Leave it to the deep thinkers of the Men Going Their Own Way community to ask the tough questions that no one else dares to ask.
For example: In the future, when men are reduced to 5 percent of the population and forced to flee to Mars or Venus, will the sentient robots ally themselves with men or with women?
In the MGTOW subreddit, an aspiring futurist calling himself FalloutFan2 laments what he sees as the inevitable rise of a gynocentric dystopia in which men are more or less bred out of existence, except for a tiny minority that the women keep around for sperm and giggles.
“It’s sad how everything in modern society is already gearing towards a female-only future,” FalloutFan2 notes wistfully.
I think there will come a point where all men rebel against the system and form their own colony on Mars or Venus or whatever, where we’ll bring some female sex-bots for entertainment.
It’s rare that I find myself agreeing with anything I read on the MGTOW subreddit, but if you guys want to go start a MGTOW colony on Venus I will not only support you but help you pack.
Of course the women will just keep using their dildos because they are emotionless beings who care little for actual interaction, whether it be sentient robot or human.
I have to admit that “women are emotionless automatons who prefer dildos to robots because they don’t like talking to people” is a stereotype I have not encountered before.
Do you think the sentient robots will ally themselves with mankind and not womankind?
TRULY THE QUESTION OF OUR AGE
I think that due to their advanced intelligence they will not see a possible future where they could be on equal footing with women (due to the female’s natural inclination to boss everyone around), so they’ll settle for a society where they are equal to men.
I’m pretty sure sentient robot ladies would kick you guys to the curb as quickly as actual human females. Especially since two sentences ago the only sentient robots you were interested in were of the sexy sex slave variety.
Of course, if we do all end up on Mars, women will just eventually send nukes to destroy the colony regardless, out of bitter spite (if they figure out how to press the correct buttons that is, but typically some beta male nuclear scientist would have left blatant instructions beforehand that even a toddler would understand).
Ha ha ladies can’t even nuclear holocaust men right!
Women just can’t handle the fact that men just want to be happy.
Well that’s a bit of an ironic statement to find on the MGTOW subreddit, to put it mildly. I can’t think of a group of men less interested in being happy, or more inclined to wallow in their own bitterness, than MGTOWs.
They can’t comprehend that men are satisfied with an existence of philosophical stoicism, and not artificially superimposing different contrived existentialisms on reality. Either no one but them can be allowed to be happy, or no one period.
Unfortunately, due to this reason I don’t see any possible way it could work out. Women will just kill themselves off once all the men are gone anyway, cuz there’ll be no one to listen to their nagging bullshit.
Better get yourself an agent quick, FalloutFan2, because this sounds like the greatest science fiction novel never written!
So this dude’s thesis is that women don’t want to be his slaves because they want to spite him and don’t want him to be happy.
OMG, Valentine, Aurini had two Mary Sue characters? That’s hilarious!
Losername,
Yep.
@Kupo and @Alan : in addition to that, mankind is used to use things they don’t perfectly understand, as well as dealing with unknown risks. The entire drug testing process is made to deal with the fact we have only a very foggy idea of what exactly the chemicals in a pill do, and it work reasonably well.
It remind me of thoses apocalyptic scenarios where the Great Hadron Collider destroy the world. It’s not, stricto sensu, completely impossible. It’s just a particulary improbable thing to begin with, and in addition the monitoring we do on that mean that we may very well understand that there is a problem long before it’s irreversible.
In which Scildfreja rambles about dork fodder. Feel free to ignore.
@Pie, I name the an Honorary Scildfrejan!
No real perks or anything, but you’re allowed to use a ridiculously overwrought screen name now if you want. You have to post pony gifs though.
@EJ, er, well. I have complicated feelings on that idea.
See, we do that sort of thing already, we’ve been doing it since the 80’s, and earlier in less complex forms. The basis of the automated mathematicians which formed the whole Artificial Intelligence boom back in the 60’s were sort of self-leveraging. They write their own rules, at first based on static meta-rules, then by dynamic rules.
One of my favourite rule selection processes is called annealing, which uses the uncertainty of a system as a metaphorical temperature. When the system is uncertain about whether its rules match reality, rules change quickly, self-assembling from pseudo-random codelets on a coderack. As it creeps towards a more sure state, the temperature drops and the rules, now annealed, harden into a final form. It’s a cool metaphor and works well, and represents a system that’s capable of designing itself as it goes, to better match the environment in which it operates.
We don’t currently have a system that can do that in a truly self-leveraging way, though, and kupo’s right – we can look at the inputs and outputs of a black box to fish out its architecture, so a dynamic self-adapting system can be very knowable.
But, like I said, I have complicated feels on this topic, because kupo’s right, but it’s more complicated than that. Warning, there’s a little math ahead.
