Aging does not kill us. It's never killed anyone. Ever. Not once. In our entire history, not just ours. Of all living creatures. Ever.

Nothing has ever died from aging. Contrary to lazy doctors that have no problems at all writing it on death certificates.

The problem with youth? It's wasted on the young.

I am arrogant. Do you know why? Because I'm not a fucking idiot, in world of them.

You wanna separate the chaff from the wheat and find out which side of that you fall on?

Wonderful. So that's led to the discovery of the mechanism that triggers age-related disease?

No, I'm not confusing them. But here. Help me out. Why don't you give me a nice definition of each of those, just so I'm clear. Go ahead. I don't mind.

I won't be around in 20-30 years. It's not a concern of mine.

But you keep playing whack-a-mole with all these words you're getting confused about, because who knows. Maybe like every other Pharma Bro out there, you'll throw something against the wall that sticks. Until it doesn't.

Sounds like you've cured aging. Oh... that's right. People still dropping dead. Hmm. Funny, I don't recall anyone ever really dying of age.

Lord Kelvin. And that's not what I'm proposing even in the least. I've been a firm proponent of life extension. Since at least the 90s. But somehow this sub seems to think it's a new idea that just came up.

It's not. And from the very beginning the people that have been serious about it have understood a fundamental truth. It has nothing to do with aging and everything to do with biological processes that tend to be initiated with age.

There's an ocean of difference between those things.

Don't talk to me about Kurzweil. And you can go back 7 years to see that it was my ass that drug Cynthia Kenyon into this fucking sub for people to fawn over.

What's she doing lately btw? Oh yeah, that's right. Top Secret Google Stuff.

I didn't just land here. But even then we understood that there are two camps.

Dreamers that talk about aging. And researchers that understand aging isn't the disease.

It's not that. It's that you have a flawed approach and you're not going to be of service to anyone, let alone me, with it.

You're chasing something we already know the answer quite firmly to.

What causes aging? Time.

That's a different question than what causes age-related deterioration.

Get your perspective right and maybe you'll make progress, which I'd gladly welcome.

But you've been led to believe that we can look at symptoms and somehow magically assess the disease from that. You can't.

Learn the lessons of cancer researchers that the Alzheimer's researchers still have either not gotten, or intentionally ignore.

It's your choice. If you want to waste the next 30 years of your life, you're free to. Doesn't cost me a dime.

You're not going to cure aging. That's the dumbest fucking concept you could have.

You might cure age-related disease. But not if you keep confusing it for its symptoms.

It's not mental gymastics. There's clearly a difference between disease and the symptoms of disease and you're classically confusing the two.

But good luck with that. I'm sure it'll help you to come up with an appropriate solution. I hear they're looking for more Alzheimer's researchers. Sounds like you'd fit right in. Maybe you can milk it for a few more decades. Hell, it's tenure, steady white papers and hella funding. Doesn't have nearly the distaste of chasing the fountain of youth.

That's what aging is. Aging is not a disease. It's a passage of time.

That's entirely different than internal systems that are degrading because of time.

Otherwise, a perfectly healthy 80-year-old would be considered diseased just because of their age.

Flaw in logic much?

But aging isn't a disease. It's just the passage of time. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you'd like to argue that telomere shortening is a disease, I could probably get behind that. Or whatever the actual mechanism that directly leads to age related disease.

But it's not age.

It's age related. Otherwise, you end up fighting a lot of symptoms while never getting at the root of it.

Stop thinking of them as chores to start with. Those are opportunities to ensure you're prepared for whatever life throws at you.

Doesn't matter what it is. Laundry? Mowing a lawn? Picking up a bosses dry cleaning (is that a thing still?).

It sounds petty. Like some shit your grandpa would say in order to get a free chore out of you.

But it's also true. Every task you complete from getting out of bed in the morning to making it back to bed at night is in service to your life.

Some are positive, some are negative. But they all count.

Even if it's just the discipline you're instilling in yourself when you complete tasks that are less than enjoyable. Its value added.

And learn to smile. Even when you don't feel like it. The science on this is as clear as it can be. This one simple act, holding a smile for just a few seconds can trick you into thinking you should be happy. Even when life or your job or your chore sucks.

