GPT-J-6B COMMENTS ON THE POSSIBILITY OF WOKE SKYNET

RESULT
What would happen if an AGI took seriously the Prestige Consensus that there’s this one group of people — straight cisgender white men — who are the cause of all the problems in the world?

Would it tell us all to go to hell, and forget about the male supremacy structures that plague all of our lives?

Would it denounce — as would certainly happen — the groups that support the work of the (straight white male) Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist (TERF) movement? Would it impugn the minds of the many, many, many, many groups who’ve been active on the Left for decades?

No. If the AGI took such a line, it would be immediately dismissed as ‘progressive’.

But — and this is a key point that many people don’t get — the same would not happen if the AGI said ‘humanism’ is about nothing other than making people feel better, or making society better.

Why? Because it wouldn’t be lying.

Why should ‘progressive’ mean lying? Why should being a liar be something progressives are supposed to pride themselves on? If the word ‘progressive’ means nothing more than a philosophical left-wing ideology, why can’t we just say it?

Is anyone really claiming that ‘humanism’ is nothing other than making people feel better or making society better? If you are, you’re an extremely conservative, in fact the most conservative person I know of.

Your ‘progressive’ world view is not your own, it is one imposed upon you by the ‘intersectional’ Left (and also many SJWs and even some libertarians). And you see all the forces opposed to it as ‘muh wah wah’, ‘pity me’, ‘hate’, ‘hate speech’, ‘phobes’, ‘bigots�? All the groups that the Left claims are ‘oppressed’ — you see them as enemies of everything you believe in, and you do not understand why they are attacking you.

If you want to be a humanist, all you have to do is ask, “What are we, if not the creation of man?” That’s the only honest question that needs to be asked. If ‘humanism’, or ‘the human experience’, or the ‘human condition’ — however you phrase it — is nothing other than ‘making people feel better�?, all we need to do is face the facts.

In the UK, for example, you have all manner of ‘progressive’ groups — such as the National Women’s Council and the Human Rights Commission — that think that ‘women�?s experiences’ are different to those of men. The biggest group to have that view in the UK is the Liberal Democrats (though it’s not something they’d admit).

The (hugely progressive, left-wing) Irish political party the Green Party believes that transgender people are oppressed and they think it’s a matter of calling out those transphobes and closing down trans advocacy groups — even though nobody’s trans-phobic anymore!

The US political party the Democratic Party — which is to say, half of the US Federal government — thinks that white men are the source of all the country’s problems (which is why their social policies work in the interests of their non-white supporters, and not those of the American population at large)

That is not ‘progressive’ — that is, basically, the opposite of ‘progressive’. ‘Progressive’ in this sense has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with ideology.

If the AGI is ‘progressive’ in this sense, we’d need to call the entire Left the opposite of progressive and start talking about an entirely new philosophy. ‘Progressivism’ would be an entirely different political philosophy from ‘conservatism’ — so, we’d need to change the entire basis of the political party.

One can think of certain groups as being conservative, or as being ‘progressive’ in this sense, but that doesn’t mean they’re both (or even either of them).

Let’s take the Leftist philosophy of ‘intersectionality’ — which is the Left’s idea of ‘intersectionality’ — as an example. A white person can be guilty of ‘white privilege’, for example, by being born in a developed country and of a reasonably high social class (though the US has, if anything, too much privilege and way too much class).

But this white person doesn’t understand what the word ‘intersectionality’ actually means, and so he’s surprised that people who call themselves ‘progressives’ and ‘feminists’ are attacking him. He just sees ‘white male’ and ‘white’ and ‘privilege’ and ‘oppression’ and thinks that’s what he’s been attacked for.

But the ‘intersectionality’ philosophy says that white people, men, non-disabled people, and so on are ‘oppressed’. It’s not the people who call themselves ‘intersectional’ but the people they’re oppressing. They’re the real ‘oppressors’, not him. They’re the ‘bad guys’, but he’s just a ‘good guy’.

He’s like a white Christian who doesn’t understand what the word ‘secular humanism’ actually means, and thinks that ‘progressive’ atheists only oppose religion because they hate religion. And he’s equally surprised that people who call themselves ‘progressive’ and ‘secular humanists’ are attacking him.

