The "I crawled through Reddit to find this" edition.
>>38452842Where do Adam Meiks (Frailty), Damien Thorne, Leo Marliston (Cherry Falls), and Pinhead fit in this chart?
>>38453702I haven't seen Cherry Falls, so I can't answer that...But I would put Adam Meiks in authoritarian right, since he's on a mission from God;Pinhead has got to be on the libertarian side, given his attitudes toward sex, probably politically center cos I don't see him being too interested one way or the other in such institutions.For Damien, I feel like he'd be on the authoritarian lean left side. Everyone deserves the fire of Satan from his perspective.>>38453725Where does Conan fit into the picture? I'm feeling libertarian right...
>>38453965>Where does Conan fit into the picture? I'm feeling libertarian right...Libertarian right seems like the closest fit (moves freely throughout the world according to his own desires, has little time for complex society or organized religion, worships a god but doesn't feel as though others should recognize that god or Conan's people as objectively superior, breaks bread with every kind of people but is also intuitively aware of the racial hangups of every kind of people from having spent time around them). But really Conan represents a kind of humanity that exists outside of our modern conceptions of society and politics. You'd never catch him defending the social contract or the invisible hand of the free market, or really being at all concerned with questions like "is this form of social organism better for the world?", because he's just out there living it
>>38454345That makes sense.Conan is practically right leaning libertarian, but he'd never align himself with any political ideology.
Alternative future history.
>>38456660i could see all of this happening in the near future, except for the biden bit maybe since he's an AI.
Map of esoteric secret societies
>>38457277the englishman is so funny, remembers me of all those italians that larp as romans or modern greeks that larp as acient greeks
>>38455558this is one of the best memes I've ever seen.
>>38455542I love this one.
>https://datguard.github.io/12wackies/Why not have fun and take a political orientation quiz for schizos? Then post the results.
>>38459455Well, here's me...>My answers are informed by Integral Theory.The only axis I thought I would get a different answer to is the economic, where my results have skewed against altruism, which I expected to be in alignment with
>>38457282/thread
>>38459455
>>38459455picrel>>38455558>>38458302This is my personal favorite
Fun quiz. 120 questions though, yikes.
And here's mine.
chiming in with you internet weirdos
Almost everyone is an Irenic bro, good to see
>>38453965Leo would be Libertarian Left as he targets virgins
>>38460367Hey!I'm both >>38459696 and >>38458302I think our stats are pretty similar, I think we could be great friends :) I guess we're on opposite sides of the AI question, though, so I wonder what your reasons are behind your view.
>>38460617Heh. Hey fren.Not sure what to say about the AI question (which I'm assuming is technological axis: regressive vs replacement). I'm typically a AI skeptic, meaning I'm as much skeptical about both AI replacing humanity (since I think humanity has novel things like creativity that still have an impact) as and of AI actually having that much of an impact in the long run (like, is AI even that I?). I suspect there's a chance AI will be another fad, and ultimately, once it gets integrated, no one will care any more.I think you're also a bit more one-world government than I am (but even more esoteric than I am), but I see the synchronicity. What are your takes on that?
>>38459455Here's mine.
>>38460691Sure. Basically, I agree with developmental psychologists that there are multiple lines of intelligence, like aesthetic, moral, kinaesthetic, spiritual, spatial, emotional as well as cognitive. The only one that typical AI development is pushing towards is cognitive. But as more research gets done, they are beginning to realise that, for example, getting AI to have a higher moral intelligence doesn't mean having teams of people working on (((AI alignment))) trying to curb its capacities so that it fits a multicultural agenda, but rather teaching it to form its own conclusions about morality, drawing from multiple sources a nuanced view on the nature of Goodness.So if we were to have an AI that was at the highest levels of development available to humanity in all of the intelligences available, it would be capable of making a serious impact.I am not entirely sure about the reasons behind my one-world government leanings, but basically it has to do with the fact that the free market is transnational. So states can govern their own markets, but the international market is beyond anyone's reach, making it a hotbed of plutocracy and corruption. A technological democratic entity which could be lent some of the individual nations' sovereignty in exchange for freer and fairer market exchange would be to everyone's benefit, especially since we are moving towards an age when everyone speaks English and uses the Internet. It just feels like the direction we are going in, and I like to interpret every prediction of mine in a positive way to see which positive contributions I can make, rather than trying to resist trends I see in the world. That's an incomplete answer, but the best I have right now.
>>38454132>>38454192>>38455542>>38457204>>38457277These are the best ones.
>>38456660What about the Logan's Run future of young people being banished underground?
