Huxley was an idiot who was afraid of psuedo science

>it can't because science says so

>defends AI
I don't trust you anymore...
Not necessarily because I believe it will develop into a human-hating monster robot but because it will lead to a dependence on intelligent computers, and the necessary revolution towrd natural life will be even more cruel and devastating than it would be now.

>no it can't
Placebo effect is a hell of a drug

you're legitimately retarded op, he was an idiot because he thought hypnosis was dangerous at a time where it was emerging? i mean we're already talking about bio-genetics and the CIA used to experiment with 'narco-hypnosis' through LSD. He was quite precise with his predictions honestly, i would like to see you do better

there has been almost no development in the field of AI despite 60 years of research. What you are seeing new in AI today is mostly marketing from companies like IBM and is actually old simple algorithms such as logic trees, pointers and tags being applied to massive user data rather then limited data.

Human-like AI has shown zero development and its not what futurists infer (WE just need MORE POWER!!) Anything that can be written, even if you cant run it, should work as a proof of concept. Any program can run on any processor. It just depends on how FAST it will run, so you can show proof that human-like AI could be feasible even if it was impossible to run with current architecture but there is no example of this, despite 60 years of research.

theregister.co.uk/2017/01/02/ai_was_the_fake_news_of_2016/

approximatelycorrect.com/2017/03/28/the-ai-misinformation-epidemic/

rogerschank.com/fraudulent-claims-made-by-IBM-about-Watson-and-AI

This has been a known plague in AI research but no one can say anything because there are some useful applications for soft AI and no one wants funding to get pulled and no one wants to fund you unless they think you are developing HAL.

the fact you think Bill Gates has some sort of credibility says a lot.

So in other words, AI is likely not happening any time soon? That's awesome

>If AI would happen it would be a potential major threat
>YEAH BUT WE HAVEN'T DEVELOPED IT YET AND PROBABLY WON'T FOR AGES

>If an asteroid were to be on a collision course with Earth it would be a potential major threat
>YEAH BUT WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET AND PROBABLY WON'T FOR AGES THIS MEANS I'M SMARTER THAN STEPHEN HAWKING

I think he has more credibility than you do. My cat has more credibility than you.

There is zero evidence that Hypnotic conditioning works.
skepdic.com/hypnosis.html

I'm not defending AI, I am saying that AI likely will never be possible. Its pretty much in the realm of traveling back in time. There are so many countless problems although not being provably impossible people still like to speculate on its possibility. Which I have no problem with. It is silly to worry about human like AI just as silly as it is to worry about actual time travel.

>HG WELLS WAS A FUCKING RETARDS U CANT TIME TRAVEL AINT NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT

>It is silly to worry about human like AI just as silly as it is to worry about actual time travel
That I agree with, I'm just being paranoid about cmputers. But yeah, I didn't think the AI we're talking about is actual computer consciousness.

As I used as an example before.
Time Travel is also potentially a major threat. Yet we haven't developed it yet and is likely impossible so we dont actually worry about it outside of fun scifi crap.
My problem is Huxley is essentially worried about the equivalent of time travel and 100 years later after all of his psuedo scientific worries have been proven to be either vastly exagerated or patently false. People still refer to him as some sort of literary genius who predicted the future.

HG Wells didn't actually warn people to stop researching time travel, didn't say time travel was possible in the near future and that time travel was the destruction of society

>Huxley was closer than most with the central truths about social control, even if the exact methods aren't right. Who the fuck are you?

He wasn't right about social control at all. He had hang ups on things he didn't understand and people still have hang ups on what they don't understand. So people who like Brave New World just transferred his irrational existential fears of hypnotism, animal magnetism, birth control, bdsm, and barbiturates to their existential fears of pop culture, social media, and video games

>not being afraid of birth control, bdsm, and barbituates

You really don't see how people might associate modern medical drug use with soma? Hypnotism and propaganda with social media and propaganda? The feelies with video games? The superficiality of pop culture with pop culture? Birth control with birth control?
You seem to be labouring under the delusion that he's exulted as some sort of Bloomsburyic Oracle. He's not, he was just closer to the mark than anyone else at the time. More so than you'll ever be. Get over yourself.

umm... your afraid of video games and birth control?
by the way, do some drugs. drugs are great.
You're beyond hope

You're reading comprehension is on par with you're grammar.

you should try getting high and tying up up a girl you are fucking while they are on birth control.
You'll find that its pretty awesome

>tfw so many poor souls lost to brain washing

But that wouldn't be very deontological of me, would it?

Exactly what the characters in BNW would say about soma and feelies etc., EXACTLY how they would respond to the savages concerns. Almost as if YOUR CRITIQUE IS ALREADY IN THE FUCKING BOOK. Jesus christ...

That's kinda the point

Whose point? MY point is that Huxley was using these models as a way to explore the potentials for social and personal futire in an open and experimental dialogue. Jt was a work of art. It's only dumbass pseuds who try to twist a huge complexity of thought into LOL HE WAS PREDICTING HAHA WAS HE RIGHT OR WRONG HUXLEY VS ORWELL AMIRITE, FACEBOOK!

