hallucination issues that they are in control, but do not have the language nuanced understanding to, well, understand.
The reason being, when taught how to effectively disagree all these counterfactual concepts that AI loses manifest, they are logically necessary. But if people are not taught how to explore the landscape of ideas, they become "fascists for the common" and literally create the hellscape civilization we are all trapped within.
- andsoitis 6mo agoCan you state your point more simply?
- Nemrod67 6mo ago"democracy basically means, government by the people, of the people , for the people... but the people are retarded"
- Nasrudith 6mo agoI hope I'm wrong about this - but they sounded like some breed of utopian leftist mad that an AI not specifically trained on their drivel doesn't agree with their utopian ideas, and they believe that this is solely responsible for The Rapture/The Revolution (TM)/real communism not happening. The use of euphemisms and incredible lack of awareness of using 'hellscape' to describe the first world is a bit of a give-away because you usually only hear that sort of hyperbole-that-is-unaware-it-is-hyperbole from leftists mad that capitalism exists.
- bsenftner 6mo agoWell, my use of 'hellscape' is pretty accurate for where we are as a western culture. No "utopian leftist", just over intellectualized.
- bsenftner 6mo agoWe do not teach people, students, how to explore ideas as a group in a collective exploratory discussion. Students get impressed, meaning their peers with social status use the opportunity of a group conversation to impress social hierarchy: they ridicule ideas they think are "outsider concepts", and this behavior is not suppressed by the student's instructors, they often condone and participate. This is at the foundation level, of learning not to offer ideas that might be outside of the mainstream. The ideas and concepts are there, but they are held private because their environment includes bullies that suppress non-mainstream perceptions. This in itself is negative, but the ramifications are profound: the landscape of ideas is never realized by a material percentage of the students. And those who could have contributed worthwhile insights have been taught to not contribute.
- Jensson 6mo ago> The ideas and concepts are there, but they are held private because their environment includes bullies that suppress non-mainstream perceptions. You mean like teachers? Teachers bullies kids that answers wrong in class, so if you try to think for yourself rather than answer according to the book the teacher often makes fun of you and the rest of the kids laugh at you for not saying the right thing. Just making teachers not do that would probably go a long way to changing the culture. Kids feeling fear of being asked a question in class is a strong signal we are doing something wrong.
- bsenftner 6mo agoI mean the students first, and the teachers second. Just ask any of the "not popular" kids why they do not speak up, and notice they are already afraid to say honestly, they've already been damaged by the bullyscape that is human childhood.