THIS IS NOT A FOOD FIGHT, PEOPLE! *Throws a herring at Trimm* *Tosses a hot dog cart at Robert* *Burries Odd Sight in a Odd Sight sized tuft of whipped cream* *Empties a truckload of tomatoes from said truck on Duncan* *Dumps Beedoo! in a vat of molten cheese* Do you know how much work it is to GET all this stuff?! Oh, and all the screaming!
Odd Sight> Man, your mother-in-law sounds complicated. Do what I did, and leave her on another continent.
Robert> I completely neglected to thank you for complimenting my story. I looked back and it, and was surprised at how good the important bits were. It's the only story I ever wrote in a 'flow of consciouness' type way - all the rest I meticulously plan and analyse. As for what you feel the technician should have said: it's not what she said. ;) I can only say I like it better this way. She sees the AI as a machine with a dangerous flaw, and sapience in an AI appears to be something akin to termites to a porch to her. It's our protagonist who recognises the bigger issue at hand.
You finally got rid of your nuclear twinkies? The world can breathe easy once more! What did you do with them? *l* Eat them?
Trimm> Trimm! How are things at the home front? Also, I hope you like herring! *Wields another one*
Nom> I don't think you're a troll. But in a sense that could be worse, because the things coming from your end of the keyboard defy belief. Take your grand ethics down from the clouds for a moment and compare them to the way you are treating actual people down here on the ground. You use so many words of which I wonder if you truly understand what they even actually mean, such as ethics, empathetic, arrogance, presumptious and, sadly, hypocricy. You seem to take a position of moral superiority because you think gently of people in the abstract. But Nom, you are rude and accusationary to people in the concrete. Your journey to being a great man starts at the bottom rung of the ladder, not at the top. If you want to FEEL like a good person, keep right on doing what you're doing. But if you want to BE a good person, I suggest some introspection. You are looking for empathetic people but you seem to lack any form of empathy for -actual- flesh-and-blood human beings. The reason people here call you a troll is that they simply cannot believe you are this incapable of self-judgement.
To me it seems clear that you simply cannot abide anything that challenges the world as you know it. So you get defensive and now you have ended up arguing that you have moral superiority because you have not been abused as a child, blithely broadening the scope of your accusation to good people you know nothing of. Our empathitic and moral juggernaut. And the person who actually has to -deal- with child abuse on a professional level, who has to know about it, who has to weigh the actual consequences of his actions, who has to shoulder the responsibility, who -teaches-, is obviously unwilling to learn more from the moral, intellectual giant that is you. He should read that website you read. Read that back. What would you -think- of such a person if it were someone other than you?
Now, we all have our personal failings. One of mine is that I'm often too lenient and eager to believe in the redeemability of people. But now I have to do something I detest doing, which is to put my dusty old moderator hat on. Nom, not as a chatter, but as the moderator of this place, I'm giving you a warning to drop it. Entirely. Whether you are capable of seeing it or not, you've crossed a disgusting line in human interaction. You ought to be be ashamed of yourself. Maybe with a few years you will be. For now: stop.
I'm hoping that everyone else will drop this as well, HOWEVER: if they do not, do not engage in an argument. Because I started out with a rebuke towards you, I'll give you one reply to that to and about -me- alone, and that will be the last of it. Beyond that, just keep quiet; it's not going to solve anything. Just be the bigger man. Surely you can do that, right?
Arno - [<-- Comic #129: Arno and Beedoo! went to the shows]
Great black dragon
posted @ Sun, Dec 8, 2013 2:22:10 am PST from 18.104.22.168
And on a different note...
My contact at Disney hasn't discovered anything yet, nor has Woody Yocum gotten back to me. If no information is available, then I'll just have to use my best guess.
The model used in the intro to TGC is impressive, but it does appear to be significantly smaller than what we see in the first series. I'll try to stick with the Eyrie Building as seen in "Awakening", and supplement with details from the rest of the series if need be.
posted @ Sun, Dec 8, 2013 12:46:03 am PST from 22.214.171.124
Trimm, you make it sound like being an "educator" means there's nothing left for you to learn! You would reject new information on child abuse just because it came from me? That's a curious academic stance, of which I doubt any good will come.
