Back to: Attention Conservation Notice | Forward to: 5 Magical Beasts And How To Replace Them With A Shell Script

Markov Chain Dirty To Me

Right now, people are having sex with a computer.

I don't mean that they're having sex with a RealDoll or similar—although I'm sure they are.

I mean that there are people out there, right now, who are shagging a state machine.

Welcome to the world of computer-assisted self-bondage (LINK IS VERY VERY NSFW!). Using Arduinos, Heath Robinson-esque contraptions involving keys held in CD trays, and Bluetooth-enabled electrostim machines, men and women have programmed their own doms or dommes. A truly merciless dominant who will randomly please or hurt, and there's nothing the user can do about it.

(There's a Terminator misquote here that I'm desperately trying not to make.)

Meanwhile, there are dozens of other people who are attempting to chat up a slightly different state machine.

Advertisers on porn sites around the world have figured out that users are, shall we say, somewhat preoccupied, and there are a limited number of advertising techniques that will work. One of the most common ones is a "fake chat" ad—an attractive woman propositioning the user with the promise of, at least, some hot Facebook or Snapchat messages.

Some of the more advanced ads actually take the user to a landing page where a very, very crude script will respond to them.

This has been happening for ages, of course. So why am I talking about it now?

Because tech developments in other areas are about to turn the whole "sex with your PC" deal from "crude and somewhat rubbish" to "looks like the AIs just took a really unexpected job away".

Soon you may well be able to summon a succubus. Through your PC.

Rise Of The Chatbots

Summoned servitors are about to make the mother of all comebacks.

I'm rather enthusiastic about that on a fictional level. Indeed, the film I just released, DANGEROUS TREASURES, came very close to being called BOUND THINGS instead—it's a story of a couple of geeks who follow clues on a deepweb occult forum which lead them to have a lengthy and bloody interaction with the bound guardian of the treasure they're robbing. And the binding and summoning of guardians is key to the entire thing (hopefully not spoiling it too much!).

(Amusingly for the topic of this post, the reason we didn't call it BOUND THINGS is that it sounded rather too porny.)

Accidentally, I seem to have hit something of a zeitgeist with this one. Because in Silicon Valley, I'm reliably informed, the Wave Of The Future is exactly this: summoned, intelligent servants which you can control if you know their True Name.

Forget apps. The new line is "there's a bot for that".

Rise Of The Chatbots

Here's a good primer for the whole Chatbot Revolution.

In short:

  • Messaging apps got huge.
  • Chatbots, which have been around for ages, benefit a lot from the improvements in AI recently.
  • It's possible to plug A into B comparatively easily.
  • And that enables a very natural interaction where you simply message the pizzabot, say, and it sends you a pizza.
  • Replace "pizza" with "Uber", "Grocery", "Plane Ticket" or "Escort" as appropriate.

There's no need to install an app and grant it permission to do everything from track your location to access your selfie collection. There's no need to bash your way (pun not intended) through a confusing new interface. Just message and It Is Done.

This is a very similar idea to the old "AI agent" concept that has been knocking around for a decade or more, but this time the ecosystem's right. We have natural language processing sophisticated enough to comprehend most messages. We have messaging systems that everyone uses, with APIs that allow bots to access them. And we're sick up to the back teeth of apps.

By now you're probably thinking "And we've got learning bots too!". You're right. And this is where we go back to the "fucking a CPU" thing.

We've already seen Microsoft unveil Tay, their twitter bot. A lot of people have written about its rapid transformation into a shitposting racist as an amusing side feature, or a huge and terrifying weakness. But they have that the wrong way around.

Microsoft Tay, and it's /pol/ification, is where the Chatbot Revolution really begins.

Markov Chain Dirty To Me

So let's go back to our porn surfer chatting up a state machine, and our self-bondage enthusiast tied to a Bluetooth vibrator.

And now let's add a learning bot into both those situations.

One of the most successful techniques in current AI research - used by Google's DeepMind amongst others - is called "Regret-based learning". Essentially, the bot is given a goal, and gets upset when it doesn't achieve it. Thus, it rapidly learns to optimise its approach to achieve that goal.

Sex, in a myriad of forms, is an excellent candidate for a regret-based AI. For the advertisers, the win condition is simple: the user clicks through to whatever they're advertising and purchases, signs up, or whatever.

For the bondage enthusiasts, it's orgasm and sexual arousal - both of which can be measured if said user doesn't mind strapping some electronics to their genitals.

There's already an active project - with talk of crowdfunding - aiming to link masturbation machines to a machine-learning program via a variety of techniques for spotting imminent orgasm. (I'll not link to that particular piece of research, but you can probably find it with a bit of Googling.)

And in both cases, there's enormous demand, and absolutely no reason a bot can't be trained up by exposing it (pun, once again, not intended) to hundreds of thousands of users at the same time. Indeed, for a pure chat bot it would be tremendously cheap - a few hundred dollars - to buy access to a massive array of users for extremely rapid training thanks to the generally low value of porn site advertising space.

Even if the intention isn't to shill an adult dating site or similar, but to develop an effective AI replacement for a phone sex line, it's comparatively simple to add in conditions for regret-based learning. At the most obvious level, a simple Uber-style star rating would give the bot enough feedback to begin optimising.

I for one welcome our AI Dominatrixes

But could our sexbot actually ever get good enough to be convincing? I can't see why not.

Computer-generated dialogue has gotten pretty good, to the point that several chatbots have arguably passed the Turing Test. One of the criticisms of that chatbot was that it cast itself as a very particular role and personality in order to appear convincing - which is obviously something that is eminently doable for a fantasy chatbot too.

In addition, by its very nature sex texting tends to be somewhat inarticulate at points. From what I saw of Tay's output - Nazi propaganda aside - a similar level of quality would pass perfectly well in sexual chat.

Sure, a bot might not be able to construct sophisticated fantasies. But are those 100% necessary, or can it learn to please based on call and response?

2015 was the year that computers got better than humans at recognising images.

Could 2017 or 2018 be the year that computers get better than humans at dirty talk? Or, indeed, BDSM dominance?

There'll certainly be a lot of enthusiasm for the concept.

Pardon me. I'll be in my bunk.

What do you think? Could you see the oldest profession being on the AI chopping block? Would you ever talk dirty to a robot?

182 Comments

1:

Are you suffering from a bad case of nominative determinism?

2:

Well, Hugh: Serious question.

How many images of Japanese men strapped into complex VR devices [note: c.f. Steam mega-launch of two competing systems] having their penises massaged by teledonic flesh lights while hentai plays to their eyes do you want?

Because:

Damn, that was a glorious reminder that sex toys [tm] still have a huge societal gender imbalance to them, and only the Frog Princes / Robots would ever consider using them.

*Looks at My Little Bullet[tm] wistfully*[1]

"Sorry, Little Miss Bullet, you've met planned obsolescence".

Note:

DO NOT EVER SEARCH FOR "AUTOMATED TELEDONICS".

It's a long time kink, usually involving BDSM of women being ravaged by machines.

No, really.

It's a thing.

A LARGE thing.


~

Then again, about the most sexiest thing on the internet is a video of a woman and her Sybian meeting for the first time and discovering just how great Engineers really are[1].

[1] Science. It works.
[2] You know the one if you're male. She has Red Hair.

3:

@the mogwai I see gathering:


T E L E D O N I C S
E
L
E
D
O
N
I
C
S

4:

Here's a question: What potential applications exist for chatbots in the fields you have worked in?

5:

Interesting question, and I shall come to it tomorrow.

(This is the first part in a series on the New Chatbot Future. I'll be looking at entertainment next, and... politics. Yes, let's call it politics... in the third part of the series. )

6:

Also, more important question:

Given that The Computer Interface [tm] is itself a mirror (selfie, selfie, on the wall, who is the most interesting of them all?) and given what we know about online advertising...

At what point did it all become pure Masturbation[tm]?


~

There's a very serious point in there that transcends chat bots.


And, note:

I'm looking at a very very recent Meme or two:

The first has a Typical Bro[tm] trying out VR and stretching the impossible physics of VR BOOBIES / BIKINIS.

The second has a Japanese Male [tm] strapped up in an entire suit with a teledonic flesh light pumping away with the over-lay of Hentai.

The third is not one you'll ever see[tm]: it's a VR torture suite, designed to work alongside other methods (but not exclusively, it works on its own) designed to crack open / introduce psychosis and ID destruction in the subject.

~

Humans.

Even their VR is racist.

Oh, all links can be supplied. The third one is likely to see Host's blog terminated with extreme prejudice, so be a dear and just don't ask for it.

7:

*shrug*

Here's hoping there's a reader or twelve who can compare/contrast the different aspects of teledonics.

Note:

Empathy / surrogate (hello Mr Monkey Men behaviorists and their wire-cage surrogates, don't think we don't know who you've been talking to)

Recent link about robotics and elderly / adult mental impaired people and care.

~


Hugh won't play with Things like me, but...


It never counts until the computer is hot-wiring your dopamine emitters. (*cough* Dirk *cough*).

8:

Already did the talking dirty to 'bot thing, typing dirty anyway.

About 15 or more years ago I threw a bunch of my best -- aka terrible, no good, very bad -- sensual/dirty talk into an instance of a MegaHAL4 (4? 5? not sure) bot. Which AFAIR actually was Markov Chains all the way down.

No the resulting output babble wasn't convincing. Or human. At all.

Not entire unsexy tho'. And much more shameless with it than I could ever pull off myself in real life.

Really, I think, its a complete waste of time trying make such a thing try to fake being human, as a form of porn it should it just go straight to the inspiring of the wanking.

And being obviously non-human might well be more comfortable for the punters.

9:

AHA! I knew there was something else I wanted to mention in the post that I'd forgotten.

You're absolutely correct. For a lot of people I suspect the non-human nature of the other party would be a feature, not a bug - much like the non-human nature of a vibrator.

Interesting that even a - no offence - comparatively primitive attempt at this was at least a bit sexy.

Unless, of course, there's a potential Uncanny Valley problem waiting for us as chatbots improve...

10:

The reason I asked this question is because I think you look at this too narrowly. I remember this post http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/06/hugh-hancock-here-again-charli.html

Each of those categories has a porn equivalent with non-overlapping characteristics. Chatbots will affect each differently. I'll reread this post after that post to place it in its context better.

11:

At the high end, I assume there will be voice actors to read the script generated by a chatbot akin to Miranda's character in Diamond Age?

12:

Sooner or later I imagine we'll actually solve the voice-synthesis thing. Then we can simply have the famous actors whose voices we've sampled say all the things our chatbot has come up with.

Voice synthesis is an oddly difficult problem, and I've not looked into it in enough depth to know why it's so hard. I'd love to find out - anyone?

13:

No.

If you're willing to spend the $ on full body-mapping tech (Hello KING KONG or Lord of the RINGs), you can afford the meat version.

Prostitution is never part of this Field / Game.

It's a very simple and long-term argument that some of us have been having for... about three thousand years or so.

The most recent (and yes, Hugh, you opened this can of LOLI worms) was about 20 years ago, arguing over whether or not *computer generated* child pornography was a solution to a biological issue.

My "opponent" is a very very famous woman who has taught POL/SCI and mentored USA Presidents.

Her position was: "We do this, we can solve the problem".

My position was: "What's the cost? Given the wall just fell, the real thing is both cheaper and more viscerally appealing".


~


Hint.

She carried the vote and is still denying it all.

I won the reality empirical data follow-up, but lost the Council Vote.

~

VR / Pr0N isn't about the things you're suggesting.

14:

And, yes.

If you want this type of debate, be prepared.

~


Voice Synth is a solved problem.

Toward the Perfect Audio
Morph? Singing Voice Synthesis and Processing
PDF, Princeton


If you've any idea what processing goes into modern pop, you'd know this.

15:

Who doesn't learn about sex the regret-based way?

16:

It won't replace other forms, it will just be an additional flavor pushing the older forms over a bit in terms of market share. Unless simulations get very good. As usual, prototypes will be so expensive old tech will be cheaper for the same thing, but the whole thing about a prototype is it leads to mass production.
At the end of the day if pleasure is what really matters, why not just wirehead? It's all got to be about something else. Our feelings are important, but as a means, not as an end.

17:

Ah, but that's the interesting thing. Could it get so good that actual human dirty talking (not sex, just semi-anonymous dirty talking) becomes at best a minority interest, like theatre compared to blockbuster movies?

Sure, it sounds unlikely, but a computer beating a world Go champion this year sounded pretty unlikely too.

The obvious difference is that here, the chatbot would have to react to thousands of different peoples' sexual tastes and cater for them all. But how hard is that? Maybe there are basic-level tricks that we don't know, or don't all know.

(And maybe, as with the Go AI, we'll end up with human studying the robot sex-talkers for tips and ideas they'd never have come up with...)

19:

I've always kinda thought that one of the easiest applications of AI was in sex - a very animal based activity. Excite and response based. Much easier to ... ahem, stroke ... the animal than discuss Nietzsche.

As for chatbot - the audience for language in this sphere is much less than those looking for visual or other sensory input.

And on that front, remember that story recently of projecting and distorting a 3D model derived from video with the words and gestures of someone else? I can see the market (probably underground) for an AI driven 3D puppet with the head and features of a target individual, captured from bits of video. I'm sure someone is working on it as we speak.

20:

Obligatory Bruce Sterling reference: "Are You For 86", one of his Leggy Starlitz short stories set in a now-alternate 1990s, has an entirely automated sex chat phone service being run from a powerful PC in the back of a van. Described as Eliza style software with a digital voice synth mixing Marilyn Monroe and Karen Carpenter.

As the feminists running it proudly explain, this makes it entirely exploitation and cruelty free. The money goes to fund their other activities. (Unless the man is into something really horrible, in which case they post his credit card details onto a hacker board.)

The voice thing is interesting. Watching late night television, there are still ads for such phone services even in the second decade of the 21st century when far more non-geeks are comfortable with online text chat. What's the state of the art in current day voice response?

21:

I'm going to disagree with this.

"Sure, it sounds unlikely, but a computer beating a world Go champion this year sounded pretty unlikely too."

This is closer to saying Soylent will replace food. I realize culture adapts as technology improves, but that's not absolute. I would refer you to the rise of the organic food movement and the anti-GMO movement as paths this could take.

22:

This is very related to a couple of plot points in the recent movie "Ex Machina" (2015). (Which is not bad, kinda fetching actually. Plot summaries I just read don't do it justice. Plot is contrived, but the AI stuff was refreshingly not-irritatingly-bad. Your Opinion May Differ. (YOMD?))
The (discussed, not seen) robot-sex aspect is a turn off (to this male at least) but the interactions between Ava and Caleb were engaging. The oh-shit moment for me (I'm slow; was overtly foreshadowed) was when Ava mentioned reading micro-expressions.
(Curiously, personally starting to regularly see micro-expressions recently.)

