KorbenDallas

Members
  • Posts

    1,452
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

KorbenDallas last won the day on March 31 2019

KorbenDallas had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About KorbenDallas

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Objectivism
  • Location
    North Florida
  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    John Mackey
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

Recent Profile Visitors

4,260 profile views

KorbenDallas's Achievements

Apprentice

Apprentice (3/14)

  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Conversation Starter Rare
  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

90

Reputation

  1. Actually, that is pretty much being a dick, and a strawman argument. I posted this thread to have a charitable discussion but you're coming in too hot. I'm not the enemy, seriously.
  2. Elon Musk and other tech leaders call for pause on ‘dangerous race’ to make A.I. as advanced as humans Artificial intelligence labs have been urged by Elon Musk and numerous other tech industry figures to stop training AI systems more powerful than GPT-4, OpenAI’s latest large language model. In an open letter signed by Musk and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, technology leaders urged for a six-month pause to the development of such advanced AI, saying it represents a risk to society. Musk, who is one of OpenAI’s co-founders, has criticized the organization a number of times recently, saying he believes it is diverging from its original purpose. Elon Musk and other tech leaders call for pause on 'dangerous race' to make A.I. as advanced as humans WWW.CNBC.COM Artificial intelligence labs have been urged by Elon Musk and numerous other tech industry figures to stop training AI systems more powerful... I think Elon Musk is right about warning people about the potential dangers of AI. The article I posted is somewhat of a surprise to me in that Steve Wozniak has signed the open letter as well.
  3. What I've quoted is an objectivist answer, I'm posting on an objectivist forum after all But in my mind, theoretically thinking about a future where an AI that has the level of sentience as the average human ends up breaking some parts of objectivism. How can something man-made be granted the status of consciousness of a nature-made human? Isn't man's fundamental attribute the faculty of reason? Certainly a technology won't emerge that possess the same faculty of reason, right? How can such a thing exist without being a biological organism, ie. not possessing what is biological life? That future is going to happen, it's not a question of if it will it's a question of how soon in the future will it be. Will such an AI exist? Yes. Will such an AI have an identity that separates it from every other entity? Yes. Will such an AI have consciousness, ie. the capacity of reason and self-awareness of an average human? Yes. That breaks my objectivist thinking--and to be clear I consider myself to be objectiv-ish. Does such an AI have life? We might need to rethink about what it means to be alive. I asked the question in my original post about the possibility of AI having rights in the future--no I don't think AI should have rights. It's created by man and doesn't have the right to life. But I do think the government needs to be vigilant about the possibility of AI being a danger to humans, in whatever capacity. The objectivist answer is unregulated AI, but in the hands of ill-minded people, bad things can happen. Look what happened to crypto--oh wait, too soon?!
  4. I've read several alarmist articles as well as more measured opinions. I've read some of the conversations ChatGPT had with people. The question of sentience comes up, understandably. So is ChatGPT sentient? Here's what I think: there are a couple of problems right now to determine sentience. There needs to be 1) a method to measure sentience and 2) a unit of measurement. The latter is easier. I think sentience would be on a spectrum, say 0-100 and the average human is perhaps an 80. If an average human is 80, then I'd say ChatGPT is a 15 at times. So it's somewhat sentient, some of the time. Again, how to objectively measure sentience is an issue when it's inherently subjective. I don't want to misinform but I read that Chomsky says sentience can be measured on a scale from 0 to infinity. Regardless if that can be attributed to him, it is interesting because hypothetically AI can eventually surpass the most sentient human being on the planet--and perhaps reach a sentience level greater than humankind's collective awareness. I do not think that giving the current iteration of ChatGPT a sentience level of 0 is appropriate. This does raise some interesting questions like if an AI were to reach the level of sentience of an average human being, do we now classify this AI of being conscious? Does there need to be a discussion about AI rights? Does a government have the right to regulate AI, and if so to what degree?
  5. A virtue is the action by which one gains or keeps values; Kanye's recent actions have lost his deal with Adidas, Parlor, and to a lesser value his Twitter account. Antisemitism is anti-value, anti-virtue in any reality so we're seeing cause and effect in Kanye's life play out right in front of our eyes--he's not taking actions to keep his values (Adidas) or gain his values (Parlor). I really don't like it for him but at this point amassing a billion dollar net worth is going to be near impossible since I believe he's doing irreparable damage to his reputation. I'm afraid what's coming next for him will hit him more personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see Kim Kardashian petitioning a judge for reduced visitation with his children, or worse no visitation at all. I haven't said Kanye has a mental illness, I don't know what's going on internally with him but it's obvious his actions have changed recently and he's losing his values.
  6. I hate to see Kanye self-destructing like this. He needs an intervention, whether it be psychiatric, psychological, spiritual, cognitive, emotional, or personal. The trick is for him to get the right help at the right time by the right people. You'd think the life-altering events like losing Adidas and losing Parlor would be a wake-up call, but he keeps spiraling downward and getting worse. By the way, I think his song "Heartless" is one of the best R&B songs of all time; I'd like to see him get back to that version of Kanye, but I'm afraid he's already done too much damage and people are going to dismiss him out-of-hand when they hear the very mention of his name.
