zurew

@Leo Gura if you really, purely only want to focus on the finance part, then why kill that person at all? That person can work , make more money, can create greater economic value.

If its voluntary, then I agree with you. Yeah, right that argument wouldn't work alone. Okay if I ignore the finance part , and if I ignore the innocence part and i just purely focus on the morals here is my take: I think taking a human life is morally the most serious or worst action someone could ever do, thats why it needs very strong justification, but I don't see a strong justification when it comes to death penalty. I just see killing a person, when it is not neccessary.

You wanted to make an argument about it being cheaper, and when you are being confronted that its not, you reverted back to a point, that is ignoring everything about economics and finance. You need to decide ,whether you care about the financial part or not.

You can't in one breath say that its cheaper and in other breath say this: "Just lawyers and whatever other Americans getting the money anyway" . I mean yeah fuck it who cares about any cost or spending, money will circle around anyway between people and the government , right? - This take literally means nothing, and no one would use this when it comes to financial questions.

Yes I would be , but at the same time I wouldn't support a system where death penalty is avaliable. I would rather prefer a system where there is no death penalty and I would bite the bullet, that the guy won't be killed by death penalty. Anyone would say yes to that question , because it would be based on a very serious personal grudge. But we shouldn't make a law system based on personal feelings and grudges.

First, not presidents are the ones who are directly doing the imposition of penalty - judges are. Second, do we really think there is no corruption or that there is little corruption when it comes to judges? But again, even if we assume 0% corruption, innocent people dying is still there, especially, because in your system there would be no fucking around, just straight up quick execution - no room for proving a person innocent. Also, a shooter killing people does not necessarily indicates, that that person is totally untreatable or that it is impossible to heal that person. The guy might have been on drugs thats why he/she did it or there could be a thousand other different reasons.

Did what? Nope, thats not my logic, that would be an absolutist logic. People being wrongly imprisoned is vastly different than people being wrongly killed, I don't even know how you want to establish that comparison there. "No system is perfect nor immunte to corruption" thats exactly a point that you need to consider before you make a strong take. Making death penalty avalaible is a disaster in a corrupt system.

Its not green, its the more reasonable perspective. I don't think you actually thought through your position. The bulletbiting there is just way too unreasonable and unnecessary + your goal about resources is not as effective as you think. So you basically don't achieve the goal you want to achieve with it + you have to bite that innocent people will die + that people will use it in a corrupt way.

So do you think trading some human lives for resources is okay or worth it? The whole argument is just weak imo. Its not a question that innocent people will die, just because death penalty is a possibility. Also, its completely naive to assume that noone in power will use death penalty in any corrupt way. Also: This number will radically go up when it comes to using Leo's justice system, where people are being sentenced left to right to death penalty, without long trials or procedure to prove them guilty or innocent. - The bullet biting here is just too many and too big to take this position. Its not, because if you go with death penalty , then innocent people dying necessarily comes with it, its a bullet you need to bite, if you want to take this position.

If you ignore innocent people being killed, then yeah its just resources, but again most places where death penalty is used , its more expensive compared to life in prison. How many people would be sentenced based on your intuition? I don't think a few criminal death worth innocent people being killed. The trade is bad.

No its not. You need a lot of evidence to prove someone so guilty that you can give them death penalty. If you want to skip stuff your system will be even more prone to error and corruption. I think we need to be very careful where we set our bars and standards. A lot of shooters can be treated. Also, video can be manipulated nowadays or totally faked.

Then our convo ends here, cause its not productive at all. I don't understand why you pretend or try to engage when you are not moveable at all.

This is not true. Based on statistics life time prison is cheaper than death penalty. Death penalty requires a lot of additional work that is highly expensive. But this is obviously more of a moral question than just an economical one. Are you okay with people being sentenced to death penalty(intentionally or not intentionally) when they are innocent? Why would you assume, that people in power wouldn't use death penalty in a corrupt way? But again, even if we assume 0 corruption, even then there would be innocent people being sentenced to death penalty. If they are sentenced to life time prison, they would still have the chance to get out, if they are proven innocent. So how many criminal death worth how many innocent life? Also the main problem is being overlooked, and not being addressed at all, which is this: Why and how our society creates these criminals? Most prison system don't give a fuck about people, they only focus on justice. Rather than highly focusing on the justice part, we should focus more on how can we treat most criminals so they can get out from prison as capable and functional people, who can function in society in a healthy manner and not as animals who were in an toxic environment for years, where their most demonic parts are forced to come out. Thats not to say, that the justice part is not important at all, it is obviously has its own importance as well, but we need to be able to go beyond just justice.

