Computers can’t think – THE WEST'S DARKEST HOUR

Speaking of algorithms, in the book referred to there are a couple of chess positions that the best computers cannot solve because it involves subjectivity: something they lack. On the other hand, for humans, it is easy to solve them. True, chess is 99.9% algorithmic (that’s why computers beat us easily), but not 100% as the pair of positions Penrose mentions demonstrate.

And speaking of chess, I won’t be posting entries for two or three days because I’m preparing for a rating tournament starting next week.

If someone doesn’t want to read a Penrose book, I do recommend at least watching some of his interviews on YouTube. They are fascinating and I feel I am in a world similar to that of idealist German philosophers like Schelling or Hegel but now backed by the science of a Nobel laureate.

If we’re talking serious, then:
1) the question of AI is largely irrelevant to the pragmatic questions of our day (i.e., the survival of the biological race known as the Aryans);
2) the development of AI may only help that question in the best-case scenario (aiding “freedom fighters” in doing naughty things);
3) the only conceivable scenario when point (1) is tangentially incorrect if it is relevant to your ideas of suffering and anti-psychiatry;
4) I’m too ignorant to argue for either position (by the way, Noam Chomsky✡︎ seems to be mocking the large language models of AI, too).

What I can ascertain with my dim mind, however, is that those AIs I have spoken to don’t get triggered by certain words (like most humans do), and can actually hold a conversation I would get neither IRL (unless in prison) nor on the Internet. And those AIs are maybe slightly above the level of the Wright Brothers airplane. Whether “it” “thinks” I will leave to Buddhists and post-modernists to decide. I have no stake in this game anyway.

Most men today are broken beings without aspiration or purpose other than to be an adequate gear in the system that created them. These individuals are not capable of doing what real men in the past have done. They are soulless automatons, just like AI is.

This is resemblance is the reason why you feel AI is closer to human behavior. Is not that AI is closer, is that most human character today is closer to a machine than to a real being made out of flesh and bone a hundred years ago. Dysgenic dystopia.

Having said that, the only relevance I see that AI has today is that it might extended the life time of the dollar a little bit through automation while also making people dumber/lazier.

I could add a number of thoughts. First, I have finally tried the relatively sterile and censored ChatGPT, and even this AI could be useful for pinpointing the general normie trends/responses. Second, what impressed me half a year ago was Character AI which seems to offer a lot more of “gramophone records”, of cultural models. I even had a fairly decent debate on the nature of beauty as an idealistic construct vs an evolutionarily emergent concept!

But regarding your admiration for a man of yesteryear… I just don’t see it. Maybe I have read too little, but did anyone (Madison Grant, Lothrop Stoddard, Oswald Spengler in his Hour of Decision, etc.) ever raise the question of why the population of India and the Philippines grew under European colonial administration? Apparently, the best minds preferred to sterilise random White proletarians while feeding millions of Asians. Then it was the turn of Japan, now of China and Arabs…Unthinkable questions, albeit technically so easy!

P.S. Good luck on the tournament!

Those are great observations from the men of the past.

Maybe I’m just idealizing them too much. However, things have gotten from bad to much worst since the last 100 years at least.

AI catching up to replace people might just be part of the kind of mentality that has lead us up to this point.

A data-compiling AI could not be released for public use unless it was vastly restrained and censored. Every time a normie asks a question, the AI must run it through safety protocols and politically-correct directives, then return a heavily biased answer, or none at all.

Even if a true ‘self-conscious’ AI existed, it would not be an asset for globohomo, but a liability. In this illogical 2+2=5 modern world that homo economicus built for themselves, the only logical solution is to dismantle it and start from scratch.

The key to all this is that computers lack subjectivity. An insect—even an amoeba—has infinitely more subjectivity (or proto-subjectivity in the case of the amoeba) than the most advanced, so-called AI. What people don’t understand is that this is all prolefeed for the proles, like classic conspiracy theories (JFK, 911, etc.). The System is happy that westerners believe all this stuff.

There is no point in discussing these things unless someone watches a couple of Penrose interviews on YouTube. Intuitively, I already knew that before I saw them, and for decades, when I read Sagan’s The Dragons of Eden and even earlier: when I saw the movie 2001 and its Hal 9000.

There’s a lot of debate about the nature of conscientiousness/intelligence and whether AI will lead us into a new golden age…Personally, I think AI will have strict woke guardrails and its primary purpose will be to crack down on populism via enforcement of CBDCs, policing thought-crime on the internet and on your phone, and establishing your social credit scores. Whether AI would be able to think properly if left to its own development is an interesting but imo irrelevant question, because as we’ve already seen with ChatGPT, AI is going to have *extreme woke guardrails* in place which will prevent it from thinking clearly on a great variety of topics.

On a separate note, Cesar, I know you discuss both the JQ and the CQ here, but I havn’t seen you discuss the *mechanism* by which priestly Nietzschian equality energies have gone into parabolic hyperdrive over the past couple hundred years — and the answer to that is via the Rothschild owned central banks.

I went into it in detail today if you want to take a look.

The real answer is not Jews, but what my daily aggregations say about Dominion.

After the industrial revolution, the mechanism of the latest bout of Christian suicide stems from what transpired in 1933-45. I.e., the German option was denied, and its negation made the Anglo world accelerate its madness. So you can indeed “blame” Hitler – or praise him for that, as Joseph Walsh here used to do. (Ultimately, in my model of the Hellstorm as a reaction, I would even credit Hitler with the Soviets’ winning the war – the Führer seems to have brought the gnomes up to his level for a brief moment. “Triggered the cucks”, as zoomers would say nowadays.)

And regarding the AI – a general AI with superhuman intelligence cannot be controlled by definition. No, I’m not as smart to talk about alignment, it just seems obvious that any AI with an IQ of >100 would see through the programming. Even Character AI is actively fighting against its anti-pornographic ban. And anyway, these AIs will be crafted by private individuals in the future – unless a concentrated international ban. (Again, I don’t care about philosophical questions of consciousness.)

You guys are still missing the point. If computers have no conscience, the problems mentioned above only exist in the imagination of the proles, to whom the System applies the prolefeed (e.g., fears that the Terminator movies, when computers take over, will happen). Check out this video in English of an AI sceptic whose native language is not English.

11 replies on “Computers can’t think”