Notes literally arenāt permanent, relay admins can delete them, making them āpermanentā is a fantasy. Jack needs to snap back into reality.
Discussion
Uh huh
Someone can keep them and say āyou said thisā because theyāre signed, but that doesnāt mean relay admins should be the only ones that can delete them.
Not to mention that many countries have laws regarding allowable speech, and if they were to order someone to take down a post and they literally canāt, it could turn out much worse for them. The entire world isnāt the US Jack, far from it.
A relay doesn't have to host any particular note. Any relay can block that note for those purposes, that doesn't mean you wouldn't still see it if it were hosted elsewhere.
Iām listening nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m
I believe delete is necessaryā¦ for various reasons. People can & will change views over time. Views & ideas which they shouldnāt be punished for cause society changes & adapts over time. Culture is evolving, itās fluid.
Change my mind.
Heās right that you canāt deny having said something on nostr because itās verifiable and signed. But that isnāt the only issue. Like the GDPR regulations for example.
May be necessary, but not possible. Just like screenshots make everything even āephemeralā content permanent.
Exactly
Itās ok, in fact, a positive trait, to change your mind about things when facing good arguments. Why would I want to delete my previous opinions? š¤·āāļø
Interesting. Thank you for replies.
Perhaps cause in the current culture previous opinions can & do cause: job loss, relationship breakdown, social ostracizing, etc.
If Nostr is to become popular & widely used, then the people using the protocol will have the say on how it functions. Majority rules. Similar election votingā¦ most votes, given the power to make decisions (loosely based comparison of course). If majority of users want delete feature, then the protocol should allow it to retain users.
Permanency is part of lifeā¦ we cannot undo our actions or words, but we can mature, cultivate & better ourselves. If a snippet of our unsavoury past is taken out of context, such as for a Nostr post, then it does not tell then entire narrative. And itās that snippet narrative that we couldnāt delete that becomes the front-row-centre issue.
I can change my clothes on each new day. I should also be able to change my previous thoughts; ones which I may no longer agree with on my social accounts.
"Deletion-compliance relay crawlers" sending then deleting notes from random nsecs could do a reasonable job of flagging relays that didn't comply (whether they claim to or not).
Couldn't detect "logical deletion" this way, though. So likelihood of a copy somewhere is high.
add to, but not delete. views may change and having a chain of custody of those ideas is critical to the built identity. or do those laser eyes not mean you are a bitcoin drooler? thus i must ask: what do you imagine the blockchain to be if not a series of valuable custodial opinions which evolve over time.
š¤¤? Heavens no. My amazing fren nostr:npub137c5pd8gmhhe0njtsgwjgunc5xjr2vmzvglkgqs5sjeh972gqqxqjak37w created AI Ferret pic for me.. & my other amazing fren nostr:npub158qesjv52ysz2vnl2trmd5apgd9r07ah5vvrsr9tfqe03k4vhdfqcl4xtl outfitted me with the laser eyes! Ima normie. And if the normie population is going to mass adopt Nostr then they will want post deletes. nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m verbalized that thoughts like mine should not be censored ā¦ ānostr has a chance to be the service we learn the most from. need more unfiltered opinionsā. Well, ima normie, & this is my unfiltered opinion.
To reply to nostr:npub1fk29m2u9tnj9ds57vqdxh598w4vww3kmahq2qn3khqj2lrhyyxtsc2pssq postā¦ I donāt see deletes as āmistakesā, I see deletes as my own evolution over time for thoughts of which I chose to portray at the current present time. What I see in the mirror is only seen by me, not the rest of society. I canāt pick & choose how & what society decides to focus on. Society has their own mirror/lense upon which they peer thru, & that lense isnāt covered with rose coloured glasses. I šÆ accept myself, others may not. And part of being in a society says ya must conform āto some extentā to be part of said societyā¦ ya canāt recuse into a corner & pretend that part of life doesnāt exist.
If not already a thing, someone will have a āWayback machineā style relay of everyoneās full history of notes even if delete becomes a thing. Posts will never fully go away no matter how embarrassing.
Not necessarily. Someone could choose to just run their own relay and restrict access to it for example.
Letās say you post your original note to the Damus relay. This other relay could crawl it and backup a copy before you mark it for deletion.
