Chuco

I'm just dumbfounded how a technology can bring out peak stupidity in almost every group. The nerds, the uneducated, the left, the right, the east, the west. Everyone. Am I the only one who doesn't get the hysteria? Especially the nerds...holy f*k. Aren't these supposed to be reasonable and rational people? And yet all I hear is them making a massive leap from detailed replications of human behavior, acing college tests, to killer robots and then "everyone will die". No evidence to back it up. No reference point on how we get from A to B. Just pure imagination. These people are more creative than Spielberg. It seems like for the nerd/scientist, anything that they can't explain away their minds is coming out to eat them. And of course we have to hear about the obligatory 'we might inadvertently create minds that destroy us'. Aside from this being the 100 millionth time that we've heard this, no progress can be made without it hurting someone else's livelihood/existence. But I'm glad that they finally noticed that runaway technology and rationality is maybe not a good thing. It just would've been nice for them to realize that BEFORE they indoctrinated an entire population into thinking that they are the thought leaders and making people suffer with their endless speculation, encroaching on areas where they have no place whatsoever. Honestly, I see these infantile reactions as a GREAT sign. That means someone's BS is under threat. If anything, I HOPE the robots come because that might finally force us to break out of this endless cycle of stupidity. It might finally force us to smarten up. And if this is the only reason for our existence...to build an AI more advanced, to be a stepping stone for the next evolution....so be it! That would mean we're finally reaching our destination. We should rejoice, not cower. If not, at least please, PLEASE have them replace the nerds, and breed them out of existence. Take the nerds if no one else.

I've known that there are many ways I'm a conservative... I like to write on pencil and paper way more than typing on a computer. It just feels better. I've always seen the "crypto bro" and the bitcoin/cryptocurrency bandwagon as highly pretentious. I think the narrative of "AI is taking over" is very dramatized, overplayed, and overused, even though I agree it's a major tech advancement. You can't hold on to an ideology and have it both ways: to be one without the other. Liberals are conservative when it comes to the environment: they want to preserve it as is. Conservatives support liberal use of oil and gas. Liberals are also more conservative with guns while Conservatives are willing to accept all the risks to ensure free, liberal usage. It's almost as if Liberalism and Conservatism are assigned concepts that are completely constructed and, at the same time, absolutely essential.

She's a corporate politician, not so much a centrist in the same way a Tester or a Durbin is. She literally talks like a customer service rep. And she definitely comes across as shallow, fake, materialistic, because that's exactly how corporate people act. There's nothing wrong with that and I actually kind of like the aesthetics. It's worth noting that she never blocked ANY of Biden's judicial nominees and helped organize the senate's support for the gun bill, infrastructure bill and the respect for marriage bill, so she has made some positive contributions. The worst thing is that she'll probably hand a seat to the republicans by running as an independent. She's just not popular enough like an Angus King or a Bernie Sanders to win that way.

underrated speech...this guy knows how to work a crowd

I love how just because E-lawns is a celebrity businessman that everybody's going crazy over the twitter buy. In the end I don't think a lot will change. He'll float a lot of ideas, then reality will hit, and he'll go back on most all of them, because Twitter is already being run close to optimally by the previous owners. Not a lot can be improved given the situation right now.

People who write books write it more for themselves more than for anyone else. I would know...I'm a writer.

As long as there is corruption, there is anti-corruption.

Lol AOC gonna put us all in the gulags

"russell brand is one of the smartest people i've ever met" pffffffttt

@Leo Gura I agree that Bernie isn't electable, but not so much for the reasons you say. In a way Bernie is too much of a rationalist. Relying too much on policy, and I think you'd agree on that. But we're way too fixated on the center "left-right" and "far left/right" duality. If you apply spiral dynamics or "stage of development" too strictly, you also run into this problem. Strictly applying spiral dynamics, for example, it wouldn't make sense at all to see many successful leftist movements in Central/South America, being that they're underdeveloped countries with a lot of corruption. It's more helpful to think of it this way instead: America has a unique fascination with capitalism because American ideology is built on the assumption of prosperity. Other countries don't have that bias. And South American countries have been constantly on the receiving end of colonialism, so their natural reaction is to turn left. It's impossible to make predictions based on the assumption that these parallel stages behave in exactly the same way because obviously there will always be variation/slightly different combinations. Each country has a unique set of problems. So America desperately needs a new dimension in its politics, like opening a new front in a battle. One that considers its own unique position. We don't need more empty robots like Biden/Harris/Buttigieg. Establishment politics only work when there is substantial trust in the establishment. At the moment it is non-existent, from the left or the right. And we don't need someone like Sanders/Warren/AOC to keep telling people in their humanist/progressive bubbles what they already know. So we can treat this as a developmental stage problem, but what's more important is that we treat it as a mass marketing problem. Good marketing appeals to the "Id", the same way Trump appealed to the conservative Id. Sanders/Warren gives me college professor/schoolteacher vibes. That is never getting elected president. But if you say that people don't vote in terms of policy, that would apply to moderates as well as progressives. If a progressive with progressive policies can also convince the average voter at a base level, that changes the game... that redraws the boundaries. And if someone can internalize some of that progressive idealism, and at the same time, be way more devilish, manipulative, showy, and yes, even a little authoritarian, that would allow for Democrats to effectively rebrand themselves in a post-Clinton/neoliberal era. I'm willing to bet that that person is electable regardless of what "radical leftist" policies they are for/against.

There is no way for you to reason yourself into being a leftist. You either are or you aren't. If you are a conservative, of course you're going to see all the biases of the left. B/C that's what it means to be a conservative. But notice there's no reason for you to be on the right either.