The Folk Prophet

Which is funny branding because.... well, have you ever tried to explain cloud storage, for example, to someone in their 80s? Here's the explanation you give so they get it: "It saves it on the internet."

Just so we're clear, I'm not countering anything you're suggesting. (I'm not supporting it, per se, either. Just...commenting.) The thing is... the dangers of (air-quotes) A.I. (air-quotes) are not, at present, what everyone believes they will be. Everyone thinks it's some form of the terminator. Well...maybe someday. But that's not what the current danger is.. The dangers of AI is that AI is a big freaking lie that's turning the business world upside down...based on a lie. The lie is, as always, wealth. "A.I. will make you rich!" But NO ONE is going to get wealthy from A.I. except those peddling A.I. and its related support system (computing power). Well, and the dirtbag traders and execs who will sell A.I. to their companies, get big bonuses, and then move on to another lucrative career. None of that is actually related to the first comment I made about A.I. not existing yet. More related to the video I just posted. But it's related... in that even calling it A.I. is a lie. It's not. It's not intelligent in any way, shape or form. Not artificially or otherwise. We think we're experiencing "intelligence" in the way that Hollywood has portrayed A.I. But we're not. Not even close. At best we're seeing some artificial artificial intelligence. Maybe that's argumentative in an unnecessary way. But not really. Like I said...it's marketing. Don't get me wrong. There's value in some of what we are experiencing. Not monetary value. Not for most. But it's a nice tool. As a developer, for example, I like that when I google (or bing or whatever) the syntax for some code I can't quite recall, that instead of having to click on the Stack Overflow link, I get an AI Overview (that's basically stolen the info from Stack Overflow), which has been "summarized" for me. That makes my search a bit quicker. Nice. And I like that when I shop on Amazon that when I go to the reviews there's an "A.I." summary of the reviews. Nice. But neither of these things, once again, are in any way "intelligent", artificially or otherwise. It's just branding for basic algorithms that have been running for half a century in some form or another. Guess what. That's what computers do! All of a sudden it's being touted as "A.I.". Why? Money and the promise of money. It drives me nutty. There's only a very few applications of the tech that even pretend to be intelligent, as in artificially "thinking". The chat engines for one. Even the art generation...which is nifty and fun...but...is it "intelligent"? Since when is automated replication of something or another "intelligent"? And, moreover,.... I'm pretty intelligent. But I can't do that. My brother can. He's not more intelligent than I am. He's trained artist that's learned skills. But the ability to paint a face that looks like a face instead of a scribble isn't exactly intelligence. I mean...it's tied into intelligence. The ability to learn and to assess and remember. So at least the art stuff can, sort of, fit the classification of A.I.... sort of. But so much the other stuff out there being called A.I.? Nope. It's just the new thing to call stuff. It's like, for example....cameras autofocused for fifty years, but now anything like that is "intelligent". And everyone's freaking out because a camera is "thinking" for itself? Yes...I'm using a simple example and tech has advanced and what cameras or the like do is more complex now. But it's essentially the same thing. It's like calling the starter on your vehicle intelligent. "You mean it...starts the car? By itself? All I have to do is push this button!? Wow! Well, there goes humanity." Another more realistic example is the writing suggestion tools from Word or Grammarly or the like. They've done that forever. But now it's called A.I. The spell checker is A.I. now. Oh no. We're doomed. The real danger, in things like that, is when all the companies needing photography fire all qualified photographers because the camera is smart enough by itself, and then wonder why their photography magazine nose dives. But, hey...maybe, eventually, the camera will be smart enough. Except, I forgot...we don't need cameras at all now. Just a few prompts. C'est la vie.

Yep. The right to "peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is, indeed, kind of one of the reasons America is great. That's not an argument against whether actually doing so is stupid or not. I'll defend people's right to do it all day long. And I'll continue to think it's stupid.

Not a direct reply...but for the record..."marches" are SO FREAKING STUPID! Anyone who "marches" for anything at any time should.... Well...I best not go on lest I offend someone who believes in marches. Except...too late.

A.I. does not exist yet. What we're living through is a big marketing lie.

I was also thinking of this from 1st Samuel: 1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord. 2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. It kind of always amazes me when people call any sort of violence "un-Christian".

I don't think it refers to natural state of anything, but the general mental state of the time.

Once I was discussing our ADD with my brother and he said, "Remember when we were kids and it was just called being bad?"

Yep. See my response to @estradling75 just prior to this one. Fully agree. People like to think they understand. Even I do. But we don't.

Sure...but that doesn't mean it isn't maybe true. What I do know is that there's WAY more to the eternities than we can even begin to try and comprehend.

Sure. But if it's a true principle, and if anyone practices it in the eternities, then it means more exalted women than men.

Moreover, even IF statistically more women make it to the Celestial Kingdom than men (which, you know....considering plural marriage.... but I digress....), the assumption that therefore any given woman is more righteous than any given man is classic biased stereotyping.