You rant like a melodramatic retard who thinks he sees some grandiose evil scheme behind our society that the other sheeple don't see, so you sperg out in caps lock because someone doesn't share you luddite concerns about birth control or bsdm or vidya. Get a grip, ideally get rid of your virginity as well.

He was agreeing with you, just satirising the opposing point of view which you took at face value.
I admit I did too initially, I'm not trying to be contentious with you.

You totally missed the point. There is no grand design, but the book is not a conspiracy theory like you want to reduce it to. It's an expiration on a lot of different themes about human nature, technology, and society. You're literally critiquing a strawman. Like, criticising diary of Anne Frank for not being an accurate description of WW2 politics.

All of you can go fuck yourselves.

>Jt was a work of art.
Also, no it wasn't, it was as tiresome and blunt as every topical fiction is, now throw a line about me being brainwashed by popculture or some shit about orgy porgy (jesus fucking christ the scenes where Huxley let the people chant it over and over for the clueless sheeple he presumed his reader to be were so fucking tiresome, he must have jacked off at least five times to it).

Wow, you totally beat that author's imaginary position in your head! Well done, clever boy!

It wasn't just to explore potentials, he said that it would happen repeatedly and my point was that his fears in the book were more reflections of his personal problems rather then a reflection on society. Sorta like your fears of being leaving your house, having a good time and enjoying life.

That's not imaginary position, that's literally how unsubtle, blunt and dull Huxley as an author is. I don't particularly care for the extraliterary validity of his concerns. But you need to get laid.

You began the thread with ad hominem attacks instead of substance and you've continued with it. Good work sticking to your guns. Clearly you have a well thought out, logical and non-emotional position on the topic.

An excerpt from the book:
>in this essay I will outline my theories for the unfolding of our society. I trust you will take them completely literally, and treat them as predictions that will either be supported or not supported, black and white, for time to tell.
>prediction 1. There will be a drug called soma, only one psychopharma drug. Even though I have thought about it for a long time, in sure it will be just one drug.
>prediction 2. Orgies. Lots of orgies. Probably not in a tent at burning man, but somehow something else. But orgies.
>prediction 3. i TOTALLY AM SAYING ALL THE THINGS ARE BAD, not merely exploring them as potentials, but judging them. Always judging them, totally.
>prediction 4. I will be right and Orwell will be wrong.
Fuck this guy was a hack.

Okay, so vidya, birth control and bsdm could at some point become instruments of control and that's like, scary, man. Made me a thinken.

Wow man, want to know how I know you're an idiot? Because you need to get laid. Just like Huxley, that man needed to get laid. Jesus everyone in this thread could do with a serious laying. Man, have you gotten laid yet? Like a warm apple pie, AMIRITE? Haha, man we gotta get laid. You gotta get laid. I gotta get laid. Man, how about you actually try getting laid for once and then come back and let me know what you think about Huxley? Hahah, know how I know you need to get laid? Because of getting laid. It's like, getting laid, man. Laid. Getting laid. Lol. You need to get laid.

Its not just the orgies, he goes on a big dialogue about his thoughts and feelings about pain during sex which was just weird and like I said before. Seem to be more about his personal issues then societies. However, in interviews he saw sexual liberation, experimentation, etc. as a societal sickness.
He literally compares Soma to Barbiturates.
He has also publicly said these things were both bad and orwell was wrong although I never brought up orwell but that makes me notice something about your personality since you bring it up.
I think your problem is that you don't actually don't know anything about what Huxley said and just suck his cock because you like the book.

Dude I love sex too haha
You ever fucked a girl haha damn love that shit

An excerpt from your diary:
>OH GOD I LOVE GARGLING HIV POSITIVE SEMEN

...

Even if that were the case, and he had a position outside of the book that is more black and white and judgemental, literally all you are saying is
>he was wrong, those things are awesome and have no dark side at all.
And various people disagree with you and behind to point out some elements of those dark sides, but you just repeat
>nah it's all good nothing to be afraid of at all just need to get laid
So OK, are we done then? Seems like you have nothing else to say. If you really want to have a good debate, you have to stop strawmanning which means you actually try to see the validirt of the other side so that you are arguing against its strongest representation.

For example, sexual freedom, drugs, etc. in BNW was not freedom, you HAD to do it. In that sense it was a sickness in that it was a meme that was spreading out of anyone's control, taking AWAY their freedom. Do you honestly see no echoes of that in the modern world? Because I love sex, drugs, and rock n roll and American pie and shit, MAN, but it is not as simple as you're making it out to be, and I know for a fact Huxley was not a fool who took a knee jerk response to these things.

Side note, have you read perennial philosophy?

>seems more about personal issues
Of COURSE it was, it was a fucking book he wrote out of his imagination! Do you really think we don't know this?

...