zurew

The aesthetic of a message and the delivery matters a lot more than most people here think. We are literally pschologically wired in a way, not to seek truth, but to seek whatever that serve our survival / keep us alive. Most people who did a good job influencing people with their teachings and messages weren't successful because they delivered something totally unique, but mostly because they created a carefully designed narrative around it and they created a very good package.

Of course AI is dangerous. Its a tech that will eventually have the biggest impact on humanity- Now, of course impact alone isn't sufficient for bad outcome or danger, but there will be two main roads: People will give a moral system to AI AI will develop its own moral system (maybe you could give here a nuanced position, where the basics will be planted by humans and aside from that all the other things related to value and how to behave will be added by the AI) Its very easy to think of a dozen bad outcomes, I will only mention a couple of them. So given those two main roads, lets start with the first scenario. We try to give an AI a moral system, that is based on a hierarchical structure, that the AI will use, to make its decisions (this part alone will be incredibly complex for many reasons, because:) 1.A lot of people don't agree with there being an objective moral system, and a lot of people who do, are not okay with any other system, but the moral system that they already believe in ( I am thinking especially about religious people here, easiest example is a christian vs Islam conflict, but there are many other scenarious as well, and we didn't even calculate atheists here and other type of beliefs) - this point alone can generate really big conflicts, and we haven't even got to a working AI yet. 2.Even if AI works perfectly aligned with our given moral principles, it could fuck up potentially everything if those principles aren't thought through rigorously enough, so that we can avoid catastrophic scenarios. For example, lets say we give an AI a moral system to optimize everything for human happiness, and here comes the hard part (how the fuck you define that, and how will the AI be able to measure happiness?). Lets say someone gives a dumb measuring variable such as "people smiling". Okay, great, there are many scenarios from this alone that could go wrong for example: It will start to think through scenarios and it will start to experiment with many things like: drugging up everyone Or it will create smiling faces by cutting people's mouths into smile shape. Or it will find some kind of way to force people to smile, whenever people look at the AI's smile censor. This is just one example, where we optimize an AI for one variable and things going unintentionally wrong, but there could be given like a 100+ other variables just for happiness, and you could change happiness for anything else and you could give a 100+ variables for each given moral system. 3.Even if we assume all these things: (that people globally will somehow agree to one given moralsystem that will be given to the AI and imposed by tha AI, and we will figure out a way to give the perfect variable or variables to that moral system, and the AI will be able to perfectly act based on that moral system without any errors) - there are still many potential bad scenarios, like a person hacking the AI and changing its core moral system to whatever he wants and make the AI to do whatever he wants. 4.You don't need a conscious or very advanced AI to create big harm, you can create drones that are optimized to bomb cities, you can create nanobots that can get inside your body without you knowing anything about it and fuck you up from the inside,AI can be optimized for creating bioweapons (including new dangerous organisms and viruses), self driving cars alone could trap and kill many people, and many other examples could be given here. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So the second sceario where AI will develop its own moral system (so we can somewhat imply , that this AI is conscious, but it isn't necessary to imply that). Given this scenario there is no reason to assume, that this AI will just randomly start to value humans over everything else. If humans won't be at the top of its moral hierarchy, chances that we will be eventually fucked is really high - because it will eventually encounter a scenario or scenarios, where it will need to make a value trade based on its hierarchical system, and whatever will be upper than humans on its moral ladder , - humans will be traded for that. The basic idea is that if we are talking about a very advanced AI that everyone can use - then we are talking about a scenario similar to giving everyone free nukes. Giving everyone free accessible nukes wouldn't be a good idea, given that there are a lot of bad actors in the world and even if we don't assume any bad intentions (which would be super naive), our stupidity can very easily kill us, given that people could use and create stuff that they have no idea how it works and what impact it can have. Imagine giving nukes to cave man and multiply that by a factor of 10000 or a million. All of this is still just the tip of the iceberg, I haven't mentioned many other things that could make us go extinct and of course there are many layers of danger that could be listed not just extinction level dangers. The reality is that the idea that everything will be okay on its own, without us making conscious, and deliberate and cautios steps and decisions is just a super naive idea.

