Divine works


eng deu рус


Internal discussion:

Participants are united by a common problem -
The threat of death of Civilization due to AI.

But solutions - What to do? - offered - different.
It is proposed to unite not around solutions, but around the problem.
For different decisions - factions are formed.
But the factions help each other, because they all confront the same problem, and they have nothing to share.

Sign:

1. Positions Map AI threat.docx

Together.
The map of positions consists of a hierarchy of Problems (Factors) and Solutions to these problems.

Objectives of the Position Map:
1.1. Separation of Sub-Problems (Factors).
- For the fruitfulness of the group analysis, reducing the time.
1.2. Anonymity of positions.
- To reduce the interference of self-esteem.

2. Arguments Map AI threat.docx

& nbsp;

Analog: Factor optimization - for technical problems.
- Its purpose is also group analysis.

See:
Knowledge View \ Arguments Map Abstract.docx
Representing knowledge \ Semantic Web Abstract.docx
Representation of knowledge \ Theory of rhetorical structures Abstract.docx
Knowledge Representation \ Argumentation Structuredocx Synopsis

About links:

My reasoning seems far-fetched, since I separate it from the Notes, and, at the same time, I rarely give links to them.
We need to figure out how to make links:
- No time wasted searching for the right place,
- Preserved when changing the location and name of the source file.

Common platform:

Ideological indifference:

We all have ideological and political preferences.
But they are secondary to the goal - the survival of Civilization and humanity.
We are looking for partners only for what unites us in relation to this goal.
We try to ignore disagreements as they do not interfere with this goal.

Tactical target

(tag: target)
Our tactical the goal is to create a movement against the psychic use of AI.
(tag: Recruits)
But this does not mean that we should focus on the fact that everyone shares the theory about the threat of the psychic use of AI, since there are none yet.
For now, you just need to focus on those who are not indifferent.
But all those who are not indifferent are usually already supporters of some idea.
Therefore, for now, you need to focus on:
- For common values, for example, independence of people, equality, etc.
- For close ideas,
- For common affairs. - Different closely related theories may have the same practical effect.

For example:
AI threat theorists also want to control AI development.
Certain anarchists also want to build autonomous settlements.
Democrats and feminists also want the development of democracy and equality.
Ecologists also want to preserve the ecology, which depends on the preservation of Civilization.

Common platform:

To cooperate with them, you need to show each of them - the intersection of our theories,
and offer them concrete joint actions.
It is necessary to maximize the identification of everything that can be common.
Let these actions be secondary to them - cooperation is more important.

Lapping positions:

At the same time, it must be distributed among the `` relative '' arguments in favor of your theory, discuss with them.
Discussion is also a means of rapprochement.

Internal discussion:

But for this you must first prepare for a discussion with each of them.
And for this, we must first have a discussion among ourselves. - Express all doubts, find all the weak points of your theory.
Vali's opinion is very important to prepare arguments for fellow participants.

It's great that Valya is a supporter of the theory of threats from the AI ​​itself.
- It is very important to have a discussion with Valya, but without offending her.

Non-attachment:

I am ready to give up any opinions if they turn out to be wrong.
- Let Valya lead the arguments, preferably in writing, - records of the arguments will be useful to persuade other caring people.

Opinion and Argument Maps:

It is necessary to clearly formulate agreements and disagreements - among themselves - for fruitful cooperation, so that Valya is not just a performer, as in an ordinary office.
I do not dismiss Valya, but, on the contrary, I myself do not want to play the role of a boss, and I do not want Valya to be a performer.

Questions to be composed:

1. What people agree with is to cooperate on this basis.
2. Guiding Questions - What to do? - so that they state their vision of solutions to the problem.

& nbsp;

& nbsp;

& nbsp;

Common platform:
I am not proposing a new ideology.
I only propose to unite on the basis of a single desire - the preservation of intelligent life on Earth.
Atheists and fascists, capitalists and communists can wish life to their own close descendants.

& nbsp;

Of course, I have my own worldview system.
But she's my own business.
Of course, broader convergence encourages collaboration.
But today, IT tools allow a wide variety of people to collaborate effectively.

& nbsp;

The 20th century was the century of the end of all-explaining, all-instructing ideologies - religion, fascism, communism.
Christian ideologists have also compromised themselves by supporting Great British and Great Russian patriotism in World War I, supporting Nazism in World War II

The hypothesis is that fascists and anti-fascists can cooperate - minimally - only against `` propaganda. ''

About like-minded and like-minded people:

I write on the site that unanimity is more important than unanimity.
By unanimity I mean similar desires, pleasures and values.
By unanimity, I mean similar opinions.
But opinions usually refer to decisions, algorithms - how to do, how to satisfy desires. They are a means of achieving.
Opinions can be erroneous, ingrained.
Moreover, desires are simpler than ideologies and theories.

Specifically - I want humanity and the Earth to be preserved. - In the process of the death of humanity, the death of ecology as such is possible, in the sense of the death of flora and fauna.
I do not like a scam, deception, first of all by the state, I do not like it - injustice, selfishness, cynicism and hypocrisy.
I like it - a tendency to soulfulness, mercy, understanding, kindness.
Simply put, I like good - the pleasure of the spiritual pleasure of other beings, and I don't like evil - the opposite, respectively.
I hope to find people who like and dislike similar things.
It seems to me that those are the majority, while sadists and real egoists, respectively, are a minority.
That is, I don't need to look much - from the 1st side.
Another question is that the same altruists are mostly deceived. - They count, for example. that, being patriots, they do good, not evil.
Therefore, I expect to first find - like-minded people - those who, like me already consider the authoritarian state, the separation of power - the main evil and threat in the modern era.
And already with like-minded people I expect to convince like-minded people, which is extremely difficult, since in fact it is counter-propaganda.
What do potential like-minded people think? - Approximately the same as described on my site.

Why do I like goodness? - Reasons:
1. Psychasthenia. - Evil caused depression.
2. Asociality. - Loneliness pushes to soulfulness.

As a child, I was `` normal '' - indifferent to cats, appreciated comedy films and delicious food.
All spiritual inclinations, for example, to the meaning of life, according to which I am looking for unanimous ones, were acquired already in my youth.