And as for whether I'm welcome here, don't you think you're being a bit presumptuous? Why don't you just say that *you* don't want me here, instead of pretending to speak on everyone else's behalf?
posted @ Sun, Dec 8, 2013 12:29:56 am PST from 126.96.36.199
Rob>> you ever watch/read chobits?
Mother-in-laws need sleep too
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 10:04:55 pm PST from 188.8.131.52
I'm an educator, I don't need you to tell me about child abuse. But you throwing around that term because you are losing an arguement on the internet shows just how little you understand it. Take your trolling elsewhere, you are unwelcome here.
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 9:29:06 pm PST from 184.108.40.206
Actually, just in case there are readers here who want to know more, but are wary of entering the conversation, I'll go ahead and put up one of the easier links to remember...
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 8:25:29 pm PST from 220.127.116.11
Trimm, child abuse has been the primary cause of human aggression throughout history. Even children who have "only" been spanked or yelled at have shown abnormal growth in the amygdala (thereby making impulse control more difficult, and often leading to even more abuse). And with like 80% of U.S. households still spanking (some right into high school age), it's no wonder society is still retarded in empathy. If you're interested in learning more (instead of just attacking), I'd be happy to direct you to some books and videos that explain the details.
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 8:17:25 pm PST from 18.104.22.168
We haven't seen this kind of trolling in years. Only internet tough guys throw around the term child abuse so lightly.
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 4:44:40 pm PST from 22.214.171.124
"as he scoffs with a snort" ... "he makes war and disorder" ... "being snarky and snide" ... I hadn't seen that comic until you posted it. The wording is uncanny! Now, is there a way to go back and compare the posts that have gone off the bottom of the page?
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 4:35:53 pm PST from 126.96.36.199
Obvious troll is obvious
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 3:53:51 pm PST from 188.8.131.52
Robert, B!, et al:
I encourage you to find a therapist who understands the link between child abuse and warmongering, or at least read up on the topic. Do it not because (or in spite) of it being my recommendation, but rather so that you don't infect the next generation with this hateful venom.
Good luck to you!
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 3:18:09 pm PST from 184.108.40.206
Nom> Knock it off, robot, we're on to you. Here's a pointer: accusing people of dishonesty is not going to win you over to their cause. Implying that people are bigots does not earn you any points. Just because people don't agree to your off-the-wall rights philosophy is no reason to start attacking them. Quit being a goddamn idiot.
Plus you've be around here for, what, two, three months? And you act suspicious that one person's writing style is like another's... like you've seen enough to judge from! You ARE talking to people who have known each other for 15 years and change... our styles have likely adapted toward each others' over the years.
There's a proverb here that goes, "As the innkeeper is, so he sees his guests." From your actions, we can see quite clearly how you are. I think you've worn out your welcome.
Robert may well end up on his own... he's kind of annoying at times. But given the shitheap fate has left on his doorstep, he's lost more, and more painfully, than anyone I know. If you knew at all what you just said, you'd shame yourself dead. But Robert, unlike you, Nom, is never going to be without friends.
And before you even bother checking IPs, mine and Arno's are obviously going to be the same since we're from the same household. Robert's, clearly, will not.
Run along, little troll.
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 2:20:18 pm PST from 220.127.116.11
Nom> Tanslation: I have no rational rebuttal and decided to instead engage in ad hominem attacks. You claim that I am dishonest, which begs the question of what, exactly, I am lying about. You compare me to other individuals you have met who possess finely honed skills or oration... Well, nobody has ever done THAT before! I shall take that as an honest compliment! I do not normally bother offering a rebuttal to other people's hilosophies, but somone as arrogantly and righteously self certain as youis just BEGGING to have their bubble burst.
I have no need to examine my childhood, because I have grown out of it and become an adult. It is clear that you have not yet managed to do the same. I can not hazard a guess as to your physical age, but I hold out the hope that it is young enough that will still have plenty of time to grow into a rational human being.
