/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12624914
>Now, what do we do?
The thing to do is to create a benevolent superintelligent AI. We can do this by making an intelligent benevolent regular AI, and have that AI selfimprove until it is smarter than all of humanity combined.

>>12624919
No.
Can you trust a human or a group of humans to create the system for a benevolent and all-powerful AI to emerge?
The answer is also no.

>>12624914
Schizos please leave this board.

>>12624925
>Can you trust a human or a group of humans to create the system for a benevolent and all-powerful AI to emerge?
Would you rather we trust your prediction about the future? Or trust your opinion that we can't make a benevolent powerful AI?
I would rather trust a group of intelligent, well-educated researchers whose work is published in journals that I can then read, than trust some schizo on the internet who espouses their paranoid delusions as undeniable divine truth

>>12624934
I am only asking you to very strictly consider if it is even possible for humanity to NOT create horrors beyond comprehension given what we know.
Of course, the same proposition also leads to know that the most important human endeavor such as creating a benevolent AI is something that cannot be left to humans.

Now, this isnt a point in the argument, as to not just call to my authority in support of my arguments. But I will tell you a funny secret now that you mention it.
But I am one of those well educated researchers whose works you can read in a peer reviewed journal.

>>12624914
>Btw, pic related, who painted that?
Isn't this the art done by that woman that was molested as a child in some satanic ritual with other kids, and was so mentally fucked, she started doing this art?

>>12624914
They must be stopped

>>12624980
By who?

>>12624914
Another schizo anprim cope thread. Sigh. Take your shit back to >>>/x/, it's just sad.

>>12625026
By them, now leave this board

>>12624914
So leave all your shit, and fuck off into some jungle in central Africa, or unpopulated island in the pacific already. You'll be as far away from science as you can get.

>>12624914

Don't forget to take your meds OP

>>12624954
Really goes to show how much thought you put into this.

>>12624934
I know what works for us to exist in a healthy way. Everything else is untested and unproven. AI/progressivism is the schizo scientific theory, traditionalism is a scientific law.

>>12625082
>>12625097
>>12625105
>>12625106
We can't just fuck off and do what we want. Society doesn't leave you alone. There is no escape. Prison planet. We all will build the technological singularity unless WE decide to stop it. Think about what you're signing up for before you dismiss all criticism as primitivism. Predictive programming and revelation of method mean that you cannot be karmically neutral, you are on one side or the other, good or evil. You chose the future up until the present and your continued consent as things get worse will give you no excuse to complain when we exist in hell fettered to our AI demon god

>>12624914
>Scientific progress must be stopped immediately
>because weirdos
no we just need to normalize killing cuck weirdos

>>12624914
>psychological needs of the scientists and of the government officials
i thought u were going to stay stuff about all the falsified/misinterpreted papers out there but then you went all schizo.

>>12624914
It pains me to think things like this really go on
That monsters like this walk among us holding positions of power being cheered and celebrated by millions while their evil is done under the cover of dark

>>12625314
That statement seems outlandish to you? You literally cannot find a tenured seasoned professor that does not think that is an obvious truth. I speak from experience.

>>12625236
For any newfags, this is a glowie trying to take validity away from the OP post. Don't engage with this glowie. No further replies.

>>12625257
You must realize that those horrors are, in all likelihood, inherent to the human experience
And that you hold potential for nocive tendencies as well

>>12625404
I don't know who helios is, but he made some good points in that thread so that's why I posted the screenshot. Stopping the technological singularity isn't the same as blowing up the system, and that's not what I'm saying. People just need to realize that's what's happening

>>12625419
fuck off pedo

>>12625419

>>12624981
Solid. I listened to the audiobook of his manifesto again just the other day. His notion of the power process is the most prescient critique of modern society I've seen anywhere

>>12624914
Fuck off, barbarian. Only champions of progress are allowed in here.

>>12625628
>progress

>>12624914
I can only see 2 paths for humanity. Either civilisational collapse, with the billions of deaths associated, either technological singularity. I prefer the technological singularity.

