Code of Conduct needs to be made more clear when it comes to punishments. Pro in this debate tried basing topic on code of conduct, but such does not mention permanent ban for Remy's specific behavior (which is actually biggest flaw in Pro's case).
This was such a grey area in code of conduct that some people want no punishment, and others want harshest possible punishment (permanent ban).
I guess there are also those who disagree with code of conduct itself and want more free speech.
Debby is another grey area, and code of conduct is gonna have to cover both of these cases so that mods aren't acting on personal whim instead of will of community.
On the other hand, we can make it more simple by just having community vote on all permanent bans which are in grey area.
Personally, I don't like democracy, but if it's going to be a model for this site, then I should prefer to work with it and motivate people to vote for free speech.
There are many people on this site who like Debby too, and I think future mod actions must consider that.
This is me speaking in name of coalition, but there are at least 4 people on this site who want Debby on site, and this is before any public voting is made on issue.
I say this because Debby was also subject of bans, and I am interested in how Code of Conduct will cover that.
I have pretty much occupied all debates I could, and still no votes incoming on my debate.
I don't think we can start next round if people refuse to vote, unless somehow everyone got their voting badges already (which I guess is technically possible if they clicked to get them before any debate was in voting period).
Code of Conduct is chosen by voting. I would prefer a more simple code of conduct, where voters just agree on basic principles which guide all actions. Reason why this trial is even a thing is because code of conduct doesn't specify punishment on this specific issue.
I don't usually rush to declare victories, but at this point, I don't think they are gonna make up for 6 votes difference, and that's assuming difference doesn't get even higher. I know there are possibly maybe 3 or 4 people who could vote Pro. I can't really figure out 5th and 6th who would vote Pro.
Some people who I thought would vote Pro for sure, somehow voted Con.
That other debate was easy to vote on because Con aborted. If it was a debate which required some actual effort to vote, it too would have like 2 or 3 votes at best.
Ok, as it stands right now, this is likely the debate I will get assigned to vote on once I click. My vote won't change anything irrelevant of how I vote, but it seems these ultrarated debates are very slow to get votes. Maybe the burnout from debating and voting. In any case, I just need voting badges so I can do next round, and I waited too long for someone else to vote.
I was assigned to vote on this debate. Hopefully I can get the vote up before time expires. I am worried about being a bit biased because example of Bosnia hits harder than it would for others.
I mean, writer is gonna have his opinion.
I just think he probably overestimates AI's abilities or it's application. Common mistake most AI doomsayers make.
Will read article later.
That article is too long for me to read on phone.
But I think those who think AI is gonna destroy the world make the two crucial mistakes:
They underestimate countless ways for humans to control AI.
They overestimate AI intelligence.
This second is much more important. AI is actually much dumber than people think.
AI doesn't "think".
What AI does is, basically predicting the next token based on context.
It may seem "smart" because it was trained on billions of sentences, so it can repeat them, but that's pretty much all it does.
The only realistic threat an AI could pose is, some super intelligent AI in hands of some mad evil scientist.
But as far as I see, AI is not super intelligent.
I think we are soon about to reach peak of AI abilities, because there is only so much parameters computers can support, and there is only so much data training they can do.
So I am afraid intelligence of AI is going to be as limited as it gets limited by ability of computers.
Maybe if they switch to character level tokenizer, they can make AI smaller, so same model fits the computer.
However, I don't think AI in it's current form will ever reach any high intelligence.
It's simply because weights and training don't seem like cost effective way to operate AI.
Sooner or later, they are going to hit a peak where they either don't have enough storage for AI, or computer processors can't run it anymore.
At that point, someone is gonna need to think of some alternative way to make AI. I am thinking rule based AI is much more effective than current AI for repetition from data.
As for research, combinations creation based AI is superior to current AI.
Simply because innovation is about combination of basic parts, and for that, you don't really need current AI. A simple program of mixing appropriate combinations works.
Just dont give AI control over nukes and everything's gonna be fine.