AI systems that are capable of handling complex situations tend to use some sort of inferencing engine or production system. Put simply there are two parts to a production system, a rule set and an input set. Inputs are statements about the world, like (grass(5236) _is_ green(1043)) (grass is green). You gather these up with sensors. Rules are transformations, such as (grass(_) _is_ green(_)) := (season(_) _isnot_ winter(_)) (if the grass is green, it’s not winter)
All well and good. We use production systems because they handle combinatorial factors well, amongst other reasons. For a typical program, adding another type of input creates 2^n new situations that have to be handled. However, in a production system, you’re generally only adding 2n rules to handle the new input type. Much less work, and you can deal with far more complex situations as a result.
Here’s the problem, though – we can have millions of rules in a production system – and that’s for a modern system in which the rules are generally hand-crafted, or at least the rule creation process is known. If you don’t have your list of rules? Your black box is a nightmare. It’s still a deterministic system, but, well…
Software is generally considered non-deterministic these days. Sure, you can go into a program and spit out its machine language code and figure out exactly how long each step should take to run. In this case – deterministic, and we can predict run time really well. But then you put it on an action machine and that code gets split up over multiple cores and starts competing with hundreds of other threads for resources? It becomes non-deterministic, and the best we can reasonably do is guess at roughly how long any given operation will take.
So too with production systems, only moreso. We can’t tell which rule will fire first, or what order they’ll fire in, when you’ve got millions of competing rules jockeying for position. If those rules were developed by a self-leveraging system? It’d take us decades to untangle that garblemess. At which point, it’s obsolete.
At some point it would be a theoretical exercise as to whether we could understand the code – programmers would be like historical curators, deciphering the data structures of the Early Accelerando Period or whatnot. Could we do it? Sure. It’s math. Could it take us longer than the projected lifespan of the solar system to do it? Maybe.
Currently, the Cyc project and its competitors have semantic networks (rule databases) in the tens of millions of entries. Each rule is mathematically identical to a neuron. Not quite at “human brain” level yet, but only a few years ago they were only at a few tens of thousands. There are (likely) thousands of rules in the “software engineering” category in there. Software engineering is a good use case for designing a general production system, since it’s something the designers are experts on.
Will it be overnight? No. This is the sort of thing that is watched carefully. Will it happen? Silly question, it’s already started. Will it look like science fiction? Not likely. I have ideas on what it’d look like as well, but that’s a bit much for this post, probably.
Complicated topic. Interesting stuff though!
@ ohlmann
I think perhaps you meant to respond to EJ?
But as for the LHC, my understanding (which may well be wrong) is that much higher energy collisions are occurring naturally all the time. But obviously we can’t predict when and where that might happen.
All the LHC does is ensure there’s a camera present as it were.
To overstretch an analogy: whilst we’re worrying about the threat from AIs it might be that the crows (or apes or octopuses or any other natural lifeform) have a much better chance at being the first to outsmart us.
ETA: unethical genetic tinkering with living creatures maybe has a better chance at creating a non human ‘intelligence’ than a cyberneticist?
@Alan Robertshaw:
No, I don’t remember that one. I only had sporadic access to British TV at that time. Ireland had a few homegrown ones, including a particularly gruesome one whose message was, “it’s possible to drown in only a few inches of water”, with an image of a toddler’s pair of feet sticking out of an inflatable paddling pool. ?
I know, she comes across as a really warm, quirky person. Such a pity she died so young just as she was seemingly getting back to work and finding the recognition that had eluded her. And in fairness to Ron Grainer, he did try getting her a co-composer credit but the BBC weren’t having it…
Also of note : there is mathematic demonstrations whose humans cannot fully understand, because they are way too fucking long (and generated by programs).
Despite that, the thing is, there is a big difference between understand the outline, and full understanding. There isn’t any mathematical proof whose outline isn’t understandable by a human. Not sure if there is programs who are so ; some human-written programs certainly feel close to that, and usually they are run in a way that prevent them from doing
(and, of course, web browsers and operating systems are made to run program with the assumption they will try to be actively harmful, not just unknown or surprising. Because, while we talk about an AI doing code we don’t understand, we also built a shitton of virus and other malicious programs, so in a sense the first malicious AI is called “mankind”)
@Alan : the LHC is supposed to make collisions that happen all the time. But it’s not like we are 100% sure they are the same collision and that there can’t be an unknown phenomen or something like that.
The thing is, the LHC did not turn on full power instantly. It gradually increased power, not just to test the equipment and avoid accident, but also because if there is a truly strange and dangerous phenomena, we have betters odds of finding it before it go off.
To take yet another analogy : when Curie discovered radioactivity, she didn’t know that it could create an atomic explosion. But the way she and other scientists studied the phenomena have let us discover the risk of a nuclear explosion well before anyone accidently did one.
In a similar way, nobody just put the LHC at max power with some new target without second thing, and nobody let a programs generate programs and release them in the wild of the internet. It’s a small bit more controlled than that, even when there is no real doubts about safety.
Also, my browser sometime cut off sentences oO.
@ cat mara
Ah the BBC.