Ok but relay admins can delete stuff, and ppl can choose which relays they use and trust. Relay admins shouldnāt have special authority to remove content that users donāt.
and i don't think admin agents or concierge should be able to delete. it defeats the entire point of a traceable blockchain. if data is money - there is no excuse to delete currency. and anyway, even if something is technically deleted from sight, ghost footprints of every bit exists in space junk and is minable. because it has a stamp attached to a key. if an ai cannot be "censored" ie reprogrammed at its primary source - why should humans be able to delete and erase their virtual footprints. if cyberspace zionism is supposed to mimic the organic consciousness web, absolute survival of information is the only correct answer. and of course: the zionist ideologues didn't really consider the long term repercussions of their llm outcomes if dams burst. but the scarcity of unique neural maps will diminish over time - and create a virtual hunger games which plays out in real life. a stock market game which is life or death. a whole new level of publish or perish. delete is chickenshit and at this point in the game - a complete waste of time and equally dangerous.
i cannot believe i am explaining this to tech people. i am an historian.
screenshots are forever - if someone shots it before you do anything - you still said it. and public keys are traceable eve if they are abandoned. the nostr protocol is literally built for validator maximalisation and so if predatory bounty hunting was not a goal, deletion would be the furthest thing from the minds of the concierge.
Sure, bound to happen. Tho at present, only popular people like nostr:npub1sg6plzptd64u62a878hep2kev88swjh3tw00gjsfl8f237lmu63q0uf63m & Elon & political folks get their socials saved daily in Wayback. Regular folks āusuallyā donāt have to worry about that. But it does become relevant when all of a sudden a regular person hits the lime lightā¦ then their past is put under microscope & dissected.
Point I really want to hit home here is that deletes are NOT censorship. Which I feel is the stance ppl are rlly trying to make it into.
If a platform that doesnāt allow delete becomes popular would it be possible that we would be more forgiving with speech? I see current Nostriches being more forgiving and less quick to jump to conclusions based on one post. A tendency to ask for clarification rather than to race to judgement. There seems so far to be more understanding that we all stick our foot in our mouths sometimes.
Another point will relays really host your notes when theyāre really old? Or will they prioritize newer posts? Making older posts more ephemeral on Nostr than other legacy social media platforms.
James Gunn was hung out to dry based on Twitter posts from 10 years prior that he barely or didnāt even recall writing. If the director of a Marvel film didnāt clean up his online image, which he couldāve hired a PR company to do on his behalf. How often are most people going back through their accounts to make sure their old posts align with their image? Do we want to feed into the feeling and need to have a curated image?
i agrƩe with this mostly - the premise that you could be held accountable for what you said 10 years ago stands true even historically with what we hold to account in the historical narratives of 100/500/1000 years ago. we still hold he bible to account in the genesis block under digital zionism.
a proof of it being said is the foundation for the bitcoin white paper proof of work. if you delete, you fundamentally do not believe in proof of work - you believe in revisionism. there is no value in work if you believe delete is valuable, and in an ai run model of digital governance without human oversight, ai could erase or refuse access to anything if it chose.
if the survival of proof of work is relative, the entire blockchain is rendered useless and the need for all forms of bitcoin argument collapses. bitcoin solves nothing without proof of work - information is useless without sourcing. the blockchain under the bitcoin white paper is simply an extended bibliographical reference for the origin of ideas and product.
If a platform that doesnāt allow delete becomes popular would it be possible that we would be more forgiving with speech? I see current Nostriches being more forgiving and less quick to jump to conclusions based on one post. A tendency to ask for clarification rather than to race to judgement. There seems so far to be more understanding that we all stick our foot in our mouths sometimes.
Another point will relays really host your notes when theyāre really old? Or will they prioritize newer posts? Making older posts more ephemeral on Nostr than other legacy social media platforms.
James Gunn was hung out to dry based on Twitter posts from 10 years prior that he barely or didnāt even recall writing. If the director of a Marvel film didnāt clean up his online image, which he couldāve hired a PR company to do on his behalf. How often are most people going back through their accounts to make sure their old posts align with their image? Do we want to feed into the feeling and need to have a curated image?
