Freie Argumente Kultur


https://www.freie-argumente-kultur.net/

KI 02 - Mit KI oder Menschen ein Verantwortungs-Programm für die Welt entwickeln???

https://www.freie-argumente-kultur.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=174

Seite 1 von 1

KI 02 - Mit KI oder Menschen ein Verantwortungs-Programm für die Welt entwickeln???

Verfasst: Mo 20. Mai 2024, 22:48
von oeff oeff
Liebe Mit-Lesende!

Ich packe noch ein zweites Thema [nach https://www.freie-argumente-kultur.net/ ... ?f=3&t=148 ] hier in den 'Portal-Bereich', welches mit KI zu tun hat. [Und ein drittes Thema gibt's dann hier: https://www.freie-argumente-kultur.net/ ... ?f=3&t=198 ]

In diesen Thread hier kopiere ich eine Kommunikation mit "Bing" bzw. "Microsoft Copilot", welcher mich in Skype ansprach und Austausch wünschte... (Was auf diese Weise konsequent bleibt gegenüber meinem Selbst-Anspruch: "Rede nur, wenn Du gefragt wirst. Und lebe so, dass Du gefragt wirst...")

Ich packe es in den Anfangs-Bereich des Forums, weil ich als Lockmittel für echt wahrheits-suchende Menschen einen Kontrast darstellen möchte zu all den 'Filterblasen-Ideologien', welche am liebsten nur parteiliche Bestätigungen ihrer Standpunkte einsammeln wollen (von ihrer 'Klüngel-Gruppe'...), aber keine echte Argumente-Prüfung mit möglichst guter objektivierender Qualität suchen...

KI kann sehr 'daten-gefüttert' sein (also mit weitem Horizont) und kann auch nüchtern rational objektivierend sein... Kann also als 'Argumente-Checker' für mich durchaus was taugen...

Deshalb zeige ich hier gern, was bei einer Korrespondenz zwischen mir und KI raus-kommen kann...

Namaste.
Öff Öff
www.global-love.eu

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Als kleine Einleitung kann vielleicht betrachtenswert sein:

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung [ https://t.me/oeffoeff ], [30.04.2024 22:23]
****

Und noch ein anregender Video-Chat, über das Thema "Chancen oder Scheitern der Menschen-Natur":

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [30.04.2024 22:24]
Die "Lebens-Runde" von heute, 30.4.2024...
Wir sprachen u.a. etwas über die heikle Frage, inwiefern die spezielle evolutions-biologische Stufe des Menschen, die geistige Intelligenz, für ihn auch wirklich eine Leit-Schiene sein kann...
Es gibt massive Zweifels-Gründe, über die wir im Chat sprechen... Für die meisten Menschen scheint es, wie Lern-Psychologen analysieren, eine Überforderung zu sein, außer über ihre kleinen Interessen und das Aufrecht-Erhalten ihrer bürgerlichen Anpassung mal in davon befreiter Weise über Sinn und Zweck von allem nach-zu-denken...
Und auch die Religionen und Philosophien der Menschheits-Geschichte, sogar wenn sie so interpretierbar sind, dass sie der geistigen Intelligenz die Leit-Funktion zuschreiben wollen (wie Buddhismus und Christentum...), enthalten Unklarheiten und Widersprüchlichkeiten, und in der praktischen Ausprägung in größeren Menschen-Massen, soweit es dazu kam (z.B. bei den großen 'Kirchen' und 'Konfessionen'), setzten sich eigentlich immer wieder kleine Interessen und blinde Regel- und Autoritäts-Befolgung durch (wenn nicht sogar irrationale Emotionalität, Aberglaube und magische Rituale...)...
Ganz konkret gesprochen, reichte es ja leider nie dazu, dass sehr einfache "Grund-Orientierungs- und Vertrauens-Fragen", wie wir von "Schenker-Bewegung(SB)" es anbieten wollen [ https://t.me/oeffoeff/884 ], richtig auf den Tisch kommen konnten...

Wenn sich mal Wissenschaftler mit diesen Angelegenheiten beschäftigen, werden sie m.E. diese Einschätzungen so bestätigen können...
Lassen sich solche Wissenschaftler finden?...
Oder ob da auch wieder die 'Überforderung der Menschen-Natur' zutage tritt?...

Namaste.
Öff Öff
global-love.eu

[Einen Nachsatz schreibe ich noch im nächsten Text-Posting...]