  7. He doesn't have a remote chance of winning, but how many people can say they ran for US President--twice? If anything it will promote his brand which is Kanye, so it seems like a smart move to me.
  8. Look out Trump, Kanye is running for President in 2024; noting he ran in 2020 as well. Ye 4 Prez! Kanye West Confirms Presidential Run, Enlists Milo Yiannopoulos for His 2024 Campaign Kanye West Confirms Presidential Run, Enlists Milo Yiannopoulos for His 2024 Campaign WWW.YAHOO.COM “Yes… It’s simple…. It’s just we’re moving toward the future," Ye...
  9. Make America Great Again Again
  10. Tarantino was on Kimmel and was asked about stealing Kanye's idea. (He didn't steal it, but Kanye did pitch an idea for his music video.) See below:
  11. First, I don't take mental illness lightly and I hope that if Kanye is having symptoms of mental illness that he gets the help he needs. Kanye has been making headlines recently, and one of his latest claims is that Quentin Tarantino and Jamie Foxx ripped off the idea for the movie Django Unchained from a pitch that Kanye did for a music video. A couple of objective facts: 1) Django was a move in 1966 and is the primary influence for Quentin's movie, 2) Will Smith was originally set to play Django in the movie, not Jamie Foxx, but Smith left after he read the script and didn't like his character's arch. Smith left the movie and Foxx stepped in, well after the script was completed. So did Kanye pitch a music video idea? I don't doubt that he did, but the movie Django Unchained was not based on his idea. Kanye has bi-polar disorder and the following article lists several incidents that Kanye has had in the public eye over the years, some of which may or may not be attributed to his mental illness: Inside Kanye West's bipolar disorder NYPOST.COM How did the 21-time Grammy winner get here? Here's a look into the disorder and its effect on West over the years. It's important to note that in the article it references Harvard Medical School saying that “false beliefs or false perceptions” can also be a sign of bipolarism. The article goes on to say that Kanye talks about his bi-polar medication in a 2022 documentary about him entitled "jeen-yuhs: A Kanye Trilogy". Mental illness runs in my family so when I see Kanye's actions potentially being in-part caused by his mental illness, I feel empathetic for him. I'm hearing some left-leaning folks bashing him for his actions recently, but my hope is that people can have empathy for him because what we might be witnessing is someone in need of help.
  12. All Polls are Wrong.....? "Republicans by double-digit margins said they are willing to ditch their party to follow former President Donald Trump if he breaks out on his own, according to a new poll released Sunday. Members of the GOP by 46 percent to 27 percent said they would put the Republican Party in the rear-view mirror if Trump creates his own, a USA Today/Suffolk University poll found." Source: https://nypost.com/2021/02/21/republicans-willing-to-break-from-party-to-follow-trump-poll/
  13. Reading some of this thread over Thanksgiving, an interesting mention about the Stockdale Paradox has lead to some thoughts. The main idea of the paradox is, "you need to balance realism with optimism" according to this article about it. This reminds me of Rand's Razor in the cognitive/emotional realm, from an excerpt in ITOE, "The requirements of cognition determine the objective criteria of conceptualization. They can be summed up best in the form of an epistemological “razor”: concepts are not to be multiplied beyond necessity—the corollary of which is: nor are they to be integrated in disregard of necessity." The latter part that they are not to be integrated in disregard of necessity seems poignant at this stage of the 2020 election. Here is something that Laura Ingraham recently said to illustrate the point of the Stockdale Paradox and Rand's Razor, she recently said this on her show according to the USA Today: “Unless the legal situation changes in a dramatic and frankly an unlikely manner, Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20th," she said on "The Ingraham Angle." Despite what she called "unpleasant" and "disappointing" election results, Ingraham told her viewers that "as much as we wish things were different, this is where things stand tonight." "To say this constitutes living in reality," Ingraham said. "If I offered you a false reality – if I told you there was an excellent, phenomenal chance that the Supreme Court was going to step in and deliver a victory to President Trump – I'd be lying to you." So Laura Ingram, a staunch Trump supporter, practiced the Stockdale Paradox and Rand's Razor by balancing optimism with reality in accordance with necessity: as new context came in regarding the 2020 election legal challenges she came to the conclusion that it was time to abandon optimism and the recognize the reality that Joe Biden will be inaugurated on January 20th. And something Laura said especially stood out to me, by replacing "Ingraham said" with "Ayn Rand said" in some of the text of the article, we come up with an interesting exercise: "To say this constitutes living in reality," Ingraham said Ayn Rand said. "If I offered you a false reality – if I told you there was an excellent, phenomenal chance that the Supreme Court was going to step in and deliver a victory to President Trump – I'd be lying to you."
  14. Pfizer said today their vaccine is 90% effective against coronavirus--making the announcement a week AFTER the election. Typically what happens is companies receive information like this then choose when to release the information to the public, so what is the possibility that Pfizer knew they had a 90% effective vaccine before the election? I'd say those chances are very high. I haven't dug deeper, but if this is true, if they had announced the vaccine news before the election, it would have been a game-changer and Trump would have had no problem getting elected again. I'm not one for conspiracies anymore, but Pfizer releasing this information the Monday after the election looks very suspicious to me.