If your feel that you are seriously hurt, you should go and get therapy.

This is demonstrably false, if what you say would be true, then no AI would be workable or usable or valuable at all, but this is not the case, obviously. Here is a relevant question regarding this topic: What would change your mind on this topic, what is needed here? What arguments? (I feel that you haven't addressed my arguments [for example the facial expression one], and the only productive thing we can do here , is to get into specifics. If you are willing to go to specifics , then i am more than happy to do so). I also feel that I tried to engage with your main points, but I haven't got any feedback on those.

This does not necessarily follows. This is just one interpretation of God, why would you be fixated on the negative interpretation rather than a more inspiring and positive interpretation? No discrimination between experiences != no free will for eternity, it can contain that, but it contains infinitely more stuff as well, you can't just ignore the other stuff.

Not necessarily. If there is a conflict between a peaceful vs a militarily equipped more agressive and hostile society, in that case the probability that the hostile one will win is almost 100%, would you call that the " cleansing agent of bad" or would you call that progress? I don't see how war is a necessity for progress or development. I think, that the positive effects a war can create could be achieved otherwise, because those effects are not exclusive to war only .

@Danioover9000 Good share. Conspiracy theorists are bad at pattern recognition , what they are doing is basically pattern projection (which is this: taking 1 event, and taking random points and projecting a pattern onto those points). There is a difference between recognizing repeating patterns (this is what the AI is doing, because it is trained on sometimes thousands and other times on a million different data and it needs to find the common pattern between those) and between people who see 1 happening and assume a random pattern on that event/happening. We don't agree on the failing part, I mean its already won a fucking art competition, and again, It can already recognize certain emotions on your face, it can recognize the structure of your face, It can recognize actions. It doesn't need to have a "real" understanding of emotions to recognize emotions on a face or to recognize certain actions, so how do you explain how it is capable to do that? It can already create art that shows certain emotions like happiness, anger , sadness etc. , so what other emotions are we talking about, that it isn't capable creating/showing? It can do a lot of stuff just with pattern recognition without any need for abstract understanding. Simple pattern recognition alone, can do a lot. Whatever human art you consider good based on your subjective preferences has certain patterns to it, that are tangible and recognizable. Given enough quality data, it will be able to recognize those patterns better and better until it grasps most of it. So I don't see how "real" understanding or free will is needed here.

If you want to make an argument that they aren't separable, that would just make my argument stronger about AI will be able to replace most human artists, because how do you explain otherwise, why can an AI show certain emotions through facial expression ? It can also recognize certain emotions from just looking at your face,my explanation is this: because there are certain patterns to it, and learning those patterns is enough without any need for "real" understanding.

I know the context here is only actualized.org, but a lot of actualized.org ideas are not unique to only actualized.org, so the butterfly effect is even greater than these numbers. Of course, it would be much harder to count more channels into this mix.

I think there is a difference between having an abstract understanding what emotions are - through empathy, and having a structural understanding of what certain emotions are when they are put into certain contexts (lets be it movies, clips, stories or art or facial expressions). Lets take facial expressions for example. While an AI not fully understand what emotions are, it can understand certain patterns to certain emotions when it comes to being able to show those emotions on a face. Notice that it doesn't need to understand emotions in an abstract way, to be able to show certain emotions on a face. But lets get to specific examples. Which one was created by a human vs Which one was created by an AI?

What makes an art meaningful and satisfying in your opinion?

Thanks.

Oh okay, ty, will check it out. Edit: Yeah i remember now: your main point was, that they lack free will , therefore they aren't creative (because your definition of creative contains the concept of free will) and your other point was this: an AI generated image is missing something: they all look the same and feel the same. I think we should focus on the 'how it feels' part (if you want to continue the discussion). I assume, that your feeling(s) about those images are coming from you knowing beforehand who/what created that particular image. If that assumption isn't true, i would be curious to explore this question more deeper.