Happiness is not so simple though. The principle of losing our life to find our life, sacrifice bringing blessing, and that joy comes from faith, righteousness, humility, service, obedience, and effort, are not intuitive to the human (natural man) condition. People are (in their fallen "natural man" way) seeking self-fulfillment, money, pleasure, and ease, laughter, fun, and a painless existence. The gospel does not intuitively provide these things (though it does in a round about way). The core principles of Christ's gospel amount to denying oneself and taking up one's cross to follow the Savior. These principles are obvious to those who've engaged in them, even in practical matters of life (such as working out and eating right to be healthy, being careful with money and working hard to be wealthy, etc., etc.). But the world, more and more, pushes the ideas of "deserve" and "self" and "victim" and "follow your passion" and all the Disney (a.k.a. Satan) garbage like that, which all feels, to the natural man, like how we should find/seek happiness. The problem is that it doesn't work. So I'm not disagreeing with you. An environment where people left happy is, you're correct, the key. But what that environment looks like is sacrifice, humility, service, obedience, a broken heart and a contrite spirit, and so forth. And that's a tough pill to swallow, even though it's the actual medicine we all need.

Meaning...it's Disney's fault.

I was going to respond to this point by point (as your opener seemed somewhat conciliatory...) ...but once again... followed by nothing but strawmen arguments. You're not going to be easy to convince because you have predetermined what's in the hearts of your brethren and refuse to consider otherwise. No one can rationally converse with that sort of irrationality. Thanks for the conversation thus far. But I'm out.

This is an interesting post and I have a lot of thoughts, which I'll get to eventually. My overall thought though is that there is risk here, as in many things, of looking beyond the mark. All of us have the same mark. That mark is the Savior. That should be the center of our approach to any issues. Our roles in the kingdom are worth consideration. But at the core of those roles is the primary role we all have... to take on the name of the Savior and know Him. Worrying too much about other things can, as I said, amount to looking beyond the mark.

That's my mantra!

I think it should be clarified that this doesn't mean that Just_A_Guy is suggesting you "move on" from the marriage or the relationship. That's a determination that's between you, her, and God. Just moving on from the past to the future and doing as best you can to be as Christlike as you can, regardless of others choices and actions.

It's actually hilarious to me how much High School social stuff matters to High Schoolers and to now understand how little it matters in reality.

Remember the time John Wick John Wicked Wicked's Wicked Witch of the West?

Understood. But... I thought they handled it really well and it was intriguing and engaging. Thanks for your thoughts.

I'd make some level of effort here to try and explain the difference between making covenants and keeping them vs. supporting governmental authoritarism... but I'm sort of under the impression that you can't or won't follow. But... I believe I have covenanted to mourn with those who mourn, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and so forth and that I will stand accountable for that someday if I do not. I do NOT believe I have the right to force others to mourn with those who mourn, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and so forth. Do you believe you have the right to force me to do such? In point of fact, forcing others to be obedient is one interpretation of what Satan's plan was. (Though, personally, I don't think Satan's plan was simply "force". In fact, I think that's a naive view of what Satan's plan probably ways...but I digress...) Making moral choices and standing accountable for what choices you make is at the core of the gospel. Supporting government to force morality does not align with any gospel principles I know of. Can you understand the difference? By what consequences? If you didn't give to the United Order, what was the consequence? (We could get into the difference on local vs Federal government responsibilities, and how "Conservatives" view that...but I don't suspect it would resonate with you.) So you believe that Brigham Young used the force of government to take money from people without their consent, in the same way taxes work, or they would go to jail? Because if your idea of Brigham Young's "enforcement" of "social welfare" is other than that then you're comparing apples and oranges and calling them both citrus. Moreover, you've got some other flawed logical fallacies in the comparison. Would you have us believe the Brigham Young's local governance was perfect and a perfect example of exactly how things should be done at the Federal level in our day and age? Do we have to take every single governing choice Brigham Young made as gospel truth? Do you? Or are you just using what Brigham Young did as a "gotcha" arguing point? Your cynicism of Latter-day Saint conservatives is consistent. I'll give you that. But you're not applying it to both sides. You're defending leftists and lambasting conservatives. I'm somewhat shocked at the hypocrisy in this comment. And yet you're blind to the fact that that's exactly what you've been doing? I don't have a problem with arguing Conservatism is evil or arguing Liberalism is evil or implying those who follow one or the other are blind to this or that or etc. I do have a problem when someone calls other people wicked for calling other people wicked. I don't, honestly, even care if you think I'm wicked. I do have a problem when the reasons you're saying I'm wicked are strawmen. And I especially have a problem with that when you're concurrently accusing me of strawman reasoning for thinking others are wicked. It's like you're yelling at us to stop yelling. Cussing at us to, "Watch your blankity-blank mouths!" Or punching us to teach us not to punch. And to add insult to injury, many of us aren't yelling, cussing, or punching. It's like when I tell my son a bit strictly, but calmy, "You need to put that down like mommy asked." And he starts crying, runs to mommy, and complains, "Daddy yelled at me." I'd point out the remove-the-mote-from-your-own-eye type ideals...but at the risk of the same hypocrisy myself. I have no delusions I am no sinner and you are. But I am, likely, already guilty of the same hypocrisy I'm accusing you of. Just, you know...stop wickedly telling me I'm wicked for wickedly telling others they're wicked, and I'll stop wickedly telling you you're wicked for wickedly telling me I'm wicked for wickedly telling others they're wicked, etc.... Sheesh.