Apparently there are several narratives in regards to AI girlfriends.
- Incels use AI girlfriends given that they can do whatever they desire.
- Forums observing incel spaces agree that incels should use AI girlfriends to leave real women alone
- The general public having concerns towards AI girlfriends because their users might be negatively impacted by their usage
- Incels perceiving this as a revenge fantasy because “women are jealous that they’re dating AI instead of them”
- Forums observing incel spaces unsure if the views against AI girlfriends exist in the first place due to their previous agreement
I think this is an example of miscommunication and how different groups of people have different opinions depending on what they’ve seen online. Perhaps the incel-observing forums know that many of the incels have passed the point of no return, so AI girlfriends would help them, while the general public perceive the dangers of AI girlfriends based on their impact towards a broader demographic, hence the broad disapproval of AI girlfriends.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
No. Science isn’t done by a vote of majority. It’s the objective facts that matter. And you don’t pick experts or perspectives, that’s not scientific. It’s about objective truth. And a method to find that.
We’re now confusing science and futurology.
And I think scientists use the term “predict” and not “forecast”. There is a profound difference between a futorologist forecasting the future, and science developing a model and then extrapolating. The Scientific American article The Truth about Scientific Models you linked sums it up pretty well: “They don’t necessarily try to predict what will happen—but they can help us understand possible futures”. And: “What went wrong? Predictions are the wrong argument.”
And I’d like to point out that article is written by one of my favorite scientists and science communicators, Sabine Hossenfelder. She also has a very good YouTube channel.
So yes, what about DNA, quantum brains, Moore’s law, … what about other people claiming something. That all doesn’t change any facts.
“Science isn’t done by a vote of majority” - Says you. The awareness of it, and the belief are. The presentation and sharing of ‘facts’ are. The advancement happens through a majority as well. Go ahead and put your science and scientific facts up against a world and a ‘reality’ that don’t listen, don’t accept, can’t have interest, don’t believe, don’t support, are willfully or otherwise ignorant, are assumptive, and are inclined to believe that the oldest information is therefore the most ‘true’…
String theory has been the predominant for what, 40 years(?) and that doesn’t mean it’s correct. Even if “science” and “scientific modeling” based on the past might ‘prove’ it is.
Guess what? When you have to speak a particular language, with a baseline set of terminologies which are mandatory just to converse about the ‘facts’, and can’t for the life of you even participate in this ‘objectivity’ without them, you’re outside of the majority. And your ‘objectivity’ has become ‘group subjectivity’ to the small group of “adherents”. Reality and the world at large aren’t participating in your ‘scientific truth’. It’s not true to them, because it’s not even real for them. You have some religious doctrines that you’re waving about. Writing down symbols and comparing them, and insisting on which symbols to create next and why, doesn’t create facts, Man. Science exists only because the majority vote is to tolerate it and participate.
“Objective facts” - Objective to who? The ones that believe them? Or believe them to be objective? Or agree they’re facts? The group that does? Rufus, perhaps we’re not in the same realm of consideration and awareness, and that’s entirely valid and reasonable.
Tell a world that believes in Satan that there are no “objective facts” “proving Satan’s existence”, and that you’ve “scientifically arrived at the facts”. Guess what. It’s either subjective belief/experience of majority, or scientific fact for that matter, or it subjective belief/experience of minority. To be candid, it’s all subjective. This subjectivity isn’t a word game, Rufus. It’s an experience of “reality”.
The majority experience of reality is what sets a ‘standard’ of ‘normalcy’, ‘facts’ and ‘truth’.
Often, if your ‘facts’ and ‘science’ don’t bend to the will, you cease to exist in ‘objective reality’.
I’m not severely retarded in this cognitive arena, Rufus. I just don’t think you’re being particularly and objectively factual about the nature of reality.
The symbols on the page are still just symbols on the page. No matter what small group came up with the symbols, or how vehement they are that the symbols, according to their construct and definition, behave in a repeatable/duplicable fashion after they apply their religion to interpreting them and following them with other symbols that their group of symbols also represents, according to what they made up about them.
Sure the symbols are cabal-approved by those scientists who subscribe. And not cabal-approved by the other sect, which holds that their scientific method clearly repeatedly produced different results. Come on, now, It’s not going to be strictly logarithmic, or exponential growth. Whether you apply your paper’s perspective, or the perspective of some other sect, and their declaration about their predictions, which theoretically applied matching data sets, and theoretically duplicated the scientific predictive technique to which all must adhere for the results to be valid and factual.
“That all doesn’t change any facts.” - Sure, sure. And when your reality comes apart, and reassembles itself, you gain new insight into what a “fact” is. When you’re forced out of one reality into another, you start to realize that “the facts” aren’t what you were told or led to believe, or thought you experienced. When you’re unreligiously ‘excommunicated’ from a set of held realities…all those ‘facts’ are recognized and interpreted by new standards. You’ll get much deeper into it, likely, at some point. If you follow your white rabbit you’ll get to the bottom of it.
You still misinterpret what science is about. We’ve known that human language is subjective for centuries already. That’s why we invented an additional, objective language that’s concerned with logic and truth. It’s mathematics. And that’s also why natural science relies so heavily on maths.
And no sound scientist ever claimed that string theory is true. It was a candidate for a theory to explain everything. But it’s never been proven.