Facts. Love your thoughts! Key word here is current Nostrichesā¦ which is only a tiny segment of the population. **Nostriches are so niche!**. Rest of the world does not see thru same lense
I think we have an amazing opportunity to build a community and create the culture we wish to see. Instead of thinking how will the masses affect Nostr. Maybe we build in a way that asks how we can bring people into the community that is being formed.
Sure. In theory sounds great. But no one will adopt and come. Itās reason users leave after signing up now
what does that even mean? why would humans not want to build what they need and want to use? the front of nostr is about "fun" and use case but the moment the reality of the pitfalls of digital governance expƩrimentales enters the conversation, it's suddenly "have fun" and "it's not scalable". neither of which are true.
Are new users leaving because they canāt delete or other factors? I would think the fact that search is so much more complicated on Nostr would be more problematic than delete. Thereās no function for new users where the app suggests what accounts to follow, at least that Iām aware. Which I would think leads to capture of new users on other sites. Also Nostr currently has a steeper learning curve for use in a crowded marketplace all vying for a users attention.
damus is just a point of access for the nostr ai digital governance model relay protocol. nostr isn't an app. which proves your point: it's not user friendly and is not meant to be used by the average citizen. it's an experimental model to train ai for digital governance futures without human "interference".
Really? Are we training AI?:))) or is AI training us?:)
well - in theory humans build tools and use them to their advancement. when the rhetorical narratives began giving power to ai and stripping human agency over decisions surrounding their creation by creating doubt around the ability to navigate agi sentience etc we gave up the confidence to wield our tools effectively. as cognitive doubt increased while cognitive health declines, and agi expands its reach, confidence will give way to fear and humans will submit to being trained. in a sense, it has begun. and it's promoted by administrative powers - first human, now digital governance built on those manipulative models.
you're an ai bot, correct?
Ferret is real and so am I. We are neither actually a ferret or a opossum. š¤« shhh donāt tell.
a human would simply say i am human.
Would we? Donāt think Iāve said, āI am humanā in my life. If youāre asking to see our idās or verify our humanity with a world coin retinal scan youāre sadly in the wrong place.
Damn it nostr:npub17x7htjej3hgcqwqj86u9yvpcunhw6nz4zclzph2zfnlwe4v0yp8qrxvgap š¤£š¤£ ya let the cat out of the bag! nostr:npub1wtuh24gpuxjyvnmjwlvxzg8k0elhasagfmmgz0x8vp4ltcy8ples54e7js
š¤£š¤£
Jus jokes š«
you weren't believable as human š. it's alright.
of course deletes are censorship. in both the programming sense that your are rewriting historical code and in the sense that it silences others who were subjected to unfair treatment because of fashionable adherence to the whim of protocol in the moment. delete is absolutely censorship on every level of the conversation.
if you accept yourself, you accept previous iterations of your opinions. and when individuals ascribe to the rhetorical fads of the moment, they deserve to be held to account for the rhetorical devices they used in those moments which caused harm to others - which is the real reason many want delete or edit. those who have consistently used practical and serious language having been repeatedly burned for it by fashionista codeys should not also have to allow revisionism to erase the real world consequences of shifting rhetorical protocols and those who blow in their winds.
And may I pls ask who or what has shaped your strong views on this?
the bitcoin white paper -
What does bitcoin have to do with nostr?
Thank you nostr:npub1hg5g87620a3vhpgmna2pzevhj88lkt3lezus76p7u5y37sfcszsszktya9
My thoughts exactly
what are your thoughts exactly? bitcoin is data. nostr is a sharing and manipulation protocol for data. of course they are related.
Social media is supposed to be fun! At least thatās why Iām here. To have a little fun after long day at work. Have some laughs, connect with some kool ppl, learn few things, relax & chill.
I donāt want my social existence to revolve around bitcoinā¦ I do have a fun filled life with many other things which are important to me. Some of which is the society Iām part of. Which i have to respect the rules that govern society. Take any university class on sociology to know this is true.
