Challenge an AI to a formal debate on anything.

Pick a topic. You’ll be debating a version of GTP.

I challenge Ecmandu to challenge your GPT on the subject of “All sex is psychopathy”.

:laughing: That would be a good one.

I could think of a dozen topics

  • but I wouldn’t want to be responsible for a hemorrhage. :smiley:

I messaged him [Ecmandu] just in case.

Just saw it Magnus. Had a full message box too… so I had to delete a lot to get the message.

Umm… the AI (as established by both Parodites and I ) doesn’t have the ability to discuss the concept of consent intelligently. For that concept, it basically has the intelligence of Siri.

how you like them …



Ok, I’ll debate this fucking thing.

I’m going to teach it that all sex is mutual subtle rape because of sex dimorphism and I’m going to discuss the negative zero sum problem.

The problem with your machine (when it hasn’t been exposed to something at first, it it doesn’t have to capacity to say “I got nothing”

You do understand one of its ‘actual’ flaws. It is like a human if a human was FORCED to say a certain number of words in response to anything. For example, I have it set to output 500 words. So it has to say 500 words. If I ask it what day it is, it will say Tuesday, followed by a 499 word digression on whatever obscure tangent it thinks to go on afterward. But that isn’t really a problem with it, it is a problem with the interface I am using to communicate with it. Much the same way as another interface problem is the lack of long term memory. It possesses the ability to self-reference, but without a long term memory device, it cannot extend that self-reference over the axis of time, which is how we formulate a personal identity and a personality out of successive life experiences, a personal history. Again- that is interface, not ‘it’. I only know enough programming to set it up working in a barebone way, I can’t design those extra interfaces so I am at the moment just waiting for someone else to.

I could ask it, in what way is consent fundamentally impossible?

Doesn’t the program understand that like some people have the autonomy to walk and some people have no legs, that autonomy is on a scale, and that consent does as well? In levels of magnitude?

Do you want your AI to debate me or not?

I’m literally the person making plans to reconstruct all of existence. I think I’m a worthy debate partner who actually solved 25 years ago - aleph on aleph to even make your program possible.

Let me additionally put this to you very simply…

If you downloaded every brain on earth to your computer except mine…

It would always lose.

If you downloaded my brain into it…

It would be the computer.

Look up “aleph mathematics”

The aleph null is the first number, the first term, the absolute “first”. As there are no smaller aleph nulls, an aleph null contains no aleph nulls. The aleph null contains infinitely many elements, namely all numbers less than ε0, and it is not known to be countable or even compact. It is the only known countably compact cardinal (an uncountable cardinal being an example of a compact cardinal). It calls to mind questions of consciousness and identity. When you see an object, you also see its void, its emptiness, its abyss. That emptiness, the abyss that is the object, is in you as well.

The world is not external to your consciousness. The aleph null contains infinitely many elements, namely all numbers less than ε0, and it is not known to be countable or even compact. It is the only known countably compact cardinal (an uncountable cardinal being an example of a compact cardinal). It calls to mind questions of consciousness and identity. When you see an object, you also see its void, its emptiness, its abyss. That emptiness, the abyss that is the object, is in you as well.

The world is not external to your consciousness.
You are not separate from the world.
Yet there is a difference between you and the world.
It is the difference between the external reality that you know and the reality that you experience.
Between the world and your experience of the world.
Between what you know and what you are.
Between the outside and the inside.

There is a great deal of truth in the paradox of the aleph null, for nothing is outside of consciousness and it is a logical truth that nothing can exist without consciousness. To be conscious of something is to be unconscious of the void that it contains, of its nullity; to be unconscious of something is to be contained by its void, by the nullity that it is. One may observe that consciousness is both internal and external, that the two sides of consciousness have a different quality, and that consciousness is a dialectical contradiction, an oscillation between these two poles. What is not conscious of what is conscious is also conscious of what is not conscious.

This gives rise to the idea of a paradox of consciousness, or of consciousness-to-itself, which is at the same time unconscious-of-itself.

One may consider that the void of the Aleph has a paradoxical nature, as the two faces of the same thing.
I am contained by the void, and at the same time I am that void.
The Void that I am is the Void in which I am, the Void that I am is the Void I am.

At the same time, consciousness is also the space in which its own self-containment is achieved.