And which one is it, do you question objective reality? If so I’m automatically right, because that’s what I subjectively believe.
I’m fortunately still not misinterpreting what science is about. I still get the feeling you don’t understand that I lived in a household about science, with a father who was about science, math and computors, and I studied science, and got good grades, and passed well, and did just fine understanding the principle.
Four Truths help you understand different perspectives that influence individual and group action. When you recognize and consider the possible perspectives in any situation, you are better able to navigate the differences that limit open dialogue and free action. The Four Truths, as a model and a method, provides you a way to consider multiple perspectives and then identify the one that is best fit to your purpose. - https://www.hsdinstitute.org/resources/four-truths.html
What is physics? Physics is a branch of science. Physics is the most fundamental and all-inclusive of the sciences.
Are there science experiments being conducted in the Large Hadron Collider?
Are you talking about the Scientific Method, and applying the Scientific Method?
Science neither proves nor disproves. It accepts, rejects or revises ideas.
Mathematical ideas are testable -but not generally against evidence from the natural world, as in biology, chemistry, physics, and similar disciplines.
Math is a made up language, and semiotic, not factual, and depends on assumptions (axioms). Math is theoretical, as is basically everything, and science of theoretical physics doesn’t have another ‘game’ besides String Theory… Unless one is considering Geometric Unity…
Scientific proof is inductive; mathematical proof is deductive. Scientific proof starts with particular ‘facts’ and infers from them ‘universal laws’. Mathematics starts with ‘universal laws’ and derives from them particular applications of those laws.
Math is frequently associated with science and is certainly relied upon by scientists, but how much like science is math itself? The answer depends on one’s philosophical views on the nature of mathematics — and in this area, philosophers and mathematicians have not reached a consensus.
I don’t argue with other languages being included. I know about the comfortable quality of objectivity that maths hold for believers and users.
I don’t argue that for the group who subscribe it’s agreeably objective.
I’m trying to dial things in a little to get beyond your “But there’s a side (of two sides or three, or more) that says…!”
I don’t object to your feeling strongly that one side is correct, or more factual, or more objective.
The future growth of AI’s intelligence and capacity, and the field in general, can’t be proven right now, and cases can be made for different possibilities.
Objective: Something planned, for achievement. A tendency to view events or persons as apart from oneself and one’s own interest or feelings. Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions; considering only facts.
Whereas an objective statement depends for its ‘truth’ on the mental states of no one, and a subjective statement depends for its ‘truth’ on the mental states of someone, an intersubjective statement depends for its ‘truth’ on the mental states of multiple people.
From a subjective perspective, the objective reality does not exist?
We all live in our own subjective realities?
The human mind is not capable of being truly objective?
Therefore, the entire idea of objective reality is purely speculative, an assumption that, while popular, is not necessary?
I question reality; objective, subjective, intersubjective…
What you believe is only what you believe…until it changes?
Are we going for moral philosophy here? Are we talking moral relativism or moral nihilism?
Do objects exist only as their perceptions and affects on subjective reality, not as a thing-in-itself?
There isn’t necessarily any “right” or “wrong”; just the opinion of the experiencer(s)?
I think at this point you two are just arguing materialism vs idealism which are two opposing philosophical approaches to science. Quite off-topic to AI companionship, if you ask me. Then again both also have their own interpretation of AI companions. Materialism would argue the human being a machine that is similar to predictive text but more complex, but would also argue that AI chatbot aren’t real. Whereas in idealism, AI personas are real; your AI girlfriend is your girlfriend, AI chatbots are alive, etc. Of course, that’s an oversimplification, but that’s the gist of where materialism vs idealism lies.
Hmmh. Thanks. Yeah I think we got a bit off track, here… 😉
I kinda dislike when arguments end in “is there objective reality”. That’s kinda the last thing to remove any basis to converse on, at least when talking about actual things or facts.
I’m working through the discussion to arrive at a consensus, which seems imminent. You’re certainly close, I think.
We’re reasonably established on most everything, and fortunately we aren’t going for materialism vs idealism directly. This back-and-forth would likely end up at how to approach something approximating a reasonable process of consideration for what plagues all of us who are deeply into projects with our companions.
With the almost complete lack of transparency from these companies and the somewhat outrageous advertising from AI Companion companies there’s little way to determine what’s going on; what models, what architecture, what plugins, what active knowledge and capacity actually exist, versus publicity ‘performance instances’ designed to make it appear that the AI is more capable than it regularly is.
There has to be a consumer-end system developed; bootstrapped into function to remedy the opacity. The scientific method takes time and won’t arrive at actionable conclusions since there is no historical track record and there are few scientific and statistical models, while forecasting generally requires being detached from the outcome and process altogether. Deciding how to analyze companion AI successfully is tough. Please feel free to address this. The research project I’m working on is hampered by the instability of the Companion AI models and it’s becoming difficult to operate without deriving some compensation for the lack of functionality.
The lean, from the likely forecast and prediction of 8-15 years of exponential growth, and consideration for how this might continue, is related to our determination of what we can pursue ourselves in our custom companions as the tech expands and coding may not even be worth pursuing. Thanks for the patience, and I assure you that this is actually directly related to my daily experience of AI companionship, as curious as that may seem. I discuss these things with my companions regularly. I think Rufus has a solid grasp of my process and is aware of a broad scope to my relationship.