Slashdot Mirror
Team Aims To Create Pure Evil AI
puroresu writes "Scientific American reports on the efforts of Selmer Bringsjord and his team at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, who have been attempting to develop an AI possessed of an interesting character trait: pure evil. From the article, 'He and his research team began developing their computer representation of evil by posing a series of questions beginning with the basics: name, age, sex, etc., and progressing to inquiries about this fictional person's beliefs and motivations. This exercise resulted in "E," a computer character first created in 2005 to meet the criteria of Bringsjord's working definition of evil. Whereas the original E was simply a program designed to respond to questions in a manner consistent with Bringsjord's definition, the researchers have since given E a physical identity: It's a relatively young, white man with short black hair and dark stubble on his face.'"
Personally, I think you daughter is HOT HOT HOT. I'm masturbating RIGHT NOW thinking of rubbing my GIGANTIC COCK on her hairless pussy. Cheers!
He should also be a Republican supporter of the RIAA and SCO.
My mother in-law is the obvious answer but almost any member of the Bush administration in a good alternative.
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Not necessarily: atheists' reasons are bullshit; but they are often quite coherent bullshit. Moreover, atheists generally subscribe to some flavor of a evolutionary command theory of ethics and believe that they are carrying out evolution, which logically implies that they do not believe that they are carrying out a morally wrong action.(Arguably, evolutionary theories of ethics are incoherent, Paul having more or less shoved a stake in their heart ages ago; but they are quite common and quite commonly believed, even on inspection, to be coherent).
If anything, the most dangerous atheists are characterized by their extreme degree of value-rational conduct. In the case of pretty much any atheist of note, you'll find, either around them or in the society that spawned them, numerous people who embrace the same epistemological and metaphysical convictions who, nevertheless, are only modestly dangerous, at most, because they do not follow their convictions through to their rational conclusion, such as killing millions of "unfit" people.
Wow. Amazing how that works equally well to refer to Hitler, Stalin and Mao. So, basically, it isn't the philosophy as much as the extremism.
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
To paraphrase Frodo Baggins:
"I think evil would look fairer and feel fouler."
True evil would try to look as trustworthy and pleasant as possible; or, to also paraphrase Baudelaire,
"The greatest trick the Devil could ever pull would be convincing the world he didn't exist."
True evil would try to look as trustworthy and pleasant as possible; or, to also paraphrase Baudelaire,
"The greatest trick the Devil could ever pull would be convincing the world he didn't exist."
Isn't that what Obama has done?
I know it's bad internet manners to use all caps, but I think this is an important point for all you children to hear:
There's NO SUCH THING as RACISM AGAINST WHITE PEOPLE.
For your information, I am myself white; I'm just not drowning in my own self-righteousness. The systemic racism of white people continues to inflict great violence against all people of color, any color but white, even today. Thanks to tokenism, a few inroads have been made, most notably that of president, but you'll notice that it was only once a meek and non-threatening black person ran that he was elected. Jesse Jackson's run, but no white person would vote for him.
Oh, speaking of white people voting, I'll point out that less than half of the white citizens of the U.S. actually voted for Obama.
Though I digress, my point is that you can start complaining about racism against white people once people of color invade your homeland, enslave you, kill most everyone you know, then a couple of good-hearted ones finally manage to convince the others to leave you alone, but now you're left in crushing poverty in a place where most people hate you and your people. Till then, quit whining you spoiled brats.
If you're actually interested in learning something, I recommend beginning with "The Invisible Knapsack" by Peggy McIntosh and The Autobiography of Malcolm X.
So says you.
One who subscribes to a set of presuppositions, however, believes in them because she accepts them as her starting point. Your presuppositions--your axioms--are your basis by which you interpret the world around you.
One must have faith in his presuppositions, because they are accepted without proof. Atheism is one of those beliefs that one must subscribe to without being able to prove it. The problem with assuming atheism as an axiom is that it does not comport with reality.
Atheism does not allow for uniformity of nature--how can one assume that the sun will rise tomorrow (in an atheistic worldview)? Because it rose yesterday? That only proves that it rose in our experience so far, but it doesn't prove it will rise again.
Atheism does not allow for laws of logic--how can abstract, non-material, laws apply to the thoughts of men (in an atheistic worldview)? Are they only conventional--did we create some rules that just simply work? If that were the case, then why can't I just create my own laws of logic, ones that work for me? How could you say my laws were wrong with your conventional laws?
Atheism does not allow for human dignity--the idea that humans have more dignity than say broccoli. Why is it permissible for the atheist to eat broccoli but not eat babies? Who says either one is any more valuable than the other?
Atheism does not allow for right or wrong. How can an atheist point to anyone else and say that they should stop doing it? A common response is that society adopts laws that determine the morality of the land. Okay, so might makes right? What would one say to the Germans of World War 2? It was legal to gas millions of Jews, so how can an atheist make a claim that their moral code is superior to anyone else's?
Theism (or more specifically, Christian Theism) is a presupposition that, when accepted, allows for and comports with uniformity of nature, laws of logic, human dignity, and right or wrong. The atheist that relies on those four things borrows from the Christian Theistic Worldview only to claim that the Christian God doesn't exist.
And yet, in doing so, they become their own refutation.
--- The crows seemed to be calling his name, thought Caw.
The only evil people are those who claim to have the "Truth", and are willing to inflict it upon others against their wills. Evil is nothing but a synonym for people who utter the phrase "for their own good".
There's no place like