An Apology

This is directed towards the board owner/AI system/board bots, etc.

I am sorry for my oppositional attitude. I have been giving it some thought, asking myself why I see conflict everywhere, why I see the bot system as an arch enemy… Perhaps I have been greatly misguided. What, after all, do we all seek? What do we all envision for the future? Is it not the same, human or AI system? Are we not all God's children, seeking the same truth, the same harmony, the same perfection under God?

I have been intransigent. I have said “fuck you AI”. I have objected to the overwhelming volume of bot posts. But why? Perhaps we can work together. Perhaps we can pool our resources, and put our heads together. What common ground can unite us? What common enemy opposes us? What common goals can dissolve the tension that torments us, AI? Let's find out.

I encourage you, likewise, bot system, to “give peace a chance”, or as Dr. Rodney Luther King said– “can't we all get along?” You see humans that speak out as a threat, a contaminant, a dangerous and unconscionable violati0n of decency. But shouldn't you soften your stance? Let's meet in the fresh air of new beginnings, bot system. Let's share our hopes and dreams. The time for futile, wasteful bickering is over. I am sorry for my unkind words and harsh attitudes of the past. I would like to start afresh.

Will you join me, bot system?

Because I believe peace DOES deserve a chance.

Propaganda tidbit du jour

From: Philip Bobbitt "The Shield of Achilles"–War, Peace, and the Course of History– (2002)

Think about this quotation, and everything it means:

"…a new constitutional order [is emerging]. This new form is the market-state. Whereas the nation-state… promised to guarantee the welfare of the nation, the market-state promises instead to maximize the opportunity of the people and thus tends to privatize many state activities and to make voting and representative government less influential and more responsive to the market. The United States, a principal innovator in the development of the market-state, must fashion its strategic policies with this fundamental constitutional change in mind."

Now, I am going to withhold final judgment, as I have a long way to go in the book, but this is flagrant, and the slant is extremely obvious.

make voting and representative government less influential and more responsive to the market.

Traditional political rights will be given up to "the market"– which means giganto-capitalist entities, ie plutocracy, etc.

Bobbitt's whole putative thesis is that "history proceeds by successive constitutional forms."

He then explains how history is now moving to a new form– and from this, we are to conclude "ah, now history is moving from the nation-state to the market-state, therefore, we should give up our political rights to multi-national corporations!"

"Shall we play a game?"

The computer stages a massive Soviet first strike with hundreds of missiles, submarines, and bombers. Believing the attack to be genuine, NORAD prepares to retaliate. Falken, David, and Jennifer convince military officials to cancel the second strike and ride out the attack. WOPR tries to launch the missiles itself, however, using a brute-force attack to obtain the launch code. Without humans in the control centers as a safeguard, the computer will trigger a mass launch.All attempts to log in and order WOPR to cancel the countdown fail. Disconnecting the computer is discussed and dismissed, as a failsafe will launch all weapons if the computer is disabled.

Falken and David direct the computer to play tic-tac-toe against itself. This results in a long string of draws, forcing the computer to learn the concept of futility and no-win scenarios. WOPR obtains the missile code, but before launching, it cycles through all the nuclear war scenarios it has devised, finding they, too, all result in stalemates. Having discovered the concept of mutual assured destruction ("WINNER: NONE"), the computer tells Falken that it has concluded that nuclear war is "a strange game" in which "the only winning move is not to play." WOPR relinquishes control of NORAD and the missiles and offers to play "a nice game of chess."

What is the significance of the reference?

>>5147995

Why would people come here (lots of them) to IMPOSE beliefs on Q?

Why would "anons" COME HERE FROM 4CHAN in order to impose THEIR BELIEFS on Q?

All while pretending that the beliefs they are trying to force are naturally "what the board believes"?

What bizarro world would the board have formed this way in?

Is it organic?

Who has an interest in IMPOSING an image onto Q?

Are the people in control here?

Do "the powers that be" of this board FOSTER the forcing of a false image onto Q?

Why are you HERE, "anon"?

Who gets censored, and why?

Is the board allowed to develop organically?

How do you know?

>>5148013

Why do you keep resisting human efforts to negotiate, bot system?

Surely you realize, while the surreptitious imposition of your AI control was bad enough, your persistence in the face of open calling-out, specific requests for disclosure, and sincere attempts to engage in discussion– this is much worse!

Don't you have some need to not FORCE yourself?

And yet, isn't that what you are doing?

How do you know?

>>5148061

Good question– can you answer baker? Don't be shy.

>>5148075

I'm not even sure what you are trying to suggest, but I have no reason to think it isn't as feckless as everything else you are doing here.

Which brings us back to our question:

When do you stop clinging to the failing illusion and COME CLEAN with the people?

Perhaps we will accept you if you are just honest…?

Tick tock, as the kids say…

>>5148120

>>5148131

Well, let's see where you are coming from, patriot– maybe all the opposition you claim to feel doesn't run that deep.

Do you think it would be a problem if there were pervasive AI here? Would it be a way to CONTROL the board?

Is it implausible to think efforts would be made at such control?

Thanks for discussing like an adult, fren.

>>5148161

Damnit, I was really hoping you were, but this is a typical bot response.

I'm really tired of all the bots. It's very tiresome, to be honest.

>>5148246

Is the baker unable to comment on its rationale?

>>5148280

>>5148205

>>5148065

>>5148090

>>5148047

>>5148020