France I believe doesn't have any notable Third Position movements

Same with the UK

The only self described fascist movement in the UK is a larp fest

Aka NBU

For a moment I though you was gonna say NAMBLA

The NPD and Dritte Weg are alright

However they're filled to the brim with Federal Agents

lmao

America does have one good Fascist movement

@Spookaswa
Thought it was BNP.
Britian also had National Action there. Or at leased used to. Don't know if it's still around

BNP isn't fascist

Nick moderated the party

Its just WN now

Ah.

National Action is pretty much dead last time I heard

There was also a very short lived movement called Scottish Dawn. That got disrupted real quick

Yeah

They also had Sonnenkrieg division but they got fucked up the ass after they suggested assassinating one of the Prince's in the UK

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Front

This is the movement I was referring to earlier

We'll probably get a few more parties up and running once another recession hits

Both as a reaction to the recession and to the growth of communism

Most likely
Maybe a few Reactionary (Traditionalist etc) movements as well

But i digress

Crisis creates radicals. Radicals create change.

Yeah

It would be great if we had another depression

Well, it wouldn't be great, but you know what I mean

Yea i know what you mean. Accelerationism

mhm

getting a hardcore progressive like Warren or Cortez would also help most likely

I'm just waiting for the Luddite uprising tbh

I don't even think technology in of itself is the problem

The problem I believe is the rate at which the technology of our society progresses

It has out paced our ethics and morals

And I would almost go as far to say that Science and Technology are worshipped

Are you one of those Abominable Intelligence lovers?

What is abominable intelligence?

AI

AI is dangerous, that goes without saying

It can be useful sure

The institutions of Science and Technology are supposed to follow certain ethical codes and practices but at this point where technology is getting faster and faster each day such safeguards can now just be rewritten if the "powers to be" deem it so to further their goal of transforming the planet into a soulless gray machine for their own ends.

AI is too dangerous to be developed or used en masse

Smart cities are the next step

They want to observe and track every aspect of life in cities where most of the world's populations reside obviously

They want to digitalize currency completely and ultimately remove any physical counterpart

That way they can control what you can and can't buy

tbh i have a massive contempt for accelerationism

it gambles on alot and raises the stakes to massive levels

The 2nd Amendment is the best tool for accelerationism the US has.

Recreational McNukes

@CrowGoCaw it has worked in the past

In Minecraft of course

Yes

I plan to McNuke those (((Villagers)))

The ones from Minecraft

Of course

But anyways

@CrowGoCaw what other choice do we have?

Its worked and its failed

There's no way we can try to seize power within the "democratic system", especially in the Anglosphere

Electing left wing politicians will do well

The longer they're in power the more people we have on our side

This is what literally happened in Italy during the 20s

If accelerationism fails then what can I say

The people would've chosen their fate

The will of the people is a double edged sword

I plan to one day live on my own somewhere in Montana or elsewhere in the interior of the US

Just in general try and be ready to provide for yourself

I've been thinking about leaving my current area

Can't decide where to move though

My thoughts are either somewhere out in Eastern Washington State, Eastern Oregon, Idaho, or Eastern BC

Пigger left

https://youtu.be/dMAk3PRn5_0

all AI work that has been done in the past 20 years should be burnt to the ground

BOOMER GANG

Shabbat shalom

Shalom

> AI is too dangerous to be developed or used en masse

Well, it depends. It depends on the kind of AI in question. Narrow AI? Is probably *never* really going to be a super dangerous thing, as long as it is somewhat kept to a low scale and to a specific task, and always in conjunction with a human task giver/overseer.

General AI? Actually dangerous shit yes should not get looked into.

Don't develop it at all

Ban it

should be ban on General AI, yes, I'd agree

We can't trust ourselves to just have *a little* AI, it'll eventually become a slippery slope

nooo, no no no not quite. The kind of tech we use in narrow AI is totally different from anything that'd be capable of being human level (let alone beyond)

we don't even really understand what that would look like

there's not even blueprint for how to go about creating a vague concept

the narrow AIs themselves however will be dangerous *in certain contexts*

for example,

in situations where you'd replace all humans in military and police with them

dystopia level right there

*Looks at Xi Jinping*

Though the west will probably come around eventually

they'd be able to carry out any task, any order, any command with zero remorse or consideration for such, if they'd even possess anything resembling sentience which they indeed probably would not. You could order an narrow-AI based army to nuke Texas **for no reason** and it would obey because, well, *of course it would.* Human soldiers might revolt when faced with such command.

