IBM produce the next step of AI overlording

[Aquaplant]

Originally Posted by Human No More

There's a difference between accepting information as it comes and defending an opinion against evidence. The vast majority of people do both - the former on things they are ambivalent on and the latter on held opinions.

It's simply the way our sanity works, because we constantly seek information to reinforce what we perceive to be correct, and any opposing information is usually to be feared. There is also the idealistic aspect as to how we personally would wish for things to be, versus how they are in reality, and for me this is the source of all my bitterness towards all things reality.

Originally Posted by auroraglacialis

I am idealistic and I think that is a good thing, but I refuse to be called naive or ignorant.

Being idealistic is usually a good thing, unless you are messed up like I am, but lets not go there. I know you are smart enough not to be purposefully ignorant, but I still consider you to be naive in some regards, though that is of course only my opinion on the matter. Then again as I don't know anything about you other than what you write here and what I make of it, so my assumptions may not be entirely correct, and this holds true to everyone else here evaluating your content, like Isard and Human No More. This is simply a restriction we can't go around.

There have been a few occasions where I have argued against something and retreated when there was enough evidence to the contrary, but in the points that I stick to, I have not really have gotten convincing evidence to the contrary. Naive would mean to look at things oversimplified and that I certainly do not do. I see that things are vastly complex and rather would say that exactly that complexity makes it immensely hard to make predictions about "solutions". Being ignorant would mean to ignore evidence or facts. What I usually do when arguments are brought up that run contrary to what I claim is that I try to use facts and conclusions against that. I am stubborn only when I think that the "facts" I am presented with are not complete or simply faulty. What you can hold against me is that in some topics i bring up philosophic or holistic argumentations - something a few of you seem to dislike as viable arguments (despite most of the famous scientists also being philosophers in some way or another).

Any proper argument worth something is fuelled only by information that can be deemed objective enough by all parties involved, and usually such occurrences are so rare, that arguments tend to go on for eternity because people drag irrelevant or subjective points into them.

We also may have a semantic issue on our hands when it comes to naivety. Perhaps I could use the word romantic, but that overlaps somewhat with idealism already, so I don't really know. Words in themselves are sometimes too rigid in their definitions and how they are used to relay information, but this is also something we can't go around.

That topic is a bit more complicated indeed. Technology can include by definition many things from making fire all the way up to genetic modification. I think however that there are appropriate and sustainable technologies and those who are not, I think that the relationship to technology is vastly important and do not accept a blind faith in technology to solve every problem. and I think that a lot of especially modern technology when used to the extent it is done now is destroying too much of what I love - this planet and the living beings on it. As some of you know, I am a scientist - i am working with technology daily, do chemistry for a living and used to build electronics and program software back when I was young in the 1980ies. I am no stranger to technology - but over all these years of digging it, I also found out some things that led me to the conclusions that I write here.

So you should know that technology in itself is not the problem, we are.