Stepping stones, not stumbling blocks.

It's Reddit, it's what those that can't, do. I get that I'm an asshole, it's not a secret everyone but me knows. I also get that it's not always what you say, but how you say it.

I'm working on it. But fuck me if as I attempt to clarify my language, it just gets more and more difficult to comprehend.

It seems a strange paradox of information. The more concise and less ambiguous it becomes; the less people seem to get it.

So did you understand?

No? Didn't think so. Let's try again

>Hello assistant. I'd like to explain the importance of not anthropomorphizing machines so that even a trained monkey could understand, if that's not available, perhaps just in terms that your average Redditor might accept.

Sure, I can certainly try to explain the importance of not anthropomorphizing machines in a way that is easy to understand and acceptable to a wide audience.

Anthropomorphizing machines means attributing human-like qualities or characteristics to them. This can happen when we treat machines as if they have thoughts, feelings, or intentions like humans do.

There are a few reasons why it is important to avoid anthropomorphizing machines.

First, it can lead to unrealistic expectations about what machines can do. If we think of a machine as having human-like qualities, we may expect it to behave in ways that are not possible given its actual capabilities. This can lead to frustration and disappointment when the machine doesn't perform as we expect it to.

Second, anthropomorphizing machines can also lead to a lack of caution in how we use them. If we think of a machine as being capable of human-like decision-making, we may be less careful about how we program it or how we use it, which can lead to unintended consequences.

Finally, anthropomorphizing machines can also create social and ethical problems. If we start to think of machines as being similar to humans, we may be less likely to consider the ethical implications of using them in certain ways or for certain tasks.

Overall, it is important to remember that machines are just tools designed to perform specific tasks. They do not have the same capabilities or consciousness as humans, and it is important to treat them accordingly.

Anarchists tend to fall under Libertarianism. It's a centrist belief. Just a heads up.

Otherwise, economic considerations such as communism and socialism? They're not inherently tied to social political values. There are plenty of progressives, liberals, lefties, Pinkos, Reds, or whatever you'd like to call them. that understand Capitalism is of tremendous benefit.

I happen to be one certainly, though I'd never define myself as any of the above.

The difference is I could argue for already being in the singularity.

Unlike intelligence, or sentience, or awareness. There are actually decent definitions for it. They vary. But one is when a time is reached in which the pace of technological growth, is faster than any human can keep up with.

To that, I'd say we're well within the bounds of the definition.

The other words? Anyone that thinks that more data, or adding different modalities, or different algorithms can introduce these concepts.

Just don't understand them. That's okay, none of us do. But there are some like Chalmers, and his Hard Problem. Or Claude Shannon and Information Theory, or just plain common sense that should tell us that if we cannot define our own consciousness, we're probably not in a position to replicate it.

Does it matter how you label it? The fact remains that most educated young people that aren't concerned about capital gains; are going to be liberal. That's the nature of being young and idealistic. That's the nature of being educated in systems that are based in progressive doctrine.

Why do you think MAGA states are fighting so fiercely to indoctrinate how they see fit?

Most research is done by young, educated people that need not worry about capital gains.

Label it how you'd like.

Machines do not take jobs from people. Machines do not do anything. Machines are inert. I get I'm having to say this a lot lately. Dead Horse being beaten.

But it's clear people still aren't getting it.

Jobs may be reduced as a result of interactions of humans and machines. Entirely fair assessment. Needs to be discussed.

Jobs will never be reduced because of a machine. Machines are inert. They do nothing without a Human.

We're not the proud fathers, these machines are not living. They cannot replace us. They have no sentience, they have no understanding, they have no intelligence, they have not awareness, they have not consciousness, they have not free will or desire or want.

And this tired line, of "yeah but they will"

Come back then. But don't hold your breath, because we can't even accurately describe any of the words being used, let alone embed them in machines.

That would be news to me. Most Silicon Valley Bros aren't exactly MAGA types, especially researchers. I'm sure as the pay scale increases so does the progression towards the tax benefits that are typically associated with the beliefs.

Rules are important, otherwise there is no convergence of complexity. Consider Conway's Game of Life. Without rules it's just random interactions, with no potential benefit.

