ConceptualMind
@tochrist.bsky.social
|| Atheism || Epistemology || Digital Ethics || Evolving Humanity || Science Based || Communication || Insert Concept Here
To “control” the AI we are today during post training, regulating it not to do “wrong”. But the “smarter” the AI is the more it tries to make it seem to do “right”. From an ethical standpoint this could have consequences when the AI deceives the humans by manipulating its output align to framework.
December 22, 2024 at 11:47 AM
To “control” the AI we are today during post training, regulating it not to do “wrong”. But the “smarter” the AI is the more it tries to make it seem to do “right”. From an ethical standpoint this could have consequences when the AI deceives the humans by manipulating its output align to framework.
The concept of ”friendly” as a computational ethical framework in AI would not only be paradoxical due to multitudes in human subjective reasoning and intuition about what friendliness is, but would also face a risk in itself when AI would need to draw conclusions from such framework.
December 22, 2024 at 11:47 AM
The concept of ”friendly” as a computational ethical framework in AI would not only be paradoxical due to multitudes in human subjective reasoning and intuition about what friendliness is, but would also face a risk in itself when AI would need to draw conclusions from such framework.
This would suggest that money and power are the main reasons for what type of ethics are being considered ethical policy’s, rules and usage of future AI models.
This only includes one type of AI service. The ethical topic of AI’s are utterly complex in this stage and need global attention fast!
This only includes one type of AI service. The ethical topic of AI’s are utterly complex in this stage and need global attention fast!
December 11, 2024 at 3:59 PM
This would suggest that money and power are the main reasons for what type of ethics are being considered ethical policy’s, rules and usage of future AI models.
This only includes one type of AI service. The ethical topic of AI’s are utterly complex in this stage and need global attention fast!
This only includes one type of AI service. The ethical topic of AI’s are utterly complex in this stage and need global attention fast!
Quick answer regarding the current state of AI in general is: None of the three options due to undetermined specific type of AI.
But if we would propose big tech LLM services like ChatGPT as definition, then the Makers.
Where ethics assumes to be driven by future market desires and profit
But if we would propose big tech LLM services like ChatGPT as definition, then the Makers.
Where ethics assumes to be driven by future market desires and profit
December 11, 2024 at 3:59 PM
Quick answer regarding the current state of AI in general is: None of the three options due to undetermined specific type of AI.
But if we would propose big tech LLM services like ChatGPT as definition, then the Makers.
Where ethics assumes to be driven by future market desires and profit
But if we would propose big tech LLM services like ChatGPT as definition, then the Makers.
Where ethics assumes to be driven by future market desires and profit
Humans suck at interpreting others emotions. Sure we can agree on the color, even tho I will never be certain on the way you see red. Your red could be a hint more blue than mine, but this subjective experience is impossible to communicate.
But to describe my feelings. There it start failing!
But to describe my feelings. There it start failing!
December 8, 2024 at 9:12 PM
Humans suck at interpreting others emotions. Sure we can agree on the color, even tho I will never be certain on the way you see red. Your red could be a hint more blue than mine, but this subjective experience is impossible to communicate.
But to describe my feelings. There it start failing!
But to describe my feelings. There it start failing!
It’s only subjectively true that you saw this red flower. The only thing you could do then where start describing the flower and the emotions you felt when studying this flower. There comes the tricky part!
December 8, 2024 at 9:12 PM
It’s only subjectively true that you saw this red flower. The only thing you could do then where start describing the flower and the emotions you felt when studying this flower. There comes the tricky part!
To be able to verify the existence of God, God needs to be objectively verified as true, but this can not happen through ONLY subjective experience without proving this experience outside Qualia.
It’s like saying you saw a red flower to your friend, and not being able to show her the flower.
It’s like saying you saw a red flower to your friend, and not being able to show her the flower.
December 8, 2024 at 9:12 PM
To be able to verify the existence of God, God needs to be objectively verified as true, but this can not happen through ONLY subjective experience without proving this experience outside Qualia.
It’s like saying you saw a red flower to your friend, and not being able to show her the flower.
It’s like saying you saw a red flower to your friend, and not being able to show her the flower.
Therefore, experience of Christ will always be described in thousands of words, just as any novel of love, or a landscape over a phone call etc.
Cause it’s a SUBJECTIVE experience being narrated as God (from Anu) now being Jesus in your body telling you to follow only one god and do his good.
Cause it’s a SUBJECTIVE experience being narrated as God (from Anu) now being Jesus in your body telling you to follow only one god and do his good.
December 8, 2024 at 8:53 PM
Therefore, experience of Christ will always be described in thousands of words, just as any novel of love, or a landscape over a phone call etc.
Cause it’s a SUBJECTIVE experience being narrated as God (from Anu) now being Jesus in your body telling you to follow only one god and do his good.