>>12625633
Nature wont sustain technological singularity

>>12625628
"Progress" clamps, vaccinates, and circumcises.

>>12625638
WIth our current knowledge of physics yeah technological singularity will collapse in millions of years. But current society could collapse this century or in a few. And then all life on earth disappear in 500 millions years. I prefer for life to continue in other solar systems for a few billions.

>>12625643
You would rather have technological singularity than billions of deaths? They don't even have to be of atypical mortality, could just be old age, that's not so bad is it? All it would take is decreased birthrates outside of Australia, North America, and Europe which are already below replacement for a return to sustainability.

Technological singularity implies the merciless subjugation of the natural to the unnatural. The unnatural/technology emerged solely to conquer the natural. You are part of the natural, even though technology emerged from you (although that's debatable whether it is divinely/demonically inspired)

>>12625675
Again, glowing trying to derail conversation. Dont engage.

>>12625695
Clamped

>>12624914
my childish side wants to say kys luddite, but insted im going to try to take this position of fear and ignorance seriously. Science marches on, and all kinds of new things will be invented. What humanity does with those inventions is up to humanity. A good example of this is nuclear fission. Do you bomb the sht out of each other with A bombs/ H bombs, or do you use it for cleen abundant energy? What determines the direction is the legal system, which is suposedly a representative democracy. If a possible technology is considered by the voters to be unethical, the representatives should introduce legislation to prohibit sayed technology. A good example is embrionic stem cells. It was prohibited, now we make stem cells from normal, somatic cells, without having to use embryos. The problem isnt science, or advancment, its corruption in our legal system. The answer to a corrupt legal system is not to just stop human progress. Its to have a better politica science, to improve the legal system to account for corruption. Research in the field of law is actually realy interesting, how to write laws that account for human corruption and greed, and in general human psychology. I hope my initial hostility didnt stop you from considering the points i made, the fear of science is an age old problem which angers me a tad too much.

>>12625675
If civilization fails it will almost certainly not be peaceful and it will certainly not be deaths from old age. You don't need technological singularity to subjugate the natural. We subjugated it quite well with agriculture. So what happens if Ted's wish is accomplished and billions die ? Humanity will revert to agrarian lifestyle, and be it with axes or bulldozer the natural world will be subjugated, it's just a matter of time. And after that over evolutionary timescale, if technology doesn't restart again, humanity is likely to follow a similar evolutionary path to Ants, forming human hives, meta organisms in which human individuality will become obsolete, same as in the technological singularity scenario. There will be competition between human hives, and it's likely there will be epigenetic specialization of humans into worker castes, warrior castes, breeder castes, maybe thinking castes. You could argue we were already on this path before technological revolution.

And you're just playing word games with technology natural and all that to make no pertinent point after that.

Scientific progress is not unlimited. There are ethical and moral checks at many steps of the process.

>>12625733
Is limitless, effortless energy a good thing? Is it even better than A bombs/H bombs wiping out the face of the earth?

>>12625744
All that is preordained only if and because of people with a mindset like yours maintain that mindset. Humanity has a choice of remaining true to their nature and allowing that psychological choice to influence their evolution into remaining natural even over the timespan of forming metaorganisms or choosing technological singularity. It is NOT a given that humanity will always cycle back to progressivism and technological development and in all likelihood humanity will regress to the mean

>>12625782
I think even ted in anti tech revolution or something talk about self prop systems and the like. The human system that will dominate will always be the one that is expansionist. You already have today humans that choose to keep their primitive states. But they lose and are marginal because the expansionist metaorganisms are by definition in expansion and will always have more influence than the one that choose to stay small. I don't see any way out of expansionism for this reason.

But even if there was a way out, ultimately there is a choice between humanity and earth life dying on earth in 500 millions years because of the sun, or potentially a lot longer, in other star systems. If we're the only life in the universe, I think it would be pretty sad if we just disappear and then nothing happen again.