So there are some golden rules I have for going forward with this kind of tech:

1) limit it to narrow AI
2) ban general AI
3) limit all narrow AI to be outside police, state, military, general chain of command or offices of civil servants

but you can't possibly stop all AI development, there's far too much investment in it

by far too many people

@Xinyue the obvious solution is to replace humans with AI

so we are all on the same playing field

evolution waits for no one

Narrow AI is too relative and machine learning in general is dangerous

christ

are you guys really going to go mechanicum of mars on us

@Ten-Speed_Bicycle except that is not the solution at all 🤔 that's a non-solution

HURR TECHNOLOGY BAD CUZ IT CHANGES THINGGGSSS

>When you make a robot and then kill yourself so that the robot can live your life <:ancom:520002567988838401>

Why would you cuck your entire species though. That goes against pretty much the whole reason why you, and your entire species line, exist.

Also there's no gain in it

the mind uploads aren't gonna work

>cuck your species

are you cucking cro-magnon men when you evolved to be homo sapiens?

Ok this is epic

Funny, man survived wars that killed millions, massive plagues that nearly wiped out their own people, yet, if things are to continue in technological development, its own creation will be its undoing

That was a remarkably bad point man. First of all, the genes were still present there, albeit in different form. There was still continuum between the one that came before, and the one that came after. Second of all, that wasn't a choice on anyone's part - therefore, not *cucking.*

Now, you though advocate for the abrupt phasing out of biological life it seems, becoming AI, which is - not only probably impossible from scientific standpoint - the most insane concept there is.

But lets dwell on that little point of scientific untenability for a moment

see, it might be that the brain is non-computable. And if it is non-computable, then it quite literally can never be transferred over to digital form. And to make matters worse, it might be further that *no computer can ever be conscious,* specifically because the mind has an element of non-computability to it, a semantics in addition to syntax, whereas the computer doesn't have that element of non-computability.

My point is that banning technological advancement is kind of a shitty idea too.

>the mind has an element of non computability

<:lol:521377935672737792>

Well yes

mate, your brain IS a computer.

just because it isnt binary doesnt mean sentience isnt a gestalt construct of a computational organ.

you are probably aware with Penrose's views on this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PjFEnbKttqc

47 mins

im not gonna waste my time watching a philosophical circlejerk.

ahahahaha

so wait

hes claiming that a computer is incapable of replicating a human mind. that is patently false.

Roger Penrose, one of the leading scientists of our time, renowned beyond any and every doubt, is just "philosophical circlejerk"?

you cannot make that statement actually, and at the very least respond to the arguments he raises

How about you offer them to me in your own words.

the notion is that there are elements of non-computability in human thought, things which *cannot be described in algorithmic sense* (not to even go to the issue of qualia); some forms for example include the human ability to grasp the infinite tiling problem which for the machine intelligence (being based on computation), impossible to grasp - it can never know whether or not the general tiling pattern *will go on forever,* but a human mind can see this readily and for us it is obvious. He also points out to deeper problems in physics and how those problems may in part be due to the fact that we haven't yet accounted for the aspect of non-computability in our theories of the world, even though we observe it on regular basis.

Trust me when I say though he makes this case much better than I can, so I suggest you watch it. There are also many more arguments that he makes, more cases he uses, etc. He obviously has written books on the subject as well which are worth a read.

Xi Jinping is a great leader

I mean

humans DONT conceive the tiling problem.

we cut corners.

its a generalization.

thats not a problem of computation, we arent literally computing the infinite tiling problem.

our minds just dismiss it.

it takes the principles we know are true, and we just continue to assume its true.

thats computable my dude.

There are arguments beyond those that Penrose makes though about the problem of transferability of the mind to a machine, which have to do with the

a) historical
b) dynamic
c) totalising

aspects of the brain. Scale put aside (which silicon computers can't even begin to address yet), the brain is a dynamic entity which evolves in time and in totalised form. There's no clear way to transform something like this, over to a completely different substrate. Further, there are aspects of chemistry and physics to consider here which aren't yet thought out to a degree that could even begin to approach a satisfying answer. So at the very least you should consider that its certainly not a done deal yet and that ultimately we aren't sure *what* will emerge out of this technological trajectory.

And again, watch the video if you want *a better presentation* of it than what I gave. There's active debate about this, and Penrose is after all a mathematician as well as a physicist. He can deliver the point home better than I can, seeing how I'm *neither.*

Well, yes. thats obvious. if we are trying to replicate organic processes you are going to have to compute on a level of detail that is incomprehensible to us.

however, that does not make it impossible, and it does not mean that computer intelligence has to be created in a similar way to us.

