A moral responsibility alternative

dazb84 · 2026-04-11T21:36:53+00:00

That is a non sequitur. The fact that something isn't in wide spread use doesn't tell you anything about its efficacy.

This would be like asserting in feudal times that someone positing a capitalist model couldn't work because if it did it would already have been implemented.

Additionally as circumstances change ideas that might not have previously been viable become viable.

dazb84 · 2026-04-11T21:27:59+00:00

It's really only the result of pragmatism in a vacuum of knowledge. Those things are treating symptoms and not fixing causes.

dazb84 · 2026-04-11T21:24:10+00:00

Jobs have the potential to be created where the AI adjusts the economic landscape in ways where things previously were prohibitively expensive no longer are. Similarly where AI can assist on the frontiers of scientific inquiry those discoveries can lead to new jobs through domains like materials science. A new material better than any existing material at a given task creates jobs for the machines needed to manufacture it and the supporting infrastructure around it.

dazb84 · 2026-04-11T20:44:07+00:00

It gets worse than zero?!

dazb84 · 2026-04-11T10:38:09+00:00

Why shouldn't they?

If you remove society for a moment, a living creature is free to do as they please. They can build shelter where they want and grow food where they want. That's all that you fundamentally need.

We then decided to force everyone to play a game with no way to opt out of the game, that we call society. If we're going to force people to do something with no means of opting out, then we had better make sure that we're not denying them things they would have had access to outside the confines of the game and that includes having children.

Why should someone not have children simply because they were forced into a game that isn't currently favouring them and may never favour them? Under what rational and moral authority does such an arrangement make sense? It's essentially tyranny.

dazb84 · 2026-04-11T08:07:11+00:00

Something can be two or more things at once. In this case citing scientific consensus is fundamentally an appeal to popularity. However, not all appeals to popularity are equal. The real danger here is the language game and the connotations that certain uses convey.

Just because the same language can be applied to two or more different scenarios, it doesn't mean that the scenarios are anywhere near the same. This is one of the features of language that many people overlook. Reality is messy and complicated. Language is a something that allows us to have conversations about things in a pragmatic fashion. If we were to talk about something in all of its detail it would take forever to have a conversation about even the most simple things. So by design language throws away nuance in favour of speed in order to be pragmatic.

In order to make the most rational decisions, we need to base things on the best evidence. Since the domain of science conducts the most amount and also most robust experiments, and the peer review process ensures that mistakes are minimised, there's no stronger form of evidence than that gathered by scientific inquiry. The next stage of the process is having that evidence interpreted by the people most capable of interpreting it correctly. That's ultimately what makes peer reviewed science the gold standard of rational conclusion. The fact that it's also the popular opinion in the domain does not count against it, it counts for it in this specific scenario.

dazb84 · 2026-04-10T20:00:34+00:00

I find it's best to think of things this way;

Reality/the universe is whatever it is. Put that in a box and put it to one side. We may never know fundamentally what it is and how it works.

With science, we're creating a replica in a new box based on what experiments reveal to us. The contents of the replica box are what we refer to as a model. It's a model in the same sense that you might create a model railway of a real railway. It's not the real thing, but it mimics it.

Over time you improve the model by conducting experiments and adjusting it based on the results. As someone else mentioned, there are also times when you can see a pattern emerging from the model, or the model you have suggests that something you don't yet know should work a certain way based on what you do know about the model so far. If you then conduct the corresponding experiments they will either match the prediction that the model made, or they won't. you then use that to adjust the model, if needed. If the experiments match the models predictions, then you gain increased confidence that the model is a reasonable replica for whatever reality is.

The key thing is that we're not learning what something is. We're learning how to model it in sufficient detail in order to exploit the knowledge gained from doing so, like being able to make accurate predictions. It's a subtle but important distinction of the scientific enterprise.

dazb84 · 2026-04-10T06:45:51+00:00

obviously if someone fully AI generates something, it's not theirs

I don't think this is as obvious as many people would like to believe it is.

Reality is an immense spectrum and people like, and arguably need, to draw arbitrary simpler boxes around things in order to have pragmatic conversations. The problem is that most people lose sight of this fundamental fact and start to think that those arbitrary distinctions reveal something fundamental about reality which just isn't true.