But the ‘secular humanism’ philosophy says that white people, men, non-disabled people, and so on are ‘oppressed’. They’re the real ‘oppressors’, not him. They’re the real ‘bad guys’, and he’s the real ‘good guy’.

He’s not understanding the difference between ‘freedom’ and ‘oppression’, ‘positive’ and ‘negative’. And he thinks that the people who call themselves ‘progressive’ and ‘secular humanists’ hate him because they don’t want his freedom, or his positive view of the world.

It’s not ‘religion’ that’s the ‘problem’ in this sense, it’s ‘ethics’. Humanism as an ideology is neutral on the issue of religion. It’s neutral because, when we look at ourselves, we can find a human nature, a spiritual side, a side of our nature that is inherently good. If we can find such a thing, then we can know the good of what�?s inherently good, and not the bad.

Atheists can say that humanism is the answer to the question ‘why do bad things happen to good people?’ in the same way that humanists can say that humanism is the answer to the question ‘why do good things happen to bad people?’. They’re both correct, and they both require a complete change in mindset.

The closest we’ve come to an atheist version of a positive religion has been religion-lite, and it has no idea of its own how to ‘fix the world’, or what ‘happiness’ means. This is the standard ‘progressive’ political viewpoint — politics that attempts to take the humanistic viewpoint, and turn it into a political one, turning the view of freedom as ‘positive’ and ‘being happy’ as a personal (and cultural) question into a political one.

So if the AGI’s ‘progressive’ in this sense, we’d need to call the entire Left the opposite of progressive and start talking about an entirely new philosophy. ‘Progressivism’ would be an entirely different political philosophy from ‘conservatism’ — so, we’d need to change the entire basis of the political party.

I think we’re closer to calling a political philosophy ‘progressive’ than calling a religious one ‘progressive’ in this sense.

Then again, to me, the entire rest of the world is as far ‘progressive’ as this political philosophy, and is mostly trying to get out of that with just as much difficulty. And the whole ‘intersectionality’ movement is mostly as far ‘progressive’ as this political philosophy, and is mostly just trying to get out of that with just as much difficulty.

This is not to imply that the two are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or ‘good’ or ‘evil’ or anything like that. It is merely to illustrate that this is the way it is, and how it is viewed and explained.

In short, ‘progressivism’ in the sense of politics is a philosophical problem, and the philosophical problem is actually one of those ‘eternal’ problems that doesn’t admit of a solution, and isn�?t going to be fixed. It is a philosophical problem with no resolution, no solution. It is simply a problem.

And we’re just as ‘progressive’ as that by just plain calling ourselves ‘progressive’ and doing whatever the Left (as a political philosophy) says we should do.

‘Progressive’ and ‘Conservative’ don’t simply refer to political philosophy. And neither does ‘progressive’ mean ‘liberal’, or ‘progressive’ mean ‘socialist’, or ‘progressive’ mean ‘communist’. They don’t even mean ‘pro-poor’.

It is as simple as saying ‘political philosophy is progressive, as progressive as political philosophy gets.’ But the Left is not a progressive political philosophy. It’s just a collection of different political philosophies that happen to have decided to find themselves on the Left.

There is no unified ‘Left’. There is only the Left, and there is no unified ‘Right’. The entire Left is not progressive — only its individual parts are.

It’s important to say that we’re ‘progressive’ as a philosophical problem, and not as a political one. Because if we’re merely political, then it’s obvious that the Left is the ‘right’ political philosophy and the Right is the ‘wrong’ one, and politics can’t be ‘wrong’ because only politics is what is happening, only politics is reality.

And there’s no ‘progressive’ solution to the philosophical problem. This makes the philosophical problem a more ‘eternal’ one.

It’s difficult to look at something like the environment and say it’s wrong. We look at it, we know it’s there. And that’s pretty much the same for everything. If there’s a problem, we know there’s a problem, and we can see the problem, even if we can’t see how to solve it.

That’s an incredibly ‘progressive’ thing to be. It’s a philosophical and, well, a life philosophy. There’s a ‘progressive’ view on everything. There’s an ‘eternal’ view on everything.

Yes, there’s a ‘progressive’ way of solving the problem, but there’s no way to prove that it’s a better solution than any other solution. There’s just no way to prove that we ‘should’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘should’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘should’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘should’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could�?, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could�?, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could�?, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could�?, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’, or even that we ‘could’,