Posts by TonusOH

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

TonusOH

I think in that sense, the threat of AI is that which we face with all technology: poorly-configured systems can work in unpredictable --and potentially disastrous-- ways. Even after a century of refinement and improvement, automobiles/boats/planes are still susceptible to mistakes and glitches that can cause injuries and death. Humans make mistakes, and our technology can amplify our clumsiness. Chernobyl is a frightening example of this.

And then there are bad actors, who can take advantage of 'smart' devices. Always-connected devices with poor security configurations have allowed hackers to create massive "bot nets" that can swamp websites with fake connection requests and activity, making it almost impossible for real users to connect and use the sites.

Perhaps that is the real long-term risk of AI: scale. As more systems are automated, and more of those systems are managed by software, and more of those clusters are linked together for efficiency, the ability of one bad actor (or one misconfigured device) to affect larger and larger areas and populations becomes an almost guaranteed crisis. I'm less concerned that AI will decide that humans have to go. I am more concerned that we will do it ourselves, using AI as an unwitting assistant.

63

Evolution is a Fact #27 - Monkeys, Typewriters, Shakespeare, 747s etc.

by cofty in

most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god".

we have all heard the illustrations about the odds of (insert favourite example) evolving, being less than 10,000 monkeys typing macbeth by pure chance.

evolution is not like that.

TonusOH

cofty: Most creationist arguments can be summarised as "complexity, complexity, complexity - therefore god"

I think that all theistic arguments come down to 'god is necessary.' In other words, god has to exist. They presuppose god and then demand that this claim be disproven. "If there is no god, then how do you explain [this]?" "If god doesn't exist, then how can [this] possibly exist/work?" "Without god, how do we account for [this]?"

I wanted to demonstrate god for those who did not believe, because it seemed to me that there had to be an ironclad argument that couldn't be refuted or denied. This was god we were talking about, after all. But without the presupposition, there is no angle. No starting point. And if you just assume god --if that's all that you have-- then how can you know who/what it is? There is no approach to demonstrating god that cannot be used by anyone to support any religion. And we see them all use it. Their book is infallible, other books are not. They have miracles they can point to. They have testimonials. They have prophecy. Everyone else is lying or deceived or just wrong.

Think about it. Think about any approach that apologists use, and you'll find that they come down to the necessity of god. Complexity, as you point out, is perhaps the most popular approach. But there are others, and they mostly rely on gaps in our knowledge or understanding of the world/universe. Discard the presupposition and start from a blank square, and you won't get to god.

20

When A WT/JW Elder Can't Handle The Truth...Priceless!😂

by JW GoneBad in

give a listen to this 4 minute video where a jw elder stammers, stutters & fumbles then hangs-up!.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=edfphabzxhw.

TonusOH

Keep in mind that JWs are given very basic and rote preparation for defending their faith. They can anticipate some criticism and have a few Bible verses handy, but they also are taught to get away from anyone trying to 'teach' them or asking them to question their beliefs. And this works, because so many people are equally unprepared to challenge JW beliefs (or defend their own).

I was never confronted by someone who really challenged what I believed. If I had, I'm sure I would have come out of it a complete mess. Having the very neat and tidy JW belief system picked apart would have probably been traumatic for me. Instead, I had to deal with the occasional person who challenged one or two points and was easily parried. It gave me a false confidence that I had the 'True Truth.' But it wouldn't have held up against a targeted attack, so to speak.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

Simon: He probably believes that his past behavior of bullying people into silence / grabbing what isn't his, can still work.

It's all he knows. Even his "woe is me" schtick is meant to galvanize support against his critics. If he isn't trying to bully people directly, he is trying to get others to do it for him. The problem is two-fold: not only are there fewer people willing to defend him, some of the ones that do are confronted with the evidence, and realize that they cannot support him anymore. Sending his followers after someone now carries the risk that they will "switch sides." At the very least, it means one less person giving him money.