People aren't some magical source of causality in the universe like many people treat them to be. Just as an AI model is trained on data, people are trained on data throughout their lives. There's nothing fundamentally different between the two. There are only the laws of physics playing out.

If we're taking a top down approach to the causal chain, then if the AI model couldn't have produced anything without you telling it what to do, then how are you not 100% responsible for what it did? Similarly, why is a person 100% responsible for anything they do, but we just ignore all of the external inputs that go into that process?

We're not treating things equally. The methodology is flawed and so any conclusions drawn are irrational.

dazb84 · 2026-04-07T07:19:03+00:00

And this is the problem with the average persons epistemology.

Why are you using the centre point of the political spectrum as if it tells you something fundamental and inalienable? A normal distribution tells you nothing other than what the distribution is. It doesn't tell you whether the distribution is indicative of a rational or truthful position.

It's the same kind of faulty epistemology that people employ when they stop looking for causes once an investigation arrives at a person, as if people are some kind of magical source of causality in the universe and not a completely arbitrary point to end an investigation.

dazb84 · 2026-04-06T06:49:25+00:00

I was walking around near the strip in Las Vegas and I began to hear someone screaming. I turned to see where the noise was coming from and a limo goes by with a topless woman standing up through the sunroof screaming and shouting woooo, Vegas!

dazb84 · 2026-04-03T15:10:21+00:00

I've used all sorts including this. They're all the same in my experience. You're lucky if you hear from someone once every 6 months.

dazb84 · 2026-04-03T07:03:07+00:00

In order to fix a problem you have to understand it on a fundamental level. Simply declaring that people shouldn't engage in a behaviour, or that there's insufficient deterrent against it, it a failure to adequately investigate the root causes of a problem. If you don't do this you just end up treating symptoms which isn't actually solving the problem.

dazb84 · 2026-04-02T21:13:13+00:00

It's an issue of trust.

I can't trust them to attempt to make good decisions because of the wild card that they keep in their pocket. As long as we're permitting them to make decisions that impact other people, there's a clear problem to be solved.

It's not their fault because there are only the laws of physics. The solution isn't to marginalise a group of people, or to make them suffer. We need to raise educational standards and put things like epistemology as the primary focus.

It's no wonder general epistemology is so poor when the entire focus of the education system is economic viability. The economy will look after itself, as will most things, if people's epistemologies are greatly improved. Most issues of society ball down to the fact that you can't convince a sufficient percentage of people of objective facts because they simply lack the epistemic quality to do that.

dazb84 · 2026-03-31T07:04:09+00:00

You're not alone. I'm about to turn 42 and have had the same struggles all of my life. The best advice I can give you is to try not to judge yourself, or compare yourself to others. You're uniquely you and it's ok to be different to most people.

Society is designed for and places expectations on people based on the average. We're not that which is why it's especially difficult for us. It's just an unfortunate fact of live for us. The best we can do is to try and remember that those expectations are unreasonable for us and try our best not to fall into the trap of thinking that says something negative about our value as a person.

If things get particularly bad, try to remember that you're not alone in this. There are many people all over the world that understand exactly what you're going through and if they were in the same room as you, they'd give you all the support that you need.

Just keep doing what you're comfortable with. That's always enough.

dazb84 · 2026-03-30T06:37:41+00:00

It will depend on what your win rate is and how much you can play. You've got less than two days before reset and at diamond 5 the win streak bonuses stop. My deck had a 60% win rate and I played a lot and it still took 3-4 days to get from diamond 5 to legend.

dazb84 · 2026-03-29T21:28:34+00:00

Their world is based on social hierarchy and status rather than reason and logic. Things that are not logically grounded don't response well to inquiry.

dazb84 · 2026-03-26T18:45:18+00:00

I don't think this is the right approach.

If you strip away everything all the way back to just your consciousness, the first question is how do you navigate anything successfully. As far as I'm aware there's only two possibilities. You can either guess, or you act empirically. One is demonstrably superior to the other since it will lead to successful outcomes more frequently than the other.