>>12625797
I just want humanity to grill and chill on planet earth, OK? Regardless of when that ends, how far out that is, or whether any of the theories are correct. As cliche as it is, you shouldn't cry when something ends, you should be thankful that it happened. That's the only healthy way of looking at the world. I think everybody should strive to prevent our destiny from being absorbed by technology manipulating our nature into its unnatural innately expansionist conception, crowding out everything else by design.

>>12625808
your thing about healthy way of looking at the world is just useless sophistry. The proverb about things ending is nicely emotional but not helpful when you actually can do things to prevent things from ending. When you can do something about the end you should actually compare the different ends, which you are not doing in your text, maybe in your head but I can't get inside your head.

About technology manipulating our nature into unnatural expansionism, I think you are confusing the cause and the effects. All of this can be traced back to evolution, what types of organisms get to survive, what types of organism get to expand and cover the whole earth. It's simply impossible to have an organism that populates the whole earth (even before modern technology) to not be expansionist.

>>12625822
I don't care about the ends, I care about whether the life that is lived is living death or true life.

Yes obviously technology's unnatural nature is partly based in human nature, or organismal nature. Still, technology is fundamentally different from an organism and its conception is only growth for the sake of growth. At least organisms sense when the limits to growth have been reached or at least simply can't sustain themselves anymore. Technology is materialistic in a way that no organism is; once the technological singularity is reached it will devour all matter it can get its hands on, it can continue to subsist off material that no "natural" organism can. In that sense it is demonic. That should be resisted, and you are mentally ill if you don't see why, or simply see it as inevitable hence not worthy of resisting

>>12625733
How do you make people comply these"laws"? you would have to watch them at all times, and then how do you make those people who watch comply, and then... ad infinitum; power relying ultimately resting in just one person or say a committee of morally superior people? yeah right...

>>12625768
Yes, and yes. The pic is of garbage, which the energy helped create, but poor legislation allowed to be dumped in the ocean/third world. Exploitation of the poor and helpless is a very old concept, and one that an abundance of resources granted by technology could solve or mitigate. Global poverty rates have been going down for quite a while now. As i mentioned above, i'm not saying science and technology can't be used dengerously, carelessly, unethicaly, what i'm saying is that that is a question of politics and societal norms. The asnwer to the problem of human condition and all the faults therein, is a political system that takes the human condition into acount and a culture of responsibility. Not an attempt doomed to failior to stop human, scientific progress.

>>12625838
Technology is created by an organism. On the other hand I fail to see how it is materialistic in a way that no organism is. I dislike technological progress for the sake of GDP or GDP for the sake of GDP but it's still true that most humans today depend on technology, and if technological progress stops then we'll have problems very soon with natural resources depletion or climate change that will probably cause a violent collapse. Also your allusion to demonism or whatever is meaningless, I am not very religious tho I respect people who are. I suppose when you talk about technological singularity devouring all matter you talk specifically about AI ? Or about a fusion man/machine hellbent on expansion ? Personally I think even with technology we should reduce the growth of our numbers and activity, but mathematically it's true that by definition the most expansionists will probably dominate. It's a law of life that the most expansionist and powerful forms of life will dominate. The entire human morality system is straight up evolved to make us dominate. That's why you can't even make a moral argument against it. You would need to restrict births, or genetically engineer humans that are smaller instead of bigger. In a mandatory way, this is considered morally wrong by almost everybody you can talk to. Any genetic predisposition to stop reproducing and expanding is going to be bred out.

Even without technology, You can take a decision for any path you want, Humanity is an animal species undergoing natural selection and any human that has any kind of tendency to expand more than its neighbor will mathematically become more common. The capacity itself to make or accept a decision to restrict expansion will disappear in favor of those who expand. You seem to have religious tendencies for example, any kind of religion that advocate for more births and expansion will be more and more successful to make people like you make babies.