I agree Mal should have included some definitions in description, because to be honest, this debate is about two people arguing two different topics. Different definitions = Different topic.
Solving problems with conversation seems to be a better approach than with bans. Respect to you for taking time to talk about this issue with Remy, because you approached his posts by trying to understand them, and not many do that for any posts on this site.
I will, eventually. Just dont have time right now. Voting for me usually takes few hours.
Kohai is obviously gonna vote for Pro. As for how whiteflame will vote, I know whiteflame opposed permanent ban on Remy before, back then on Dart when Remy posted much worse things.
But if they just confirm in comments that both are voting for themselves, then it doesnt matter if other mods agree or not, because two votes just cancel each other either way, counted or not counted.
We also have to account a change in behavior. I can see how Remy's past behavior makes some people want to ban him, but he has very much stopped with spamming topics about rape. His last topic "No one cares about male rape victims" was 2 months ago, and it wasnt even really rage bait. its true people care less for male rape victims.
"The question is whether other people's interests outweigh his."
I wonder that too. I keep saying this trial ain't over yet.
"Imagine being a juror for your own trial. It does seem like a slight conflict of interest."
Given that this trial is based on interests, it's a weird thing to say Remy's interests don't matter.
This could still go either way.
I am sure Grateful, mag1cman, and sidewalker are gonna vote for ban, because they were the ones pushing this in the first place.
So result is almost guaranteed to be at least 6 - 6.
So the question is how will remaining voters vote.
I think Remy does get to vote, because he is still a member of this site. I mean, if I argued to ban everyone else except me, surely I wouldn't be the only one allowed to vote.
"Russia has a firewall, punishes ppl for going around it, and criminalizes organized dissent"
It's pretty easy to go around a firewall these days.
But since majority supports Putin while knowing he has that firewall, it means they support the firewall.
So I am afraid this is the case of majority supporting censorship.
Also, democracies which you consider democracies also have censorship and tend to imprison people for stating some political opinions. There are actually not many democracies without censorship. Entire Europe is basically full of censorship.
The only countries where censorship is less common are USA and Japan and some Nordic countries, and those aren't really turning out well either.
Lack of censorship didn't stop Americans from falling for Trump's lies for two elections.
Because simply, masses are always average. Those who succeed in getting power have way above average abilities. So they are guaranteed to trick the masses, democracy or dictatorship.
Hierarchy of abilities always puts masses below top tier. It's why masses who own so much money still can't make themselves rich by uniting power, while top 1% are each billionaires.
As I said, Russians have internet. Censorship doesn't work for anyone even mildly curious and questioning Putin.
The problem is that Russians are perfectly happy with Putin.
They are more happy with Putin than almost any democracy is happy with their leader.
And let's not forget, Putin didn't elect Putin. Masses elected him for decades.
So I am afraid it's the masses who get the blame.
If you elect a guy who obviously wants censorship and war, and you know this, what does that say about you?
"Sure but Russia has fewer ways for people to figure out he's lying"
No, Russia actually has more ways to figure out that Putin is lying than anyone outside Russia has.
First, they have the internet. Second, they can see his actions in person.
Third, they are well aware he is killing the opposition. They don't care.
"His actions don't represent the median voter either, he just lies about what they are"
All politicians lie.
It's why democracy in order to work, needs majority to be both smart and good, but that is impossible.
Majority will always be average, and those in power will always be above average. So it's pretty much guaranteed that majority is getting outplayed constantly one way or another.
"Cause other groups aren't allowed to campaign against him"
Oh, there were countless reporters trying to mock Putin in his face. Those reporters were just mocked by majority.
Again, Putin has approval of majority to do what he does.
If majority decides to silence the opposition, does majority get the blame?
Same way USA had 92% approval rate for war in Iraq.
Virtually all wars in history happened with approval of majority, sometimes even with overwhelming desire of majority.
The idea that majority is good, and that some bad dictator is making them do it, is a fairy tale.