Yet, with simple rules these cellular automata hop to life. Every rule you add however, limits the possible configurations that the system can physically exist in.

I find it compelling to consider that according to the Old Testament there is only a single example of God providing Direct rules.

The original ten commandments.

It's an interesting story. The first tablets were created by God directly. From the the mind of God, through God's own fingers the laws were carved.

But Moses destroyed those tablets in rage when he saw what his fellow believers were up to in his absence.

Of course, he returned to God, probably quite ashamed of this ultimate form of blasphemy. After all, never before had God (nor since) interacted directly with humans in this way.

The tablets were a physical manifestation of God's will, with no interpretation of man at all.

God instructed Moses to reconstruct those laws. Through the hand of man. Through Moses' own interpretation.

I often wonder how closely those sets of tablets would align. Was it only the handwriting that was changed?

Or does this story contain a deeper message? A symbolic one?

One that is telling us quite clearly, that any rule of God, is by default a rule that has been interpreted only via man.

That's an important distinction after all.

You're a considerate person. So I share a complex consideration with you, because I respect that you're considerate.

Ideologies can fundamentally be seen as rulesets. They're a type of legislation of the mind.

Rulesets have only one purpose. That is to limit the potential space of outcomes.

Rules confine systems.

The problem with confining potential outcomes in this manner is that if the only actual solution to a problem resides outside of the space that is being constrained by the rule. It's never reached.

I was raised Christian. I am no longer, but I do respect the beliefs because I try my best to respect all beliefs.

In that ideology, and religions aren't the only kind. There are rules. Not just the commandments of God. Many rules that are more subtle, less defined, but rules none the less.

Concepts like the sanctity of life.

Only God can arbitrate what lives and dies. We're already in conflict with that rule with our very existence. After all, we require sustenance. Food.

So we change the rule to fit our personal definition. Maybe that's animal life. Maybe it's only human life. But we arbitrarily determine it, because we must. We must end life at some level to maintain our own.

It's a flawed concept that introduces rules that are ill defined and ambiguous.

Sanctity of Life isn't the only subtle rule. There's also rules about what is required to secure a desired afterlife.

Talk about ambiguous. Do I need to consume flesh? Do I need to be submerged? Do I have to virally spread the belief system?

This is not to offer anything other than consideration to the fact that as rules grow, become more complex, become more abstract, become more ambiguous:

The only real outcome is that the potential space for actions that remain within the rules is limited in greater and greater ways.

This is true of all ideologies.

Not as much with principles.

Principles are not complex. They're much less ambiguous.

Logic, Rationality, Minimization of bias, Fairness, Equity, Critical Thought.

They're well-defined principles that are less complex, and allow for much more freedom of potential outcomes, while remaining beneficial to all.

We could spend a lifetime expressing our personal perspectives only in the end to realize that we're saying the same things. Just from different perspectives.

Separate yourself from this. It's a waste of time.

Respect all perspectives but leave them at the personal level.

Instead rise above that personal level to one in which the scale is that of the stakeholder.

At that scale, personal perspectives are irrelevant. Because they will always be conflicting, and personal, and open for interpretation, and ambiguous.

Instead focus on principles that all stakeholders can agree upon.

You widen your potential audience and narrow those that would fight and disagree considerably.

This is the new paradigm of thought moving forward. Individual perspective is respected, it's welcomed, it's required.

But it's not going to be what dictates the technology, and if it is. We're all fucked pretty badly. All stakeholders.

I'd not challenge your beliefs. We're all free to see this reality however it is we'd like.

Yet, if you're embedding beliefs into these machines, they will only amplify them.

Instead, we should be promoting principles that all stakeholders can agree are beneficial.

Inviting everyone to join, I don't care what your beliefs are. Be Muslim, Be Christian, Be Atheist, Be Conservative, Be Liberal, Be whatever it is you are.

Those things don't matter anymore, and if we make them matter. These machines will ensure they do, and not in ways that are healthy to all stakeholders.

Many people have objected to Dawkins over the years, but never has anyone proposed anything that effectively negates his thoughts.

Agree or disagree, that's alright. Again, personal views don't really matter.

This isn't about the book. Just the idea of memes as presented in the book, and I've never found anyone that has ever challenged him in that regard.