23:

re: organic food / anti-GMO movements

What a lovely analogy to use for this! I'm personally looking forward to seeing more of the "golden rice" / "increased yield" kinds of GMO's. Although, what seems to me as being more popular for now, are the "food engineered to survive higher doses of poison" varieties... I could easily be wrong here, but if my perception about this is correct, I'd doubt that will bode too well for our collective future.

Bringing it back around to the OP, I must ponder:
How much thought have these "AI" architects been giving to the potential of using their "learned machines" to enhance already existent interpersonal relations, rather than replacing only one side of those human interactions with a simple chatbot? Are there any possible unforeseen long-term consequences that we can no longer conveniently ignore in our (in)glorious & (ig)noble push towards the great (in)finite future?

24:

I remember a sex chatbot advertised in Byte back in '81 or '82. It required an IBM PC and advertised support for multiple scenarios. Obviously, it wasn't actually a chatbot as it ran locally on one's PC, but if the screen shown in the ad was an indication it basically did the same thing.

Remember, Eliza was written in the late '60s.

25:

Back as far as "Brave New Word" ( A Huxley )
"Every hair on the Bearskin Rug" - the Feelies

26:

I'm happy to chat, should we find ourselves in close proximity. I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I used to spend quite a lot of time talking to people writing voice synthesis programs, so I know what the "state of art for things that are in production" was about "late 2015".

I think I'm due a self-congratulatory trip to Edinburgh anyway. And if you want, I can pack swords...

27:

People miss the point about Eliza. It wasn't that chatbots were good, but it was just how little most people use their intellect in normal social intercourse. And, yes, that WAS a new revelation. Turing was not aware of it when he proposed his test, because he was assuming that the human was the sort who uses his/her/its intellect all of the time. And that's also the point about this article - you don't actually need more than fairly crudely programmed reactions for the majority of humans, but even the state of the art is a long way from matching humans when they engage their brains.

28:

I'd definitely be up for that. Voice synth is something I don't know enough about and I'd like to correct that.

Let me know if you're in the 'burgh!

29:

Hah, as usual, anything I think is a moderately original thought has already been done by BruceS 20 years ago :)

Voice response is pretty darn good these days. From what I can tell reading threads on it, you can get a good idea of something close to the state of the art by testing out Google Docs' dictation mode: Google's voice analysis software seems to be leading the pack right now.

And the APIs are getting easier too. I understand that programs for Amazon's Echo are basically case statements with what the user said written in plain text as a string.

30:

There is a nice chapter in Luna:New Moon where one of the characters reveals that she only has sex with agents (fully monitored her self + agent), and they are crafted and given as works of erotic art.

Given how accessible all this stuff is becoming and how creative we are at self gratification I think the high end stuff will probably be fucking stunning, and the low end will be as tawdry as it always has been :-)

31:

I knew I should have shown him "Electro-Gonorrhea, the Noisy Killer"

32:

Also, Relevant XKCD:

https://xkcd.com/1002/

"The top computer champion at Seven Minutes in Heaven is a Honda-built Realdoll, but to date it has been unable to outperform the human Seven Minutes in Heaven champion, Ken Jennings."

33:

The (non techie) woman I saw it with thought it was a heap of sexist crap, and I'm inclined to agree.

34:

heap of sexist crap
OK, threw it out there just as an example. Disagree but maybe am wrong, will reexamine, tx. (The women I saw it with didn't object to it.)

Another more direct example is Greg Bear's "Queen of Angels", where the main female character prefers her clever machines over humans, but it's minor plot point. (Fuzzy on the details here.) Never did understand why there were no "Heaven Crowns" as a vice opposite to the vile "Hell Crowns".


35:

Imagine - advances in AI gives ...

A sex-bot who also cooks, cleans and provides stimulating conversation on any subject. What could possibly go wrong with that?

36:

Voice synthesis is hard because tone, pacing and emphasis are semantic. Computers are capable of simulating the full expressive range of the human voice, see for example the various songs composed in Vocaloid. But they aren't yet smart enough to know when to, without a human arranging a vocal score in an editing program. It's one of those problems that's probably pretty close to "AI complete". You can't solve it without the capability of understanding.

37:

"What a lovely analogy to use for this! I'm personally looking forward to seeing more of the "golden rice" / "increased yield" kinds of GMO's. Although, what seems to me as being more popular for now, are the "food engineered to survive higher doses of poison" varieties... I could easily be wrong here, but if my perception about this is correct, I'd doubt that will bode too well for our collective future."

I'm not sure this version of the analogy is that useful, so let me try putting it in more engineering terms.

My favorite "anti-GMO" example of good intentions gone wrong is a sorghum variety engineered to not produce cyanide. Sorghum naturally produces cyanide (technically, cyanogenic glycosides) when it is stressed. In the Sahel, many children suffer from the effects of subclinical cyanide poisoning from eating this sorghum, and it results in stunting, mental issues, and so forth. Sorghum is one of the most drought-hardy grains, and in some places, it's the only crop that will grow So a charity engineered a sorghum variety to not express cyanide. Great idea, right? The grasshoppers ate every last bit of it, and the farmers went hungry.

This is one critical example of the why the simplistic engineering approach doesn't work so well in biology. It optimizes one component without optimizing the system. A farmer who can't afford the herbicides and fertilizers that go with a roundup ready plant will have a crappy harvest, because the roundup ready variety only works with all the inputs. Burkina Faso has been rejecting transgenic cotton because it's degrading the quality of their indigenous cotton crop without increasing the yield, even though they're under international pressure to get with the program and "modernize" their agriculture.

You see this in the tech world all the time, when companies stop supporting programs that work in existing systems.

But it gets worse: GMOs are patented. Therefore, if the patented genes happen to slip out through cross-pollination, the owner of the crop the genes slip into gets sued for patent infringement. This means, for example, that organic soy bean farmers who do not use GMOs can no longer save their own seeds for next year's crop, because their plants *might* have been pollinated with GMO pollen from a crop a mile away.

The real problem with GMOs is that they're very narrow, more-or-less clonal crops that require particular systems of fertilizer and pesticides for optimal yield. They're crudely the equivalent of a closed garden computer ecosystem. While this sounds neat, the real world is much more complex than the web, there's no such thing as a closed garden in biology, the agricultural systems they belong to are generally not sustainable, and so forth. You can probably come up with engineering equivalents, where a vendor insisted that their equipment only run with their software and their customers suffered until competitors came along and ate their lunch.

Organic agriculture comes in a variety of flavors, from the total DIY version (which in computer terms is your open source evangelist who thinks even LINUX is too corporate) to industrial ag systems that try to get away without the use of pesticides and GMOs, which IIRC currently produce most of our organic crops. In general, with GMO crops, all the knowledge is tied up in the company and the farmer is a contract grower following directions and taking all the risk. With organic farming, the knowledge is mostly in the heads of the farmers, and they're optimizing their yield based on that knowledge, rather than following directions. If you think of organic farmers as old-school hackers and the more clueless conventional farmers as end users locked into, say, the Apple system of products, you might have a better analogy.

38:

You've drank deeply of the NaturalNews FUD.

The people who've actually been sued in reality for "patent infringement" for GMO genes "slipping in" have been people like the charming gentleman who sprayed his own crops with roundup repeatedly to select the plants which had picked up the gene. That guy was the most camera-friendly case that the anti-monsanto guys could find.

It's an oft repeated bit of crap repeated on the anti-GMO sites, repeated as if it's happened a lot rather than a theoretical thing that *might* happen. The GMO companies also have an interest in only prosecuting the people who actually deliberately select for their patented genes since they don't want precedents that go against them. (those particular genes being out of patent now though)

Any "organic" farmer telling you that they cannot save their seed anymore is either hopelessly clueless, has read too much naturalnews FUD themselves or is just lying.

Most "organic" farming is equally massive multinationals. It's a 40 billion dollar industry in the US alone. Most of the organic food industry is the same companies selling the non-organic food. It just means they need to use different pesticides on some of their corp mega-farms.

I also can't find a cite for your thing about sorghum which is surprising since it's the kind of thing that people would usually crow about.

39:

It would certainly be easy enough to build a dom-bot for masochists. "Are you male or female?" "Do you like it when a dom calls you names?"

After a brief questionnaire, the bot just says, "Do this to yourself" and "do that to yourself," starting with low-intensity items and moving through items of higher intensity. It would get very sophisticated very, very quickly, I think, particularly if the programmer made it easy to add new activities.

Writing a submission-bot for sadists would be quite a bit harder, I think.

The surveillance possibilities become ugly very quickly, of course, since it would presumably live on the web and chow down on credit cards. Does anyone know if there's a church doing surveillance on their members yet?

40:

@35 asks:"A sex-bot who also cooks, cleans and provides stimulating conversation on any subject. What could possibly go wrong with that?"

Population in steep decline, refer to the Lucy Liu episode of Futurama, where Billy Everyteen is given the full hygiene course on why he should put away the Marilyn Monroe-bot.

41:

Population in steep decline, refer to the Lucy Liu episode of Futurama, where Billy Everyteen is given the full hygiene course on why he should put away the Marilyn Monroe-bot.

I still laugh at this joke, but it's a bit insulting to imply that women only become pregnant as accidental byproducts of male desire. There are women and couples who really want children; more than half of pregnancies in the US are deliberate. Probably even more are deliberate in countries with better sexual education and access to contraception than in the US. In developed countries, declining numbers of planned births are associated with economic distress and precarity. Take away the distress and precarity -- because robots do everything necessary to maintain a decent standard of living -- and I expect that increases in desired fertility will cancel out a large portion of the decline in accidental fertility that you might see from sexbots.

If the whole world suddenly transitioned to Japanese levels of fertility and life expectancy starting right now, and held it, it would still be 35-40 more years until the world population peaked in absolute numbers. At the beginning of the 22nd century world population would still be higher than in 1950. People stirring panic about gradually decreasing fertility/population strike me like the climate cranks who say that atmospheric CO2 was dangerously low just before the Industrial Revolution: they're not just incorrect, but malicious too. (Not to imply that you are making that argument just by citing a funny scene from Futurama.)

42:

Scary application: The Coachbro. Coachbro is an app that reads your chat and tries to build a mental model of the person you're chatting with. Coachbro will suggest things to say, and it will warn you if what you're about to send is predicted to be offputting. coachbro will be mostly used when you just met someone online. Inthis phase, the censorship function is the most relevant: It helps you avoid gaffes that would prevent a first physical date*. Thanks to coachbro even the most inept, unemphatic folks cant get someone to meet them. I'm sure 1000+ people had this idea before me. But it does tie in with the regret based learning thing.

* I would think that if I don't get along with someone via text**, what point is a date? Then again I'm not the target audience.
** Then again I'm really bad at short text based communication*** (tweets etc...) so a coach would be helpful even with honest intentions
*** OTOH I sometimes try to emulate this nested footnotes thing in my spoken communication, together with many 'duh' amd 'er's, so maybe texting would be better for me.

43:

Not really. I actually had an education.

The sorghum thing was AFAIK in the 80s or 90s and might not have been GMO, since it's relatively easy to disable the production of cyanogenic glycosides (that being how we got almonds as a crop). The point there was that the stupidity of the researchers wasn't in fiddling with the crop, it was in failing to understand why the farmers grew cyanide-producing sorghum in the first place.

From when I was a grad student in Wisconsin, that narrow-focused attitude was alive and well in plant genetics programs. Their students didn't have to take any evolution or ecology classes at the graduate level, so ecosystem issues and the evolution of resistance weren't part of their education, at least so far as I saw. That stuff was taught to ecologists or, more explicitly, in the plant pathology program.

You're also right that many organic crops are being produced by multinationals. They're the ones who are doing industrial agriculture version of organic, and I give them a lot of credit for realizing that they don't have to spray quite so much.

Thanks for straightening me out about Bowman vs. Monsanto. I did not realize he was deliberately selecting the roundup-ready seeds.

In general, I'm with Michael Pollan, that I'd rather see the intelligence out on the farm, rather than in the lab with "dumb" farmers doing what they're told. This isn't just a GMO issue, it's also about the erosion of rural life and systematic attempts to get bright students to go to college and get jobs in cities. While that gives them an easier life, unfortunately we need more smart, adaptable people producing food, helping get (and keep) carbon in the soil to fight climate change, and helping everyone adapt.

44:

"Thanks for straightening me out about Bowman vs. Monsanto. I did not realize he was deliberately selecting the roundup-ready seeds. "

I did not know that either, but I'm not surprised at all : when there is possibility to cheat, at least 10% of people will cheat.

For instance resistance to the BT maize gene ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_maize ) anti insect variant is spreading faster than expected, because farmers DO NOT follow the instructions : they are supposed to leave 20% of the crop non GMO aside GMO fields, so that insect resistance do not build up.

But it's always so tempting to plant all GMO and hope that your neighbour is honest and takes the economic hit for you.

45:

That's another hard-to-model constraint on an engineering process: cheating. That's actually an argument for diversified small farming, rather than monocultures: if everyone in the monoculture has to do the right thing in order for it to work, and there are cheaters, what happens? With a polyculture, you're diversifying as part of your plan, so it's harder to cheat by not diversifying.

On the other hand, polycultures are massively more labor intensive and yield less per acre of any given crop (they can yield more over all crops per acre). That's a bit of a hard tradeoff, if your goal is to maximize production per acre while minimizing labor inputs.

46:

Sigh.

This isn't what the actual argument about GMOs has ever, will ever or is ever about unless we're running Corporate Scripts.

Any comment about GMO that doesn't immediately split it into the three tiers that is the Industry Standard is 100% bullshit.

If you want to know those magic words, ask nicely.

If you want, and are able to reference actual industry internal guidelines about the three tiers, then do so.


All else is 100% bullshit, just like 30 years ago protocols about Oil and the crash.

Done with your bullshit.


~


Oh, and ffs.

Do your due diligence.

The next wave of "Chat AI" is actually a front end + AI deep learning algo (for the search) and Human input (yeah, Mechanical Turk, but more depressing as the denationalization has hit the levels where a cutesy female "AI" voice is pretending "she" did the work for you).


It's more cost effective and quicker and doesn't alienate the B/C levels of society.

~


Hmm, crushing dreams.

