Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SoylentRox t1_j5uaadq wrote

Reply to comment by LoquaciousAntipodean in This subreddit has seen the largest increase of users in the last 2 months, gaining nearly 30k people since the end of November by _dekappatated

>Also, how in the heck can you have a 'non emotional argument'? What even is that? I was captain of my high school debate team way back when, I take a keen interest in politics, I have studied university level maths and chemistry and watched professors dispute with each other, but I have never, ever seen a non emotional argument before.
>
>Are you trying to pretend that you don't have any emotions when you 'think rationally', because you, unlike me, and the rest of the 'common rabble', are a 'clear and intelligent thinker'? That's cute if so; very quaint.

Arrguments like "numbers, math, irreducible complexity. Saying there isn't enough compute. Saying that AI companies right now are soon going to hit a wall because <your reason> and that funding will get pulled."

When you say you studied "university level maths and chemistry" but you didn't mention CS or machine learning, you're making a weak non emotional argument. (because you aren't actually qualified to have the opinion you claim)

When you say " That's cute if so; very quaint." that's an appeal to emotion.

Or "Are you trying to pretend that you don't have any emotions when you 'think rationally', because you, unlike me, and the rest of the 'common rabble', are a 'clear and intelligent thinker'?". Same thing. Because sure, everyone has emotions but some people are able to do math and determine if an idea is going to work or not.

3

LoquaciousAntipodean t1_j5xhrnf wrote

Haha, you're so overconfident and smug, it's adorable. You need to watch out for your hubris, it doesn't actually make you smarter than everyone else.

Your magical 'math' does not just sit on top of emotion, all superior and shiny. You'll figure this out someday, or die trying.

But it looks like my attempts to persuade you that Cartesian tautologies are not the same thing as wisdom are never going to cut through; you're just going to keep accusing anyone you disagree with of being 'too emotional'.

That's called 'gaslighting', mate, and it's not a legitimate debate tactic. It doesn't look good on you, you really need to work on not doing that, or it will get you into real trouble in real life.

There's no point arguing with a gaslighter who just dismisses your every argument as 'emotional', so I bid you goodbye for now. I wish you luck in figuring out how to do cynicism and wisdom properly.

1

SoylentRox t1_j5xpo6y wrote

>Your magical 'math' does not just sit on top of emotion, all superior and shiny.

From a theoretic perspective, it does. For example, you probably do know that if you're gambling in a card game, it doesn't matter how you feel. It's only the information that you have available to you and an algorithm someone validated in a simulation that should determine your actions.

Even for a game like Poker, it turns out AI is better than humans because apparently world class poker players bluff perfectly enough that other humans can't tell.

As an individual human, with an evolved meatware brain, am I above emotion? Of course not. But from a factual perspective, arguing with math is more likely to be correct (or less wrong)

1