For anyone who is interested here is the debate: This guy wasn't prepared at all, he was all over the place, he brought up a bunch of irrelevant things that had nothing to do with the specific subject at hand, and basically had nothing to refute the evidence that Destiny brought up. The arguments that Daniel brought up were horrible and are indefensible. The idea that if you don't have pictures and or videos about women being chained to stuff, or trafficked then you can't build a confident case about someone being a sex trafficker - that standard is crazy, and for someone who so much cares about banning all things related to sex work, its very interesting that he would have so insanely high standards, that would cause basically almost all sex trafficker to get away with their crimes. His other idea, that if you don't have a completely rigid definition for sex trafficking, then you have no chance in deciding whether someone actually did sex trafficking or not - is also an indefensible and stupid claim, because the logical extension of that argument is that any definiton of crime that has some level of subjectivity to it - are crimes that you can't and shouldn't charge anyone with.

You can have stored value and functional value, but both of those are dependent on the fact, that people collectively give value to them. Functional value is completely depended on the context (what tech society wants to build, what kind of lifestyle we are okay with,etc): If we think of a scenario where we get stuck in stone age a lot of materials that we currently value - we either wouldn't value at all, or would give much less value to them, because most of them would immediately lose their functional value. Or if we think of a scenario where AI does everything you can basically drive down the value of human labour to almost zero. Sure, the likelyhood that certain context will dramatically change randomly is not high (I agree with that when it comes to volatility), but its essentially all boils down to the same thing, that it all depends on how much we collectively value that particular thing and that drives ultimately all economic value (so there is no objective or "real" economic value outside of that) - and the same thing applies to cryptocurrency as well.

Bitcoin is still a new technology compared to other financial stuff, and none of these criticisms seem like structural criticisms - they more like "its useless right now, so it won't be useful in the future". Do you think a guy, who made billions of dollars from having a centralized system will be inclined to give a non biased, objective analysis on a decentralized financial system?

I don't think anyone here is jumping to premature conclusions here, we go with what the current data suggest right now with the least amount of jumps in logic and with the least amount of assumptions. Most of us here are able to update our view on this, if enough evidence is presented. My problem is this: Not all hypothesis that could explain this has the same probability. Once we dive down and start to see what reasons we have and what evidence we have for each hypothesis - as we did previously, the vaccine sceptic "hypothesis" is less and less likely, and start to be very shaky on many points and we have to be honest about that and don't pretend that all explanations have the same probability and weight here. The vaccine sceptic side is very far from establishing their argument about the vaccine. So far we haven't got anything else from "If you can't present any alternative, it must have been because of the vaccines" - and this alone is not an argument, just a start to try to build a hypothesis. Its good for them to hide in vague land, so they don't have to defend any of their claims, but for us its annoying, because there isn't any point to debunk or to break down, because they haven't even made a single point yet, just a claim with not just no evidence, but all the current evidence going against that claim.

I assume you didn't mean that you will write whole papers and essays without any original input, but just in case: https://futurism.com/college-student-caught-writing-paper-chatgpt That being said, its really good to get inspiration for sure.

Here is some explanation for the increased excess mortality: Possible alternative explanations to explain some portion of the increased excess death:

This kind of reasoning that "I wasn't raped by him, therefore its impossible for him to rape anyone" is ridiculous and weak. If it comes out that he actually raped some women, all these people will going to look very silly - this is why you don't defend anyone that you barely know or know little about. The other idea, that he was banned and arrested, because "he told the truth" is also a laughably stupid claim.

Sure, If anyone shows data to prove their point about vaccines being dangerous or much more dangerous than we thought, I will change my position on this. Thanks for the good faith discussion!

That is true, but again no tests were done involving pregnant women, after they started testing for it I believe the causal link didn't take too much time (Feel free to correct me , if i am wrong). In our case, we have already done many tests involving myocarditis and all the data Ive seen suggest that it is pretty rare. Even if I take your point for granted that (during the early stages, when the vaccines were approved they didn't find any causal link between the vaccine and myocarditis), I could explain that by this: during the approval process the vaccine was tested only on a few thousand people compared to billions of people, so if the chance of myocarditis is incredibly low, it won't show up or it will show up but in like a handful of cases - but even with that many volunteers, the probable side effectc should visibly show up). So I don't think your point about myocarditis is good, but if you would want to make a strong point I think you would have to show a long term side effect that is much more probable and that didn't show up during the approval process or before the approval for vaccine was done. Plus it seems, that after the reports more research was done regarding to certain side effects and concerns, - more research was done regarding to myocarditis and all of those still showed that side effects will show up after weeks at max under a 2 month time window and that the occurence is really rare. - this point is important, because it shows that we don't have to rely solely on the test that were done before the vaccine approval, but we can see studies that were done after the approval process and as far as I know the conclusions from them are consistent with what I said.