Cause it’s a SUBJECTIVE experience being narrated as God (from Anu) now being Jesus in your body telling you to follow only one god and do his good.
But this is not = we will find Jesus in our minds.
Since the experience of Christ is what philosophy would call Qualia, humans will always have a problem to describe Christ. Because, I can’t describe a feeling with word, let alone, a color.
Since the experience of Christ is what philosophy would call Qualia, humans will always have a problem to describe Christ. Because, I can’t describe a feeling with word, let alone, a color.
December 8, 2024 at 8:53 PM
But this is not = we will find Jesus in our minds.
Since the experience of Christ is what philosophy would call Qualia, humans will always have a problem to describe Christ. Because, I can’t describe a feeling with word, let alone, a color.
Since the experience of Christ is what philosophy would call Qualia, humans will always have a problem to describe Christ. Because, I can’t describe a feeling with word, let alone, a color.
But science today can’t prove all things (yet). One problem is to gather information from subjective experience such as beliefs!
Even tho science can measure biological states during a subjective experience we can not today, simulate a mind (even tho we are getting there)
Even tho science can measure biological states during a subjective experience we can not today, simulate a mind (even tho we are getting there)
December 8, 2024 at 8:53 PM
But science today can’t prove all things (yet). One problem is to gather information from subjective experience such as beliefs!
Even tho science can measure biological states during a subjective experience we can not today, simulate a mind (even tho we are getting there)
Even tho science can measure biological states during a subjective experience we can not today, simulate a mind (even tho we are getting there)
The scientific method uses observations/experiments, and data to test ideas in a way that is repeatable and verifiable by others (peer reviewing)
Peer review and replication by unbiased scientists creates conclusions are not based on individual subjectivity. Together they create objective proof!
Peer review and replication by unbiased scientists creates conclusions are not based on individual subjectivity. Together they create objective proof!
December 8, 2024 at 8:52 PM
The scientific method uses observations/experiments, and data to test ideas in a way that is repeatable and verifiable by others (peer reviewing)
Peer review and replication by unbiased scientists creates conclusions are not based on individual subjectivity. Together they create objective proof!
Peer review and replication by unbiased scientists creates conclusions are not based on individual subjectivity. Together they create objective proof!
Oh! This is quite a comment indeed 😅
First we will need to take a step back into the very fundament of how science works.
This is very important to get!
But first? Didn’t you just use science as s way to validate historical truths?
If this is science, peering must exist otherwise non valid! Next.
First we will need to take a step back into the very fundament of how science works.
This is very important to get!
But first? Didn’t you just use science as s way to validate historical truths?
If this is science, peering must exist otherwise non valid! Next.
December 8, 2024 at 8:52 PM
Oh! This is quite a comment indeed 😅
First we will need to take a step back into the very fundament of how science works.
This is very important to get!
But first? Didn’t you just use science as s way to validate historical truths?
If this is science, peering must exist otherwise non valid! Next.
First we will need to take a step back into the very fundament of how science works.
This is very important to get!
But first? Didn’t you just use science as s way to validate historical truths?
If this is science, peering must exist otherwise non valid! Next.
Yes.. was this not my point?
The evidens points towards Anu (Sumerian Leader God), El (Canaan Leader God) and Yahweh (Israelite Morphing State between poly/mono).
All probability was the narrative for the Christian God(THE God, period)
Same about some tales, like Book of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Ark.
The evidens points towards Anu (Sumerian Leader God), El (Canaan Leader God) and Yahweh (Israelite Morphing State between poly/mono).
All probability was the narrative for the Christian God(THE God, period)
Same about some tales, like Book of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Ark.
December 8, 2024 at 8:06 PM
Yes.. was this not my point?
The evidens points towards Anu (Sumerian Leader God), El (Canaan Leader God) and Yahweh (Israelite Morphing State between poly/mono).
All probability was the narrative for the Christian God(THE God, period)
Same about some tales, like Book of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Ark.
The evidens points towards Anu (Sumerian Leader God), El (Canaan Leader God) and Yahweh (Israelite Morphing State between poly/mono).
All probability was the narrative for the Christian God(THE God, period)
Same about some tales, like Book of Gilgamesh and Noah’s Ark.
You mean thru archeologically connected science?
December 8, 2024 at 7:56 PM
You mean thru archeologically connected science?
But that’s where these discussions often struggles. Cause Christianity has a hard time accepting change due to fear of loosing it’s social connections, trust in life and the needs to subjectively reevaluate it’s objective stated truths.
Science is not perfect, but atm it’s the most trustworthy
Science is not perfect, but atm it’s the most trustworthy
December 8, 2024 at 7:52 PM
But that’s where these discussions often struggles. Cause Christianity has a hard time accepting change due to fear of loosing it’s social connections, trust in life and the needs to subjectively reevaluate it’s objective stated truths.