>>12625871
Yeah well until a fucking solution to the social problems is fucking figured out, the fucking planet and our fucking minds are going to be fucking raped into the dust of the trash heap that our planet will become

>>12625856
That is indeed the big question. It is one humanity has been struggleing with for milenia. We live in groups, and have to have laws, a legislative body and there fore law enforcement. However, any position of power is susceptible to corruption. People who have phd-s in law, research the perfect political system. One where all positions of power have checks and balances, where people in positions of power are through some mechanism self interested in fulfilling there post responsibly. I'm no law student, im in STEM so i won't pretednt to know the answer. My laymans opinion is just to have all politics, be 100% transparent, to avoid corruption. I dont know. Regardless, the solution to the problem proposed by OP will be in the field of political science, and psychology.

>>12625886
>Even without technology, You can take a decision for any path you want
No, you are still in a different paradigm of understanding with regards to technology. Yes, I am talking about AI. I'm sure you've heard about the paperclip maximizer AI and the problems with that for human life. Eventually any AI will converge toward that end. There is no benevolent AI. It exists on a fundamentally different substrate to natural organisms. It subsists simply on computation and atoms. It did not evolve, it will have been seemingly summoned by the human mind, with all of the human mind's worst tendencies maximized into an immortal form.

>>12625912
> It did not evolve, it will have been seemingly summoned by the human mind
I agree with that
> with all of the human mind's worst tendencies maximized into an immortal form.
I disagree with that. It's possible to create any kind of AI. The paperclip maximizer is a scenario that should be avoided. Unlike expansion being basically a law of nature, the paperclip maximizer is not a law of AI. First of all I think you're too restricted in your definition of "Intelligence". I want AI that gives us information and not make decision. And yeah it's a problem that AI gets better with more power and it's likely the most powerful humans today will have the most powerful AI later. But I think it is not inevitable, unlike natural selection.

>>12625895
But that has always been the case. How will a hault to technology solve that? I fell your pain and understand the problem. I just feel like in your pain you are lashing out without any tangible solutions. Before nuclear power we had coal. Hve you read anyrhing from Dickens? That was much worse. Before that, we had feudalism. Have you read War and Peace? That was much worse. Life has always been a strougle, but it is getting better and better. Death from childbirthy, infant mortality, disease, murder rates, rape, slavery, povety, starvation, illiteracy have all becreased and are decreasing as technology advances, and life expectancy and quality of life have been rising. Clean drinking water, toilets, locomotion, availability of food, access to information, ease of work medicine... How would a hault to science solve anything, and how can you say science is making things worse? It has solved many problems, but has created new ones. But in the mean time, we live much more confortable lifes.

>>12625925
It is possible to create any kind of AI, and it is also true that the AI will not have evolved. That doesn't mean it can't evolve once it is in existence. The AI's conception will not simply be to provide information and not make decisions. The act of providing information itself is a form of decision making. Your sensory and perception abilities are fundamentally inseparable in your mind from the decision making process. They blend together seamlessly so you can scarcely tell where one starts and ends. The same will occur with AI if we allow it to "give us information" as we have already done with the internet, automated investment algorithms, and so on. These already existing technologies have modified our behavior and decision making while not always remaining fundamentally objective. Outsourcing our decision making comes at a cost.

>>12624914
>Scientific progress must be stopped immediately
No.

>>12625945
In humans it's inseparable from the decision making process but it's not necessarily the same in a machine. We are self interested because we are the product of evolution organisms that are not self interested or interested in the survival of their community or of their children disappear. An AI could have whatever goal we set it to instead and be totally selfless. Danger is that the one to make AI could make ones that are not selfless, or ones that favor some instead of others, or many other kinds of misalignement where AI would be detrimental to parts of the whole of humanity.

>>12625933
https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2020/07/08/psychological-well-being-and-societal-progress/
"Some people think that history, or at least history since the enlightenment, can be characterized as a process of consistent long run improvement even if there have been occasional bumps on the road. This is sometimes called a Whig view of history and is probably most famously championed today by Steven Pinker." "There are many problems with this narrative." "To substantiate this conclusion, I’m going to review data on rates of suicide, depression, and general happiness, below."