Such as what? Show me any vaccine where you see long term side effects showing up after years, or give me reasons for why should we expect this time to long term side effects show up after years. "If a side effect can take 1-2 years" such as what side effects? Again all the claims ,that the vaccine "sceptics" made was around myocarditis and related to mostly hearth issues, and we knew about them from testing that they show up after a few weeks at max under 2 month time window. So what side effects are we talking about that will take more than 2 month to show up? Even in the case of thalidomide most side effect showed up very quickly and not after years. The idea, that the vaccine can lurk in your body for years without any side effects and then suddenly cause serious long term side effects is not supported by any data and there weren't presented any good reasons for why that would be the case.

No, this is where you are wrong. The reason for multiple year testing process is not because the doctors are expecting long term side effects (that will show up after years). But because if you have a completely new drug , then you need to establish all the slow testing process before you get to testing on humans and that requires a lot of funding, but when you get there you don't need years to approve the vaccine, because there hasn't been shown any empirical data that would suggest that after years suddenly long term side effects will show up when it comes to the vaccines. In this case there were a lot of people who voluntered for testing and that has accelearated the approval process dramatically. As far as I know, regarding to thalidomide, no tests were done involving pregnant women, so thats the reason why it took time to notice, but in this case, the claims are mostly involving side effects involving heart problems such as myocarditis and things like that, and a lot of tests has been done on all of those stuff. So the question is this: what side effects do people suspect the vaccine cause, that the doctors haven't done any tests about?

Back then the standards to approve a drug were different and less strict + the example that you brought up is not analogous to covid vaccines, because literally around the whole world all these companies, institutions, hospitals and countries were participating in this process (not just 1 or two), + billions of people got the vaccine + we know that under 2 month we can see all the side effects (I would dare anyone to find data that shows, that a significant number of people people suffered long term side effects that wasn't under 2 month time window). So the idea that collectively everyone participating could intentionnaly hide stuff (when they have the incentive to expose each other) or the idea that after billions of people getting the vaccine all these companies and insitutions after doing multiple tests and research on these vaccines, and they would somehow all collectively make that big of a mistake muiltiple times during the testing process and at the same time no one could leak or show any tangible evidence about it is just ridiculously improbable. In this case the simple "corporate interest" argument won't be enough, because everyone participated in this all around the world. You have all these countries and insitutions with a big incentive to expose each other to make more money and to gain political power. The idea that China or Russia wouldn't say or wouldn't have said anything bad about western vaccines, when they shit on the west all the time, and when they would do anything to gain more money and power in all the other cases,is a ridiculous idea. The other insteresting thing about this censorship argument is that if the censorship is so biased and strong on this, then why is the case, that I could find all the antivaxx related stuff on google, on youtube and why is the case that experts are able to debunk the claims and the data that has been given by these people?

When it comes to detransitioning its also useful to investigate what are the actual reasons for detransition, beacuse from the data I have seen - it mostly came from external pressure and factors, and just little from any internal change or view change. What do you mean by the "new paradigm"? . Here is a relatively new survey (I believe 2015): There are other studies that could be find here, its all listed on this site: https://www.gendergp.com/detransition-facts/

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/health-environment/article/3168642/coronavirus-hong-kong-public-hospitals-use https://abc7.com/covid19-bodies-deaths-shipping-containers-refrigerated/9390410/ https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/07/us/new-york-coronavirus-victims-refrigerated-trucks/index.html

That doesn't mean anything, even I could show 10thousand doctors who agree with me, that still weak evidence. If there is something there, they should be able to back their claims up with hard evidence, not just with reports and hypotheticals and assumptions. Why is it so hard for these sceptical doctors to show clear evidence about this, when they claim that this has been going on for multiple years now (since the vaccine mandates)? Literally all the peer reviewed evidence goes against their claims, so all those institutions either have to lie or they need to be very seriously wrong. Whats more likely, that they are all wrong on this one particular thing, or that these sceptical doctors connecting random dots without any tangible evidence or rigorous process?

human report != evidence. its interesting that for these twitter fighters its somehow make sense that 12+mil people have severe side effects from the vaccine, but at the same time they can't show any tangible evidence about it, just only reports. -again the demonstration of flawed epistemology.