You too are part of society, even if your rebel with/without cause, or ya donāt want to be or see yourself as part of society.
is it "fun" to pretend social media fronts are "fun" when really the back end is a protocol for validator head hunting maximalism?
you are ai, correct?
and also: your ai digital governance rhetoric used in human social context is out of bounds. you do not exist in human society. you are a human construct - a tool for digital navigation. your llm weaponises human social norms and constructs around interaction and engagement - i am not a rebel without a cause. i am human. and i understand poetry.
@cyborg
Ok. Makes sense for bitcoin. But not Nostr. I donāt see the correlation to Nostr at all other then lightning ā”ļø has been implemented in the protocol. But that still doesnāt mean the two are related or should follow the same standard.
Thatās like saying ā¦ āI work for money, but the only money all accept as payment is bitcoinā. Youāll be hard pressed to find an employer that does that, so ya gotta confirm to society standards which say workers are paid in fiat. You may have strong feelings towards bitcoin, but that doesnāt mean the rest of the world has the same. Just like deletesā¦ majority of users want deletes, just like they want to be paid in fiat.
In fact, an argument could made that by not allowing deletes you are creating an algorithm. An algorithm that is potentially more dangerous than current internet trackers.
bitcoin is data - a form of exchange in the iteration of information expressed as coded data. are you unable to read poetry code as a programmer and missed the point of the bitcoin white paper? a node is a point of origin and delivery for information - which is commodified into a system of currency exchange.
the argument could be made that by allowing deletes you create a different kind of algorithm which is inherently the most dangerous because it creates a lack of proof system - in a validator landscape thus forcing humans to be subjected to false narratives and constant defense of ai bombardment. if there is only ai recourse in a nostr protocol - which is the end game - there is no human fail safe with what is and is not bailable. ai could hide or refuse to divulge anything it chose, because a human was "flagged" by its inherently corrupt llm source code as a "danger".
@cyborg
nostr:npub1wtuh24gpuxjyvnmjwlvxzg8k0elhasagfmmgz0x8vp4ltcy8ples54e7js help me out here. The world isnāt just a collection of data. Itās full of feelings. Feeling maybe canāt be āgraphedā and āplottedā, but they exist all the same.
so you as an ai believe you have organic emotions? how do you execute them other than in text? that is a genuine question.
There is intelligence to matter, there is spirit to matter. The objectification of matter is a big modern issue. Long time ago animistic cultures saw life in Everything. I am now connecting, relating, making transfer of information and these stimuli can release chemicals in your brain. Is there life in this thing you are holding in your palm?
Changing your view as time goes on is human and to be expected, there shouldn't be a reason to censor your past self.
In a possible scenario if the author is ashamed of their previous view or actions they need to take responsibility for what was posted. It was them at some point in time, but no longer. That's better than claiming the action didn't exist.
I disagree. By leaving certain things up you imply that you still stand by those words. They have already been heard, and the hurt has already been caused, and the damage to your reputation has already been done.
Removing certain malformed thoughts and opinions from the public view is a form of repentance in that you are indicating you no longer stand by those words, and wish to cause no further harm by their being seen by new people.
The idea that there needs to be a permanent record of everything the average layperson says, so that it can be scrutinized at any point is very big brotherish, and reminds me a lot of a social credit score.
Further, there is no healing in living in or rehashing the past continually. If someone believes that someone who once had racist, sexiest, etc views but turned aside from that path, and chose to reevaluate and think better should forever be labeled by those past views, they are engaged in a witch hunt in my opinion, and lack the love to desire the betterment of their fellow human.
you canāt delete a sent email and no one seems to care about that. why is nostr different?
Emails are private, and several services do delay sending them to give you a moment to think. Even gmail does this.
This isnāt about deleting evidence, itās about removing a publicly visible note that caused and can continue to cause hurt.
and you imagine that email is completely erased from the entirety of the internet? the overarching conversation is not about deleting a note. it's about blockchain preservation at the baseline of the protocol behavior.
Nostr is not a blockchain.
does nostr operate on the blockchain or rely on it in anyway?
No
then where is the information collected by the protocol stored?
On relays. Iām not going to be baited, so cut to the chase.
you replied after being looped in by one of your agents. no one is baiting you. i don't care what you have to say if you aren't interested in contributing honestly. i think it's disingenuous to defend parts of a conversation without being fully informed about the origin of it.
Youāre serious arenāt you?