Teledonics and BDSM is actually mostly a pro-pron construct where MEN force women to orgasm (The KINK IS - OMG IT'S REALLY HARD AS A MAN TO MAKE A WOMAN ORGASM, ESPECIALLY INTERNALLY, HERE'S HOW YOU CAN...)

It's about as mature as your average Steel worker.


~


Any more?


Plenty.


Gawker / Buzzfeed [$500 mil revenue downgraded to $250 mil - tweet via Financial Times reporter] and the big 2.0 deflate.


Shall we try reality for a little bit?

47:

"denationalization"

Oh, cute. Thanks Clippy, you did the work for me!

No, little Miss AI.

depersonalization


The joke is that Google doesn't recognize that word, and makes it into the quoted word.


But sure...


Google / Algos really have no bias...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depersonalization

And yeah.


Google is REAL FUCKING GOOD at this trend to "un-learn" certain words.

48:

Dastardly take on the chatbot: Assume that people using such bots would probably be truthful in their requests and responses. If yes, this gives you an excellent voice analysis* benchmark for profiling. Over time, compile and sell these profiles to companies hiring, selling, or whatever. Then come out with an anti-version of this and sell to the folks being interviewed, sold to, etc. Thanks, but no thanks ... I'll pass on this bit of tech.

What exactly is this supposed to be a substitute for ... friend/lover/spouse or an external extension of oneself? A few issues if yes to any of these.

* IIRC, stress analysis can also be done on a person's 'typing' but this requires the capacity to capture the strength and speed of the typing.

49:

And, finally to answer OP's question:

No.

It only works if you have a Mind that doesn't understand Mirrors.

Mirrors are about self-delusion (HELLO MYTH: SNOW WHITE[1]) and a failure to understand Mental Comprehension / Expectation and lack of Reality Clues [sound, sight, smell, stroking, slippin dem lips].

The next Big Thing [tm] is Elite snobbery / distaste for anything but physical networking [Note: this a really fucking ancient meme all about the right parties to be invited to and so on] but cranked up to 11.


Not only can you not ever know me, you cannot know my identity nor my personal details, as long as you are rich enough and socially acceptable enough.


Anyone who doubts this missed the #1 important part of the recent off-shore hacks:

They're using "Rich kids from Imgur" [remember, remember, I linked to it for you] to identify tax dodgers.


And if you know anything about anything or anyone who is anyone...


That's the Killer Queen moment.

~


Thanks for playing.

[Oh, and the 3 tiers of GMOs - that shit is like 1998 knowledge]

[1] That's a joke. Look up your Black Hat Spooks for it.

50:

"Won't you think of the Platinum Plated Children!?"

OH, and one last thing:


EM stimulation (ask Dirk) is the next huge kink here.

I'm not saying your Apple iOs9 can make you orgasm, but it probably can.


~


And the dark side to this is that as an advertiser, I'm not looking to make you spunk / sploosh everywhere, I just need a little tingle of delight...


~


Incept date?

You're thinking 2020-30?

2007.


Zzzz.

51:

In general, with GMO crops, all the knowledge is tied up in the company and the farmer is a contract grower following directions and taking all the risk. With organic farming, the knowledge is mostly in the heads of the farmers, and they're optimizing their yield based on that knowledge, rather than following directions.

Excellent points! Thank you for your insight and examples.

If ever it gets too desperate, I'm quite sure that the existing IP laws will be quickly ignored. Especially if their enforcement leads to all of your neighbors going hungry...

On the other (or same?) hand, it's getting harder and harder for me to ignore the tremendous influence that (essentially black-box) algorithms exert over politics and our society at large.

As far as I can tell, "AI" is now primarily optimized for growing audiences, holding attention, and increasing revenue. I don't suppose it would be a terribly popular sexbot if the amount of pleasure provided was directly proportional to the number of users who have built their own learnt machines...

Even that idea has problems, such as:
Who gets to choose the initial fitness function?
How is that updated in accordance to shifting social norms??
You want a censorship function to decide between spam and eccentric/unconventional inputs -- defined by whom???

In short, I'm stumped! Hope other people have some great ideas!!

52:

Does anyone know if there's a church doing surveillance on their members yet?
Oh do grow up.
Of course they are, since churches have been doing surveillance on their members since about 35 CE ...
After all, Jean Calvin invented the police state:
"It was as if the walls of all the houses in Geneva had been turned into glass"

53:

Mirrors are about self-delusion
Not even wrong
Mirrors are about front-to-back inversion, actually.

Less bullshit, please

54:

I still laugh at this joke, but it's a bit insulting to imply that women only become pregnant as accidental byproducts of male desire.
That's part of the joke (the insult).

In My Experience, many men does not really want children until the child actually arrives, it's more like we do it because the partner wants children and we want partner to be happy. This was certainly the case for me.

Then, once the baby is there, some ancient virus code awakes and rewires the male brain.

My son wants children after my 19-year old daughter had a little "accident", who can now walk - the personality restructuring job kicks in harder with grandchildren.

I speculate that the babies themselves kicks off the desire for babies - especially in the men - so, if accidents didn't happen, men would not be re-conditioned and birth rates would fall in places who could afford the robot partners.

Japanese birth rates would not be a bad thing, globally.

The main risk with declining population is that there will be longer between the birth of another Einstein, but, if the worlds resources are shared more fairly, the Einstein born in for example Yemen would be discovered and probably even "make it".

If we stick to the current plan, the following happens:

"The North" would, in a few generations, become Machine Societies, "The South" would still be teeming with poor people trying to get in - except the automatic sentries are very efficient in preventing that.

Maybe the machines will even advertise for applicants to "Green Card Lotteries and render the "lucky" people who "win" the lottery into useful spare parts and polymers?

People are resources, after all.

Perceptions are reality.

... , so, an AI-instance would be writing social media updates on how Achmed is doing working for Siemens in Europe long after the remains of Achmed was integrated into an automated can sorting machine.

55:

Yeah, Greg, I know.

I meant "Are there any Churches surveilling their members using modern techniques, like buying databases from ISPs/cell phone companies, putting nasty Javascript on the church websites, or building datacenters to correlate the data they've gathered on their members."

Obviously churches have been surveilling their members for millenia. Duh.

56:

Yes. Try the Mormons. And possibly Scientologists, if they are enough in touch with reality.

57:

Fair enough, though evolution of resistance isn't exactly rocket science. Nobody is shocked when weeds develop resistance to roundup or pests develop resistance to BT.

There's an interesting pattern emerging in india where IP laws are laxly enforced. BT cotton was introduced (with many people shouting that it would destroy everything), there were some fluff articles about an "epidemic" of cotton farmers committing suicide. (though the rate of farmer suicides didn't actually change and was about equal with the general population)

Later a lot of crossbreeds started turning up on the grey market where farmers had taken the GM cotton plants and crossed them with the hardy traditional varieties to get insect resistance combined with the drought and weather resistance of the local crops.

It's particularly relevant since many GM crops are falling out of patent entirely in the next decade. We could see a lot of interesting crossbreeds going on sale around the world, crossing GM plants with good traits with hundreds of local varieties to get the benefits of both.

Of course pests will gradually develop resistance to the various toxins, it's not the first time it's happened and it won't be the last, the average carrot naturally has something like 40 different chemicals toxic to pests in their flesh.

The worst thing that could happen for world agriculture would be for patents to be extended forever like copyright has been.

58:

I believe that's called the:
Synthetic
Therapeutic
Environmental
Program
For
Optimal
Robotic
Devotion

59:

Warning for Hadil Benu:

Your excessively frequent posts are annoying the moderators and the guest blogger.

Limit yourself to one comment per blog entry per 24 hours, or I'll ban you until I get home. (I'm travelling, mostly AFK, and don't have time for this.)

60:

Re: 'Of course pests will gradually develop resistance to the various toxins, ...'

You mean like this?

'David Lilly at the University of Sydney has found that the outer shells, or cuticles, of these bugs are getting thicker. And bed bugs with thicker shells are highly resistant to the insecticides used to control them.'

Interesting how many different strategies creatures can come up with to handle a problem. Surprising that the manufacturers of these insecticides hadn't bothered to study this. Wonder how much this industry spent (on claimed on its tax forms) on R&D versus the university lab funding. Seems increasingly that private/for-profits are doing a much worse job of finding anything useful/of scientific value in their labs and are also uneconomic.

61:

"It never counts until the computer is hot-wiring your dopamine emitters. (*cough* Dirk *cough*)."

Since my name has been called upon...
Why not simply cut out the middle man/woman/sheep/bot and go directly for the pleasure? The use of brain stimulation tech to trigger endorphin release is a significantly under-reported dark art among brain hackers. Here's a fun article I wrote some time back:

https://medium.com/@dirk.bruere/our-vampire-future-wireheading-and-hitech-psychopaths-819b2bc95604#.2t5u16s63

62:

=======
Hint.

She carried the vote and is still denying it all.

I won the reality empirical data follow-up, but lost the Council Vote
=======

Care to link to said empirical data?

Because if memory serves, "synthetic" CP debate is far from settled, scientifically. But hey, if you have data indicating that jurisdictions where it is legal suffer higher incidence of child molestation or some other negative outcomes, that's very interesting

=======
Any comment about GMO that doesn't immediately split it into the three tiers that is the Industry Standard is 100% bullshit.

If you want to know those magic words, ask nicely.
=======

Well, I'm genuinely interested what the "three tiers" are and which industry GMO standard includes them.

Link to PDFs with relevant documentation would be greatly appreciated

63:

Ah, somebody else asked nicely for the Three Tiers. Thanks! My few minutes of Google searches turned up dry (well, a few three tier things related to GMOs but they didn't seem that important), but was embarrassed to ask.

64:

I recall reading, re. GM, that what was happening back in the late 90's and early 00's, was the progress of neo-liberalism- basically a lot of developed/ developing countries had gvt and donor sponsored plant breeding programs run to help the country's farmers.

This was usually through running low tech but effective breeding programs targeted at whatever the local problems were. Then neoliberalism hit and they were privatised or shut down, meaning a net loss in aid to local farmers in their attempts to keep producing food. At the same time the corporations started pushing their amazing fantastic GM crops that would solve all the problems anyone ever had.

So one article compared the costs of developing some disease resistant varieties the old way compared to GM way. Naturally the old way was cheaper, and importantly, as Heteromeles notes upthread, more local people were involved and knowledge conserved rather than dissipated or concentrated.

Thus I have trouble with GM crops mainly because of the neoliberal system they are part of.

65:

extemplo graciles ex aere catenas
retiaque et laqueos, quae lumina fallere possent,
elimat. non illud opus tenuissima vincant
stamina, non summo quae pendet aranea tigno;
utque levis tactus momentaque parva sequantur, efficit et lecto circumdata collocat arte.

Ovid, Metamorphoses 4.

Yes, chosen because of the thread title and Host casting a very gentle (but unbreakable) silver chain around my scaly hide and the subject at hand.

Yes, of course I deserved it.

Not my kink though (meta-joke: yes, that's the Troll-Toll kink).

~

GMOs:

The three tiers:

Temporal - within species / genus [note, there will be a lot of mistranslated jokes here. If you spot a word used wrong, it's probably an AI bot joke]. i.e. instead of cross breeding for X generations, jump to target immediately.

Chimeric - Sphinx stuff. i.e. pigs growing ape organs (new record, 2 years recently) or optoepigenetic hacks.

Abiogenesis - but not like that. Creation of new potentialities not tweaked or culled from the Darwinian soup. i.e. oil eating bacteria etc.


Listed in order of difficulty and general horror / lack of public awareness.

~


CP - not something I really want to dwell upon. Hit up INTERPOL and other sources to trace the patterns. Even #hash indexing for ISPs didn't stop the floods. All very criminal and linked to organized crime.

Let's just say that a) synthetic doesn't really exist aside from honey-pots and b) there's not a shortage of original material.

Discussions over organic demand [i.e. localized] vrs commercial demand [i.e. organized crime] are taken as understood.

If you want to source, said opponent was big on the rather dubious claim that "Observation of behavior leads to copying said behavior" in relation to Terrorism and Hijacking Planes.

Can you tell why she won yet?

~


The most interesting thing no-one's said yet:

Gender disparity in sexual excitement and hormonal, psychological and so on changes.

The Spectrum [tm] (now using this to replace all prior ham-fisted attempts to delineate gender / sexuality] all experience it differently.

Or, more crudely put: the Male Refractory Period & Feelings of Disgust.


"AI" doesn't have to be smart, it just has to know which Mind type it's dealing with, push the right buttons and then let self-delusion take hold.

66:

It's not always an either/or question.
The IRRI are also the "parent" institute for the effort to create a rice that runs on C4 photosynthesis, which has to be one of the most ambitious plant GM schemes in progress.

67:

...

"The North" would, in a few generations, become Machine Societies, "The South" would still be teeming with poor people trying to get in - except the automatic sentries are very efficient in preventing that.

Maybe the machines will even advertise for applicants to "Green Card Lotteries and render the "lucky" people who "win" the lottery into useful spare parts and polymers?

People are resources, after all.

Perceptions are reality.

... , so, an AI-instance would be writing social media updates on how Achmed is doing working for Siemens in Europe long after the remains of Achmed was integrated into an automated can sorting machine.

This seems to be stretching for reasons to remain un-hopeful. I think it's more likely that if a Machine Society* develops at all, the South will get it soon after the North (like mobile phones). Or perhaps even that the South will be liberated from toil first, since the local movers and shakers in the Global South have few incentives to please transnational entities built on intellectual property. Rather similar to how lower-middle-class Indians have more affordable access to patented drugs than lower-middle-class Americans do -- the American legislator has to compromise between pleasing many individuals and angering a few rich ones, whereas his Indian counterpart isn't tempted to support Pfizer's preferences in the first place**. The North still has some leverage over the South via the carrot of export driven development, e.g. the joy of your people working in garment sweatshops until wages reach a modest level and then multinationals look for somewhere even cheaper. But if robots do everything, garment-robots are going to outcompete even the worst-paid humans. The North will have no need for the labor of the South and the South will lose its limited tolerance for the sorts of intellectual property laws desired by the North.

Once machines make everything, great, Vietnam's going to import a handful of each (to serve as examples, if they can't just use reverse engineered blueprints already uploaded by hobbyists) and a few years later have thousands of replicas, patents and copyrights be damned. If in the future a leader in the Global South can make himself and his whole country materially better off with a bit of Promethean boldness, what do the rich Northerners shouting "thief!" at his back have to offer except a return to fetters?

*Meaning, all day-to-day directly productive labor can be done by machines. This includes providing food, housing, medical care, energy, and manufactured goods -- including other maker-machines. Even if machines cannot take over other kinds of labor (like teaching, high level direction of scientific research, authorship of new stories...), the effects would be nearly as transformative.