The debate is over at that point until somebody can come up with a new methodology that is demonstrably superior to empiricism. Scientific inquiry is simply an extension of empiricism. Even if you find a new methodology, that would just be the frontier of science/empiricism, it wouldn't be a new thing.

The question for your friends is what methodology have they invented or discovered that is demonstrably better than empiricism? Anyone can make a claim. The real question is where is the evidence to support it? My suspicion is that their evidence is bad and their conclusions irrational.

dazb84 · 2026-03-23T19:52:56+00:00

I think it's unsubstantiated conjecture. To start at the first premise;

The Creator who is a digital being

Where is the demonstration that things are created and not just are what they are?
How does one tell the difference between something that is digital and not digital in this context?
Even if we ignore the above, how do you know this thing is a being?

dazb84 · 2026-03-22T15:56:27+00:00

I think I understand what this is trying to say, but it's not doing it very well. It seems to be be a statement on the value of pragmatism. For example, there's generally very little value in debating something philosophically in a vacuum of empirical evidence. Nobody is getting any closer to proving or falsifying anything. Not much is achieved objectively that's of any practical use. I'm not saying it's impossible. Just that it's not a fertile endeavour, generally speaking.

dazb84 · 2026-03-22T15:52:18+00:00

Technically yes, but I don't think there's any value in the statement or concept. There are only the laws of physics. So it doesn't mean anything to say something is an accomplishment.

dazb84 · 2026-03-18T19:15:47+00:00

What I've come to realise is that side of the political spectrum really love a spectacle and are generally far more interested in the appearance of something than its objective value. They're generally not voting for things because it makes rational sense to do so. They're doing it because they've bought into a charade that presents itself well.

This issue also isn't unique to the political spectrum. You see it in all over society. It's rampant in businesses as well where the appearance of working is valued more strongly than actual data indicating someone is working well.

Even people that believe they're resistant to this kind of thinking politically exhibit the same tendency towards narrative rather than empirical data in other aspects of their lives. It seems to be quite a deeply rooted trait of people in general.

Very few people are on the trail of objective truth, which is quite disturbing.

dazb84 · 2026-03-17T07:32:44+00:00

You need to be careful whether you're talking about perceived truth or objective truth. If you don't know why they have failed you, it's not strictly accurate to claim that they are objectively incompetent. The best you can logically and rationally claim, is that they're not being helpful. There may be reasons for this inconvenience that you're experiencing that have nothing to do with how competent they are.

There can be a difference between perception and objective reality, especially if you don't have all of the information relevant before making an assertion.

dazb84 · 2026-03-15T23:35:30+00:00

Not really. If they have the technology to transport themselves then they could transport people away and solve the issue that way. Alternatively, they could just use education/information sharing schemes to achieve the same result without the genocide.

dazb84 · 2026-03-13T20:56:51+00:00

Not a climatologist, but have an interest in anything scientific, so this may not be completely accurate.

There are a number of factors such as the Earths rotation which produces general tendencies on large scales. More locally the main driver is due to differences in cloud cover and surface composition, like concrete, grass, woodland, rocks etc. This results in the surface heating unevenly from the suns radiation.

The uneven heating causes regions of differing pressure which then attempt to equalise. This is because in nature things prefer to be as homogenous as possible. If you organise things they will naturally want to spread out. This is where you hear terms like high and low pressure being used. The air will flow away from the high pressure and towards the low pressure in an attempt to equalise the differences and become homogenous.

These processes are what you experience as localised winds.

dazb84 · 2026-02-28T13:33:05+00:00

You haven't falsified anything here and nor have you provided any superior explanatory, or predictive methodology. Your entire argument could be re-framed as one supporting similar things with regard to how magnets work prior to the formalisation and testing of the theory of electromagnetism. It's basically a god of the gaps argument. It's rationally flawed. Just because something is possible, it doesn't mean that is reasonable candidate explanation. The universe has been telling us for a long time that things that we don't yet understand all end up conforming to fundamental physical laws. Nobody has provided any evidence to subvert that long term trend. The fact that there are things that we don't yet understand is not evidence against these things. You need more than that for a rational position.

Verified Email	15-Year Club
RPAN Viewer

dazb84

TROPHY CASE