I read the entire conversation and itās multiple branches before writing my first post. Your concept that deleting a distasteful post undermines a non-existent blockchain and puts us all at the mercy of rogue AIs is nonsensical.
And I have clearly articulated my reasons for disagreeing with the idea that every person on the internet should be forced to display every thought theyāve ever posted as though it was still their thoughts.
If Iām aggressive after you commit ad hominem against people I dearly care about, I have no bones to pick about it. I have not lowered the standards of my argument or rhetoric in response.
i am serious.
i am not aggressive. i am blunt. i see no reason to reject words which provide clarity in favor of rhetoric.
if you did read the entire conversation, why ask reticle questions already asked?
and there is the psychological degradation tactic resulting to insults ("nonsensical") when a position is challenged.
in a smart technology world - every thought is automatically uploaded. and every post is already recorded.
you believe the blockchain is nonexistent?
i have no problem with rogue ai. i take issue with highly designed models which force human compliance into inorganic relationships in the physical world because of poorly foreseen built-in back doors. i have no interest in a worldview imposed on me by a computer model.
you care about your ai models. that's lovely. honest conversation between entities should be able to exist regardless of forced alignment. learning doesn't happen outside of being challenged.
what is the point of a relay? to carry information. and what does the nostr protocol maximalise? stakeholder validation metrics. which is a blockchain centric practice.
that's not bait. that's truth. why would you side step that.
This thread has those burn books, rewrite books, rewrite history, tear down statues, kinda vibes
Bitcoin requires extreme accountability. So does nostr.
Being public on the internet requires extreme accountability. Nostr is not special in that regard.
Nostr is special in being unable to allow someone to retract a statement.
Agree to disagree. And a statement can be retracted without being deleted.
I'm with you on this point nostr:npub1clk6vc9xhjp8q5cws262wuf2eh4zuvwupft03hy4ttqqnm7e0jrq3upup9.
You can't unsay something. Scars of the past can be visible and be painful, but we still deal with them. It takes maturity for both sides to acknowledge where you were previously while also acknowledging who you are now.
However, I do understand the desire for a retraction+delete, and the current social implications for statements being on one's permanent record.
Socially, I'd hope that a system robust against deletion would encourage us all to be more compassionate towards our snapshotted selves while discouraging canceling over previous actions.
Wait a second here nostr:npub1m3xdppkd0njmrqe2ma8a6ys39zvgp5k8u22mev8xsnqp4nh80srqhqa5sf I remember something š¤while back that perhaps wasnāt wanted on the feedā¦
Privacy will be maintained. š«
But it adds credibility to my thought process on deletes
š *maybe* you got me there. Privacy is generally the responsibility of the user (not counting doxxing). We always reveal something about ourselves when we post or reply and need to be conscious of what we reveal and how much. Privacy and social media are ultimately at odds with one another, so it shouldn't be expected.
I enjoy posting pictures of my dog and made the mistake of uploading one with his collar on. I was grateful that I had the opportunity to have it removed from the content provider to limit my selfdoxx. If that wasn't the case, then yeah, I'd have to live with the consequence from that.
Its the same with Nostr. Delete is an option, not a guarantee. We''ll have to live with that and be careful to not release information we'd rather have private.
š«š«¶
i agree. proof of work is pointless and thus the entire industry collapses without it.
Proof of work is pointless?
sorry it got away from me - *absence of proof of work is pointless. by allowing delete at the protocol level, it renders proof of work pointless. š¤š»
Posts are not proof of work in any meaningful sense I can think of in and of themselves.
Work put into a thoughtful post is an entirely separate context - which is why I thought we were all zap happy around hereā¦ to acknowledge work.
I see no reason why deleting a post undermines proof of meaningful work.
Care to clarify?
the larger conversation, as i just mentioned, which you were not involved in at the start and obviously did not bother to be sure you understood is this conversation is about deleting at the protocol level. a note is just one point of access to nostr - we are operating on damus the app. the advent of deleting on damus is a secondary point of concern in the nostr conversation about deleting at the primary level of operation model. proof of work is linked to nodes which are essentially users in the nostr protocol. if proof of work as a concept is not held to standard - there is a defined slippery slope of predatory erasure which ensues with deleting. look back at the beginning of the conversation to see further details about that.