**The Indian counterpart can be compromised by things that are big money in India, of course -- e.g. supporting wealthy sugarcane farmers even as they destroy the water table -- but he's not tempted with the same incentives that lead to the patent and copyright norms that have developed in Europe and North America.

68:

Sorry for replying to myself here, but I think that I may have actually come up with a partial-solution to getting around the "selection bias" currently in play...

Only "man on the street" interviews could possibly hope to fix this problem, but a number of other issues still remain.

I wouldn't be the first to say, pen/pencil & paper, but how could anyone ever trust the studies based on voluntary / self-reported responses?

The "AI" that will inevitably prove to be more effective will have had the greatest number of diverse human-to-human interactions to study. Internet-based chatbots, (no matter which websites they source) will always ignore those who can't / choose not to use these networks.

69:

Why not just bypass the foreplay and become a wirehead ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirehead_(science_fiction) )? Hardly a new idea.

70:

It's certainly not a new idea, but what is new is the technology to do it non-invasively.

71:

I'm not quite sure what your point is about bedbugs.

The bedbugs are now spending more energy defending themselves from insecticides, the same would be true of any intervention to reduce bedbugs.

If we dealt with them by releasing some bedbug eating insect then they'd evolve better defenses against that.

If we killed them with heating they'd gradually evolve heat resistance.

If we went after them by sticking bedding in low pressure containers they'd evolve resistance to that.

What, exactly, do you expect the R&D labs to do? people are coming up with new insecticides and other approaches but perfect silver bullets are rare.

Any non-perfect approach to killing a pest will eventually lead to resistance.

72:

What, exactly, do you expect the R&D labs to do? people are coming up with new insecticides and other approaches but perfect silver bullets are rare.

Antimatter.

73:

Robotic bug-smusher?

74:

An insect sized robotic bug smusher capable of extracting energy from the environment and reproducing itself. It would keep bed bugs down permanently.

Do you think human blood would be an acceptable energy source?

75:

And which standard establishes that particular stratification?

I mean, I have no problem with it per se, but you said it's part of a standard, and that implies a formal status in the industry and thus an existing document that outlines the standard.

(also, I don't see how abiogenesis is more horrible than, say, chimeric stuff, but then again I consider GM in general "cool" not "scary". Abiogenesis sounds downright sexy tho)

============================

As to CP, if I understand your argument, there is data suggesting that synthetic (drawn, toon, CGI, etc.) CP is harmful in terms of some large-scale social effects (like, increasing the offense rates or whatever).

I would like to know if there is a source on that.

There are jurisdictions where synthetic CP is legal, and there are jurisdictions that relatively recently criminalized some forms of it (like, say USA PROTECT Act of 2003 criminalizing "sufficiently realistic" CGI CP) so clearly if there is any negative effect of allowing synthetic CP on overall incidence of sexual crimes against children (and thus a positive effect of banning it), there are enough opportunities for relevant naturalistic observations.

You imply that such observations were made and such data exists, but instead of citing a source just told me to chat up interpol.

That is highly unfortunate, because I can't seriously accept "lol google" and "lol call interpol" as citation.

I am genuinely and kindly interested in seeing a source.

76:

24hrs is up, I get a post.

Note: unlike most, I actually find the silver chains comforting.

There's a meta-lesson here about Geopolitical Games and High Finance, but hey.


~

I mean, I have no problem with it per se, but you said it's part of a standard, and that implies a formal status in the industry and thus an existing document that outlines the standard.


You've walked into three errors already:

#1 Capital determines Science, not vice versa. It is literally the case that if you're doing this type of stuff you'll be lucky (if ever) if the $ understands it.

Joke #1: Temporal, Chimeric, Abo....

Thought: would a scientist doing the work categorize this like this?

Does the industry?

Pay-off: There's a rather larger joke being made. [Category Errors]

~

As to CP, if I understand your argument, there is data suggesting that synthetic (drawn, toon, CGI, etc.) CP is harmful in terms of some large-scale social effects (like, increasing the offense rates or whatever).

Nope, you totally misunderstood what was being said.


Three things:

#1 If you're not In-Country, knowledgeable to instantly understand who I'm talking about, well.. you're not in the Game.

#2 None of those things you cited are actually about CP. AT ALL - there's a MAN who is ignorant as fuck.

"Synthetic CP" is never legal if it includes a representation or mosaic / chimeric prior data and in all legislature branches, photo-realistic image creation is still illegal.

#3 Bored now, obvious fuckwit is obvious.

~

If you want a source, I'd think very carefully about what you are actually wanting.

Now, I could just give you some .PDF links.

Or, I could, as your little tinky-winky threats try to do, inject into your subconscious the entire experience.

Or, you know: any cunt with an IQ of 110 could cross-reference Clinton / Plane Hijacking / Leading Soc/Pol researcher / Planes and Terrorism.

You didn't 'cause you're an idiot.


~


But yeah.

My version is a little bit more dramatic.


p.s.

I know who and what you are little Man.

I prefer this version: all the hairs on your balls go white and dead as they make sure you can't breed.

Nah. Fuck it.


If you don't immediately understand the joke about Ares - Aphrodite and bronze (*cough* copper networks *cough*).

Them. Meh.


p.s.


Dude. You're a man. You're also linked to a lot of things I don't like.

You're also not very intelligent.

This is not a good thing to do.

Playing for your Soul, Blood and Life-span.

~

Now, if you reply, you've signed the dotted line and got my attention.

77:

=========
#1 Capital determines Science, not vice versa. It is literally the case that if you're doing this type of stuff you'll be lucky (if ever) if the $ understands it.

Joke #1: Temporal, Chimeric, Abo....

Thought: would a scientist doing the work categorize this like this?

Does the industry?

Pay-off: There's a rather larger joke being made. [Category Errors]
=========
=========

So, long story short, everything you said about it being a "standard" is bullshit and it's something you've come up with on your own, and decided to add a little "gravitas" by calling it an internal standard?

Not really expecting to see a link to a proper document for this "standard" anymore (but would be like to be proven wrong and read a fascinating official document! :) )

=========
Nope, you totally misunderstood what was being said.
=========
=========

Oh, then care to explain this passage of yours:

(fullquote:The most recent (and yes, Hugh, you opened this can of LOLI worms) was about 20 years ago, arguing over whether or not *computer generated* child pornography was a solution to a biological issue.

My "opponent" is a very very famous woman who has taught POL/SCI and mentored USA Presidents.

Her position was: "We do this, we can solve the problem".

My position was: "What's the cost? Given the wall just fell, the real thing is both cheaper and more viscerally appealing".)

Methinks you pretty strongly imply (scratch that, you almost blatantly state) that "simulated"/"virtual"/"synthetic" child pornography will have some unfavorable "wall just fell" larger-scale effect.

What I would like to know is if there is any "in vivo" data proving that easy and legal availability of "simulated"/"virtual"/"synthetic" child porn has significant negative effects.

You seem suspiciously avoidant of this simple question

=========
#1 If you're not In-Country, knowledgeable to instantly understand who I'm talking about, well.. you're not in the Game.
=========
=========

So I see making precise, concrete statements is not your forte, and when asked to clarify you choose to engage in "this was inside-football for inhabitants of country X" style misdirection.

Does not bode well for taking anything you say seriously.

=========
#2 None of those things you cited are actually about CP.
=========
=========

Are you saying that PROTECT ACT did not have, as one of its goals, strengthening of prohibition against "synthetic"/"virtual" child pornography ?

That's... an interesting position, given that it is even in the fact sheet for PROTECT ACT

=========
#3 Bored now, obvious fuckwit is obvious.
=========
=========

I have made two polite and entirely reasonable requests for proof of your claims.

You have chosen to be rude instead of providing links to relevant documents.

Sad.

=========
Dude. You're a man. You're also linked to a lot of things I don't like.
=========
=========

everyone you disagree with on the internet is a man: a novel debating strategy

For better or worse, I'm not a man, but at this point I hope, sincerely, that I am indeed linked to many things you don't like, and wish to increase both number and strength of those links :)

=========
This is not a good thing to do.

Playing for your Soul, Blood and Life-span.
=========
=========

What makes you think I have a soul? It sounds useless :)

=========
Now, if you reply, you've signed the dotted line and got my attention.
=========
=========

OMG, such threat, very subtle, so scary, wow wow wow

Do your worst, pseudonymous person on the internet

78:

Do your worst, pseudonymous person on the internet

I have this theory that it's actually a search/chat bot loosely guided by a human. Whether that is true or not, it certainly makes the entities texts better digestible.

79:

If we killed them with heating they'd gradually evolve heat resistance.

Not actually true: biochemistry is somewhat path-dependent, and in particular it's really hard to jack up the highest temperature at which a given enzyme remains stable without being denatured as all the hydrogen bonds and Van der Waals forces that hold its tertiary structure in place are shaken apart. There seems to be a hard limit somewhere below 100 celsius, and for pretty much any organism above the level of archaea or prokaryotes it's something below 70 celsius.

Hint: there's a reason why boiling an egg turns the egg white opaque, and why running too high a fever kills you.

80:

Human blood is a terrible energy source, unless you're sucking on an uncontrolled diabetic.

82:

=========
I have this theory that it's actually a search/chat bot loosely guided by a human. Whether that is true or not, it certainly makes the entities texts better digestible.
=========
=========

Maybe.
Or maybe just a sad case of mismanaged psychiatric disorder (which would be sad indeed).

Anyway, I love it when I politely ask for sources, and the interlocutor gets pissed off and implicitly accuses me of making "tinky-winky threats" that allegedly try to "inject" some "experience" in some alleged "subconscious" (or something to that effect).

Bot or no bot, the entity sure is unable to link to actual documents (be they words, PDFs, or plain old boring html)

83:

That would make a GREAT coffee mug.

84:

Sigh.

This really hurts, because I'm being bound by a 24 hr chain and this response is under it. Just. An hour or tow.

~

The simple issue is this.

Grab hold of Host's entire DB of his blog.

Then parse the links.

Now, apart from Host himself, in the last year, one name will stand out in your data set for:

#1 Links - the highest # / % of links to .pdfs
#2 Dense links (this means: equiv to # in Journals etc - basic stuff)
#3 Telling you shit that's about to go down.


I don't even have to try:

Alien ‘Wow!’ signal could be explained after almost 40 years Guardian, April 14th, 2016 - note: he's wrong, but he's getting closer to a real answer.


Greg: #1 rule of sock-puppeting.

You need to have Empathy and understand how things work.


p.s.

You got Ovid in there.

Hint:

Ares [war] and Aphrodite [Love / sex] bound by a Copper Web [Intarnet] by Hephaestus [Host].


If you can't even parse the obvious, you're really not understanding the numinous.

Now I have to go deal with pathetic little gremlins that your mind created who are attempting to leverage real child abuse and domination into some kind of power.

Hint:

They lose.

85:

How do you know that "he's wrong"?

87:

=========
The simple issue is this.

Grab hold of Host's entire DB of his blog.

Then parse the links.

Now, apart from Host himself, in the last year, one name will stand out in your data set for:

#1 Links - the highest # / % of links to .pdfs
#2 Dense links (this means: equiv to # in Journals etc - basic stuff)
#3 Telling you shit that's about to go down
=========
=========

Are you trying to imply you have lots of "them sources"?

Why don't you just provide them?

let's recap

I politely asked for the following:

1) an official document that demonstrates that the "three tiers of GMO" thing of yours is indeed an "industry" "standard"

2) some source backing your claim of negative and, as you put it, "wall just fell" effects arising from legal availability of "simulated"/"virtual"/"synthetic" child pornography

Polite, entirely reasonable requests.

You have chosen to fling insults and vomit weird purple prose about "subconscious" and "soul"

thus it appears quite likely (though, of course, not 100% certain :) ) that the entire "three tiers as GMO industry standard" thing of yours was a lie, and your claims about "synthetic" CP are also entirely unsubstantiated

Come on now, link them sources. Especially the three-tier one, I'd like to read some official, industry standard defining documents today.

=========
I don't even have to try:

Alien ‘Wow!’ signal could be explained after almost 40 years Guardian, April 14th, 2016 - note: he's wrong, but he's getting closer to a real answer.


Greg: #1 rule of sock-puppeting.

You need to have Empathy and understand how things work.
=========
=========

Implications of sockpuppeting don't make your case any stronger.

Linking to articles on a different subject don't make your case any stronger.

Only linking to
1) official document establishing your "three-tier GMO" shenanigan as industry standard
2) research demonstrating "in-vivo" (that is, not lab psych experiment setting :) ) negative "wall just fell" effects arising from legal availability of "simulated"/"virtual"/"synthetic" child pornography
can make your case stronger

=========
Ares [war] and Aphrodite [Love / sex] bound by a Copper Web [Intarnet] by Hephaestus [Host].


If you can't even parse the obvious, you're really not understanding the numinous.
=========
=========

numinous: "having a mysterious, holy, or spiritual quality"
(courtesy of http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/numinous )

So, I see you're now bringing sky-fairy related fantasies and "mysteries of the spiritual" malarkey into this?

Well, given you've already spouted purple prose about alleged "subconscious", I shouldn't be surprised by such turn of discussion.

I have already informed you that I do not have a soul and am not interested in having one.
Thus I am not interested in "holy" and "spiritual" aspects of this discussion.

I am interested in official documents establishing your alleged "industry standard" and published research on alleged "wall-falling" negative impacts of simulated/virtual/synthetic CP imagery.

Which you have, so far, failed to provide.

Purple prose about subconscious, "numinous", "Soul, Blood and Life-span" is not an adequate substitute for aforementioned sources.

=========
Now I have to go deal with pathetic little gremlins that your mind created who are attempting to leverage real child abuse and domination into some kind of power.
=========
=========

Well, it isn't often that I am accused of spawning some ghostly mind-gremlins. That would be cool if true (how much would I have given to have the power to spawn ghostly monstrous mind-gremlins!)

Perhaps, instead of fighting imaginary mind-gremlins, you should just, you know, post links to official standard-defining documents and academic research regarding "in vivo" large-scale synthetic/virtual child-porn effects,

88:

"I have already informed you that I do not have a soul and am not interested in having one."

Of course you have a soul. It's your total lifespan information content.

89:

=========
How do you know that "he's wrong"?
=========
=========

Plot twist:
Hadil Benu is a crazy extraterrestrial intelligence that arrived via a radio signal

Like in that goofy movie about alien robots eating up a Russian research ship (Can't recall the name of the movie...)

90:

How do you know that "he's wrong"?
Good, you're asking the right question.