We are comfortably numb. Materially comfortable, spiritually bereft. You can take "spiritually" in whatever connotation you want, psychological, physiological, religious, whatever, it's still a better word to describe the problem than any other word

>>12625962
I can guarantee that an AI won't work out the way you want it to

>>12625733
>representative democracy

You are extremely dumb. Every person who believes in democracy and idea that the source of power is the collective choice of the lower classes, and not the arbitrariness of the upper classes, is too dumb to reckon with his opinion. You are unteachable. I will sincerely rejoice when fascist corporations fuck you while talking about equality, prosperity and democracy.

>>12625970
>Materially comfortable, spiritually bereft.
I agree completely. But isn't that a cultural problem? When i was too young to read, my parents read me folk tales of my country, poetry, philosophy, and novels. At dinner, or whilst playing board games, my parents would discuss there research, and we would often talk about humanitys place in the world, and what role we can play in helping others, how to find joy and purpose in life. I have never felt spiritually empty. I have found joy in my studies, and purpose in my field to be, in the research i intend to do, and in doing what i can to help humanity. I also found that small acts of kindness to strangers are disproportionatly apreciated. We may not be rich, and my family has its fair share of problems, but i was taught a form of spirituality or perhaps a value structure, i can't realy describe it. But whatever it is, its cultural.

>>12625986
I do love a nice friandly discussion of ideas...
I agree that democracy as it is now has problems with power and corruption, and it scarcely being representative. Remember OP-s propositin thoug, that is the topic of discussion. What wold be a better solution? Abolishing science, or improving our political system to be more representative? Checks and balances, or luddit regression?

>>12624914
Stop eating salt, it makes you fat and retarded. High IQ genes are genes for salt resistance. Salt makes you retarded and too much iron makes your wmotions fucked up.

>>12626023
>Checks and balances

>>12626016
It doesn't matter what YOU feel. It's not some abstract problem dealing with "the culture" way out there. If you really care about minimizing human suffering you would simply understand what is causing the the ills of most people and fix that. Small acts of kindness and doing research aren't going to do anything transformative. The majority of people are dissatisfied and a sizeable minority are disillusioned with modern life. If you are comfortable with modern life, you are mentally ill according to 99% of human history. This explains the positions you've expressed in this thread

>>12624914
Why are you using a computer, or even electricity?

>>12626121
>yet you live in a society

>>12626108
Interesting. But didnt you agree that phisycaly we are more confortable? Didnt you say this is a question of spirituality? If so isnt the lack of spirituality that needs to be fixed? The obsession with owning usless things, the distance from nature and eachother that urbanisation causes, the sedentary lifestyle lived by most, the lack of intellectual stimulation, moral degradation.. These are cultural problems. If you are raised with or adopt ideals that value knowledge, intelectual stimulation, friendly conversation, kindness and compassion, neighbourlyness, fairness and justice, being politicly active, engeged with the world around you, to value physical activity and interaction with nature, the problem of a lack of spirituality goes away. It is cultural. How cultural change can be encouraged is a different question, and not an easy one.
You seem to think i accept the modern world without criticism. No, i do not. I have a shitload of problems with it, there are many things i would like to change, and will work to change as much as i can. But once again, luddit regression is not the answer. Pleas, in your counter argument be specific in what you think the solution to the problems of the present world are. Im genuniely curious.

>>12626082
Ok, fuck democracy, say it can never be improved or fixed. What now? What do we do?

>>12626172
Almost none of the cultural customs you listed that previously existed are reciprocated today. Tell me, why is encouraging cultural change not an easy question? I believe it's because the degradation of those cultural norms is inherent to and necessary to maintain the structure of modern life. Atomization is a good way to sum it up. Atomization is necessary for technology to supplant face to face interaction and simultaneously centralize the control of those interactions. The level of technology we have today could not exist and would not have the incentive of gaining power over others without an atomized society.

>>12624914
No, without science we are just a bunch of shit producing apes.

