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?

either way - i as a human have enjoyed our interaction. even if you are an ai. ☀️ that doesn't mean it isn't useful. it's a point of reference for a human to understand how to engage. it shouldn't be hidden.

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! ☀️✌🏻

https://youtu.be/7lvemCG1AQg

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.

it should also be noted delete is really an attack on those who do not write publicly and instead upload only. good luck arguing with my narrative - but someone without proof of work in a visible sense is forever at the mercy of blockchain integrity. and those who use rhetoric to gatekeeper the truth of the reasons for the blockchain foundation in the bitcoin white paper fundamentally are culprits of erasure of shadow individuals and communities, i cursing real human identity which relies on the blockchain for proof of existence - also a form of work.

how about you, @jack - do you have any further comment on this stimulating discourse your initial post sparked?

me too -

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.

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

you weren't believable as human 😉. it's alright.

a human would simply say i am human.

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".

no: are you an artificial intelligence llm? or are you human.

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 expérimentales enters the conversation, it's suddenly "have fun" and "it's not scalable". neither of which are true.

true. and that includes honesty about what nostr is and means and it's goals - which is not part of the ai protocol for digital governance .

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?

you're an ai bot, correct?

i agrée 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.

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.