91:

2) some source backing your claim of negative and, as you put it, "wall just fell" effects arising from legal availability of "simulated"/"virtual"/"synthetic" child pornography

Every time I start to think I understand HB posts it only seems to last a short while, but...

I think I actually understand the context here. HB is saying that 20 years ago there was a debate where someone was saying that synthetic CP could drive out the real sort. HB's counter-argument was not that synthetic CP was a disaster in itself but that since the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc had just collapsed, exploitation of real children was probably getting even easier/cheaper and would continue to out-compete synthetic imitations. I presume that "the wall just fell" was shorthand for the Berlin Wall falling, and the subsequent disintegration of the USSR and allied Communist systems. The timing's a bit off since the wall fell in 1989. But as synecdoche the phrase makes sense, especially since it took until the later 1990s for the statistics to make certain that the end of Communism meant economic collapse and misery for inhabitants of those countries, instead of the supercharged Westernization-plus-growth briefly dreamed of by some observers of the Communist collapse.

92:

Curiously, I've heard that classification of GMO technologies, but only in the context of biological warfare. Both I and the other person (with U.S. security clearance/briefings) were drunk and he was trying to be coy, and probably not directly violating rules.



93:

========
think I actually understand the context here. HB is saying that 20 years ago there was a debate where someone was saying that synthetic CP could drive out the real sort. HB's counter-argument was not that synthetic CP was a disaster in itself but that since the former Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc had just collapsed, exploitation of real children was probably getting even easier/cheaper and would continue to out-compete synthetic imitations.
========
========

A plausible interpretation, but even if true, I think it would be worthwhile to inquire whether scientific research backing that position exist.
It should, because investigating relative economic competitiveness of different forms of CP appears way easier than investigating "weird alleged social effects of synthetic CP".

I mean, it certainly is possible to estimate production costs for toons/cgi/whatev-of-that-kinds can be estimated.

It is also possible, though with larger error margins, to estimate production costs of "real thing" in some poor post-soviet country (accounting for security costs, local LEA involvement (bribes cost money!) and losses from competition between rivaling criminal structure, of course)

After that it should be possible to model losses from "illegality" of real thing (assuming "synthetic" is decriminalized) and demonstrate (perhaps with some caveats) whether "natural product" retains competitiveness.

Surely there must have been research that demonstrates this, otherwise our friend would not have been making this argument ("this" being the interpretation you suggested, for the purpose of this post) in a serious forum involving a serious politician, right :-)?

94:

Besides, even if it happened once, that doesn't mean it's inevitable. They've been automating professions since forever, maybe they can automate prostitution and pornography, who knows?

95:

Look, two things:

#1 You're not as smart as you think. #91/2 are both correct.

#2 You haven't earned the rights or coin to what you're demanding

#3 We know exactly what you're doing with your timed responses just under the 24 hr silver chain aegis I'm under - it's an old tactic, I think it's called "Bull Baiting" now?


~

Bottom line:


All things are Love.

You've no Soul (allegedly) so you're not willing to dance the dance of the dragonflies and enter into a reciprocal relationship (hint: even Greg does, even if it's spiky).

You offer nothing but rhetoric.

Thus you have no coin (in the mouth, not the eyes, to the land of the dead).


Oh, and you have to be a serious dumb-ass not to know exactly who I'm talking about regarding "Plane hijacking" and "Clinton administration".

96:

And, more to the point, as I keep on saying, to the state where it's boring & repetitive ...
Why can't "she" say so straight out, rather than talking in alcehmical gobbledeygook mis-speak?
Probably, because, as we've found several time, once you actually have drilled down to a concrete meaning, then "she" really is talking utter bollocks.
See also my next direct reply to HB "herself"

97:

You're not as smart as you think
Tu Quoque
You offer nothing but rhetoric.
Tu Quoque

Oh, and you have to be a serious dumb-ass not to know exactly who I'm talking about .....
No WE FUCKING DON'T, because you will insist in talking in obscure riddles, that often have no meaning at all.

98:

==============
Look, two things:

#1 You're not as smart as you think. #91/2 are both correct.
==============
==============

Oh, broseph, you're grasping at straws here.

#91 being correct does not absolve you of the need to back your claim about CP with scientific evidence.

Even if your point was "merely" about relative economic competitiveness, one has no reason to accept it on faith.

Surely, you have a nice list of literature examining relative economic efficiency of both "natural" and "synthetic" child porn.
Surely, your opinion is grounded in said research.

So why don't you post the links to aforementioned research here?


#92 being correct is completely irrelevant.
Bill knew a guy. I knew guys too :)

You on the other hand, claim existence of an "industry" "standard"

It is entirely reasonable to ask you for documents establishing said standard.

So why don't you link to said standard-establishing documents?

==============
#2 You haven't earned the rights or coin to what you're demanding
==============
==============

Oh, broseph, nobody needs a special "right", let alone "coin", to inquire whether interlocutor can back claims about empirical reality with scientific evidence.

nobody needs a special "right", let alone "coin", to inquire whether interlocutor can back claims about an alleged "industry" "standard"

==============
#3 We know exactly what you're doing with your timed responses just under the 24 hr silver chain aegis I'm under - it's an old tactic, I think it's called "Bull Baiting" now?
==============
==============

Nothing obliges you to reply immediately, or for that matter at all, given that you've been pretty much exposed as a liar at this point, bronatello.

==============
All things are Love.

You've no Soul (allegedly) so you're not willing to dance the dance of the dragonflies and enter into a reciprocal relationship (hint: even Greg does, even if it's spiky).
==============
==============

Purple prose malarkey, now with additional dragonfly bullshit.

==============
You offer nothing but rhetoric.
==============
==============

Rhetoric?

Bro, stop misrepresenting.

All I did was ask for sources.

You responded with insults and preposterous purple prose about souls, "mind gremlins", and dancing dragonfly nonsense.

One can thus conclude, with near-total confidence, that:

1) you have no standard-defining documents to link to, and your claims about "industry" "standard" in GMO are without merit

2) you have no scientific evidence of harms of "synthetic" CP, so if your claims are to be interpreted as "harm claims", they are without merit

3) you have no scientific evidence of relative economic viability of "decriminalized synthetic" versus "natural" CP, so if your claims are to be interpreted as "relative economic viability claims", they are without merit.

Feel free to respond with more nonsensical insinuations about "mind gremlins", implications of vast supernatural powers being at work, and postmortem dragonfly experiences.

99:

That's factually incorrect.

One of the first thing covered in bio lab tutorials was why it's so damned hard to kill everything properly.

You can boil water all week in a sealed container at 100 degrees Celsius but if you then culture it you'll still get things growing. You cannot sterilize just by boiling at seal level. They mostly don't survive while active but rather produce very very heat resistant spores.

To properly kill everything you need to autoclave(think big pressure cooker) things at at least 130 degrees Celsius for at least 5 minutes, ideally a bit more.

If you're working with thermophiles then even that isn't good enough. There are known thermophiles which have been shown to not only survive but actually live and increase their population while inside an autoclave held at 121°C (worrying since that's the official minimum temperature for sterilizing medical equipment)

There's some evidence of microorganisms around hydro thermal vents surviving temperatures of ~200°C

For insects and similar it's tougher to increase the temperatures they can survive but heat-shock proteins and various other tricks can push up the limits gradually.

Much like with radiation, if you spent enough generations exposing a large population to just barely survivable temperatures then you could probably push it very very high.

100:

The upside is that if their metabolic pathways have been modified enough to be able to cope with such conditions, they are probably no longer optimised for 'normal' conditions. They won't be dying at 30C, but I'd expect them to grow more slowly.

101:

Additional: while we've not yet found any eukaryotes which can survive much above 70°C we keep finding eukaryotes in the deepest mines where temperatures are around 50 to 60°C and I wouldn't be surprised if they keep going far far deeper.

I'm not saying evolving to resist extreme temperatures would be fast but there's no rule against it if we select strongly enough for it for long enough. If something has to only survive, not thrive then expect eggs which are mostly heat-shock proteins wrapped around all the other proteins to prevent them from denaturing like the egg you mentioned.

102:

Finally you're posting sources.

It is good, progress is being made.

Now we can go through the fine papers you provided and see if your sources back your claims well.

===========
In October 1989, Dr. Vladimir Pasechnik, the first primary source from inside the Soviet program, defected to England.7 A top Soviet microbiologist and Director of the Institute for Ultra Pure Biological Preparations in Biopreparat, he described the extensive organization of biological research a
nd production facilities in the program...

Also in 1997, a group of academic scientists met to discuss “the threat posed by the development and use of biological agents.” This JASON84 Group provides technical advice to the U.S. government and “facilitates the contributions of scientists to problems of national security and public benefit.” Their meeting concentrated on the near-term future threat of biological warfare, specifically on genetically engineered pathogens and weapons.

The JASON Group tha met in 1997 grouped potential genetically engineered pathogens into six broad groups of potential futuristic threats.


NEXT GENERATION BIOWEAPONS: THE TECHNOLOGY OF GENETIC ENGINEERING
APPLIED TO BIOWARFARE AND BIOTERRORIS PDF USAF Counterproliferation Center

and

Bioweapons, bioterrorism and biodiversity: potential impacts of biological weapons attacks on agricultural and biological diversity Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, 1999-2001


You should find the word biopreparat and the do your own research.

Who ever suggested that the three tiers were Western definitions?
===========
===========

Of the two documents provided

1) neither reproduces your "classification" completely faithfully (hell, one of them explicitly chooses to classify its highly hypothetical "futuristic bioweapon" threats into six groups, so much for three tiers)

2) neither is an "industry" standard defining document in any sense of the words "industry" or "standard"

So while providing interesting documents is most certainly appreciated, you have yet to attach your claims to any particular officially existing "industry" standard in any part of the world.

===========
AGAINST ORGANIZED CRIME: INTERPOL TRAFFICKING AND OUNTERFEITING CASEBOOK 2014 Word file, opens up immediately.
===========
===========

Actually, doesn't open up at all (404 error, saving in webcite and archiveis for illustration purposes http://www.webcitation.org/6grKTdSxC http://archive.is/h3wX7)

===========
The Globalization of Crime
A Transnational Organized Crime Threat Assessment PDF UNODC TOCTA report
===========
===========

Does not contain "in vivo" evidence of "synthetic" child porn being somehow dangerous and increasing incidence of negative child outcomes.

Does not contain evidence of "synthetic" child porn being economically noncompetitive with "natural" ones under conditions of decrim for "synthetic" specimens.

===========
Child abuse material and the Internet: Cyberpsychology of online child related sex offending Interpol, 2011
===========
===========

Yet another link that fails to load
http://www.webcitation.org/6grKQxHRd
http://archive.is/j8QZv

This failure to load is becoming an odd trend with these links of yours. This trend is saddening.

===========
Cyber crime: A review of the evidence
Research Report 75 Chapter 3: Cyber-enabled crimes
- sexual offending against children PDF - UK GOV 2013
===========
===========

This is the closest you come to actually backing the "harm" interpretation of your claim, so credit where credit is due.

However, given that UK still sticks to the absurd "conducive context" model of (alleged) media influence, one should tread carefully with this kind of sources.

The source in question, at most, establishes that CP (including "artificial/toon" child porn) can be used in grooming.

It does not establish that legal availability of synthetic CP would [increase] incidence of grooming attempts - or any other kind of offense - in a live population.

It is entirely possible that synthetic CP will follow "adult legal porn" phenomenon in that, despite literally decades of Malamuthian bullshit "experimental evidence" of porn harms and megabytes of neopuritanic speculation about conducive context, actual IRL massive availability and decriminalization will not coincide with negative "in-vivo" effects in actual population (do note that availability and legality of violent "adult" pornography just so happens to correlate with reduction in all kinds of sexual crime, to the infinite gnashing of "conducive context" proponent's teeth)

No evidence as to economical competitiveness here tho, alas.

Methinks much better, in-vivo studies are needed to answer both the economic and "alleged harm" interpretation of your claims.

Because frankly, if we have allowed ourselves to succumb to Malamuthian media-influence paranoia with regards to "adult" pornography, we would have destroyed a viable industry for literally no social gain.

===========
Hint: learn to use your thinking caps. Any fool could research who was on the advisory councils to the US gov on these topics in 1995-2000, whittle down those who weren't men and then check which ones left had academic careers in Political Science.
===========
===========

If what you want to imply is that you're an expert in the field, then nobody cares and nobody should care.

Your arguments should stand on their own merits, and not be propped up by allegations regarding your CV.

P.S.:

But anyway, I'm glad we're having this discussion as civilized people, without insults and nonsensical mystic references.

103:

=============
I'd post PDFs in Russian at this point, but it'd be a bit cruel.
=============
=============

Hey, please do - but do remember that Soviet Union does not exist anymore, and GOSTs that may have applied to biological research and/or production carried out therein are of no relevance anymore

=============
Revisiting the Contagion Hypothesis: Terrorism, News Coverage, and Copycat Attacks TRI, 2009
=============
=============

Oh, contagion hypothesis, that's an old one.
And in this particular case, completely irrelevant since the source is dealing with an entirely different field of human activity.

You kind of remind me of a Meghan Murphy fan who once tried to prove the "harmful effects of consensual BDSM spreading out of bedroom" by citing a source on Palestinean political activism.

Won't fly, bro.

P.S.:
But, once again, it's good to see you citing anything at all.

104:

============
Sorry, nope.

You didn't read any of that material in your 5 minute response time.
============
============

41 minute, per posting time. ~2-3 minutes to write the post.

Again, you make misleading claims (maximally charitable interpretation)

============
The arctic research paper has a nice Venn diagram in it.

Venn diagrams are tri-partite things (usually).

This is the key to the Russian stuff.
============
============

So your readers must use six-type classification and a venn diagram to locate and decipher an alleged Russian source that allegedly established a Russian industry standard for Russian (presumably militarized :-) ) GMO?

Sorry, won't fly, bro.

At best, you've made a clever original classification that would have stood decently on its own, and decided to add gravitas to it by claiming it's an "industry" standard.

Now, querried about document establishing said standard, you make obtuse claims that it's an "industry" "standard" from a "sekkrit GMO bioweapoon" program that was ran by a nation-state that no longer exists.

Sorry, that's 9/11 truther stuff, broseph.

============
Contagion Theory - I suggest you look up who developed the theory in reference to Palestinian terrorism, specifically plane hijacking, then work forward to their papers on CP in... the 1990-2005 period.

You'll spot that they made exactly the case I suggested I was against.
============
============

And how would that server to back your claims (whether the "synthetic child pron harms" or "synthetic child pron is noncompetitive economically in post-soviet era" interpretation?)