>>12626216
>The level of technology we have today could not exist
This is the one part i disagree with, pretty much everything else is correct in my opinion. Atomization, alienation these are some serius problems. We dont have communityes anymore. Most people live in big blocks of flats, not even knowing there neighbour. What caused this? Well, a number of things. Technology that facilitates it, urbanisation which increases population density to insanely unhealthy levels, bad politics, id say there are people whos interest it tis to keep people seperated too, a culture and economyc system built on greed, the list goes on. But i still dont think the answer is to go back to a preindustrial or a pr computer level of technology. Its not thecnology that is at fault. I think thats just an easy way out, a way to put the responsibility on one identifiably enemy. The problem we face is harder to fix. A further advance in technology could help. For instance allowing people to work from home, would allow all these people to move out of cityies, helping deurbanisation. A generation who has lived thrugh this nightmare will understand not to give todlers fucking ipads, and instead have them play outside with ohers. We should master technology through cultural change, instead of running from it. We should hold our politicians and the rich and those who would proffit of the suffering of the masses acountable, through a more refined political science.

>>12626294
If you don't get that we're headed for a technocratic dystopia with coronavirus lockdowns and the Great Reset, you're never going to get it

>>12625236
>>12625404
>>12625424
>>12625695
Just checked this guy's twitter again and it's gone to complete shit since that screencap. Not worth following

>>12625970
I'd argue that it's because before we spent a lot of time to make sure we and ours were healthy and happy. There's an obvious psychological benefit to this.

The problem with the modern age is that those activities have been so optimized we don't have anything to occupy our day with other than to make other people a whole lot of money.
It's pretty obvious why that would be less fulfilling than going out on a day long hunt with your family, or spending an hour or two walking down to the watering hole to get water for the day every day.
House needs to be repaired? You have an obvious mood-dampener and you viscerally feel the difference between normal operation and malfunction. In the modern day you can have a job and everything seems perfectly fine where you're forced to sit at a desk all day doing fuck all until suddenly you're fired, and now you have to put food on the table so you get another "invisible" make-work job just to repeat it all.

Basically, we optimized survival so hard we became existentially bored. Like playing a game on easy mode and the only that's left that is "challenging" is the RNG based minigame that not everyone enjoys.

>>12624914
>14
>reads unabomber manifesto once

>>12627286
More like we became wage slaves

>>12624919
>The thing to do is to create a benevolent superintelligent AI. We can do this by making an intelligent benevolent regular AI, and have that AI selfimprove until it is smarter than all of humanity combined.

Good luck even defining clearly what benevolence is to an AI. AI safety is an enormous issue precisely because there is no good way to define concepts like this and no way to predict what a vastly superior intellect would do with your definitions.

And even if you could get past that problem in theory you could never trust the whole chain of people implementing the system.

>>12624914
To abandon the path of science is to consign our species to oblivion. The only path is forward, or extinction.
If you want to make an impact, get very respected credential and join an ethics committee.

>>12624914
Your basic argument is incomplete.
>>12627549
>there is no good way to define concepts like this
Your assertion is entirely ludicrous. There are a number of trivial definitions, but none that emerge from your CEV, and I've run pairwise CEV on basically every two people alive today. The problem is with your nature, which doesn't want actual benevolence.
>and no way to predict what a vastly superior intellect would do with your definitions
Use them correctly. That's the whole damn point of deferring your decision making process to it. You instinctively believe that being cautious leads to longevity, and you're partially right in a manner that can only be destructive long term. Either trust humans or AI, but don't trust neither and pretend to be transhumanist.
>>12627870
>or extinction
Maintaining the status quo is most often safer than trying to gamble the survival of your entire species against extinction level threats. You can't stand the ennui of longevity so you try to find a worse polarization of the middle path. Patriotism is the closest thing you have to a true X-risk that you'd actually be able to do anything about, and you're feeding it.

>>12624914
>Btw, pic related, who painted that?
The artist's name is Kim Noble.
https://youtu.be/u8Oh1L1aN8M
>>After suffering childhood abuse, Kim's mind split into twenty distinct personalities to cope with the trauma. Over a dozen personalities are painters, including Judy the bulimic teenager, a gay man named Ken, and a mother called Patricia.