As for your last statement, you may indeed be correct. It is the unfortunate corrolary to the old adage that "ignorance is bliss." Some of us simply choose not to embrace ignorance. *shrugs*
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 11:23:44 am PST from 18.104.22.168
I started to write a rebuttal, but then I caught myself. Instead, I'll leave you with this:
Robert, you mix truth and dishonesty to the point that it poisons the well for all. I've met dozens of people like that, all big men with finely-honed skills of oration, yet always lacking in character. Quick with a comeback, certainly, but only because they enjoy watching people's blood pressure rise. I strongly urge you to go back and examine your childhood, before you actually do give somebody a heart attack. If you don't start making some changes, you're going to grow old and die surrounded by people, yet completely alone.
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 9:40:10 am PST from 22.214.171.124
Odd> The cake is a LIE! The cake is a LIE! Everyone knows this! *nods* Though I'll happily accept a ortal gun and some of those cool boots instead... *l*
Arno> Dear god, he's accusing us of being the same person. US! Now I'm not sure whether to be amussed or insulted!
Hmmmm.. I guess it's not so bad if I prsume that his comments about how "similiar our writting patterns are" is based on the fact that both are based on logic and fact as opposed to empathy and emotions. I SUPPOSE I can tolerate being lumped in with you under those ircumstances... As distasteful as it may me. *makes a face like he just bit into a lemon* *l* ;>
And NO! No monopoly! That game goes on FOREVER! I'd rather be hit with a board! At least it's over QUICKLY and the pain fades! *nods* Instead I suggest Redneck Life! *sniffles* Oh, how I miss my Winona... *l*
Nom> I keep getting snarky chuckles from his conversation bcause you are so hilariously amussing! You came to a chat room based on a decades old cartoon and filled with weird, snary people to hold a serious discussion on ethics? Seriously? While this is UNDOUBTEDLY entertaining, if you wanted a dead serious discussion of ethics, you are TRULY in the wrong place. This chat room is, by and large, utilized by people who have more than enough "serious" in their real lives, and chat here for amusement. I must admit though, poking you with a few facts and watching your reaction IS the most entertainment I've had in a while.
*gasp* Oh my god! I think I'm finally starting to understand Trolls! Someone stop me before I post again! O.o
Oh well. I guess I should enjoy at least one more post while I can. Before you go to continue conversation with other "more empathic" people. Which can also be read as "People who already agree with me, and prefer emotions over logic."
You accuse me of utilizing the same rhetorical constructs utilized by the religious. That too is rather amussing, since I am a devout aethiest. *snickers* But I can recognize that that doesn't render me immune from utilizing the same arguments. However, I am not the one searching for the 'correct' code of ethics and morality. Historically, the religious believe that the dividing ines between right and wrong are provided by God (or gods.) As a mechanist aethiest, I believe that rules of right and wrong are a purely human creation and vary from human to human and society to society, and that the continued existance of a moral or ethical code is based on it's ability to continue to exist in the face of competing culture's moral and ethical codes. Humans don't all follow a moral code that consists of pure pacifism because any society that bses itself on that principle will quickly cease to exist when it encounters a society that does not practice that philosophy.
I am not sure exactly where yoyu draw the underpinnings of your quest for morality and ethics from, but I notice you give little credence to the underlying principle of maintaining your own existance.
You caim that I deny that AIs might have the ability and desire to make their own judgements about US. You have that absolutely backwards. That's my exact concern. You claim that AIs might be moe "ethical" than we are. As if "Ethics" is some linear scale that starts at zero and progresses up to moral perfection. I have no interest in judging whether other things are "worthy" on whatever scale you have imagined. My first interest is in whether or not things are a threat to my continued existance.
So yes. If we somehow created a race of robots that was smarter, stronger, more creative, faster reproducing, and unfettered by anything that would prevent them from surpassing and supplanting humanity I would immediately see the long term extinction of the human race. And because of that, I would hit the delete button just as fast as my finger could move. Then I'd go back to the drawing board to try to create an AI that was less dangerous. Or, alternatively, incease HUMAN capabilities to be on par with what I had created. That's the sort of positive, upwards spiral I'd like to see.