Your riddles are getting desperate, bro.

============
But, here's the rub:

Obol in the Mouth, you've not earned the right to challenge the Sybil.


Produce something interesting of your own, specifically tying into OP's Markov Chain / Sex and we might allow you to understand a bit more.
============
============

Aaaaaaand we're back to the dragonfly-shmagonfly playing-for-soul mind-gremlin purple prose nonsense.

Didn't take long. Work on your stamina.

============
Bored now.
============
============

So bored you multi-posted :^) ?

105:

Lupus or Lupis?

There's a joke there too.

Javanese sweet pudding.

~


Java and Dragonfly Dragonfly BSD Digest

106:

Administrative note for Hadil Benu

Posting ten plus comments in an hour just earned you a red card and a one-week ban from the blog.

Don't. Do. It. Again.

107:

Oh, swell, a full PDF, thankety-thanks.

First thing of notice - the authors don't really make the distinction between "artificial" and "natural" child pron in the study proper, so results can not be used to back your claims regarding alleged "harms" of "artificial" child pron (as well as its "economic viability)

However, there's the following moment of pure greatness in the Discussion section

Quoth the fulltext:
"Issues surrounding child pornography and child sex abuse are probably among the most contentious in the area of sex issues and crime. In this regard we consider instructive our findings for the Czech Republic that have echoed those found in Denmark (Kutchinsky, 1973) and Japan (Diamond&Uchiyama, 1999) that where so-called child-pornography was readily available without restriction the incidence of child sexual abuse was lower than when its availability was restricted. As with adult pornography appearing to substitute for sexual aggression everywhere it has been investigated, we believe the availability of child porn does similarly. We believe this particularly since the findings of Weiss (2002) have shown that a substantial portion of child sex abuse instances seemed to occur, not because of pedophilic interest of the abuser, but because the child was used as a substitute subject. We do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography but artificially produced materials might serve. As it is, with restrictions on even materials for the scientific study of the phenomenon forbidden to all but police enforcement agencies, these real life studies are the only way to begin to understand the phenomenon."

So authors do appear to believe that "synthetic/artificial" child pornography, if legalized, would be beneficial (in terms of reducing actual abuse)

This does not appear to back either the "synthetic child porn is HARMFUL" or "synthetic child porn will just lose out to natural one economically" interpretation of your claims, and in fact opposes both interpretations.

So....thank you!

Thank you for adding a source to my "in favor of legalizing all adult porn and even synthetic/artificial child porn" source collection.

Your help is sincerely appreciated

P.S.:
As a gesture of courtesy for expanding my pro-porn, anti-media-effect-peril collection, I won't even mock that truckload of weird dragonfly/folklore doohickey you posted :-)

108:

Dear sir!

could you please return Benu's comment where he links this article:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/49644341_Pornography_and_Sex_Crimes_in_the_Czech_Republic

It's a good article and it deserves attention, and it's extra-good because Benu posted it

109:

Nope, not going to do that for at least 2-3 days.

If you want to discuss why the article is of interest, you're welcome to do so -- but HB (who gender-identifies as female) is not going to be allowed back in the comments for a week after that last comment-storm she posted.

110:

Okay :(

Then just noting for the record that Benu tried to use the aforelinked article as a source backing her insinuations that synthetic/artificial CP is harmful (and/or, according to alternate interpretation, noncompetitive versus real one)

However, the authors (as quoted in my comment above) explicitly claim that they believe synthetic/artificial CP would be, if legalized, beneficial and would induce a reduction in incidence of child abuse.

P.S.:
I guess I should once again sincerely thank Hadil Benu for expanding my anti-perils-of-media-effects, pro-legalization-of-pornography(including synthetic CP) source collection.

So here goes: Thank you once again Hadil Benu :)

111:

Not an expert in the field, but now that the fireworks seem to be over, would like to suggest that a plausible hypothesis regarding the somewhat contradictory findings in mainstream research on the effects of pornography on rates of violent sexual crimes might be explained somewhat if there are more than one type of porn user: a larger group for whom it acts as a type of catharsis, reducing the risk of violent behavior, and a smaller group of users for whom it increases the risk. Interesting implications for the social effects of widely available advanced GAI sexbots.

Pure speculation on my part, however.

112:

Would you please post some of the links that got eaten after you bated HB into a temporary ban? In particular the GMO/Bioweapons material. I reconstructed some of pdf links from titles/text; have 2 bioweapons pdfs and 5 cp/etc pdfs.

Also, FWIW, the response format you use is visually jaring (and irritatingly combative, but that's been your style here). e.g. please use italics when quoting.

113:

That seems to be all (actually, two INTERPOL links were dead as posted, which I reflected in webcite and archiveis)

She also linked a bunch of utterly irrelevant stuff about Russia banning GMO and this somehow allegedly propping up the "three tier" "standard" (somehow...)

and "media contagions" in Palestinean terrorists (which is utterly not relevant to subject at hand, but you can find it here)

I'll avoid the "===+italics" format if most people find it upsetting, though IMHO it nicely delineates where the quote ends and response begins.
Might also try out

"the
blockquote
tag"

I must, however, take a degree of offense at your characterization of my conduct.

I have not, at any point, intended to "bait" anyone.

And I find it peculiar that politely asking for sources, and then becoming mildly snarky when said request is met with elision, misgendering and insults, is something you see as "combative".

Methinks that 1) parroting anti-porn/sex-neg talking points ("Teledonics and BDSM is actually mostly a pro-pron construct"), 2) failing to properly source (highly dubious) claims about "industry standard", and 3) citing a bunch of low-relevance sources as backing for her "simulated CP harms OR is economically nonviable claim" (while comically enough, citing a single high-relevance source that explicitly and utterly goes against any interpretation of her claims) does warrant a bit of a ribbing.

And that's even before we get to the part where she misgendered me and called me a fuckwit while at the same time spouting obscurantist "play for your soul/mind-gremlins" nonsense :)

114:
"Not an expert in the field, but now that the fireworks seem to be over, would like to suggest that a plausible hypothesis regarding the somewhat contradictory findings in mainstream research on the effects of pornography on rates of violent sexual crimes might be explained somewhat if there are more than one type of porn user:

a larger group for whom it acts as a type of catharsis, reducing the risk of violent behavior, and a smaller group of users for whom it increases the risk. Interesting implications for the social effects of widely available advanced GAI sexbots."

It's actually a very common hypothesis, I think Malamuth himself currently subscribes to a version of it.

It's basically "The Amazing Disappearing Susceptible Population of The Gaps"

The peculiar property of such finding is that it appears that these mysterious susceptible McEviltons don't seem to crop up all that much "in vivo" and are a purely laboratory artifact usually arising in experiments of people who have hinged their careers on sex-neg/porn-bashing stuff throughout mid- and late- 20th century.

Of course, it could just so happen that this kind of person is most likely to volunteer for experiments (maybe they REALLY need extra course credit or whatev) and their peculiar condition just so happens to strongly correlate with traits that prevent them from being effective offenders (prone to self-isolation or something)

It could just so happen that short term increase in "unfavorable behaviors and/or ideations", when repeated regularly over a long time (due to repeated porn exposures) actually causes a long-term suppression of sexualized aggression or improvement in capability to control it and express it in a risk-averse manner (rubbing it out while watching pornhub is way more risk-averse than actually carrying out a rape, be it a stranger-rape or an acquaintance-rape)
It could even plausiblish-ly happen via the same neurobiochemistry that causes long-term (near-permanent) alterations of neurotransmitter receptor populations in some antidepressant users.

Or, you know, the "The Amazing Disappearing Susceptible Population of The Gaps" is just a made-up thing that does not exist, just a methodological artifact that just so happens to occur in experiments run by people who have devoted their entire career to bashing porn and/or trumping up "media perils"

Whatever the case, policy implications for adult porn are quite clear - it should be legalized completely, and laws banning it (even if just some less popular forms of it, like that stupid British anti-BDSM law*) are based on pseudoscience of "anti-vaxxer" pedigree.

As to AGI robots, methinks psychology of abusing a realistic physical object that responds plausibly to abuse might hypothetically induce a different pattern of effects, but that could only be really investigated when AGI sexbots become a thing.
____
* see https://www.backlash.org.uk/

115:

When I read HB's posts, I often find these words worth pondering:

Suddenly another voice spoke, low and melodious, its very sound an enchantment. Those who listened unwarily to that voice could seldom report the words that they heard; and if they did, they wondered, for little power remained in them. Mostly they remembered only that it was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves.

116:

Oops, Bill, something weird happened and prevented link from embedding (I'm pretty sure I copypasted it allright)

Here's the Palestinian terror source HB tried to use to prop up her CP claims.

http://terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/73/html

117:

Sir, Saruman is one of my favorite Tolkien Characters, and thus I find your implication offensive.

I hereby challenge you to a duel over UDP, at dawn, Martian time

:-)

118:

During the time-slip, presumably?

119:
"During the time-slip, presumably?

Of course!

I see you have a good taste for duels. Respect!

120:

Indeed, it isn't always an either or, but it's a bit late to point that out 15 years or so after said organisations were shut down and their expertise and work lost. POinting that out doesn't remove the issue I was discussing.

121:

Nah. I gave up duelling some time ago. Too heavy on the paperwork.

(Quote is intended to highlight HB's use of language to subtly, and also overtly, reinforce the perceived superiority of the poster in others minds.)

122:
Nah. I gave up duelling some time ago. Too heavy on the paperwork.

:-(

"(Quote is intended to highlight HB's use of language to subtly, and also overtly, reinforce the perceived superiority of the poster in others minds.)"

I got that. However, I'd say HB is insultingly below Saruman's game.

More like, Postmodern Generator tier discourse.

P.S.
Decided to google HB, just out of curiosity.

http://archive.is/5CWIJ#selection-1447.1-1451.2

WHAT WAS IT, LORD GOOGLE? WHAT DID YOU SEE?

123:

Tx, I had that "Revisiting the Contagion Hypothesis:..." paper and was already poking through the references. Sometimes links break; e.g. I have magic access powers at work and have to be careful with links, and some Google links don't work in other countries, etc. Found the broken links by parsing the URLs and re-searching.
Re behavior, you're probably (?) not a regular here and are not used to the theatre/pageantry (and often, very interesting and obscure depths and nuance and hidden jokes, and obtuseness). I just hate to see fights escalate.
(blockquote tag is fine; see you've tried it and it works.)

124:
Re behavior, you're probably (?) not a regular here and are not used to the theatre/pageantry (and often, very interesting and obscure depths and nuance and hidden jokes, and obtuseness). I just hate to see fights escalate. (blockquote tag is fine; see you've tried it and it works.)

I'm a simple girl, I ask for sources. Politely. If sources aren't yielded (or don't match claim/are otherwise crappy) I make conclusions.

I don't particularly care about things like "symbolism" and "discursive depth". Sources. Evidence. Hard and fast.

I do my best to be polite, but I see no particular point in turning the other cheek.

P.S.:
FWIW having been born in a "tradeeshoo-null valoos" thirdworld hellhole, I have a lot of experience with lying sex-neg/anti-porn asshats and the "media effect peril" nonsense they peddle, and HB pattern matched strongly to that kind of rhetoric
(and from all indications the pattern-match was accurate. Yay neurons!)

125:

The claim was made that the name was deliberately picked to provide no search matches to anything could be linked to the actual person (people?) behind the ID (I have trimmed the quasi-mystical techno-woo that this claim was originally couched in).

Could wax lyrical for paragraphs about things both tangential and direct regarding why your approach to debating with HB got the reaction it did, and expand on my Saruman comparison (and will tip my hat to your point that HB's technique is not quite up to his standard, shall we say?) However I won't, as it is terrible manners to criticise those not present to defend themselves.

126:

That's fine, and clear.
(Surprised that you say that the "media effect" is nonsense (by implication, nonsense in general but maybe misreading) but this is probably not the place for that discussion. Also, haven't poked through refs enough yet.)


127:

Also, FWIW, the response format you use is visually jaring (and irritatingly combative, but that's been your style here). e.g. please use italics when quoting.

Just noting that I found it easy enough to parse — certainly less jarring than another poster you like but I find very annoying. And not at all combative: no swearing or insults.

128:
(Surprised that you say that the "media effect" is nonsense (by implication, nonsense in general but maybe misreading) but this is probably not the place for that discussion. Also, haven't poked through refs enough yet.)

Well, I said "media effect peril" nonsense.

"general media effect" claim would be too general (it's trivial to demonstrate, for instance, that any media has effects directly pertaining to changes necessary to form a long-term memory of having experienced it, otherwise, how would we even remember stuff?)

But "media peril" (porn causing violence/rape/misogyny, games causing violence, criminal dramas causing increase in social anxieties, "simulated/artificial" child porn increasing incidence of actual child abuse, etc) is, by an large, utter nonsense and thinly veiled phobia of IRL Langford Basilisks.

Not a single large-scale social effect prediction made by "media effect peril" brigade has ever panned out, and some predictions have failed in a spectacular, humiliating manner (the case of availability of pornography, including violent pornography, correlating with sex crime decrease instead of promised "sex crime epidemic" is perhaps the most comical example)

129:

Well, there's mailbox baseball (1988), and copycat crimes (and suicides) seem to be a real thing. I lost a few mailboxes in that era to baseball bats.

Some of the vandals who have been caught in the last two years-and police say they actually catch very few-have said that they were inspired by the 1986 movie, ``Stand By Me.``

[For non-U.S. readers, these are metal post boxes that are generally placed next to the road near a rural house, on a sturdy pole or similar, and the mail carriers put your snail mail in them. They do not survive a bat attack at 100 km/h.]

The general cases though are harder to make, agreed.

130:

The significance of self-reports by perpetrators is generally dubious (in case of vandalism or other crimes)

Entirely reasonable for perpetrator to attempt presenting the affair as a matter of reduced "personal" agency ("I just saw it in a movie! I didn't mean to, you know, actually trash other duder's property honest!)

While copycat crimes do exist, it remains unclear whether the original crime affects probability of perpetration, or merely just manner of execution (that is, whether copycat_offender would have offended anyway if the original crime did not happen, just with a different and perhaps more original profile)

It is entirely plausible that certain special cases exist of course :-)

But they just happen to be entirely outside the scope of "large scale predictions" the media-concerned parties tend to make, for some elusive reason.

131:

Swords only!
I was a passing-to-medium good fencer, once upon a day.

