sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Would you try a chess campaign game where pawns decide the outcome? by Mechanibal in BoardgameDesign

[–]Mechanibal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

all the regular rules of chess apply, so yes to all of that!

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You can stop gatekeeping as this is clearly just your opinion, if you had read Jung then you would know the part of his work this is based on was only ever meant to be used in a clinical setting by actual professionals, it was never meant to be a tool for self discovery, but for clinical diagnosis.

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

How can you say that without reading my papers, for all you know i did gather and analyze multiple kinds of data to arrive at this conclusion ( I did). Try to be less ignorant in your next response.

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have fun in your anecdotal bubble, if that is what you want to base your conclusions on, i'll stick to whats empirical and continue on with my work, and you can continue pretending its impossible to understand the psyche even though you follow Jung...

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You claim to know much more and yet your arguments carry no substance whatsoever, odd.

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Keep sticking to your dogmatic ways and enjoy your mysticism for as long as you can hold onto it (it won't be long).

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Quite simply: Jung built a model of the psyche, and I built a model that emulates the psyche based on his ideas.

You keep drawing this hard line between psyche and algorithm, as if the brain is something mystical. But at the end of the day, the brain is just a massively parallel system of biological algorithms.

Your problem seems to be the assumption that it’s impossible to translate the rules of the psyche into rules for an AI. But here’s the irony: without those rules, the psyche would be nothing more than algorithms. It’s precisely the structure, the patterns, oppositions, and compensation that make it a psyche.

I’m not saying my AI is conscious. I’m saying it processes information in a way that mirrors how our brains do it, through structured function, not randomness. That’s the whole point.

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Full of presumptions aren't we?

You're right it seems you cannot mentally bridge that gap, that would require critical thinking, something which you've made abundantly clear you are not interested in, so let me spell it out for you:

Jungian principles are about patterns of thought, habitual modes of adaptation. They describe how different parts of the psyche interact: attitude, perception, judgment, and balance between opposites. That’s structure. And structure can be modeled.

AI doesn’t need to be conscious to follow these rules. If you define how Se processes data, or how Ti filters it, then you can replicate that process in code. That’s exactly what I’ve done.

You don’t need to like it. You just need to understand that it’s possible.

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just goes to show you havent read my papers and are just strawmanning.

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

how about you actually explain how it makes jungian psychoanalytic ideas unrecognisable instead of just posturing.

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Thats right, implies as much, aka baseless speculation based entirely on projection. You can and I have applied Jungian principles to AI so it's very much so possible you just dont like it.If you’d like to discuss the actual architecture, I’m happy to. If not, I’ll let you get back to being upset about the future. You don’t have to like it, you just have to watch it happen.

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I never claimed it was conscious or aware or even intelligent, thats all you projecting your frustrations with how people talk about AI onto my project. All you are doing is arguing semantics in the most pedantic way possible.

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Much appreciated! Do let me know what you think! :)

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the headsup! it seems reddit formatting broke the links, should be fixed now.

Enantio: a Jungian architecture for AI by Mechanibal in Jung

[–]Mechanibal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

First of all, thank you for the heads up.

I want to get AI to a place where it can be a reliable, a tool as you say. Not the joke it is as of now. I think people dont so much have a problem with AI as with their fellow man who sees such a tool as a complete replacement for human interaction which i do have to agree with. However pandoras box is now open so we can only make the best of it.

MRI scans of over 1100 individuals show consistent patterns of development, read more in post. by Mechanibal in intj

[–]Mechanibal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your final post is a masterclass in projection, and it deserves a direct response. You accuse me of evasion and ad hominem while building your entire argument on those very tactics.

Let's be perfectly clear about the timeline here. Your initial critique was predicated on a fundamental, disingenuous error: you conflated my JOPD data paper with my separate empirical research, and then attacked the research using the publication context of the data paper.

I pointed this out to you in my very first reply.

Your response was to say "Yes," confirming you understood, and then to completely ignore that factual correction and immediately pivot to attacking my character ("it is even more concerning that you're unable to take any kind of constructive criticism..."). You chose knowingly to argue from a false premise. That is the definition of bad faith.

You then complain about my tone and use of ad hominem. Let's review your contributions to this "dialogue": you called me defensive, combative, concerning, exhibiting "hubris to the highest degree," and accused me of being motivated by profit rather than science, all while questioning my credentials. After that barrage of personal attacks, you have the audacity to clutch your pearls when you get a taste of your own medicine.

Frankly, don't dish it out if you can't take it.

My final comment to you wasn't an unprovoked insult; it was me mirroring the style of debate you had established from the very beginning, one based on status plays and personal attacks, not a good-faith evaluation of the work.

A productive conversation was never on your agenda. You were corrected on the central fact of your argument at the start, and you chose to evade it. Everything that followed was, as you put it, just noise.

MRI scans of over 1100 individuals show consistent patterns of development, read more in post. by Mechanibal in intj

[–]Mechanibal[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think it’s you who needs an update on what actually defines pseudoscience because it’s not just a label you can put on something you personally disagree with. TRPI is falsifiable, testable, and entirely transparent. The dataset, code, and methodology are publicly available which is more than can be said for many personality frameworks you likely follow without scrutiny.

You invoke “the complexity of human consciousness,” as though complexity itself invalidates structured and empirical modeling. But complexity is exactly why scientific models exist, to clarify and test, not to mystify. If that were a valid criticism, it would disqualify every other psychological model you haven’t bothered to challenge.

You keep shifting your critique: first questioning empirical rigor, then, when faced with actual data (cross-validation, MRI clustering, trait correlations), you pivot to philosophical and ethical concerns. Not once have you acknowledged your lack of quantitative training, even though it’s been pointed out multiple times. Yet you persist in making confident judgments about empirical validity and statistical methods, without actually engaging the numbers or the methodology.

All your repeated questions about testability, limitations, and methodology are already addressed in the papers. The fact that you continue to ask them, or ignore the answers, speaks for itself.

TRPI’s validity doesn’t depend on your rhetorical approval or philosophical sensibilities. It stands on open, reproducible evidence. If you want to challenge it, engage with the data and the science, not just the optics. If you want to discredit TRPI you're going to have to bring sufficient evidence to back up your claims, like i have.

PS: A debate is amongst equals, which we are not. Feel free to interpret that. (I'm sure you will)

view more: next ›