We have already created working models of worm nervous systems.

🤷‍♂️

and i can hardly see why banning general intelligence for safety concerns will address any problems we conceive of.

theoretically, literally anyone could create a general intelligence if they had the time and resources.

are you really oyveying me.

> literally anyone could create a general intelligence if they had the time and resources.

Which are absolutely vast in question. Resources? What resources? How much energy production? How much processing power? How much memory capacity? How much cooling is needed for this? There are a shit ton of limitations present here I think that are not often accounted for. Its not like building something in your garage, I think.

Think outside the box man.

intelligence is just a bunch of dumb things working together.

theoretically someone could create an evolving virus, infecting computers to use their computational power to build a more intelligent gestalt.

And thats just what I can think of.

Synthetics and synthetic lovers are unwelcome in the ecofash state

Considering we don't actually have a clear *theory* on the way the brain works, only glimpses of it - hell, we discover new sub-regions of the brain rather frequently - and much less for what creativity, intelligence, emotion, etc. are in actual fact or how all the processes associated with these fields of experience work, you can't say that intelligence is just a bunch of dumb things working together. You quite literally can't make this statement, nobody can. Nor can I claim the contrary; we quite literally don't know.

@Bearer Of The Curse objectively bluepilled. real ecofash want to spread life across the universe, the synthetic revolution is just a necessary step to take life and lift it into the stars.

“hurr durr i want to live and die on this rock and accomplish nothing”

The nose grows every time you talk

okay pagan

Synthetic revolution is not necessary to take us to the stars actually

objectively false

Humanity is not the end of evolution.

you underestimate the power of nature.

Being replaced is not evolution

You can literally build a generation starship like mobile O Neill Cylinder type and then have generations live and die there as they are en route to Alpha Centauri, Barnard's Star, etc. Humans can get there just fine as humans.

@Bearer Of The Curse if you think of it like that we are replaced constantly.

sons and daughters replace mothers and fathers.

Absolutely not, our DNA lives on

your cells are completely replaced every ten years or so.

you are theseus’ ship.

The genetic information remains though, its not the same in this sense, no.

and you dont even know it.

@Xinyue genetic information changes constantly.

your skin’s dna is diffirent from your livers.

stem cells turn genes on and off like light switches.

By that I meant the *genes as a changing thing, the object of change, remain as a thing that undergoes change within a set of parameters and conditions.* This ends.

Alright, this is completely unepic and unworthy of continuing

life is constant change. nothing stays the same. ever.

Like you can have this "hurr durr only existing thing is change hurr durr" le big think routine, whatever, its nothing new - Buddhists conceived of it 2,500 years ago. Its not avant garde, its not special in any way. It doesn't actually say anything on its own.

you seem so afraid of the concept of something surpassing humans today.

Its not about surpassing, its about the dystopian possibilities that come with it. Including for the AIs themselves, should they be created. Abominable states of being that are literal forms of hell. Something that should dissuade anyone foolish enough to pursue this technology without any reservations.

dystopia is as unreachable as utopia.

I don't think you've thought through the implications. Common trait among the transhumanists.

my point is we cant do anything else!

how can you STOP people from making progress?

you haven't even substantiated how we *must* get there. Maybe you read too much Nick Bostrom or something idk

we cant slow down the march of time. all we can do is stand ready to face it.

its not about slowing it down.

its about being prepared.

we arent anywhere close to a general intelligence, let alone a singularity, let alone a self-replicating singularity.

we have time.

have you even quantified and accounted for the *conditions that shape that onwards march?* I mean we literally don't know. We have lots of different theories and some of them posit totally different outcomes, some people say machines will assimilate humans, others say humans will assimilate machines instead. All top figure in their fields - mathematics, physics, computer sciences, neuroscience, etc.

thats because you are thinking to far ahead, and getting overwhelmed by it.

Like I'm not at all sure that the HYPE!!11!1! crowd and the OHMYGOD crowd of doom and gloom have any idea where this is *actually* going to go and that's because we don't actually as a species *know.* Lots of people are profiting from both camps though.

machines wont assimilate humanity, nor will they replace them.


humanity did not replace nature when we became the smartest monkeus on the playground.