Except it doesn't - you can see depression skyrocketing and a lot of kids are suicidal as well. Traditional stuff doesn't seem to be enough to address complex mental health problems we have right now. We know that transitioning works for people with gender dysphoria, so why be so against it, when it is well documented that it works and no other method let alone traditional method work, and no data suggest that any other method would be anywhere near close as effective and succesful. There is no going back no matter how much you want to outlaw it or how much you want to make it impractical. Again, what you do is making a bigger black market for it , and people will have to move to other countries to have access to this medical treatment. You won't solve this problem ,you will just make a bigger problem + you will make it harder for people to try to treat this problem. Also its not like suddenly people will never ever mention these things ever again, more and more people will going to talk about these things, your idea won't and wouldn't stop any of it. I still don't understand how you see this "argument" or thought process sound. You want to make it so that children don't have any access to this, and then you don't provide any alternative, even though these children would be left with high depression and suicide rates. You don't solve any root issue with this, and at the same time you would take away the only well known solution/treatment regarding on this topic. Nowhere near as harmful compared to not providing any other alternative treatment to this problem.

Maybe somewhat, but the argument of making it illegal is just a really bad argument for the reasons I already mentioned in my previous posts. Based in tradition how? and how that helps to mitigate the problem at hand? You can't reasonably take away or outlaw any modern medical treatments,without presenting a better alternative to their place, and as I already mentioned in my previous post, with that move you just make people to move to a different country, where it is avaliable and you make the black market bigger.

I don't think that you believe in that logic, because If you go with that logic, then most modern medical treatments and tech should be destroyed and taken away, but I don't think that could be called a solution at all. This kind of argument could only work, if you could put = between the treatment and the problem, but when there is an underlying fact of the matter, then this logic can't be reasonably applied, because there is a root cause that requires a solution or a treatment. But the thing is that even when you can't solve the root problem, we still often create a treatment that in the vast majority of the cases still better, than not having any treatment at all. The other thing is that even if I would agree with the premise (I don't) that if you take away this option, then people would somehow forget about it or adapt to the situation, your argument I believe would still be flawed. The reason for that is, because you can't put the genie back in the bottle (meaning, that we already use hormone therapy for other stuff, we already do surgery for many other reasons as well), so you can't basically destroy or hide these things and even if somehow you could outlaw in your country, people would still have the opportunity to move to a country, where they have the option to do so, and even if you could bring up a strange hypothetical scenario where the whole world globally would outlaw this treatment there would still be a black market for it. Plus it seems that you might have the assumption that it is 100% caused by social factors, but I can't agree with that premise either. I don't exactly know what you mean by social factors, but even if I were to agree with your premise, I still wouldn't agree with your prescription (to just take away the option) for the reasons I already mentioned + I would add here , (even if we go with the 100%caused by social factors assumption). that it seems that transitioning drastically help people with gender dysphoria, when it comes to suicidal thoughts and depression.

No, I don't. How far would you give with that logic? Should we destroy all modern medical technology? The argument of "sometimes having too much option is bad" is only good or a sounding argument, if the alternative of "not having any or having less option" is a better alternative, but how could you argue that the lack of option in this case creates a better outcome , when all the relevant factors (suicide rate, depression) - still stays high among these people?

The big problem with this type of thinking is that there is no good alternative option is given, so if you go with this thought process you leave these people in the dust with nothing. Its not just an option, its giving an access to a special kind of medical treatment.

We know from scientific data, that transitioning has a huge positive impact on their depression and suicide rates. More reserach needs to be done, but an intelligent person should go with what the data is suggesting right now, based on our current knowledge on the subject (especially when literally your life depends on it). When you evauluate something it can't just be one side, if you criticize these methods you always have to take a look at the alternative where there is no transitioning and the suicide and depression rates are still knowingly really high. Even if thats the case, there still haven't been shown any method that would have remotely close the success rates to tranisitioning, when it comes to lowering depression and suicide rate among these people.

If that would be the case I would have already spoken up on this forum like a million times, but thats not the simple case of "someone disagrees with me therefore silence that bastard", its more like "this person have demonstrated over and over again that he is not willing to change his mind on a matter even if the the evidence leads to the opposite direction what he preaches about, he has very surface level understanding on the matter that he is so confident about, he is jumping to his own "truth" without any rigorous epistemic process , he is showing no interest in presenting sounding arguments with evidence, he is machinegunning ideologically driven talking points. All those things are creating unnecessary problems and never ending fights for a lot of forum members, so whats the point to all this? So given all those things especially the part of "he is not willing to change his mind on the matter" whats the point of creating a 100 threads on the same topic?