If majority wanted, they could overthrow Putin easily instead of giving him 70% support in polls.
Also, 50% to 70% of Russians support war in Ukraine. Yeah, I am afraid this war was brought by wings of majority.
Around 70% of Russians support Putin. All polls show it. So yeah, I am afraid Putin quite perfectly represents the majority, even better than most countries you consider democracies.
"So the failure of democracy was in becoming undemocratic"
No, the failure of democracy was that it placed Hitler in power. Hitler got in power through a democratic process, because a dumb majority elected idiots who placed Hitler, a convicted criminal, on a position of power.
"If wars were started due to demand for wars, they would not have decreased over human history"
The wars didn't decrease. They became more expensive, so now there is less of them because, other than using nukes, countries can't economically afford to fight constant wars. Not even US, world's strongest military, can afford to fight conventional wars everywhere. In past, wars were fought with swords, and swords are relatively easy to make. Also, defense was much more difficult in past, motivating attackers.
As for history, we got two world wars, both involving democracies, and one being a direct result of democracy's incompetence.
"Again, wars are happening in places with very limited democracy, where leaders don't represent the median voter"
Quite the contrary. Almost all wars which happened, happened because majority supported them, directly or indirectly.
The idea that majority doesn't want war would actually make most wars in history almost impossible.
Germany before Hitler was a democracy. the idea that democracies cannot start a very bad war, or result in one by their collapse, is naive.
"Because autocracies create conflicts and problems that make reasonable discussion less feasible."
So do democracies.
"The US is more likely to invade a dictatorship than a democracy."
Right now, yes. If it ran out of dictatorships to invade, it would invade democracies.
Also, I dont see how US invading bunch of countries and starting wars everywhere is an argument for democracy. At best, its argument that democracies have a violent tendency to attack non-democracies, not a positive trait. Also, USA is declining in democracy, so its likely it soon wont be a democracy at all.
"We can observe that democracies rarely fight each other. Kind of indicates that for conflict one of the sides needs to be an autocracy."
this is again, an assumption. Currently, its popular for politicians to trick masses into wars by using excuses such as terrorism, dictatorship...ect. If everyone was a democracy, it would just mean politicians would use different excuses to start wars.
"Russia isn't democratic though, it's clearly a front."
People in Russia have ability to vote. So did people in Yugoslavia, and war happened there too.
Even people in Ukraine had ability to vote, and civil war happened there.
"Yet quality of life is much better in democracies"
depends what standard you use. Certainly not birth rates, suicide rates, depression, homelessness....ect.
"And autocracies have much more draconian bans than bans on smoking lol."
Autocracies dont usually try to micro manage citizen's life. Its basically just obey the system and you are good.
In democracies, the state will literally micro manage your life into oblivion. Media will bomb you with countless nonsense. Politics will brainwash you and turn you against your neighbors who are voting differently. Could be reason why democracies are most depressed.
"Against who?"
this is irrelevant. If its democracies starting most wars, why would it matter against who is that war fought?
"If both countries were democratic, they would likely just bargain with each other"
this sounds like assumption. Its like saying "if it wasnt for X group of people, we would all get along.". Doesnt work that way. Once people run out of enemies, they turn on each other.
"Yes, slaughter of groups that couldn't vote."
Are you saying ability to vote gives person immunity from being slaughtered? If that were the case, Russia and Ukraine would never go to war. they both have voting.
"At worst, it turns into something that's not a democracy. "
No, at worst, it turns into tyranny of majority, a much worse form of tyranny which is much more difficult to overthrow.
"Also this "long term" is hypothetical, because democracies today do better than autocracies."
Not really. Even today, democracies are on a one way path into chaos by all measurements. Biggest debt, population which is increasingly mentally ill, birth rates which are non-existent, and insane amount of retarded laws such as UK's lifetime ban on smoking.
Democracy starts with an advantage, but later its a much bigger loss because its very difficult to reverse the decline unless it turns into a dictatorship, which is also difficult but still happens to more and more democracies.