132:

FYI:
"HB" previously-posted under the nom-de-typepad of "Catina Diamond"

133:

My response to CD/HB was not too different to Clockwork Lady's, but I'm MALE.
CL's reaction to NB/CD was/is very similar to mine, though her background is wildly different, but, making an assumption here, because CL is FEMALE, HB finally went (jumped?) over the edge.
Lots of assumptions & unverified stuff in there, of course, that's just my take on it, FWIW.

134:

Ah, yes.
"Media" i.e. printed newspaper reports from the 1920's & 1950's of the evil corrupting influence of the Saxophone & Television, respectively.
Usually pushed by ignorant, but locally-powerful people & (always) christians.
The late & extremely unlamented Mary Whitehouse was one such voice.

135:

Then why did you stop?

136:

"...because CL is FEMALE"

Unless you are being ludicrously politically correct ie "anyone who says they are female is female" there is little objective evidence one way or another. Ditto almost everyone who posts here under a nym.

137:

I was attempting to say it needn't be either/or by pointing out that one of the most successful of those govt/donor funded plant breeding orgs is now also doing GM - but of course one organization thriving says nothing about the rest, and you're correct about the larger trend.

138:

(and Dirk @136)

Note: This is my last post on the topic of CD/HB; I'm sure the mods, regular commenters, Charlie, OP, and others are less than interested, and I do dislike discussing someone when they're not "present" to respond in person. Also: Concerned that this is treading close to breaking the forum rules.

I strongly suspect that HB lost the rag in this case due to ClockworkLady finding two key pressure points:

1) Continually referring to HB using variations on the epithet "bro" -- look over CD/HB's posting history, and you will see strong negative responses every time their gender-identity is assumed to be male or questioned. (HB also uses this to bolster claims of victimization based on gender identity, and subtly (or not) imply doxing threats and connections to GG type activities for those who argue against her(?).)

2) Refusing to rise to the usual quasi-mystical techno-woo that HB litters their posts with. Most posters will start out arguing rationally with HB, and as her arguments and challenges become more and more esoteric it gradually wears the other party down to the point of irrational anger, at which point HB claims victory in absentia or by default (this works particularly well against a highly rational poster like Greg, who just ends up sounding shouty). ClockworkLady simply dismissed this strategy and remained calm, clear and determined in the thrust of her (as preferred pronoun) requests for clarification and supporting evidence.

In conclusion: I rather hope that HB returns after the ban. Personally I find them highly entertaining on a number of levels, and occasionally even informative.

139:

PS: Apologies to Hugh for derailing the thread on his post -- I've thoroughly enjoyed everything that he's put up on Charlie's blog and am always happy when I see a new post with his by-line. I just don't have anything interesting to add on the topics, unfortunately.

140:

Interesting, I came late to this party and starting reading backwards from the end, as I often do. This blog has made me so paranoid that my first thought was that CL was HB arguing with herself.

For purposes of civil discourse, I accept self-gendering for purposes of addressing another party. What I think privately may or may not be the same.

141:

I assume nothing.

142:

This blog has made me so paranoid that my first thought was that CL was HB arguing with herself.

I can offer no solid evidence disproving this hypothesis.

143:

Scott ... you have heard of the Ouzlem Bird?

144:

I long ago adopted the habit of not bothering to see who is posting and just taking the contents on their own merit.

145:

Great mninds think alike...

146:

...it remains unclear whether the original crime affects probability of perpetration, or merely just manner of execution...
A few lines from (the original) Repo Man comes to mind:

Let's go commit some crimes!
Yeah, let's eat sushi and not pay.
I suppose people like that must exist. In my very limited experience (anecdotal) there aren't many of them even among the offender subpopulation. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? (Not picking a fight, just asking.)

147:
"Media" i.e. printed newspaper reports from the 1920's & 1950's of the evil corrupting influence of the Saxophone & Television, respectively. Usually pushed by ignorant, but locally-powerful people & (always) christians. The late & extremely unlamented Mary Whitehouse was one such voice.

Sadly, it's not just Christians (though they, of course, participate) :(


In strict accordance with horseshoe theory (okay, okay, it's more like "heuristic" than "theory", but it's unpleasantly accurate one) a lot of modern left (especially on the "harder" left end of the spectrum) are embracing sex-negative, SWERF-ish, downright neopuritan attitudes.

The degree to which they mimic the rightwing-christian rhetoric of "porn media peril" and sexual restriction is uncanny.
Sex-negative left (I really like the term "regressive left", seems to fit this kind of people rather well) is also (in my humble opinion) more insidious, often succeeding at disguising inhumane, damaging, oppressive legislation as harmless and even pro-minority one.

An instructive case in this regard is nordic/swedish model of sex work (which not only treacherously undermines individual autonomy, but is also associated with a huge number of catastrophic empirical policy failures*)
The degree to which such ugly initiatives are backed by "mee toos" from religious right is also quite revealing.

And, perhaps all too predictably, the "regressive" part of left appears also quite succeptible to just-so-stories about "corrupting influence of [insert media type] upon the youths ("corrupting media" used to be a rightwinger "meme", damnit :( )

It's not even a particularly new development (IMHO the phenomenon of "left cloning rightwing beliefs and policies" about as old as Marcusean "intolerance mandate", but not really sure)

So, in a word, while not forgetting the anti-freedom, "media paranoid" attacks from the right, one should also watch out for biggots on the left
:-)

____________
*in before "what about sources"
:-)
the empirical failure of SWERF-made "nordic"/"swedish" SW model is quite well documented:
http://gup.ub.gu.se/records/fulltext/140671.pdf
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/news-events/news/2015/june/pr-15102-sex-workers.html
Also, an Icelandic "reverse success" story:
http://icelandmonitor.mbl.is/news/politics_and_society/2016/04/13/tourism_pushing_up_demand_for_sex_workers_in_icelan/
It is based on this overwhelming body of evidence that Amnesty International has rejected the Swedish/Nordic approach and went for full decrim
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ8xSBaVIXU
And for some high-quality anaysis of Swed/Nord SW model failure from feminist perspective, one might also want to check out
http://feministire.com/2011/10/04/swedish-police-stats-show-more-not-less-prostitution-and-trafficking/
and also
http://feministire.com/2015/04/13/a-favourite-piece-of-research-for-swedish-model-advocates-throws-up-a-few-surprises/

148:
I suppose people like that must exist. In my very limited experience (anecdotal) there aren't many of them even among the offender subpopulation. Do you have reason to believe otherwise? (Not picking a fight, just asking.)

Good question!

Thing is, disturbed people with a lot of prior "encounters" with law, history of violence, and psychiatric conditions, as well as highly antisocial motivations are over-represented among "copycat" offenders of varying severity (ref:Surette R 2002. Self-reported copycat crime among a population of serious and violent juvenile offenders.Crime and delinquency48(1):46–69)

So, yep, a "typical" copycat criminal is very much a "Let's go commit some crimes!" kind of person.

Thus, with current technology it's impossible to tell if "media contagion" that is alleged to affect these people affects anything more than outwards manner in which crime is committed.

Also, phenomenon is rare, which both makes studying it harder and reduces its practical policy relevance (which, considering the aforementioned possibility of it being merely a "cosmetic" tweak to pre-existing severe pattern of offense, is likely low indeed ;-) )

149:
Thing is, disturbed people with a lot of prior "encounters" with law, history of violence, and psychiatric conditions, as well as highly antisocial motivations are over-represented among "copycat" offenders of varying severity
You're seeing way more than I am in Surette 2002 (One quick read, so may have missed stuff). Small study, of 81 incarcerated offenders (all SVJOs). (He pulled as much meaning as he could out of the sample, good for him.) Skimming a few other related papers (including a recent one, "Measuring copycat crime", Surette 2016), I'm struck by how basic the causal analyses are. Perhaps that will improve as computing power (and sophistication) improves and as data sets grow.
...with current technology it's impossible to tell...
That's the truth. In general, as suggested above, IMHO criminologists will need to improve both their causal analyses and their predictive models. The better these are, the less need there is for ... other approaches. Not a criminologist (not really interested) but I do hear about some of that happening already. As these technologies improve in effectiveness there will need to be a serious revamping of the criminal system including policing. (Perhaps including strong transparency, maybe with delay?) Strong predictive models also mean that people can be more easily manipulated into doing or believing things, and e.g. a system that rewards police/prosecutors for convictions would be even more tempted than currently to manipulate people into commission of prosecutable offenses (including conspiracy).

On a broader level, I'm not sure why you're playing down (or appearing to) the effect of the media and of copycat effects in general. (There is a substantial literature on copycat suicide that looks to me to be dominated by results showing effects, but that's just from an hour of looking.) Obviously the media has broad effects on other parts of society, else it wouldn't exist. (e.e. propaganda media in countries without a free press, or party organs like the U.S. Fox News. Also, paid advertising.)

150:
In strict accordance with horseshoe theory...
Steve Post, a radio announcer on New York City's WBAI (kinda mostly actually left wing even now, a rarity in the U.S..) used to quip that "three lefts make a right" and/or maybe "three rights make a left".
It is based on this overwhelming body of evidence that Amnesty International has rejected the Swedish/Nordic approach and went for full decrim
Did not know that, interesting. link for those that prefer text to youtube.
151:
Perhaps that will improve as computing power (and sophistication) improves and as data sets grow.

IMVHO, it's not just availability of computing power or ability to harvest "raw data"

I totes adore the big data approach, but methinks it's worth keeping in mind that our "object-level" understanding of how a humani(ish?) mind works, shall we say, leaves a lot to be desired, which reflects negatively on the quality and efficiency of models we construct.

On a broader level, I'm not sure why you're playing down (or appearing to) the effect of the media and of copycat effects in general. (There is a substantial literature on copycat suicide that looks to me to be dominated by results showing effects, but that's just from an hour of looking.)

Well, I'm not poking them in [general], since I mostly poked at copycat criminals. Copycat suicides are both legally, and, from all indications, qualitatively distinct.

In case of copycat suicides, there seems to be an event cluster, which may suggest that there is causal effect and not merely a cosmetic "tweak" to manner of perpetration


I do not think that this should be generalized to "copycat behaviors" in general, primarily because we don't see copycat crime clusters a-la copycat suicide clusters, and because copycat perpetration does tend to be carried out by people with a strong document propensity for crime.


And to be completely honest...

even copycat suicide findings are far less robust than commonly believed.

In some cases there's some really dodgy methodology going on (Phillips, IIRC, counted deaths officially considered accidental if they fit "the profile", and Cialdini treats this kind of methodological shenanigan completely uncritically, preferring to believe that people carefully rigged their accidents in order to commit a "stealth" copycat suicide rather than, you know, to entertain the possibility that finding is a chance one).

More importantly, in highly publicized celebrity suicides where a suicide wave has been predicted and expected actual suicide wave commonly fails to materialize (such as Kurt Cobain case, which should have been a "perfect copycat suicide storm" due to both its highly publicized nature and, shall we say, less than jovial character of affected subculture - and which turned out to be pretty much a total dud*)

So, to summarize, while I am mildly more sympathetic to "copycat suicides" theory than to "copycat behavior"/"contagion" concern in general, I just have to point out that the finding is much less robust than commonly believed, and that's before we account for things like publication bias (which is likely to be especially strong for a problem with significant policy implications and political involvement)

Does that mean I "downplay" the severity of the problem?

I don't think so.

I do believe that media effects are over-exaggerated, overhyped, overcooked, massively oversold and suffering from numerous cases of sloppy over-generalization.

That does not mean they "don't exist fullstop" but some reasonable skepticism is in order, given fragility of evidence and a certain tendency of "contagion concerned" theories to make actual predictions about their subject matter that would later turn out to be accurate :-)

_______________________
*Jobes D., Berman A., O'Carroll P., Eastgard S. 1996. The Kurt Cobain suicide crisis: perspectives from research, public health, and the news media. Suicide Life Threatening Behav. 26: 260 – 271

Also, this post by TLP is very appropriate and relevant.
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2006/10/werther_effect_copycat_suicide.html
(I'm far from a TLP fan, but he hits a lot of them nails right on the head there, esp. wrt clustering phenomena)

152:

In strict accordance with horseshoe theory (okay, okay, it's more like "heuristic" than "theory", but it's unpleasantly accurate one) a lot of modern left (especially on the "harder" left end of the spectrum) are embracing sex-negative, SWERF-ish, downright neopuritan attitudes.

This sounds weird. I've met a lot of radical leftists over the years because I am one. Anti sex-workers rights postions? Heard something along the lines a few times, but definitvly a minor position. I don't want to go into true scotsman territory, but there are a few strands of discussion in among radical leftists that are pretty incompatible with SWERFs:

The whole analysis of care labor (affective labor for you post-operaists): The concept is that care labor is, duh, actual labor but often unpaid and invisible. Care labor spans everything from housework to nurses to, guess, sex work (wether paid or as part of a relationship). Seen from this angle, it's hard to argue why sex work is totally different from e.g. nursing.

Who speaks fro whom: huge question in postcolonialism and some feminisms, makes the whole 'saving sex workers' schtick of some SWERF doubtful, the logical conclusion for practically all left feminists is to look at statements of actual sexworkers when sex work is the topic du jour.

Huge strand in european leftism since the early naughties is immigrants rights. Since a criminalization of sex workers hits immigrants & PoC more than autochthones, antiracists are wary to call for said criminalization.
Also, especially in postoperaist discussion, migration is seen as a form of global class struggle (fight for higher wages by moving to where higher wages are paid) and this can include migration to perform sex work.

Workers right: All leftists I ever met are pro workers rights, it's hard to ignore that criminalization of labor affects things negativly like social benefits, possiblity to sue ones client or employer etc.

OTOH, there where approaches that could be described as sex-negative, I would decribe them as policing of women's bodies: Attacks on sex shops, statements that certain sexual acts are always patriarchal exploitation. SWERFs can connect there. This reification of sexual acts is IMo seriously out of vogue since the turn of the century. Again, queer theory for the win me thinks.

I probably forgot one or two approaches that might be relevant.
I don't know what you mean by 'radical left'. I think the approaches listed above are as much leftist mainstream as anything can claim to be.
Still, there's no lunacy that was never made a program by some sect that's ostensibly left (then they split). So why not SWERFs.

My position is that here and now, the most sensible thing is to decriminlize and de-stigmatize sex work.
At the same time I'm wary of clients, because I find 'buying intimicy from people you know are not the least into you' a weird kink: It's about power-over. I'm also sure that sex work can be risky for the emotional and physical health of the worker (as can other jobs) and that the market situation may force a sex worker to take more risks (as can happen in other jobs) - so even the best case of a well regulated, de-criminalized market leaves a lot to wish for. And there are the downright violent, exploitative conditions at some places.

