Metal Gear Solid 2

"we do not wish to control content, but create context"
The Patriots sought to take the average individual's ability to discern truth through context and replace it with an algorithm of their own design, so that universal truths would always shine and pierce the veil of ideology and biased perspectives. They are saying that "humans aren't intelligent enough to discern truth for themselves, so we (the enlightened AI) shall do it for them". Raiden rejects this notion; maybe he's meant to express Kojima's personal perspective, or maybe he's meant to express sentiment that he feels the larger American populace would agree with (i.e. the freedom to make your own truth). Point being, they're Raiden's (and presumably the player's) antagonists because they want to restrict the freedom of interpretation, not free thought itself. Those "black statistics" infocharts that Holla Forums throws around come to mind; under the Patriot AI's control, Holla Forums (and Holla Forums, or anyone else for that matter) would be free to express their sentiments and draw their own conclusions, but the AI would take the information itself and discern the truth from it, then distill it and proliferate it for the general public.

"Niggers are subhuman filth who are a detriment to our white society. They should be purged" You'd still be free to say this and believe it, but the AI would determine the truth or validity of this claim based on what is objectively true. I assume it would be sophisticated enough to crunch the numbers and draw incredibly accurate conclusions. I mean, that was the whole point of recreating the Shadow Moses Incident, they were testing their ability to accurately predict the future based on wildly unpredictable variables.

the more and more time I spend on the internet, the more I feel that maybe it is justifiable.

No, they would only discern the objective truth and remove it from the table, which would mean that propaganda as we know it would be effectively rendered impotent. Maybe they would have also done those other heinous things, like war profiteering and human experimentation, those are obviously "bad" things. However, how is the sentiment that "humans might not be capable of discerning truth" an inherently evil concept?

so what your telling me is the AI would become Holla Forums 3.0?

What are you implying by greenarrowing my post?

/thread

It shouldn't be up to an AI that's historically fallible to control information or governments secretly in the background. Whether or not it's evil is irrelevant, what it is, is irresponsible.

Peace Walker almost doomed the planet, GW was brought down by a virus on a gloppy disc, the other AIs went all skynet on us and decided the world didn't have enough war going on, and even if none of these things are true, they put the world in the hands of a technology younger than most people on the planet that only a few people even understood on a fundamental level.

It's like leaving your ten year old home alone when he has a history of setting fires, and had severe autism, all because you don't trust the dog to not shit on the floor.

Get the fuck out.

He means that SJWs aren't the top of the pyramid and big bad guys, and if you believe they are you're a fucking idiot.

Maybe, if you believe that Holla Forums is incapable of bias or the folly of emotional human interpretation. I'm saying that it would be an emotionless, highly sophisticated, autonomous, artificial intelligence that would modify human interpretation by effectively acquiring truth displaying it for all to see, so that psychological persuasion tactics like propaganda would be ineffective.

Well I'm not sure, but I got the impression that you think the AI would "choose a side"

This is a pretty good argument, but what if the AI were capable of modifying itself in order to maintain itself as new technology is produced? What if the technology itself was created by human design?

what a fag

I meant, what if it was NOT created by human design? i.e. some alien software out of the cosmos or something.

We're talking specifically about the MGS universe though, and the AIs that were created by Dr Strangelove. The Patriots didn't have access to any other AI technology and they only had a decade or two of R&D before putting the AIs in charge was something that had to happen soon, because the original Patriots needed successors.

It's not a discussion of whether or not putting AIs in control of the world is a good idea, in general, the question asked was whether or not the Patriots were wrong, and in the context of the games, yes, they very much were, because of my aforementioned reasons.

This. Solidus did nothing wrong.

ahahahahaha oh wow

He did train a bunch of child soldiers in Liberia. And by train, I mean psychologically and physically torture until they became highly effective killing machines.

Other than that, he was definitely a pretty swell guy

Children aren't people.

Fair enough. So, what about the question that asks whether or not it would be a good idea to put such a sophisticated AI in control? Are humans capable of discerning the truth, or are we destined as a species to metaphorically shove our heads into the dirt any time an opposing viewpoint appears and challenges our beliefs?
anyone who thinks that MGS2 entertained this concept just as window dressing is a fucking retard. Kojima and his people wanted the player to really think about this on a philosophical level. To be topical, take these two recent examples:
Wouldn't it be ideal if we lived in world where these sentiments were not left to the devices of an agenda? Wouldn't it be nice if some AI could step in, either covertly or directly, and reveal the unadulterated truth to the world at large? The question of whether or not these accusations are legitimate would be put to rest, and therefore the "discussion" - i.e. any discussion that is relevant to the success of our society - would be forced to the forefront of the conversation. People would not be able to rely on "convenient half-truths" and retreat to "their own little ponds" because they're "afraid of a larger forum".

Or would it be disastrous?

Who would Trump be in the MGS universe? I wanna say he's a halfway point between Armstrong and Solidus.

It would probably be a gamble at best, unless we put literally hundreds of years into testing the AIs to make sure they don't "diverge" like in MGS4, or go Skynet on us, or anything along those lines.

