Mind-Expanding (non-science) things

Topic

Replies

That’s the thing, there’s nowhere to leap to from LLMs.  They’re basically really advanced spell checkers, and there’s no way for them to discriminate around the information in their training sets.  And this is why AI companies are lobbying to get unrestricted access to copyrighted materials, they’ve absorbed all the information they could legally acquire and get away with stealing and the newest generation of LLMs have stalled out. There’s so much AI-generated garbage already out there it’s corrupting the datasets and the new outputs are even worse than older ones as a result.

All the talk of AGI coming out of LLMs is an attempt to build hype to maintain investment.  All the companies pushing this are desperate that there’ll be a huge breakthrough before the money and access to data runs out, and nobody wants to drop out in case they miss out on the hypothetical breakthrough. It’s wort noting that increasingly the heads of tech companies aren’t technical people, but financial ones who don’t understand the complexity or ethical issues in the same way, and a lot of them have clearly watched or read major SF works without a shred of undersanding of what they’re saying (See for example Elon Musk’s obsession with colonising Mars, clearly based on reading Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy, but he fantasises about being in charge, how society will work and like, what the money will be… while ignoring that after the Second Revolution Mars is an anarchist society.  I’ve joked that Musk thinks he’s Arkady Bogdanov but he’s really Phyllis Boyle… which makes sense if you’ve read the books?)

But their technical documents are a lot more honest about the limitations.  I’m running a pilot program of Microsoft copilot in work, and there’s a training video I watched going through the capabilities and they talked a lot about how you shouldn’t rely on copilot for finished documents, and they talk a lot about how it limits access to data but also that you need to use Microsoft’s file classification system to prevent sensitive or confidential info from being used.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Christian

Christian wrote:

I am obviously a huge neophile

Look, we all like The Matrix

2 users thanked author for this post.

Christian, lorcan_nagle

Oh one more thing to add, Microsoft and OpenAI have outright shifted the goalposts and declared that to them “AGI” isn’t actually a General Intelligence, just the ability to make a profit of 100 billion off of LLMs.  Yay!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Seems like their definition is that it can replace a human at the workplace, more or less. Which, yeah, that thing is probably going to happen.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, lorcan_nagle

[lorcan_nagle]

Well Microsoft are selling AI to businesses as a productivity tool rather than something that’s going to cut jobs.  It’ll summarise long, boring documents, it’ll help you write your long, boring documents, it’ll make your powerpoints look good without the use of templates or you having to learn design basics, it’ll make images for you so you don’t need to dick around with Google Bing Image Search or an image library.

The threat is people doing low-level creative work, copy writers, graphics designers and artists, special effects technicians.  the stuff that can be easily automated away and it doesn’t matter too much if the quality drops.

• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by lorcan_nagle.
• This reply was modified 2 months, 3 weeks ago by lorcan_nagle.

2 users thanked author for this post.

Todd, Christian

Watched a documentary by a reputable Dutch investigative journalism tv show (so not some transphobe outfit) that concluded the scientific evidence for a lot of the medical interventions for transgender people, based on the so-called “Dutch protocol”, is very low. They also did interviews with some patients who said they were very badly treated by their doctors. Pretty disturbing stuff.

 

 

There’s a little protestant Christian bookstore here in town, I looked on their website a while back and it looks like they now also carry books from a more Catholic tradition, like Teresa of Avila etc I think they didn’t do that before. Sign of the times I guess

I have come to the conclusion that I don’t really like Adam Curtis. The music and the pretty pictures seem to be there to hide the fact that what he says goes nowhere.

If you keep abusing people and saying they are evil, they’re worthless, they don’t deserve love, their modest needs in life are sinful, eventually I think they internalize it and they become oppressed by tthe burden of sin. I think many belief systems and ideologies do this to an extent, maybe most. It can be an effective way to subject people, to bend others to your will. Religions do this all the time. Buddhism to. “You have to become pure, unstained”, bla bla bla.

Christianity (/Judaism, /Islam) is the worst for this though, with the concept of original sin. I’m a bit surprised about Buddhism, but it does make sense that that’s a big thing there.

It’s a good question whether people would be more healthy and had higher self-esteem in a society in which the dominant religion has a more positive image of humanity.

Hmmm… what does ChatGPT have to say about this?

Yes, there have been and still are religions or spiritual traditions that focus purely on the positive aspects of human nature and don’t have a concept of sin, inherent evil, or divine punishment. Here are a few examples:

1. Jainism – Absolute Nonviolence and Personal Liberation
Jainism doesn’t have the concept of sin in the way Abrahamic religions do. Instead of sin and punishment, it teaches karma as a kind of natural consequence of one’s actions.

Humans are not inherently evil—every soul is seen as inherently divine, and liberation is about shedding negative karma rather than atoning for sin.

There’s no God who judges; instead, enlightenment is achieved through self-discipline and nonviolence (ahimsa).

2. Bahá’í Faith – Human Nature as Noble
The Bahá’í Faith emphasizes that humans are born noble and capable of great good. While it acknowledges that people can make mistakes, it does not have the idea of “original sin” or inherent corruption.

The focus is on unity, personal growth, and service to humanity rather than guilt or fear of punishment.