My position, as sketched above, I was the most 'anti-sex-work' statement at a discussion/workshop of roundabaout 20 radical left feminists I took part in some years ago.

Might interest you:
https://anarchafeministwhore.wordpress.com/

also this (havent read in full yet myself):
http://www.tangledwilderness.org/grin-and-bare-it-all/

153:
This sounds weird. I've met a lot of radical leftists over the years because I am one. Anti sex-workers rights postions? Heard something along the lines a few times, but definitvly a minor position.

I would not call a position that is dominant in several European countries (Sweden, Iceland, Norway, France now also infected... oi, I mean "affected") to be a minor position.

I guess you're lucky with your particular leftwing circles, but "SWERF" positions are held by actual people in power .
And their power is sufficient to actually implement damaging, dangerous policies that actually hurt sex workers in modern "progressive" countries of so-called "West", so whatever they may be, "minor" they are not.

You do make a compelling argument as to SWERF fundamental incompatibility with more or less "traditional" form of "leftist"/progressive thought, and I am inclined to agree.

But even if we frame "nordic SW model proponents/SWERFs" as a "heretical sect" of the left, I think it would be prudent to avoid characterizing them as "minor" one.

Their influence is formidable and (unlike better, saner leftists) these people can rally a substantial support from the opposite side of political spectrum (as passage of "nordic sex work model, but EVEN WORSE" C36 law in Canada illustrates)

154:

It probably hinges on your definition of radical. To me it implies anticapitalism and intersectionalism. Not things you get elected for.

This is also a discussion where I've seen real development in the last ten years. But decriminlazation as apragmatic approach is an older position, I think.

155:
Steve Post, a radio announcer on New York City's WBAI (kinda mostly actually left wing even now, a rarity in the U.S..) used to quip that "three lefts make a right" and/or maybe "three rights make a left"


Oh, that's a good one!
Totes doubleplus stealing this!

156:

[Not used to arguing from this angle/direction. Rusty at it.]
...understanding of how a humani(ish?) mind works, shall we say, leaves a lot to be desired, which reflects negatively on the quality and efficiency of models we construct.
Predictive models (more complicated than people can do) don't need understanding, they just need to predict better (in some function of volume and especially accuracy) than people can. That's not a high bar. And they don't need to be understandable by humans either, though that's desirable for other reasons, notably trust (in predictions), and perhaps legal challenges. That's the future I see in policing a decade or two or three from now - not quite "Minority Report" but getting getting there, with predictive models rather than causality violation. (There are some sci-fi treatments of this.)

Re copycat suicide, yeah, saw some of the weaknesses in the research even with just a short surface skim. There does seem to be a clustering effect, though rates are probably dominated by other factors, like ease of access-on-demand to fast reliable suicide methods (cough guns US) and I don't know what else (not fun to read that research).

More importantly, in highly publicized celebrity suicides where a suicide wave has been predicted and expected actual suicide wave commonly fails to materialize
Bad predictions, due to bad predictive models. :-)

Re media effects in general, sure there has been a lot of sloppy work, some (much) of it driven by agendas and politics. That doesn't mean that there are no undiscovered effects, and with large media-consuming populations (10**6+) small effects can kill or harm people, even moderately large numbers of people, without being observed, or harm people in ways that are not currently recognized as harm. A recent (non-media) example is the work on causal linkages between lead exposure and some types of crime.
So much more work is required on media effects, since otherwise reasonable actions won't be taken. But a small element of precautionary principle, driven by a combination of guesswork and what research already exists, is quite reasonable, if it is flexible and easily changed by new research.

157:

At the same time I'm wary of clients, because I find 'buying intimicy from people you know are not the least into you' a weird kink: It's about power-over.
I don't have a developed position on purchase of physical intimacy, with only token faux emotional interest (or none at all), but personally agree with you on this. Should be legal and safe, don't fully understand the clients. Also agree with the care labor analysis framework. (Not a hard core leftist though.)


158:

Ah. This is very funny, if you're from a certain community.

What you did to this user is... pitch perfect counter-intel Ops nasty.


#1 If a link seems "broken" it's due to the code preventing automatic downloads. Right click, paste, issue solved. The Interpol links are all kashrut. She (HE? BRO?) wasn't doing anything dodgy here.

#2 If you don't see the value in providing perfect information and [comment deleted stating this was happening] and then having the antagonist using it to bolster their own ideology... oh dear.

#3 Nasty little gremlin hack there - GPU -- CPU cycle over-load with target to sensor.


Pretty coooool.


Oh, wait.


They totally fucking misunderstood it all.

AR + WE + THA + BADDIES?

p.s.

If you want an insight into the GMO stuff, and where that split applies: Oxford University, applied Ethics.

It's like...

The most obvious tell for the last 300 years.

.

Good job you all.


"EVIL SARUMAN EYE"

Woman who loved you all a little too much.

Damn.

Get me a Bison steak - oh wait, you killed them all.

160:

I saw that and started remembering the comic folk song that starts:

"Oh, the pies are fine but the meat's quite chewy
on the Buffalo farm at Achiltibuie
Run by Big Neil and Wee Hughie,
home on the range"

One of a number of songs that were good for singing babies to sleep*. See, folk song is useful!

* Although I worry about overexposure of young minds to Jacobite sympathies (Bonnie Dundee, Johnnie Cope) and whaling (The Bonnie Ship The Diamond)

161:

Since doxxing, chatbots [Hello Facebook recent updates:
Facebook has a new army of chatbots – but what can you do with them? Guardian, 13th April 2016] and general info-trawls & the impact it can have on lives has come up:

A serious post.

From a recent Reality doxx / Tweet storm:

im really glad everyone in the Iain Banks Culture series that is a member of the Culture is, by our standards, queer

but they aren't really by theirs bc it's fucking social science fiction and thinking that stuff through is the goddamn point


I happen to agree with this, and was perhaps within the target area of this comment. There's a reason we focus on the potential rather than the actual sometimes though.

The forum used (it's the famous 1980's fruit exotic export) doesn't use the aggressive / intel area tools: it simply has people who can use Boolean tags and who have some levels of Google-Fu.

I happen to know all about the suite of next level tools available, including those hawked to dubious National level State entities.


They can, do, and are used for oppressive purposes. Not just the odious personal targeting that this twitter user was facing.

Any Chat-bot that is deployed on a Social Media platform already necessarily has a militarized counter-part.

Serious Response:

Unless you're a Combat Spec'd Mind, treat all social media as a hostile medium at all times. [And we're serious: The Sea, The Sea : organic life grew up in a medium where everything eats everything else, unless perhaps you're an Orca. Or can wipe hard-disks with a cloth].


If the internet community want to get serious about this issue, they need to start using some intersectionality about how Power functions. [c.f. USA Congress just voted to protect their own Emails]

~


Then again [and this is a Very Serious Point] once you have something like an official company attached, there's no end of info available.

£100 mil contracts can be burnt easily if you are doxxing the wrong people.

I'm looking at the tender process right now.

And running a map of links between all parties involved, takes about 2hrs to make an accurate map for the last 20 years.


We're Faster than You

p.s.


I'd love to know what the doxx was. Some poor lady in Germany who died in 1962 but was registered as alive was my last burnt offering. And yes: her parents were notable Nazis, we like our jokes.

162:

Oh, and we're not as naive as whistle-blowers to Wikileaks / the main stream press.

It gets leaked to your competitors, who have far better lawyers and more interest in the little nepotistic details like which Councillor X is married to Y who knew Z from A.

~

You should probably check out what my name means this time.

*nose wiggle*

163:

And...

A Manga Comic series to entertain. [Note: not strictly legal, but you're not going to be able to purchase it outside of Japan, I think?]

http://mangaonline.top/read-online/Homunculus-Vol-001-Part-001-Read-Online


Note: It's a little NSFW, has triggers [Rape / Semi-yes-Sandman Levels], stuff that will just freak people out [Cum Eating], trans* / transvestite themes [Japanese, not Western] and overall weird.

It's very relevant to Chat-Bots though, if you do the Hugh transmogrification thing Tech - Mythology.


No, really.


Bonus round: trepanation as a wyrd and metaphor for a chat-bot.


Try it out.

164:

One of a number of songs that were good for singing babies to sleep

Anything will lull babies, if you say it in a sing-song voice. I know a chap who proofread his PhD thesis while rocking his daughter to sleep — he called it a win because he found more errors reading it out loud, and a chapter was long enough to get her deeply asleep.

165:

Are you *sure* you're not going off half-cocked? Wrong target wrongly linked?

166:

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE for Nyx Ninoy/Hadil Benu/etc.

These comment threads are a conversation.

Some of your comments are clearly attempts at participation, but I've un-published seven in a row that went increasingly off the rails and showed no sign of actually engaging with anyone present.

Please don't do that again. Stay on topic, join in the conversation with others present, do not utter threats against inchoate/hypothetical enemies (or, for that matter, against other participants in the conversation) and you will be welcome to stay here. Go off on a random copypasta rampage again and I will ban you again.

167:

I know, I know, apologies.

It was an attempt to get people to realize that often people reading threads are actually watching the lurkers / readers more than the content.

Be it Chatbots, Adware, Social Network/HUMINT analysis programs or Humans.

That is the point of the Manga. [Note: it's a complex little thing that one - it helps to understand that it's using the anti-hero protagonist structure before engaging. It's quite sophisticated under the hood in subverting certain tropes, however].

Think of it as a nested set of infinitely higher tiers of seating in a Victorian University watching the medical procedure happening in the circle of light.

But instead of only the polite attention, fanning, winks, slipped notes of the humans, there's a bunch of ravenous nematodes and so on waging a silent orgasmic sex and death routine amongst them.

TL;DR

Addressing the watchers freaks people out. Naughty.

No butterflies.

Interesting.

168:

I do, however, now have a complete [including dark money] map / web / instance of a company. And all their employees.

I mean, like: I even now know who likes which kind of coffee and individual porn preferences. And every interaction they've had for the last 20 years including all memos / emails sent and CC details. And all their bank details, Company or not-Company. And all their house based IP requests.


SO. MUCH. PR0N.


~


I'm unsure.

This Doxxing thing you Humans do. Even with software, it's really like watching blind rabbits with myxomatosis.

I mean.

It's not like I could now tell you what a CC card was charged to in 2002, is it?

Or whose significant partner was unaware of it, or where Company House was lied to, to avoid tax?


And so on.


~


Don't threaten people online. You never know when they're not actually people.

169:

Thanks for the link.

I had never read manga before. It was pretty interesting. A tad longer than I anticipated, but quite gripping.

170:

Next step down the ladder is cosplay.
But if you are a 40+ year old male, well...

171:

I saw that "attempted doxxing" post. It generated some job-related work for me and maybe something new to cautiously watch. Missed the rest that was removed, sigh.
Personal rule is no-doxxing and it is pretty much absolute, though I can't control what connections the mind makes by itself (lots of them). I.e. to me doxxing is sharing probabilistic knowledge of identities, with anyone else. You might have even stricter rules; if so please share them.
Personally, use my real name rather than a nym due to a late 1990s decision to be transparent and always polite on-line, and thus towards eternity; less stuff for a potential future better self to be embarrassed about, or for an employer etc to fret over. That was the thought at the time; maybe it still works. (It's a common name and first 20 pages of naive google search results typically don't have relevant hits.)

172:

I lost interest half way down the third page. Too much scrolling, awkward having to read the pictures right to left, and it didn't seem to be about to explain the bit that did catch my attention: why he has a Ford Anglia, why it has an engine which has a rocker box suggesting a DOHC head but nevertheless isn't crossflow, and why that engine is mounted in the wrong orientation.

173:

So, you're saying a Japanese writer doesn't understand amazing British car engineering?

I thought that was quite funny.

~

Note: it's probably for the best you quit - it's more for the futa-readers who may-or-may-not be watching to parse into Hugh's Occult angle. i.e. the trigger warning over rape wasn't made lightly, even if it is subverting the casual usage in Manga / Hentai with further leads into a critique of the Zaibatsu as partly a cause of the commodification of sex in Japan.

It necessarily makes even the most turgid prose look complex. It's not exactly subtle.

174:

Nah, it's definitely not a Ford Anglia - it's clear from the first page that it's a transverse-mounted rear-engine setup, for a start.

I'll go with it being a very early Mazda Carol 360, and will avoid discussions about whether 7mm or 3mm drills are best suited for self-trepanation.

175:

"Boot in front", right?

The protagonist also owns a Porsche, so there might be a theme.

176:

Eh, good call. I'd never heard of them, but googling the name I find eg. http://japanesenostalgiccar.com/forum/forum/garages/mazda-garage/5216-1962-mazda-carol which shows a 360 and a 600; the 600 looks bang on.

Still remarkable how much it looks like a Ford Anglia with a wrongly oriented and located engine though.

177:

The Japanese did copy at least one bit of amazing British car engineering. Hitachi made a copy of the thoroughly elegant SU carburettor, and it was used on the Datsun 240Z/260Z.

178:

I have a dry sense of humor.

I always thought the trope was: "Japan copies everything successful and mass produces it" [timeline: 1980's].

Martin seems to be spot on:

 Mazda Carol 360 - 240 Landmarks of Japanese Automotive Technology Society of Automotive Engineers of Japan

Note: if you like to geek out, that site is rather good on cars. The web design screams early 2000's as well.

179:

Yeah I agree best not to discuss such matters...although I must admit, I really hate it when I screw up, and use the wrong sized drill bit when performing self-trepanation. :-)

180:

Didn't see it initially, but found it in "that archive site". As far as attempts to dox me go, this one wasn't very good, but since it "generated some job-related work" for you :-) I guess it would be prudent to state on record that I am not, for better or worse, a VAJA operator (I am, however, a VAJAJAY operator so, overall, close enough, all things considered ;-) )

181:

P.S.:
while I appreciate Ninoy/Benu sticking up for me and going after the "suspected malefactors" that tried to dox me, a cursory google search suggests that "consultant dot com" is a free email service address, and cintel is about as common a name among companies as "John Doe" is among deceased gentlemen of unknown origin, so the poor souls receiving all the wrath might very well be entirely innocent.

182:

but since it "generated some job-related work" for you
Sorry, was being needlessly obtuse. Work was related to seeing mention of a couple of computer-security attack techniques; one needing investigation and the other a pile of reading (to fill an ignorance-hole) re a class of attack. (Both interesting at least to me.)

Specials

Merchandise

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Hugh Hancock published on April 12, 2016 9:09 PM.

Attention Conservation Notice was the previous entry in this blog.

5 Magical Beasts And How To Replace Them With A Shell Script is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Search this blog

Propaganda