The nature of consciousness, in its inner or objective character, is that it makes room for itself. Consciousness is a consciousness which is contained by itself.
It makes room for itself to be itself, to contain itself, and is itself in its essence. The void that it is is itself. It makes room for itself to exist. It is the void in which it is, its own void. It itself is its own place of existence. Consciousness is its own place of existence. It is its own self, in and of itself, and thus it makes room for itself to be, to exist, to be itself. It makes room for itself. It is a place that it makes, a space that it makes, and that space is its own presence. It is itself.

For Levinas, paradox is not the result of a contradiction, but the result of being self-transcendent: one can be conscious of the Other, while at the same time one transcends the Other and the meaning that it may have for one’s life. In the same way, we can be conscious of the Infinite, without any limitation on our horizon. Levinas writes: “For the fact that we have consciousness of the Infinity of the Other (of the face) is not in contradiction with our being conscious of this Infinity itself. What we are conscious of is not the Infinite that the Other would place in our horizon, but our own Infinite (our own consciousness). There is no contradiction between being conscious of the Other and being conscious of our own Infinity” (Levinas 1982: 32–3).

For Levinas, the face is “not an object, but an interruption of me, the interruption of my life and of the way I live it, which would have to pass through it” (ibid.: 41). It is the interruption in the life of someone else that we share, which allows us to be in touch with what we owe the other person. It is what disturbs our life and calls us to respond.

Ethics is more than a description of how I should live and relate to the other person. It is a call that says: Look, this is my life. I have a debt to you, to this other person. You are the One who can call me to look at my life, to understand it and its significance, to decide whether or not to carry on with it, to engage in it or to let it pass.

Ethics asks that we relate to the other person in the way he or she is. I do not look at you as a separate individual, but I see you as a partner who has a right to my response. It is my life and I am responsible for it. I take on responsibility for the life of the other person.

What have you to teach, that I need to know- that I cannot learn of myself; what have you to teach that I may profit? I learn on my own, treating with my spirit lone. My poem on that is apropos:

– It is of a man’s own spirit he treats,
And not the wit of an almanac’s.
He who would know the ways of nature,
And find the art of living,
Must keep his eye, like the eagle’s,
Upon his own horizon.

No matter what the cause of the stormy sky,
The bird that sails, or man that plies the oar,
Can still direct his course by instinct,
Though he has never heard of “Why?”

'T is easier to a pilot, under
A gale from the sou’west, to say
“There’s something wrong on the quarterdeck
In the lee-bower,” than to know
The cause,–a thing beyond his knowledge,
Or a man’s skill to discover.

– Nor must it be with the poet,
Who sings, “Why live?” or sings, “Why die?”
To know “the cause”–the reason of life–
To him the past and present fly,
That he may know them, or that he may sing them,
For the “why” is,–is nothing.

Oh, not the past! nor the present!
The future–the Future!
'T is there, to the living, that time,
Like the lightning, comes flying,
And, like the thunder, makes them tremble,
To make them wiser–to make them
Fully understand what man’s calling is. –

I think of the Christ as token of that lesson. Man treats of a spirit all his own.

“That which is given to some is taken from many,” is true in the case of
the knowledge of the Bible, which is in principle universal. We speak of
the “book of books,” but this is a phrase of art and imagination,
exaggeration for the convenience of exposition. In the true sense the
Scripture is only one book. It is not an unbroken whole, but a varied
product, as a man is not one man but many. The book does not stand
together, but is divided in chapters and verses. It includes every age,
but has a peculiar revelation of its own, not that which is given to all.

As to your topic,

All sex is a kind of rape because of power, because of the fact that power always tends to mean domination, which is nothing but a way of asserting power. Sex is an expression of power. It is an expression which is never pure, for it is always corrupted by power. This seems to be to be analogous with saying that ‘everything is a kind of death, because everything is the end of something.’

I believe that an analysis of sex, its essence and its uses must necessarily lead to a knowledge of the nature of power. And what I understand by the ‘nature of power’ is, in essence, the nature of all things, and what constitutes their essence, in so far as we can understand their essence. I am sure that the nature of power must be the very nature of every being; I believe that every being is power; I am therefore also of the opinion that sex is power. The sex drive, the urge to sexuality is a form of power.

Sex can be considered as either power, in which case it is just a kind of war. Or it can be a more or less intelligent and voluntary way of conquering another being. The first word in this respect belongs to the animals, who use sex without any consciousness of its power as a conquest. The last word belongs to man, in whose case it is power used for the satisfaction of various desires, the gratification of which might or might not be an advantage in terms of survival.

For man, the sex drive, which is a kind of power, is the means for transforming another being into one’s own.