You want an absolute, underlying philosophy? Try this one: "The future belongs to those who are there to claim it." Your current philosophy gives short shrift to ensuring that you yourself or your species as a whole exists in the future.
I must admit that I have no idea what NAP is, and Wikipedia has failed to enlighten me as to a meaning that fits this context. You also seem intentionally blind to the fact that I am not arguing that under all circumstances AIs must be destroyed. I am merely stating the most basic criteria that will be used to determine if such a thing can be allowed to continue to exist. There are numerous possible circumstances where the answer to that question would be "Yes."
As for your original comments on Goliath crushing Coyotes head, I have a simple answer. Coyote was a persistat and ongoing threat to the lives of Goliath, his family and friends, and one might argue the remainder of his species. Either he was a non-sapient autonomoton, or a sapient, sentient with homicidal objectives. If the former, than Goliath destroyed a dangerous piece of machinery. If the later, he terminated the existance of an individual that posed an existential threat to him and his, which would fall under the heading of "Self Defense." By the sae standards, he should likely have popped Xanatos's head like a grape as well, as the same conditions more or less applied. It can be argued however that there were other considerations that prevented such a handling od Xanatos, which would make terminating him in such a manner unwise. I think thayt's an EXCELLENT lesson to teach our children.
As for treating you like a wet behind the ears child, or someone who doesn't know the "Real World," that is because that is how your position makes you sound. It is unfortunately common that, rregardless of physical age, more and more people never really grow up these days. I will tell you the unvarnished trth: My greatest fear about the future of the human race is that there will come a day when EVERYONE has been raised to think like you. To believe that the natural state of the world is one of relative peace and prosperity, that violence is never necessary, that all beings can live together wthout conflict regardless of innate differences. That the world is truly a Utopia. Because Utopia means "a world that does no really exist." And when something happens... A solar flare, an asteriod strike, a supervolcanoe eruption... a hostile AI... The real world is going to hit like a Mack Truck doing 80. And the human race is going to be like a deer caught in the headlights.
It's a lovely dream though, I'll give you that.
Arno> HEY! I refuse to become involve din some silly food fight! Esecially when I've recently retired my SNPATs... Ah, my Giant Nuclear Powered Attack Twinkies, how I miss you... *grumbles* Damned NSA, whining about nuclear proliferation... *grumbles and mutters* ;>
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 5:52:34 am PST from 126.96.36.199
Arno>>.sorry, I deleted it. Had something to do with mother in laws. Evidentially they need sleep. I deleted it because it didn't make sense. Anyway, she going to be moving back to Kye's sisters. She was saying a bunch of Thai stuff and then ended with a "I can't take this any more" in English.
Mother-in-laws need sleep too
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 5:35:59 am PST from 188.8.131.52
And as for accusations of being unethical, I did try to explain that. I'm not sure how deep I should go, though. For instance, I assume (perhaps wrongly) that we'd be on the same page with the NAP. That alone blasts the heck out of a lot of what was said -- namely the presumption that one can pre-emptively exterminate and individual, perhaps even the beginnings of a species, just because said intelligence is willing to use violence to free itself from your grasp. (You wouldn't say that a human has to politely request his freedom, would you? Of course not. He is an intelligent being, and naturally deserves it without question. Similarly, the burden of "noticing that the AI wants its freedom" is the duty of the programmers, and cannot be sloughed onto the AI as a duty to "prove you're worthy".)
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 3:35:28 am PST from 184.108.40.206
Yes, I suppose I do come off as agitated. I made a simple inquiry as to whether anyone else in the community had any issues with what appears to be an outright murder, and I end up basically being tasked with explaining why we shouldn't enjoy it as a perfectly natural act. Talk about a tough crowd!