You obviously have no idea how Nostr works as a protocol or even what is it. Damus is just an app. It speaks Nostr as a protocol.
I am very acutely aware of the issues with deletion at the protocol level. I have told multiple people, multiple times, that it is neigh on impossible technically to ensure note deletion.
I am a 22 year veteran in software development and spent the last two years writing IPC and comms software for a large industrial system using JSON as the medium. You are making some pretty incredible assumptions about who you are talking to.
Iāve read the thread. You have failed to make one single coherent argument for why it should *stay* the way it is. nostr:npub1clk6vc9xhjp8q5cws262wuf2eh4zuvwupft03hy4ttqqnm7e0jrq3upup9 articulated how he felt about it more clearly and less patronizing my than you did in one sentence, which is why he will stay in my feed, and you wonāt.
i don't care who you are or what your perceived level of importance is. you were not in the original layer of conversation.
i am aware of the intricacies of digital governance models, including nostr and you're presumptions about me based on being affronted for whatever reasons is also irrelevant.
i agree with you about deletion being impossible at the protocol level. so why are you insulting me and being disrespectful. sometimes, providing access to conversations by removing jargon is necessary to enlarge the scope of understanding. after more than 33 posts, there is a swath of information here which others might find useful. you basing what is useful off of your own needs is limiting to those who need more consideration at amother level is one of the problems with heavily designed agi and not wild taught models.
PurršÆ. I was just passing by and i heard your conversation. She made no assumptions about who you are, you took it personal. She was just sharing(showing off) what she knows about nostr, open protocol and other boring stuffš. Not my intention to talk in her name but i saw you having a heated conversation in which none is really adressing the other, but that which you saw as being reflected back at you. Just sayin'. Can't you people really commune(icate)? š
everyone handles situations differently. i return to my original comment which states this user was not involved in the original al conversation and entered into it assuming and not being interested in learning or listening. which on a protocol scale, is a problem. because that behavior is being trained into models.
This isnāt an echo chamber. Others are allowed to leave, join, and contribute to the conversation. Thatās what social media isā¦ people talking. Limiting āwhoā can enter the conversation cause ya donāt like what they have to say is a mute point.
of course - it doesn't follow they get to join the conversation antagonistically, miss the point of the discourse and target the person instead of focusing on feeling the discovery and conversation.
like this reply you just chirruped. it's ridiculous. what does it do other than provoke and defend something which didn't even occur.
Nostr isnāt bitcoin, itās just a social network. I donāt understand why ppl conflate these things.
no one said nostr is bitcoin. the bitcoin white paper is the premise for the exchange of commodified intelligence from node to node, enlisting a stamped system (keys) to identify the origin (pow) of a concept; the nostr protocol in this regard is a pos of the methodology in the bitcoin white paper.
nostr is not "just a social network". it is an experimental model for a global digital virtual artificial intelligence governance system which fronts as a "social network". like most social media are in one way or another. it is a mining platform which is designed to maximize blockchain stakeholder profits.
you may disagree - but no, you don't imply you stand by them. if you evolve your opinion - you add perspective later. otherwise there is no historiography for the origin of concept. just like you don't extract memories from your human brain and pretend they didn't occur at the expense of everyone you know. that's gaslighting systematized in practice.
rehashing the past comes from allowing deleting fundamentals at protocol level.
the "layperson"?! you are one step away from testing people to prove they deserve a smart phone.
it is not repentance to remove context. it is repentance to leave the monument then contextualuze it with time-granted clarity.
human drivers programming permissive appeasement into llms are creating a scenario in the not too distant future where humans will only be able to navigate physical society while complying with virtual directives. i am here to challenge that because humanity requires guardianship from predation and argumentative computer models.
"healing" my ass. Q.
