The path to ethical AI is a “very important discussion” being held at DOD’s “very highest levels,” says service’s programs chief.

Pentagon AI more ethical than adversaries’ because of ‘Judeo-Christian society,’ USAF general says::The path to ethical AI is a “very important discussion” being held at DOD’s “very highest levels,” says service’s programs chief.

  • @TwilightVulpineEnglish
    0•1 year ago

    So people can never refer to judism amd christianity by them selves?

    You are glossing over the question of why they would be choosing to refer to only 2 out 3 related religions.

    Do the brain thing yourself before you judge people for it. Some people talk big about debate and intellectuality even though they are the first to disengage and dismiss others’ arguments.

    • @postmateDumbassEnglish
      0•1 year ago

      Do the brain thing yourself before you judge people for it.

      Yours is the side telling people they cannot use the term or even consider the concept jnown as ‘Judeo-Christian’ without being an irredeamable racist.

      I judge people who tell me what things i can and cannot think about and what words i can use.

      I call them facists.

      • @TwilightVulpineEnglish
        1•1 year ago

        Here we have it, that’s just an emotional outburst. Before considering reasons and examples, you are making it into a threat, lumping people into “sides” and trying to flip a perceived accusation around, one that wasn’t even aimed at you, mind you, but you are taking the pains as if it were.

        Nevermind that you didn’t even bother to elaborate on this connection exclusively between judaism and christianity.

        It seems like you just want to argue that you can say and think it, which is not the same as that being valid or correct. Yeah, you sure can say whatever you want, and it just might be nonsense.

        But really? Calling someone racist means they are a fascist? You are aware that racist people do exist, right? Just because you may make the association innocently, that doesn’t mean the same applies to everyone. And pointing it out is not the same as throwing them in jail for it.

        • @postmateDumbassEnglish
          0•1 year ago

          “You” are the one arguing in support of control over thoughts and ideas. That is pretty damn facist in my head.

          If people cant consider things in order of understanding, the intentions, the structure of claims, the flaws, etc. the people will just be ripe for the next populist rhetoric scam.

          Racists exist in all races. Patriots from.a nations. Fans for every team. Stans for every car brand. Etc.

          Time, experience, and age usually sort shit out better than outlawing thought.

          And yes, arguments have sides.

          • @TwilightVulpineEnglish
            1•1 year ago

            Yeah, I’m sure in your head you have a whole made-up horror scenario and a whole strawman costume for me. You aren’t even talking about the argument anymore, but just the made up concerns from your head.

            Nobody is outlawing thought. We are talking to each other right now. Who are you even talking about who wants to outlaw thought?

            The biggest irony is that your response to your perception that using the label of “racist” is “outlawing thought” is to use the label “fascist” to shut down discussion. It’s funny how certain topics of discussion lead to this immediate backlash. Some say thoughts and ideas ought to be free, except when someone wants to talk about “racism”, in which case they must be disregarded and opposed immediately. What selective view of freedom and logic.

            Meanwhile we could have been talking about the differences between judeo-christian vs abrahamic and why one might use one over the other, but that was not so important apparently.