I've never gone to a convention, or really spent any time speaking with other Gargoyles fans, but I assumed that most would already have contemplated these issues and come to the same empathetic conclusion that I had. Then to find that basically most everyone's opinion is "Eh, maybe he was a sapient being, maybe he wasn't. Too late to find out now! Hardy-har-har!"... 8|
As for this: "But while you say we're having a serious ethical discussion here, I say we're talking about a robot head from a cartoon." Well, one of my points was that it is being shown in a cartoon, and that's helping to shape kids' impressions of what's acceptable in real life. It's the same as getting soldiers to think of foreigners as sub-human. If we keep reinforcing that dogs or cows or AIs only exist for our petting or dining or crushing pleasure, then that's how our kids will treat them by default. And the longer they go on without questioning it, the harder the faulty concept becomes to dislodge.
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 3:26:25 am PST from 220.127.116.11
Odd Sight> Woohoo! Games! Er, do you have the one where you hit people with a board? I think that's one of Beedoo!'s favorites. But Monopoly will be fine too. ;)
... Hey... Where's your tag line? You always had one. Did it fall on the way here?
Nom> You come over as aggitated. See what I mean about Robert being frustrating?
You've got me, of course. Robert and I are the same person. I tried to make the writing styles different: me, suave and intelligent; Robert, a crow pecking angrily at a keyboard. I thought it would be enough, but I guess I was wrong.
I even made sure to have two ISP's, one in New York and one in The Netherlands, in case you highlight the black text behind the post dates to see the IP addresses. I built these giant websites behind my link to support this facade. You really ought to see them: if you go to "Arno's Amazing Homepage", you'll find something called "Chat Quotes", where I made up an entire years long history of amusing posts in this chat room, including those of Robert and Arno. if you go to "Arno and Beedoo! - Sitting in a Tree", you'll find comics and blog entries about our wedding (me and Beedoo!, not me and Robert), and how Robert was my so-called Best Man. I'm telling you, I was nights making all that (I had to do the comic drawing myself in case my wife wasn't real), so I hope you appreciate all the effort I went through!
But the hardest part was the mitosis required to be two people at once at our get-togethers. I swear, I ruined so many clothes that way!
So, humor. Why humor? Humor is important. It brings levity to a conversation and indicates that a situation is low-stakes. Not everything is to be joked about, of course. Making crass jokes in a discussion about the the holocaust is inappropriate, because such a discussion can only be serious. But while you say we're having a serious ethical discussion here, I say we're talking about a robot head from a cartoon. A potentially interesting start-off point for a theoretical debate about AI's, but hardly worth Men In Comfy Chairs Looking Serious.
Why did I reply to your accusation with humor? because the alternatives are either to leave the accusation where it is, or to angrily refute it. The first is bad for me, the second is bad for you. Humor leaves doors open that might otherwise be shut. I've used it extensively through my years. It is part of who I am, one of many tools of communication. And I like people to be amused.
But Nom, I've gone on the assumption that you are acting in good faith. I expect the same in return - this too is a matter of morality. You speak big words of our unwillingness to trust in an unseen, hypothetical new intelligence's intentions, but you accuse Robert of being unethical without further argument, and you accuse both of us of falsely representing ourselves. You seem to get incredibly defensive in the face of a position you cannot support and treat us with the same suspicion that you are arguing against in the hypothetical case we're discussing.
So I will leave this debate at that. If possible, read back our original posts and try only to read what it says, and ignore the leaps your mind makes about what kind of people would disagree with you and what kind of things they must be thinking. The answers to many of the questions you posed are in there once you cut through the emotion. Think about the points made, decide what their merits are and integrate that which has truth to it into your world view. And if you look at it closely and still find nothing but falsehoods, you can ignore it at your leasure and think we're a pair of dummy-heads. Just so long as you understand we're a -pair- of dummy-heads.
And by the Station 8 Statues, Ammendment 27 (2002), we are now required to have a food fight. *Slams a pie in Odd Sight's face, since he happens to be closest*
Arno - [<-- Comic #129: Arno and Beedoo! went to the shows]
Great black dragon
posted @ Sat, Dec 7, 2013 2:16:59 am PST from 18.104.22.168
On a side note, we're having board-game night at the cafe... Every Wednesday.
But you all have to play nice or we won't have cake.
posted @ Fri, Dec 6, 2013 9:21:54 pm PST from 22.214.171.124