A technology that thinks, and thinks differently from a human being, we don't know how that would work out because at this point it's pure science fiction.

Could AI degrade overtime, and make poor decisions as a result? Could it evolve to the point where it makes decisions that aren't in the best interest of humanity, but something else? If an AI is intelligent enough to run the world, what if it's also intelligent enough to develop a personality, and in turn, negative traits that would be detrimental for something in charge of the planet to have? What if it simply just blue screens one day and we end up with nobody in charge of anything anymore, and what could we possible do to ensure this never happens AND know for sure it would never happen.

These are just a few questions that would need to be answered perfectly before an AI could ever be put in charge of something so significant, and even then, I wouldn't want it to happen without some serious trials happening.

Solidus is quite shallow because he just wanted to revel in Big Boss' accomplishments. He wanted to be recognized as the new Big Boss, with all the accolades and power this would afford him. He's a red herring as an antagonist. He's meant to throw the player off, to prevent or discourage them from seeing the actual threat.

Armstrong is a war mongering anarcho-capitalist who believes that the strong should be the ruling elite. In this sense, he's similar to the Night Slasher from the movie Cobra, who was a domestic terrorist that committed murder in an attempt to both garner police attention and prevent the authorities from discovering his true operation; a militarized terrorist faction called The Order, whose core tenants revolved around "purging the weak" and creating a nationalistic regime of solders that would be under his control. He's also reminiscent of Caesar from Fallout New Vegas; a charismatic leader of a cult of personality whose following is based on primitive sense of strength and what could be described as zealous values based on ancient Roman philosophy.

Trump is a charismatic and wealthy, but unpredictable, character who fully embodies the American dream. I doubt he would aspire to war mongering, and I'm not sure if he has a military background or not. However, even if he was a decorated veteran, I still doubt that he'd advocate for the type of chaos that Armstrong desires.

Short answer: I don't fucking know, but he wouldn't be either of those two characters.

Confirmation bias, as well as numerous other biases and logical fallacies, is basically hardwired into us and seems inescapable. Only cold. hard statistics (as long as they are not manipulated) can help but even they often fail because we sometimes see them and conduct tests through the lense of our biases.

So it seems more and more likely that even in this rapidly developing, science-driven and athetistic phase we're still living in a fairy tale, being unable to look at ANYTHING objectively as a species.
So maybe AI IS the only way out (or augmenting ourselves with something similar).

Very good points.

Yeah, so it seems.

Your post is fine but that guy's a turd

Since we are starting to talk about the concept of a god A.I. in general and not just the patriots A.I., there is one thing that you would have to realize if such a thing were to come into being. If the A.I. can truly be called a god A.I. where it has access to all information, and to an extent all technologies or government, ideologies, religions, ways of life become increasingly irrelevant, as this god A.I. would be beyond any human mind, because it would always find a better solution to a problem than any human mind. Let's say we live in a white ethnostate and there is a discussion about whether Greeks are white and should or should not be expelled. All arguments made by both sides of the debate are pointless, because the A.I. already found the long lasting solution without the need for other human opinions, and in that way the government itself would be completely pointless. If the A.I. has the ambition to help out humanity. Any completely ration being like a god A.I. would probably need to be steered into doing something since ambition is a completely human quality, which is lost when transferred to just a really complicated calculator. This is why it could never be able to find the answers to metaphysical questions, like what is god, is there a soul, does hell exist.

So we end up with the problem that is a A.I. that could make a completely new eden, but it would probably do nothing because it would no ambition to actively help unless directed by a human. Then of course a human would probably instill it's own beliefs into it so that the A.I. does some confirmation bias to achieve the human's goals, so the world ends up in either a total dystopia, or a utopia if the person who gives it ambition is noble or not.

In short the world can end up being governed by the Patriots system or Helios from deus ex depending on the ambition given tot he A.I. Trans-humanism would also be a big problem to counter with how this comes about, but that is a different kind of discussion.

It was originally posted on Holla Forums during the salt threads, and it even got made into a banner. I only like it because of how it seems like a good reaction image, not because of the retard who made it.

Trying to change human nature is a dangerous game to play. Ideologies that have tried to mess with how people innately work have always resulted in genocide and failed states. See communism for example. Communism tries to make everyone work for themselves while also giving everything up for the collective good of the whole. While it's a noble goal, the end result is always failure as human beings don't do things for free most of them at least, looking at the hotpockets :^) , and that there is always going to be someone smart enough to use that system to his gain such as Stalin.

An AI could possibly help establish a utopia, but only if the ones being ruled shared a collective consciousness with the ruling AI. If you were to trying implementing a ruling AI without this it'd likely just result in a civil war as most people would clamor to be represented by a human of their own kind/nationality rather than some robot created by some dickweeds in lab coats.

I'm just gonna end my contribution to the thread since I need to go and can't wait for any other replies and say…

AI is always gonna be inherently a crap shoot, as long as were talking any time that can be considered near future. It's impossible for us to understand and comprehend something that thinks differently than us, and it's technology that could change overtime in ways that are detrimental to our well being that we wouldn't be able to predict or prepare for without a ridiculous amount of testing.