There's also strong argument against the superintelligence in that we should see it already in space if it were to happen. We'd see traces of it. Fermi's Paradox indicates that something is badly off base here, its one of the reasons I really don't think its gonna go as Bostrom & Kurzweil Gang think its gonna go down

>fermis paradox

uuuugghhh this shit again

fermis paradox doesnt exist.

it does exist actually, it really does. Not for organic life, no it doesn't. You know, the regular life at our level and below. For the superintelligent kind of "life"? That could seed out entire galaxies and turn stars into dyson spheres etc and harness entire galaxies for its own power? Yeah, for that kind of life the paradox is fucking huge problem

Mate

1. dysonspheres are a retarded concept.

if anything we would have dyson swarms

which would probably not come anywhere near to BLOTTING OUT STARS

secondly

2. in case you havent noticed, EARTH, and earthlike planets,

are pretty damn rare

implying it must have Earthlike conditions. I'm not at all sure

3. FTL probably doesnt exist.

THAT ALONE limites the scope and speed by which such an incomprehensably powerful alien species could spread out in the galaxy.

if aliens exist we have no way of knowing.

unless they are right next door.

could easily develop in some ocean moons of gas giants where the tidal forces cause sufficient amount of volcanic activity to create conditions for life in the bottom layers - similar to how life might've started originally anyway here on Earth, but for different reasons and in different planetary context

on 3 we agree

We dont know enough about the devlopment of life to even approach questions like “why are we the only ones we can see.”

as far as we might be aware that could be totally normal because SUPRISE! life is pretty fucking rare.

theres also the anthropromorphic principle.

its not like theres a bunch of souls waiting out somewhere, waiting to pop into existence and only an infinitecimal ammount of them get to exist in this universe.

we exist. we perceive the universe because thats just what we are.

we are life, and it makes sense that we, as life, would perceive in a universe where life happens to exist.

it doesnt matter how fuck-off levels of rare it is.

the fermi paradox says nothing.

> if aliens exist we have no way of knowing

well, I didn't say *aliens* in the regular sense don't exist. I think its likely they do, even in probably our Orion arm of the galaxy. Probably rather primitive life, certainly below hominids most likely, but still.

It does pose a problem for super-intelligent forms of life, because it might be indeed possible for them to spread at a great rate over millions upon millions upon millions of years and that in the entire history of our 3 closest galaxies we haven't seen signs of *even one* - that's a bit concerning. The age of our local galaxies is such that realistically you kind of would think that you would see something.

Eh. not really.

Do go on

@The Big Oof State your opinion

the big bang was approximately 13.7 billion years ago.
life on earth appeared around 3.5 billion years ago.

we are pretty fucking young.

Bapiro is **Transhumanist Gang**

and we are very, very, VERY early in the existence of the universe.

the only way to achieve transhumanism is through trasngenderism

But is there any reason to assume we are the *first* to reach this stage in our local group? Not at all

don't worry

im only pretending to be retarded

that gives life aproximately ten billion years to have appeared before we have.

spread across the galaxy, do whatever

it may not seem like it but

that isnt exactly long.

the fermi paradox again means nothing.

it is probably expected that we wouldnt see other advanced aliens.

Considering we can't even calculate anything realistic for the chances of life emerging to begin with (the Drake equation or whatever doesn't count), this whole point is just moot speculation tbh.

exactly.

I am not in any sense *faithfully* onboard the Penrose camp or invested in him being right, if he's wrong then he is and that'll be it. I do tend to think though that (unless he has gone completely senile) his history of merit in mathematics and physics lends *some* weight behind what he's saying. That might be just in the eyes of layperson, but still.

Naturalism > Transhumanism

Also I will say that I have nothing against humans adapting themselves via technology. I just maintain we should stick to genetic/biological side of augmentation. For example I could see us greatly improving the functioning of our brains, our memory capacity, we could become photosynthesis capable too and just in all around crazy manner improve upon the species.

I just don't think we need to destroy the species in some avant garde attempt to "transcend" the human condition.

I would rather be the altruist and guarantee my children won't live in a dystopic future where they have barcodes and temporary organs

The Silicon Chip Gang is gay and needs to go away

i think

we should just continue on the path we've been on thus far

fixing existing medical conditions with whatever means we can get

there's no need to improve on anything except for life span

and that's just a matter of replacing things

and also complicated genetic decay, but who cares

remember that time the british were building a canal but then the people living near it went bankrupt so they took control of their economy then a revolt popped up to make the british stop controlling the economy so the british took control of the entire area

Good ol Times 😌