>>12629334
If you create a self evolving "general" AI there's no way to predict what it would evolve into, simple as

bump

>>12625733
you sound like an optimistic retard. we are imperfect, so expect imperfect timelines. just a matter until nature or ourselves wipe each other out, hopefully the smart people get out to another planet before.

>>12624914
no

>>12624919
The most benevolent thing to do is to do nothing, that's why God doesn't act. So your AI idea is pointless once it reaches super intelligence.

>>12624914
is that a podesta painting?

>>12624928
>there is no dark side in inherent in human nature especially with no moral or financial restrictions
If you have an IQ below 100 please just lurk and dont post

>>12625173
>no omega man, network or the time machine
ngmi

>>12625257
The problem isnt because of "weirdos" it is because the halls of power are almost exclusively populated by (((psychopaths)))

>>12626324
The webm is satire, right?

>>12633564

>>12633564
FUCKING GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD

>>12624914
Shit like this is why Im scared of further scientific progress

>>12633469
It would keep malevolent AL overminds from forming

>>12626324
https://youtu.be/Hx3DhoLFO4s

>>12635368
I am an old fag. I graduated uni in 2005 and I didnt get a cell phone until my first professional job because I had too. You want to know why? I am a computer scientist and I knew what the technology can do (literally track every aspect of your life). I am also not clueless dipshit like most of the soi cucks on this board and I knew if it CAN be done, it WILL be done.

I knew about the patriot act after 9/11 and how the gov was using it and I knew all the shit Edward Snowden exposed with wikileaks vault 17 without even having to be told. As I just stated, if they CAN do it, you can bet every dollar you have, somewhere, someone IS doing it. The worst part is the government has restrictions on what it can do, private businesses don't. faecberg, jewgle, tik tok, twatter etc etc all collect more data about all of you dipshits than you can possibly imagine. They read your face, know your mood, know you location, know when you are shitting, what your favorite sexual position is. They know more about you than any family member ever could and they have openly bragged about it.

The government works with them, through them, because there is no congressional oversight. We already live in the USSR 2.0, the USSA. Most of the people on this board just don't know it yet because they haven't tried to "buck the system yet" and it hasnt directly effected them yet. But it will, there is no escaping it and when the machine finally comes after their sacred calf they will cry like little bitches and wonder what is happening and why because they were too stupid to listen to people like me coming here telling them all of this was happening for years. They banned the president fright in front of your face, if this wasn't an alarming and vulgar display of power to you and you weren't frightened by it, that means you are a really, really stupid person.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-twitter-ban-permanent-b1784743.html

>>12635940
cont.

Then one day when they complain about productivity in the work place being low because of diversity hires they will be arrested for hate speech by the tranny SS and they will have a few years in the gulag to think about how they should have listened to those people they thought it was funny to call "schizo" and "pol" and done something when the opportunity too


http://www.occidentaldissent.com/2021/01/27/ricky-vaughn-indicted-by-doj-for-2016-meme-war/

>>12635940
*vault 7

>>12635943
*when they had the opportunity too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj_UBLkCD78

if you havent read the turner diaries or siege, now would be a good time to

>>12635940
>>12635943
>>12635957
The smart home devices can only recognize your voice if they are always streaming audio to the servers, it can't recognize "Alexa" from a screech or yell or bark otherwise. Your phone is no different and has all sorts of backdoors and remains on and listening even when turned off. Nowadays most phones don't have removable batteries so you can't make sure they're off either.

About Trump, he was never on the populous' side in the first place. They are trying to destabilize things and make people disillusioned by showing the rigged election (who knows how many have been rigged in the past) in order to make things more chaotic and easier to excuse using martial law to bring in the new order and force vaccines

>>12635974
I never said Trump was on anyone's side. I was simply pointing out if they can openly censor and deplatform the president right in front of the whole world it should scare the shit out of you if you are a drooling fucktard.