It might not be impossible in the very long run, but something that would probably be incredibly impractical, incredibly hard for us to predict in the long term, and would require some miraculous safety measures in order to keep it going, forever, without even the smallest hiccup being possible.

By the time we can ensure all of the above, we'll be flying around and colonizing the galaxy, at which point we've thrown in a new wrench into the equation, how do you get an AI to govern fucking SPACE.

I guess this sums it up pretty well. Maybe humans will never be able to develop such sophisticated technology. Maybe we do have potential to evolve beyond our current limitations and direct our collective species towards a higher existence without the assistance of some mediator. I guess we'll fucking see. Hopefully some worthwhile developments happen before I die, so I can at least get some brief glimpse into the future.

do you have a single fact to back that up?

I'm petrified by the thought of death lately.

Human beings will always push for more, it's just in our genes. The desire for us to explore and create to better not only our own individual existence but also the collective existence has been selected through years of natural selection. I don't think any of us will live long enough to find out if a true limitation of technology exists due to physics and how the universe works since our understanding of physics and the universe will also change through time. For example, if the EM Drive works it will completely demolish years of physics for a long time.

Absolute nothingness is a scary thought I suppose since no one can mentally comprehend the idea of not existing meaning no stimuli of anykind. No thoughts, no feelings, no taste, no sight, absolutely nothing.

I have no idea how to deal with it.
People are afraid of lots of stuff, but are comforted by the thought that it'll probably never happen to them or that it could be worse.
But death is by far the WORST thing that could have happened to you AND it WILL happen to you.
Our world in human-centric so we like to believe that there is some order to the world, some higher purpose for us, some things to do and achieve. That's also where certain biases come into play like we'll probably never get a deadly decease or won't die some stupid death or something like that.
Generally, we feel like the Universe is tailored for us. Yeah, we understand that it's not so with our brains, but we don't feel it and don't believe it.
Death is the ultimate reminder that this just isn't so and the only thought of it makes everything suddenly seem too real and pointless. like leaping out of some sort of virtual reality.

Maybe you'll live long enough to see immortality. Though I hope it never happens because of just how many social problems that would cause.

Honestly the only thing I could say to you is not to think about it constantly. Trying to comprehend death everyday every waking moment will drive you mad because your brain just refuses to think of not existing at a thing.

Immortality is a shit idea, the rich would hoard it and they'd rule us forever instead of eventually dying. Nature expects things to die, it's wrong to not die eventually. We're all fucked anyway thanks to global capitalism. Just enjoy the ride.

Would something akin to 'The Last Question' be a better solution?

Technology is unstoppable though. Once humans figured out that a stone spear works better than a wooden carved one we opened Pandora's Box. Assuming we could achieve immortality it will happen, no amount of legislation or guns could stop it without destroying everything else in the process. Humanity's intelligence is a blessing and a curse.

bump

go back on your meds uncle Holla Forums.

Except "create context" would in fact be censorship, and the things they want to remove as useless are inconvenient to them like information about the Shadow Moses incident. They aren't just getting rid of shitposts.

But information about the Shadow Moses incident is definitionally a shitpost.

Are you willing to argue with ID: CiPh3r and the ten other people he brought to America, who have designated you the "Shadow Moses spammer", and post about how they're sick of Outer Heaven shills spamming degenerate off-topic Redditorian bullshit about child soldiers and genetic engineering on their planet?

Appeal to nature is a fallacy though

You will be wishing for nothingness.

With GW in place there would be no shitposts on either side, and the infromation regarding Shadow Moses would never reach the eyes of anyone who might care. A truth covered up for the convenience of those who control the AI.

GW would have been the ultimate censorship, filtering everything in real time as if it never existed.

Also, Outer Heaven just wants to turn a country into their own off-topic shitposting paradise. They should just go away and… make their own… island or something.

I know. My post was heavy-duty sarcasm designed to make fun of dumb rulesposters on imageboards.

What are you even implying

I know, I wasn't meaning to imply you actually believed it would be a good thing.

who cares, they were niggers.

I think it is rather obvious what I was saying.

That was when he was still under the Patriots though, you don't get to become president on your first day at the office.

>>>/christian/

They wanted to control the narrative.
Or rather, "push" the narrative towards a certain direction, as outright censoring certain subjects would be too clumsy.
That's pretty evil and manipulative.

Imagine, for example, if you posted on an imageboard where only a certain opinion was accepted.
Imagine that if you made a thread in that imageboard and the opinions expressed in that thread weren't in line with what the "consensus" decided it was deemed acceptable, it would be saged, shitposted and dubposted to death.
Imagine that a certain group in charge of that imageboard, encouraged this behaviour as it helped their personal agenda.
So it wasn't actually censoring, but by discouraging certain topics again and again, you would be trained to only express certain "accepted" opinions, and only talk about certain "accepted" subjects.
Such a purely hypothetical scenario would be quite close to what the patriots were trying to do.

they're the literal jew

...

So you aren't censoring information, you're just indirectly suppressing everyone who doesn't agree with your narrative?

haha bend over goyim

kek