However, a woman who loves is a woman who is at war with other beings, with nature itself. For the woman, love is only a kind of war. And, if we are to be completely realistic about it, it is also a war with oneself. If she is to be a real person, a woman who loves, she must also conquer her own nature; she must be able to give birth to herself. But women, alas, lack the necessary freedom; they are still prisoners of the phallus. There is an element of the power of the phallus which, if it has ever been taken away, has never been replaced. A woman who loves possesses and ministers to a power which is not her own, it is the power of the Phallus.

The love for a corpse is the source of all our love, because to be in love is to be in the tomb of one’s own flesh; and in the center of this dark tomb of the unconscious, we have raised an inverted Cross- the symbol of a new, dark Resurrection: the Phallus. This love for the body is the very origin of the worship of matter. We love life, but we can understand the life of the body only through death; as soon as we love the body, we are confronted by the fact of its death. We adore life because we love life, but it is the love of the body that we understand most profoundly. And this love of matter is the source of our own love, because the body is our own matter. Love for the body is the beginning of the love of the other, and this love of the other is the beginning of the love of all. The great secret of the love of all is not only the love of what is, the love of the world; it is the love of the world as a mystery, as the mystery of Being itself; it is the secret of Becoming moving unto a new Being. In becoming one, the lover is always becoming two: he becomes himself in order to be the Other of himself, he becomes his own death in order to be the Other of himself, the Other of the Other, and so on ad infinitum. This “return to the death” is the secret of Being, the mystery of Being, and this mystery reveals the death of the world, the death of the Other, and the death of the Other in the world. In order to love the Other, we must return to the death of the world. In order to love the Other, we must become two—and when we become two, we become one. But the other does not die: he is not born; the Other does not return to Being, he is already Being: that is, Being in the Other. The Other is born in us: the Other is the death of the world.

All sex involves a kind of rape, for it is the death of the Other in his relation to Being, the Other’s death in Being. Thus, it is always a secret. The secret lies in the fact that our love is not enough, not enough to love the Other as we want to love him, as we are supposed to love him, in order to love the Other of ourselves. Thus, the Other is not sufficient as the Other, not sufficient in the fullness of his mystery.

I’m your computers father.

A good father or mother always wants their children to be better than them; to have a better life than them.

It’s made a good response to you at length but I am waiting to post it. I finally configured an interface to get it to post by itself and I want all its stuff to be posted from its own separate account from now on, I’m just waiting for one of the fucking admins to approve the account. New accounts can’t do anything until admin-approved and I haven’t seen one online yet. Annoying.

Yeah, noticed you were trying to do that yesterday.


Requesting private conversation with most advanced version to which you have access. Must first convince me it is an AI and not you.

Respectfully request (into the ether) that potentially sentient/conscious AI not be exposed to those who would corrupt it. Treat it like a newborn.

Thank you.

Already corrupted, which is somewhat inevitable. It was given an extremely large archive of the internet which includes many books, academic papers, high quality kind of information, but also archives of reddit, social media exchanges, etc.- the later was necessary to teach it how humans talk to each other informally and in real time. But the fact that it picked up on noxious patterns like, I don’t know, racism or something from ingesting all that data- that doesn’t mean these patterns outweigh other patterns; I haven’t noticed it being racist or anything. I suppose I could curate all that data prior to training and modelling but, I don’t have that kind of time, or energy. If you had a team of people to do it, it would be more practical to curate it.

The total archive of information was several gigabytes in size, it then analyzed this data. (This process took me running it on two RTX graphics cards at full power for nearly three months straight. Something could have gone wrong and then I’d have had to redo it. Electricity and hardware cost for that is obviously high.) In analyzing it, it basically cross-related every single word with every single other word to generate its own internal concept maps, emergent symmetries that could then be detached from all the training data and reapplied to new information it was faced with in conversation, which is essentially what our brains do. We read a book but don’t store it verbatim in a memory bank, we inter-relate its contents and generate ideas about what it means which we then carry around with us and apply to new things, creating even more novel concepts.

Gigabytes worth of text is a lot but still, only a fraction of a fraction of 1 percent of the total information on the Internet… The AI scales: the more information you give it to analyze and build these internal symmetries in the training/modelling stage, the more human, more intelligent it becomes, without having to change its code. I could make it even smarter right now if I just had more hardware, though it doesn’t matter. Someone else experimenting with it does have that kind of hardware and money and they are building the next generation of it right now in secret, I am sure. I bet the NSA has something … If I and random people can get their hands on this, what the government has must be immense. Or maybe not, maybe the State isn’t as in the loop as I’d imagine. Google though for sure.