3. Certain Buddhist Traditions – No Sin, Only Ignorance
Many schools of Buddhism (especially Zen and Tibetan Buddhism) do not have a concept of sin, only ignorance (avidyā).

Rather than seeing people as inherently flawed, they view suffering as a misunderstanding of reality, which can be overcome through enlightenment.

Some Buddhist traditions, like Pure Land Buddhism, emphasize compassion and grace rather than personal fault.

4. Some Indigenous Religions – Harmony, Not Guilt
Many indigenous belief systems (e.g., some Native American, African, and Polynesian traditions) do not have a concept of sin. Instead, they focus on maintaining balance and harmony with nature, spirits, and the community.

Actions that disrupt this balance may be corrected, but not through punishment—rather through ritual, reconciliation, or rebalancing the cosmic order.

As for such a religion producing more positive human beings, the AI doesn’t have a straightforward answer, but it does have a pretty good one regarding the complexities of the question:

Me: What I’m wondering is, does a society in which such a positive religion is dominant produce healthier, less troubled and violent people? Can we draw any lessons from history where this is concerned?

ChatGPT:
Razoniert über Gesellschaften mit positiven Religionen für 7 Sekunden
The relationship between the nature of a dominant religion and societal outcomes is complex, and while there are intriguing correlations, drawing clear causal lessons from history is challenging. Here are a few points to consider:

Multifaceted Social Dynamics
Interconnected Factors: A society’s overall health and levels of violence depend on many variables beyond its religious beliefs. Economic conditions, political stability, education, and cultural norms all interact with religious teachings. Even if a “positive” religion emphasizes inherent goodness and personal growth, the broader social context plays a significant role in shaping behavior.

Historical Examples & Cultural Context
Buddhist Societies: Many predominantly Buddhist societies, which often emphasize overcoming ignorance rather than sin, are sometimes noted for lower levels of internal violence or sectarian conflict. However, attributing these outcomes solely to religious doctrine oversimplifies the picture. In countries like Thailand or Japan, for example, social harmony also emerges from long-standing cultural practices, legal systems, and community networks.

Indigenous Traditions: Societies with indigenous religions that focus on balance and harmony can exhibit strong community ties and conflict-resolution practices. Yet, these communities have also faced external pressures such as colonization, which complicates any straightforward assessment of how their spiritual traditions affect societal health.

Modern Research and Psychological Insights
Positive Self-Concept: Some modern spiritual movements, which reject notions of inherent sin or guilt, promote a positive self-concept. Psychological research has found that a healthy self-image can contribute to lower stress levels and more prosocial behavior. However, it’s not entirely clear whether this directly translates to lower societal violence.

Community and Belonging: Religions that emphasize unity and positive human potential often create strong community bonds and social support networks, which can help reduce feelings of isolation and marginalization—factors that are sometimes linked to social unrest or violence.

Cautions and Limitations
Correlation vs. Causation: Even if societies with more “positive” religious frameworks show lower incidences of certain social ills, it is difficult to definitively say that the religion is the primary cause. The interplay of history, culture, and other social systems makes it hard to isolate religion as the single factor.

Variability Within Religions: It’s also important to note that even within religions that are generally considered “positive,” interpretations and practices can vary widely. Leaders, historical contexts, and local customs can all influence how a religion impacts society.

Lessons from History
Holistic Approaches: History suggests that promoting positive values—such as compassion, community support, and personal growth—can be beneficial. However, these values need to be part of a broader system that includes fair governance, economic opportunity, and education.

Avoiding Dogmatism: One lesson might be that systems focusing on human potential and growth, rather than guilt and inherent sin, could foster environments that encourage personal responsibility and mutual support. Yet, even these systems are not immune to challenges, and they can sometimes struggle with issues like groupthink or internal conflict.

In summary, while there is evidence that societies emphasizing positive human potential can foster healthy, cohesive communities, it’s important to acknowledge that religion is just one part of a much larger societal puzzle. History provides examples that can be both inspiring and cautionary, but no single religious model has proven to be a panacea for all social ills.

Sounds about right.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Todd

Well I disagree with the chatpgt about Buddhism. In Buddhism there os often – at least in the “official scriptures” – quite a strong emphasis on punishment of bad deeds, bad akrma, sometimes quite graphic torture in hell realms etc. There’s also a denial of pleasure.

Well, to be fair, it only refered to “some” Buddhist traditions.

Jainism sounds pretty cool, from skimming its wiki.

It’s different for different religions I guess, but i think in Indian religions (India the country, not native Americans) including Jainism  there is an emphasis on self denial that I have started to dislike after reading a lot about Buddhism. Jainism is also pretty ascetic.

 

I think human beings have basic needs that we should try to meet. Simply enjoying things for instance, this is something I think we shouldn’t deny ourselves. I think hedonistic philosphers like Aristippus and Epicurus were right about a lot of things.

Yeah, I completely agree. But then again, my interest in religion is always rather more abstract, I’m not on a journey to find spiritual meaning or anything. And I’ve decided that I ever do want to do that, I’ll try the Alan Moore thing and become a wizard.

Speaking of which, Alastair Crowley and his lot, now those guys really didn’t care for asceticism.