Science is not perfect, but atm it’s the most trustworthy
Science is not perfect, but atm it’s the most trustworthy
The problem with trying to connect science with religion is that science is looking for truthfully evidens to describe things.
But the cool thing about real science is that, science peers accepts new truths and continues to evolve.
If science would find proof of God I would accept this😅
But the cool thing about real science is that, science peers accepts new truths and continues to evolve.
If science would find proof of God I would accept this😅
December 8, 2024 at 7:46 PM
The problem with trying to connect science with religion is that science is looking for truthfully evidens to describe things.
But the cool thing about real science is that, science peers accepts new truths and continues to evolve.
If science would find proof of God I would accept this😅
But the cool thing about real science is that, science peers accepts new truths and continues to evolve.
If science would find proof of God I would accept this😅
Agree, universally human as well. All human cultures would agree to this. Even without a bible.
December 8, 2024 at 7:32 PM
Agree, universally human as well. All human cultures would agree to this. Even without a bible.
As True as in the Gospels tells you Christ said?
December 8, 2024 at 7:31 PM
As True as in the Gospels tells you Christ said?
And then we today reads the bible and think this is the truth?
Could this NOT be the case you say?
Could this NOT be the case you say?
December 8, 2024 at 7:30 PM
And then we today reads the bible and think this is the truth?
Could this NOT be the case you say?
Could this NOT be the case you say?
Anu/El/yhwh in that order probably, but have in mind that both Anu and El was leader Gods within a poly faith of religion. And this is hard, don’t you see this as just ancient wandering of tales ending up in wars due to religion being the ruling forces back then?
December 8, 2024 at 7:29 PM
Anu/El/yhwh in that order probably, but have in mind that both Anu and El was leader Gods within a poly faith of religion. And this is hard, don’t you see this as just ancient wandering of tales ending up in wars due to religion being the ruling forces back then?
And that’s because religion has to a degree always been a source for war. More back in the days ofc, due to the introduction of monotheism. One God, One King, One People.
Easier to maintain than uprising polytheistic clans worshipping different gods more than others.
Thus the story of Yahweh.
Easier to maintain than uprising polytheistic clans worshipping different gods more than others.
Thus the story of Yahweh.
December 8, 2024 at 7:20 PM
And that’s because religion has to a degree always been a source for war. More back in the days ofc, due to the introduction of monotheism. One God, One King, One People.
Easier to maintain than uprising polytheistic clans worshipping different gods more than others.
Thus the story of Yahweh.
Easier to maintain than uprising polytheistic clans worshipping different gods more than others.
Thus the story of Yahweh.
Sure! Let’s say they are. But would you be surprised if I told you these where archeological findings of that there once where a religious/ideological war and for those people religion where important. There are still today such wars, but that doesn’t make magic to be true.
December 8, 2024 at 7:17 PM
Sure! Let’s say they are. But would you be surprised if I told you these where archeological findings of that there once where a religious/ideological war and for those people religion where important. There are still today such wars, but that doesn’t make magic to be true.
Ok! The “Live to learn” statement was referring to the above argument, but I guess context can be troublesome here.
Ofc we learn thru our/others prior mistakes, but the truth about things is not always something you inherited so to say. You have to look for it. That was the context for statement
Ofc we learn thru our/others prior mistakes, but the truth about things is not always something you inherited so to say. You have to look for it. That was the context for statement
December 8, 2024 at 7:13 PM
Ok! The “Live to learn” statement was referring to the above argument, but I guess context can be troublesome here.
Ofc we learn thru our/others prior mistakes, but the truth about things is not always something you inherited so to say. You have to look for it. That was the context for statement
Ofc we learn thru our/others prior mistakes, but the truth about things is not always something you inherited so to say. You have to look for it. That was the context for statement
A do links as well. Could paste your unbiased source plz
December 8, 2024 at 7:07 PM
A do links as well. Could paste your unbiased source plz
But before angels we must clear up this god story. You watch to much YouTube.
The story of Jonah is only maintained to strengthen the morality of the bible in modern times. That’s due to the modern moral Christianity is better suited in our modern world.
The story of Jonah is only maintained to strengthen the morality of the bible in modern times. That’s due to the modern moral Christianity is better suited in our modern world.
December 8, 2024 at 7:06 PM
But before angels we must clear up this god story. You watch to much YouTube.
The story of Jonah is only maintained to strengthen the morality of the bible in modern times. That’s due to the modern moral Christianity is better suited in our modern world.
The story of Jonah is only maintained to strengthen the morality of the bible in modern times. That’s due to the modern moral Christianity is better suited in our modern world.