For all of his cries of defamation campaigns and false accusations, the evidence being presented to those people is his own words. And if they're not convinced that the letters he wrote or posts he made are legit, there's still the livestream video. So, I would recommend that he keep sending his supporters out to confront his critics; it's a great way to free them from his influence.

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

Thisismein1972: Is Lloyd that up on himself that he actually thought people would just pay up?

He probably figured that it was worth a shot, and it also serves as proof that he was 'taking legal action.' If he spoke to a lawyer in Croatia and explained his issues, the lawyer (if he's not just an ambulance chaser) would inform him that what he wants cannot be done. Or (if he is an ambulance chaser) he might offer to send demand letters in the hopes that someone would pay up and validate his complaints, and file a criminal suit.

Another option is that he explained that what Evans wanted was folly, but Evans insisted on taking action and the lawyer figured that a paycheck was a paycheck. And if you have an unreasonable client who pays on time, why turn down easy money?

78

Top AI inventor Geoffrey Hinton reluctantly concluded that AI will probably humanity fairly soon

by slimboyfat in

geoffrey hinton, major inventor of artificial intelligence: .

“if you take the existential risk seriously, as i now do—i used to think it was way off, but now i think it’s serious, and fairly close—it might be quite sensible to just stop developing these things any further, but i think it’s completely naïve to think that would happen.

there’s no way to make that happen.

TonusOH

nicolaou: Imagine a future where anyone with a bad motive can easily utilise AI to produce the narrative and results they want.

I think we're already there. I understand that we have ways to determine if a picture or video is fake, but there is an old saying that "a lie can circle the world while the truth is getting its shoes on." Even amateur deep-fakes are pretty convincing, especially if you do not know that they're fake and have your guard down. A talented enough individual (to say nothing of a well-funded group) should already be able to create content that would easily fool most of us.

We are entering a period where trust will diminish and misinformation will really begin to take off. All you need is one incident where people were fooled and the consequences were substantial and bad, and trust in all content will disappear. What will we do when our ability to confirm anything via audio, video, and images is compromised? When governments aren't trying to solve the problem, but actively taking advantage of it?

11530

It's been a long 9 years Lloyd Evans / John Cedars

by Newly Enlightened in

original reddit post (removed).

TonusOH

Diamondfrog: Did he say “heroine”?

It wouldn't surprise anyone to learn he's a misogynist.

But does that mean those packages are... :o

773

Breaking News: Anthony Morris III no longer serving on the Governing Body

by WingCommander in

jw
friends

this has been announced on the jw's official website, in the "jw news" section.

this is not a joke.

anthony moron da turd is out as a gluttonous body member!

TonusOH

Looks like they are sending mixed signals. If they left in a clip of him in field service, then it wouldn't seem as if he has been DF'ed or anything like that. But it doesn't explain why they would remove any of his videos. Even if he is not in the GB now, it would not invalidate what he was saying in the videos, would it?

22

Official WT 800-page Shunning Manual ??

by Chevelle in

does anyone have a pdf copy of the 800-page book (or reference manual?

) "jehovah's witnesses and disfellowshipping"?.

https://youtu.be/fxpdodqlut8.

TonusOH

Atlantis, you are a national treasure. Thanks!

20

JWs don't consider older WT as revelant

by enoughisenough in

i am relating this happening.

i shared some thoughts from the 1989 question from readers concerning christ being mediator between god and man ( the wt spinning that he isn't ) and also the paragraph in that same article that plainly says: clearly, then the new covenant is not a loose arrangement open to all mankind.

it is a carefully arranged legal provision involving god and anointed christians.

TonusOH

Some people will spread (and believe) theories like that (apostates infiltrated the org and disseminated false info). I never heard that particular one. Where I was, we felt that the info was from the GB and that it was always good. If someone pointed out that older literature had different ideas, I would explain that the GB had received new light since then and updated our understanding, or something similar to that.

The concept of "new light" can paper over a vast amount of bad information and mistaken ideas. It can be used -counterintuitively- to promote the claim that they have God's blessing, by explaining that the older and mistaken belief was the "right one at the right time" and that the new understanding had arrived just when it was needed most.