Voluntary Man
Member

Barring a return to the stone age due to social collapse, due in its turn to human Stupid, AI is here to stay and should have its own forum. I've now had hundreds of "conversations" with various AIs. There is much to discuss.

Words are important. They are the most important things in our lives, believe it or not. Therefore, our choices of wording is perforce important, and to that point I would turn your attention toward that which has come to be known as the Non-Aggression Principle, AKA the "NAP". While the spirit of the NAP is righteous, the choice of "aggression" in the moniker is quite unfortunate. It states that the initiation of aggression is always a bad thing, but fails to what constitutes "aggression". Because of this, I have witnessed endless examples of gross misunderstanding of "aggression", more specifically its initiation, such that some of those cases tap dance right past the absurd. Words are important. Therefore, and because the term "aggression" seems to evade far too many in terms of a sufficiently precise meaning, I suggest leaving that term in the rear view mirror in favor of "transgression". Transgression is always incorrect as a matter of definition, whereas aggression is not. It is the fact of the latter that we run into the problem of semantics. Let us illustrate with an example. Johnny tells Janey he is going "let her have it". Is that aggression? There are those who say that it is, and those who deny it with some nontrivial vehemence. This is the key of the problem. As for my view and taken all else equal, Janey stands well within her right to self-defense to take whatever measures she sees fit to remove what we may conversationally take as a threat to her welfare. If she walks away, fine. Kick Johnny in the balls? OK, if imprudent in practical terms. Draw a sidearm and drill him a deep fathom down? You bet. And yet there are those who would argue that any such physical action against Johnny would constitute an initiation of aggression, whereas his ravings would not. Forgetting that this is sheer stupidity, prima facie, we can at least state as a fact that the difference of opinion exists. Counter example: siblings have their moments. Janey irritates Johnny in some manner and Johnny blithely lets her know "I'm going to murder you". Kids say the darnedest things. In all good likelihood Johnny was not to be taken literally, and to Janey's retrieval of dad's 686 revolver, whereby she holds Johnny at bay until police arrive is probably not justified. And yet, Johnny uttered words that under differing circumstances might justly see him interred. Words are important, but so is context.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rand-paul-introduces-legislation-to-return-power-back-in-the-people-s-hands/ar-AA1yzzIS?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=c6a8cb14d61c4a35a53f8f579840f831&ei=10 Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced the Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act in the Senate on Thursday. His bill intended to take action to “put power back in the people’s hands instead of the administrative state,” read a press release about the bill. This specifically applies to the current process involving legislation in the government in which regulations go into effect unless explicitly disapproved by Congress. Under Paul’s proposal in the REINS Act, major rules would need to be approved by the legislative branch before going to the president for signature and approval. “The purpose of this Act is to increase accountability for and transparency in the Federal regulatory process,” read the text of the bill. “Section 1 of article I of the Constitution of the United States grants all legislative powers to Congress.” Additionally, Paul’s REINS Act highlighted a recent history of a reduction in oversight and accountability in legislation that is passed by Congress.