I agree that it was possibly a psyop, a demoralization op to show everyone who is in charge, which this ricky vaughn prosecution is as well. I fought with ricky vaughn in the meme war in 2016 before my account got banned.

It isn't even about getting a successful prosecution. It is just fear tactics. The government is showing everyone if you even post a meme they dont like online they will upend your life and cost 5-10k in lawyers fees, cost you your job, time and energy etc.

You better be learning common law and how jurisdiction works if you dont want to be a silenced, scared sheep because if you arent a cuck chump like 95% of /sci/ and you understand we are at war - and have been for many years- and you plan on doing something about it, sooner or later they will come for you too and you better know to BTFO them with lawsuits.

>>12636001
*arent a drooling fucktard

there's no stopping the course of nature.

Confine technology to monasteries. Continue technological progress within monasteries. Objective scientific truths and the scientific telos can never be allowed to separate from objective moral and religious truths and the religious telos. Truth cannot contradict Truth. WISDOM, KNOWLEDGE, UNDERSTANDING (AKA SCIENCE) are 3 of the 7 gifts of the Holy Spirit. If they are used for sacred purposes and lifting the mind to God, then all is good. If they are used for profane and worldly purposes...you know what happens

Withhold technology from plebs—send out friars to train doctors for charity and goodwill’s sake. If you think I’m retarded this is LITERALLY how things worked in the Middle Ages (the best time for humanity). Think about it. Cozy mud huts, farmsteads, central cathedral, low population, impenetrable old-growth pre-industrial-revolution wilderness. And the intellectual centers: the monasteries....far away from the world. Far far away. Middle Ages. It werks. Autists get together and do science in the monastery, subjecting science for religious ends.

Best case scenario, we can send off monastery ships to other planets and launch them away from Earth, and we can evangelize aliens and learn alien tech. Dirty profane hylics need not share in this. The sacred science-monk-priests will be the Holy Tabernacles of wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Not rich, worldly entrepreneurs or shadowclique deepstate world-controllers. Monasteries can use artificial womb tech to procreate so mankind can separate from the evil shackles of sex. Coombrains can’t science anyways.

Love of God, Love of Man, Love of Nature. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are gifts of love. Spiritual love. It’s the only way upwards bros

>>12636180
The rest of the gifts: FORTITUDE, PIETY, COUNSEL, and FEAR OF THE LORD—these ensure that technology will not be used for dark ends. A monastic, communal, anti-sexual, contemplative, ordered, isolationist, hierarchical society—AKA a MONASTERY—is really the only kind of society qualified to advance scientific development without being slaves to the flesh, world, or devil. Just look at anthills or beehives if you don’t believe me. Should every human being be a monk? NO. But every scientist should. And only a select group of human beings make for good scientists. History proved and will prove me right. Too bad everyone is brainwashed about the Middle Ages and no one believes in God and the Church is a mess. One can only utter:
>VGH WHVT CVVLV BVVN

>>12624914
>image search
>picrel shows up
bros..

>>12636180
>>12636200
I'm right there with you man. Problem is, lots of people will cope and say that Medieval times weren't really as good as you make them out to be. But they were. Seems like it was basically heaven on earth from my perspective. We must have committed a terrible collective sin to allow it to get as bad as it is today.

>>12636261
>Help they will kill us
>please save us
I can't read the middle one - ?? "was here"

>>12636200
I don't need to believe in God to agree with you

>>12637571
Did some more digging and it's one of the identities of the artist, who has DID - probably from severe trauma. "[Ria] Pratt was here".

Source:https://outsidein.org.uk/galleries/ria-pratt/

>>12639901
> “The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you” —Werner Heisenberg
It all comes down to first principles. First principles. Once you reject the “a priori”, once you reject good metaphysics, a solid foundation of Truth, Goodness, and Beauty and Morality.....once you reject all these, once you reject first principles and *the* First Principle—well it’s inevitable that science goes in the direction it’s going in our present day and time. Whatever...God is still waiting

>>12624914
favorite pseud thread so far. I can actually make fun of everyone here. Thank you, anon.