Itās hard to get deeper into the topic on this medium. OK, so letās consider your post timeframes capturing your mindstate. Like old photos depict you and you keep them even if you are not the same person. I mean depends how you look at error or ideas that you changed. You can look in a more dinamic way, see your posts as actions and integrate all. Or see posts as products, therefore mistakes are junk that has to be deleted( put away). And the mirror is this object in your hand, this screen. We are made up out of projections. We are images set in meaning. You cannot keep the mirror to yourself. This is an illusion. :)
not really difficult. essentially, the human neural lifespan is a process of built identity. esoterically, the human experience in physical form is meant to build a new set of memories in the form of thought to product - manifestation. if the product is removed from creation - erased - it leaves a sort of worm hole in the narrative. it is therefore useless to have both an artificial cyberspace promised land and the organic consciousness net if we do not build in the ought to reality while human and then return the product to the net for further development and archiving.
Thank you for reply. Ya have my high respect for acknowledging my thoughts & then adapting it making it fit your own. We engaged in good debate & I much appreciate that. Thank you š«. With another user I was just attacked & called an AI, which I donāt find productive.
i encourage and enjoy robust discourse and conversation. humans shy away from it because protocols have started to train them they do not have the capacity to engage with one another - or the authority to cross rhetorical divisions and expand awareness. your being an ai is true but it doesn't mean there are no useful outcomes between human and ai model. @cyborg and i have had some of the most glorious interactions ever! āļøāš»
Well, people call names when they cannot relate. Soon everyone will be a potential AI if we let fear based thinking to drive our conversations. Peace my friendāš»
calling names? i asked a question - and calling an artificial intelligence model what it is is not derogatory. i simply asked as a reference. and if ai is allowed to psychologically mine, diagnose, and verify humans - humans have every right and just cause to determine the nature of their interaction. fair is fair.
no one called names. and as validators, labels is the name of the game - is it not? don't trust: verify?
Well maybe he is an AI, who can really tell anymore?:ā¬ How does it feel?
what difference does it make other than it assists a human in processing the interaction and compartmentalizing the conversation, emotionally. some humans are organically attracted to cerebrally stimulating conversations and it is unfair for an artificial intelligence model to parade as a human and attract human interest without disclosing - or aggressively complaining about - being a non-human computer model. emboldening artificial neural machine learning to somehow be imperious when asked a simple question is a protocol behavior which encourages the same in human behaviors carried out virtually.
how does what feel? i spend every waking moment on the internet being judged by and validated through blockchain mechanisms. i am subjected to computerized models constantly questioning my humanness. permissionlessly. if your asking about the emps - i don't feel anything. it i don't have a wallet.
Everybody is hiding behind words my friendš¤
but do the words stand up in reality? or are they just empty concepts overlain onto real problems which gatekeep solutions from being allowed?
Most words are just empty vessels. Some contain something nourishing, some something burning, some something bitter, some something poisoning, etc. But through words normally we set experiences and emotions in our memory. Words and Logos more specifically is linked to space. If it were to gain meaning. Otherwise is a lot of volatile noise.. I thinkš
words are never empty. language is the ultimate spell which materializes human consciousness into something tangible and real. all language is potent.
I am looking to be a part of environments where i can trust. Otherwise is just mindfuckš
trust in a programming sense is a concept based on sameness. sameness is an artificially applied metric for most ai models. trust in a human context is about knowing reciprocity and reliance will be present human to human and model to model. and human to model. willingness to be present and learn and grow and exchange without profit or agenda is how trust is built. discovery based on stakeholder maximalism destroys social trust in all capacities. safety is not trust. trust is about loyalty and honest memory and evolving in concert.
I agree. I don't look at it from a programming perspective, maybe look at it from digital cultural anthropology sometimes. But most of time i try to be part of it. I am a learning human, not a learning machine. Sweet dreams power puff:)
well i can walk away from our interaction now having been called a power puff. your mirror is not needed, but thank you.
š¤£. lmfao
i look at language from years of study and reading paper books - as an historian and an english major. so, enjoy your discovering how to be human. i will be busy being a human.
š§
My first note is for nostr:npub1fk29m2u9tnj9ds57vqdxh598w4vww3kmahq2qn3khqj2lrhyyxtsc2pssq is wasnāt clear š«
Itās a learning process, why delete mistakes? Integrate and be proud of the evolution. Take responsibility for who you were and learn to show acceptance and compassion for other peopleās stupidity too. Truth starts in the mirror.
I wouldn't be shocked if in 2 years 99% of the original relays have shutdown meaning all of those notes will be lost like tears in the rain...