“We’ve got a Jewish woman, a gay Asian bloke and the only female technician in the radiophonic workshop. Where can we stick them where they won’t scare the horses?”
“Well there’s Sydney Newman’s daft time travel thing. It’s only scheduled for six episodes and no-one else will touch it with a bargepole?”
Thank you, Scildfreja. I’m going to take the time to digest that.
Also thank you Pie and kupo. I’ve learned a great deal today.
http://judgybitch.com/2016/10/31/the-horrific-abuse-crybully-futrelle-doesnt-want-you-to-read/
News just in. That_Disingenuous_Susan gets more disingenuous, if you could believe that was possible.
Sigh :/
@Sigh
I’m mentioned, but taken outta context. Whatever. I think she thinks Oogly is a she. And people who commit sexual assault are just poor souls who feel bad about their lives. Anyway, she’s conspiring with the assholes over there. Apparently, she thinks we’ll be banned from here if we comment over there. So much stupid, it’s hard to unpack it all
halp
guyse
I almost went over there and commented
halp
@Scildfreja
Pull yourself together, woman! There’s only misery and pain to be had over yonder. Besides, does their comment section allow for pony gifs? Then what’s even the point?
Whew
Thank you. I mean, really, they don’t allow pony gifs? What kind of savages are they? 😮
(Honestly, though, after a moment of thought I realized it’d be me standing up and getting pelted with wet noodle arguments from all corners. Gross.)
@Sigh:/,
Is JB’s work always that incoherent? That poorly phrased and that poorly laid out, as well as that poorly reasoned?
I mean, paragraphs and quotation marks don’t cost extra on blogs.
@Croquembouche, I’ve always found that to be a pretty good tell for how much attention I need to pay to an MRA’er. I’ll entertain the ideas of one that can say what they want to say clearly and concisely; if it’s a garblemess or a thesis, I can tell that I’m probably wasting my time.
Needless to say, it’s been awhile since I’ve had to confront an idea from them.
I love how she claimed David acted like Susan was being worse than Hitler and then quoted what he actually said, which was nothing of the sort.
I also love that in effort to paint the commenters as hysterical women, the comments of two male commenters, were highlighted and one had to be misgendered to get the point across.
How pathetic do you have to be to troll a blog for the specific purposes of eventually being banned so you can complain about the ban on your own turf.
Seriously, that’s just sad.
Nice to get some confirmation of what we all suspect though. That commenters who pretend to be neutral but just happen to think we’re doing social justice all wrong are always on the anti-feminist side and just don’t have the ethics to be honest about it.
@ Scildfreja
Nooooo!!! Stay away from such toxic environs!! From what I’ve seen, JB is tolerant of male commenters, provided they display a minimum level of misogyny, or at least support for patriarchy (a level which is pretty high), and INtolerant of female commenters unless they display a minimum level of acceptance of and deference to male authority (a level which is even higher). JB is also very short with the heresy which teaches that JB is (or even could be) wrong….
Check that… Female commenters, JB doesn’t care what you have to say, since having an opinion is decidedly NOT feminine.
@Scild
I was also tempted. I was already logged in to Disqus. But then I remembered how frustrating she was to talk to on here where she doesn’t have her misogynist friends with her.
@Axe
She definitely thinks Oogly is a she (cat avatars seem to have that effect). She also seems to think that being raped isn’t all that bad and maybe sometimes it’s worse to be falsely accused of rape. To which I have to question if she would ever say the same about other forms of violence. I mean, you can get over a stabbing pretty quickly and really, what’s a little blood loss? Some people even choose to donate blood so it can’t be that terrible. But being falsely accused of stabbing someone can destroy your life!
See, that’s the problem, @Eddie.
http://i.imgur.com/coV9wSW.jpg
I like a challenge.
kupo’s right, though, as are you. Exercise in frustration. Susan was very good at deflection, and dealing with that amidst a chorus of cohorts wouldn’t be any better an experience.
Remember when JB tried to get us to doxx a feminist activist? She falsely accused her of threatening the AVFM conference and then pretended to be concerned for this feminist’s safety saying someone better warn her she could be in legal trouble if she’s making threats. Of course, she had no evidence of this woman ever making any threat and none of us knew her anyway.
It will never stop being funny that JB thought that ploy would work on us and I will never stop bringing it up.
Fortunately noscript automagically blocks most comment boards unless I explicitly allow them to load, so I am spared the temptation of even looking at the comments.
I just glanced, PoM. Nothing there that you wouldn’t expect. You can read some of the replies that Susan wrote in that thread if you wanted. They’re as long as you might expect, and do the same tap-dance as the previous ones. Nothing to write home about. Other comments are all exactly as you’d expect. At one point Susan was all “I think that some of them seemed reasonable” though, which was nice. That said, she also hoped the reasonable ones would go talk to her over there, and I don’t see that happening. I’m not interested in confrontation!
@WWTH, I don’t remember that but it sure sounds like JB to me. Backhanded legal threats are practically the right-wing modus operandi.