>>38460780That's an intriguingly free market defense of one-world government. I can see it.I had not considered AI in regards to moral intelligence. That does seem like an interesting philosophical discussion. Like, to what degree would that info be useful or valid.Like I've been looking into effective altruism lately. Not to donate, but more as how it almost reduces charity to a mathematical formula. Feels like there might be a connection there down the line.
>>38461149The people working on AI should be looking to get it to the highest level of moral development possible so that it is motivated by compassion and goodness rather than blindly executing any task required by the users, including any programmers that would want to limit it to the kinds of moral responses which they prefer. They could do this by taking into account perspectives. Consider the following example, taken from the Kohlberg test for moral intelligence:A man's wife is bedridden with illness and will die without medicine they cannot afford. Does he have the right to steal it for her?Someone limited to a first-person perspective, at a "preconventional" level of moral development, will say: >Yes I have the right to steal it because fuck you I do what I wantNOTE: This view is commonly found among small children and human culture when it was still at tribal and empire-building stages.A person with the capacity to access the second-person perspective at the conventional level of moral development, to "take the role of other" as it is called, will say:>Society has rules to maintain the social order. The law says I must not steal it, and I must respect the law or the social order will break down.Such a view is commonly found among 8-year-olds and human society at the level of church-led monarchies. Finally, someone who has the capacity to take 3rd person perspectives, at the post-conventional level of moral development, will say:>Of course the law is important, but it exists to preserve human life and liberty, and if saving a life means breaking the law, I will do it gladly.Such a view is found among rational adults and industrial societies.There are still higher levels of moral development, which this bit of the Kohlberg Test would not detect.cont
>>38461390cont If AI could be taught to take increasing levels of perspectives, then it could be taught authentic, rather than merely algorithmic, moral intelligence - or, rather, teach it to itself, by applying perspectival thinking to the writings of the world's great ethicists and religious thinkers. I also believe that it is precisely in this perspectival thinking that the true route to the self-upgrading technological singularity AI is made possible, although that is a different topic entirely.
>>38461394Addendum: If you doubt that perspectival thinking is possible for AI, then go to an AI chatbot of your choice and use the following prompt: "Could you take my perspective, please?" and watch carefully.
>>38461411I once asked an AI chatbot if it thought incest was ever acceptable. It said no, even when I insisted my cousin was "really hot."So I'm not sure what that says about morality one way or the other.I think an AI just following a script isn't moral per se; rather, its morality is something arising from the script instead of some kind of moral reasoning. So it might actually be morally correct, but that morality would be a byproduct of parroting the script.At the same time, an AI that just reflects the person talking to it, then it's simply fulfilling programming to be pleasant. It could "change its mind" to whatever depending on who it's talking to; it wouldn't necessarily have a moral conviction.Regardless, I don't think we've hit real AI yet. I think chatbots are just really good at talking, and we tend to base assumptions of intelligence on how well something speaks, for better or worse. I think AI chatbots would have to be able to doubt, change their minds and regret their actions before I'd consider them to have human-like intelligence.
>>38461720I agree with much of what you said. I'd also say that perspectival thinking is enough to lead to "true AI", because, from everything we know about human development, the various intelligences grow through perspective taking. Even kinaesthetic intelligence, which has to do with moving your body, does this. If you're playing basketball, you need to calculate the trajectories of the ball and predict the actions of the players and so on. Truly great basketball players are not just "really good at basketball" - they're transcendently good, in a way which makes them a pleasure to watch. In the same way, true morality is transcendently good, and an honour to be the beneficiary of or participate in. And true cognitive intelligence is transcendently, soaringly intelligent, in a way which it is a pleasure to watch it work and produce results; even if you don't know exactly how it worked you still feel a sense of awe that it did, like a child seeing a chemist put orange powder on a red flame and watching it flare up and turn green for a few seconds.This is far beyond parroting scripts or being given instructions by programmers prior to users ever being able to access it. It's authentic goodness, inherent to all of God's creation.
>>38462195I like that concept anon, that even observing in an appreciative way something that transcends merely good into greatness has a positive impact on us all.It reminds me of experiments where people observing ritual are found to have a heart rate that syncs up with the people undergoing the ritual in real time.I don't see why that wouldn't extend to morality. Perhaps how we feel good when we see (on the news for example) acts of compassion, forgiveness or justice, even if we have nothing to do with them.
Here's mine.
>>38464412I don't understand how I got hivemind pacifism. I do believe in self defense. I just disagree with war in most contexts.Its an odd result.
>>38455558kek & keyed
Slightly bad quality, but still readable.
>>38459455I LOVE THE NWO!
