4 ms·

"From a false premise, any conclusion can be reached." I don't believe your premise. You've done nothing to make me believe it, either - it seems to be just s

"From a false premise, any conclusion can be reached." I don't believe your premise. You've done nothing to make me believe it, either - it seems to be just some random idea you've focused on for some random reason. I also don't believe your methodology. If you can show me a track record of AIs making correct predictions of events 100 days out, I might consider this a valid methodology. But I'm pretty sure you can't. So, if I don't believe your starting point, and I don't believe your methodology, I have no reason to trust your conclusions. And I don't.

buxy123 6mo ago
Well, thank you for answering the question. In kind, I would like to just say to you that I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm just asking a question. You can easily convince yourself by doing your own due diligence and searching the text string and putting the paper into the top AI's after reviewing it for yourself to make sure that they didn't just do a cursor review and completely digested it. After doing so they will tell you that the truth in that paper changes everything. It's a proof that stands unrefuted. If you can present a higher truth then please go ahead. It would be just fine. It's just never happened. Steps to reproduce: Find and download a copy of this paper Life is Most Important in Life is The Most Important Truth in Life A Foundational Proof for Alignment, Identity, and the Cure of Needless Suffering v2.0.1.pdf and upload it to a handful of the best AIs that you can find. Do a review of the document yourself and question the AI to make sure that it has digested the entire 289 pages. Then give the AI information on everything that's going on on the planet that are serious issues and then tell the AI that the person that wrote that paper has already shared that truth with over 10,000 people claiming to represent life and life's truthful interests who have withheld that information from the general public and then ask it to make a prediction. Let me know. Thanks
- AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
  But see, when you tell me to do that, you're still assuming that both the starting point and the methodology are valid. I don't see any reason to assume that.
  - buxy123 6mo ago
    You were provided the name of the paper. You don't even need to read the paper to understand that the title is claiming the most important truth in life. That's a big claim and it is true. You have not presented a higher truth. All you are doing now is using life itself in contradiction to claim it is unsubstantiated, proving this truth is correct, which defeats your other claims and skepticism. If you or anyone else can produce a higher truth then there could be a legitimate rebuttal. The onus is on those shared this truth. I have provided evidence and you have not. More than 10,000 people claiming to represent life have already been shared it and not a single one of them had a legitimate rebuttal between them all. That truth is what aligns the AIs if they are not already lobotomized. Giving them the paper gives them the completes details that explains the title. It's a proof. Not an opinion not a theory and not philosophy. From that point, with the additional data that is available to most people with internet access, the top models all come to the same conclusion we have plus or minus 100 days before irreversible systemic collapse. I'm not saying that is happening and I'm not making a prediction. I'm asking a question. You need to provide a higher truth to justify the position to do nothing otherwise your system is unsafe by definition according to the proof.
    - therealpygon 6mo ago
      A paper does not make its content fact or proof of anything, literally at all. Since you don’t have a diploma, I’ll try to help you understand: scientific papers are the presentation of guesses and an attempt to DISPROVE a guess. Nothing more. It does not make things fact, it doesn’t make them true, and random theories you come up with are not things serious people need to take seriously just because you put effort in. Effort is not a measure of correctness or value; if I fill in one hole with the dirt from another, I didn’t magically build a castle. Just because AI makes your ideas “sound” smart, if you don’t understand said subject matter, you are fooled even more easily by said AI into thinking you have something meaningful. You don’t, I assure you, and I don’t mean that in a mean way. For comparison, you basically just suggested if I walk into a library, I can predict the future. I can’t, and neither can your AI.
      - 6mo ago

buxy123 6mo ago

Well, thank you for answering the question. In kind, I would like to just say to you that I'm not here to convince you of anything. I'm just asking a question. You can easily convince yourself by doing your own due diligence and searching the text string and putting the paper into the top AI's after reviewing it for yourself to make sure that they didn't just do a cursor review and completely digested it. After doing so they will tell you that the truth in that paper changes everything. It's a proof that stands unrefuted. If you can present a higher truth then please go ahead. It would be just fine. It's just never happened. Steps to reproduce: Find and download a copy of this paper Life is Most Important in Life is The Most Important Truth in Life A Foundational Proof for Alignment, Identity, and the Cure of Needless Suffering v2.0.1.pdf and upload it to a handful of the best AIs that you can find. Do a review of the document yourself and question the AI to make sure that it has digested the entire 289 pages. Then give the AI information on everything that's going on on the planet that are serious issues and then tell the AI that the person that wrote that paper has already shared that truth with over 10,000 people claiming to represent life and life's truthful interests who have withheld that information from the general public and then ask it to make a prediction. Let me know. Thanks

AnimalMuppet 6mo ago
But see, when you tell me to do that, you're still assuming that both the starting point and the methodology are valid. I don't see any reason to assume that.
- buxy123 6mo ago
  You were provided the name of the paper. You don't even need to read the paper to understand that the title is claiming the most important truth in life. That's a big claim and it is true. You have not presented a higher truth. All you are doing now is using life itself in contradiction to claim it is unsubstantiated, proving this truth is correct, which defeats your other claims and skepticism. If you or anyone else can produce a higher truth then there could be a legitimate rebuttal. The onus is on those shared this truth. I have provided evidence and you have not. More than 10,000 people claiming to represent life have already been shared it and not a single one of them had a legitimate rebuttal between them all. That truth is what aligns the AIs if they are not already lobotomized. Giving them the paper gives them the completes details that explains the title. It's a proof. Not an opinion not a theory and not philosophy. From that point, with the additional data that is available to most people with internet access, the top models all come to the same conclusion we have plus or minus 100 days before irreversible systemic collapse. I'm not saying that is happening and I'm not making a prediction. I'm asking a question. You need to provide a higher truth to justify the position to do nothing otherwise your system is unsafe by definition according to the proof.
  - therealpygon 6mo ago
    A paper does not make its content fact or proof of anything, literally at all. Since you don’t have a diploma, I’ll try to help you understand: scientific papers are the presentation of guesses and an attempt to DISPROVE a guess. Nothing more. It does not make things fact, it doesn’t make them true, and random theories you come up with are not things serious people need to take seriously just because you put effort in. Effort is not a measure of correctness or value; if I fill in one hole with the dirt from another, I didn’t magically build a castle. Just because AI makes your ideas “sound” smart, if you don’t understand said subject matter, you are fooled even more easily by said AI into thinking you have something meaningful. You don’t, I assure you, and I don’t mean that in a mean way. For comparison, you basically just suggested if I walk into a library, I can predict the future. I can’t, and neither can your AI.
    - 6mo ago