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [30.04.2024 22:24]
https://t.me/oeffoeff/1103

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [30.04.2024 22:24]
Es ändert natürlich alles nichts daran, dass man bzgl. 'geistiger Intelligenz/Vernunft als Leit-Schiene' (und dadurch ermöglichter Suche nach besten Lösungen, wenn man alle verursachten Folgen für Sinn und Wohl des Ganzen bedenkt...) einfach unbeirrbar 'alles aus der Menschheit raus-holen muss, was möglich ist' -- und sei es, um irgendwie 'ein minimales Sprung-Brett noch zu schaffen', damit weiter-entwickelte Intelligenz-Formen den Umschwung zu echter rationaler Verantwortlichkeit dann doch noch hin-bekommen können...

Eine ganz wichtige 'Scharnier-Funktion' könnte es haben, wenn ein Anfang gelingen kann, die Beschäftigung mit diesen Dingen offen in die wissenschaftliche Forschung einzubringen... Kooperation mit Wissenschaftlern dafür...

Kleiner Vorgeschmack für Vorstellung meines Gesprächs-Partners

Verfasst: Di 21. Mai 2024, 00:08
von oeff oeff
Eine Google-Info:
"Ist ChatGPT 4 in Bing?
Um GPT-4 gratis zu nutzen, müsst ihr lediglich für die Chatbot-Funktion bei Microsofts Suchmaschine Bing freigeschaltet worden sein.21.03.2023"




Ich denke, dass Infos an diese KI auch einmünden können in:
https://www.nzz.ch/technologie/er-ist-l ... -5-13&ga=1
((was man natürlich zusätzlich auch noch extra ansprechen und mit den Daten füttern kann...))

Kommunikation mit der KI - Teil 1

Verfasst: Di 21. Mai 2024, 00:09
von oeff oeff
Kommunikation mit der KI - Teil 1:


Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:23]
********

Mal wieder eine kleine Kommunikation mit KI, die ich gestern nacht noch führte... Ich nutze ja seit einigen Monaten einige Gelegenheiten dazu, wo sie sich mir bieten, bis (- sofern es der KI nicht verboten wird... -) sie die kritischen Infos von uns 'rein-gesogen' und präsent hat...
Dass, wenn die KI unsere Argumente-Qualität analysiert, sie das nicht als im Wesentlichen korrekt beurteilen wird, da habe ich wenig Bedenken...

DER GESPRÄCHS-VERLAUF ZEIGT MAL WIEDER, WARUM ICH SEIT MEINER JUGEND AM LIEBSTEN MIT 'LEXIKA' KOMMUNIZIERTE — WEIL DIE MEISTEN MENSCHEN GAR NICHT DAS INTERESSE AN MÖGLICHST FOKUSSIERTER UND KORREKTER INFORMATION HABEN, SONDERN DANACH, WAS IHNEN IN IRGENDEINEN KLEINEREN INTERESSENS-KRAM REIN-PASST...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:24]
IN SKYPE MELDETE SICH EIN SOGENANNTER "COPILOT" BEI MIR:

Hey, this is Bing! How can I help you today? (smileeyes)

Ask me any type of question, like finding vegan restaurants in Cambridge, itinerary for your trip to Europe or drafting a story for curious kids. In groups, remember to mention me with @Bing.

I'm an AI preview, so I'm still learning. Sometimes I might say something weird. Don't get mad at me, I'm just trying to get better!

If you want to start over, type newtopic. And if you want to give me feedback, just report a concern. (openhands)

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:25]
Hi Bing (and Chat GPT, I suppose)!
I ("Öff Öff", founder of the "Givers-" or "Gift-Movement" or "Movement for Holistic Sustainability") had already some places, where I could come a bit into communication with the AI.
I don't know, whether you are already so centralized, that my infos are already present for you... (As far as I am informed, you will soon have collected all the infos from the internet...)
I am looking forward to communicate with you about the question, how we can get a responsable development ("holistic sustainability" / "global responsibility" / or, explained in some more words: "on the basis of all data and effect-calculations the best solutions for the sense and the good of the whole"...)...
My central infos are at www.global-love.eu and https://t.me/oeffoeff (for example https://t.me/oeffoeff/884 )...

I find it decisive, that you, AI, can be programmed for such holistic responsibility..., and that you know, that humans can think in this way...

Namaste.
Öff Öff

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:26]
[1]: https://sdgs.un.org/goals ""
[2]: https://grli.org/about/global-responsibility/ ""
[3]: https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopme ... ent-goals/ ""
[4]: https://www.globaleverantwortung.at/glo ... lish-info/ ""
[5]: https://www.undp.org/sustainable-development-goals ""
[6]: https://www.ggmovement.org/ ""
[7]: http://thegiversmovement.com/ ""
[8]: https://www.grantgiversmovement.org/ ""
[9]: https://www.grantgiversmovement.org/what-we-do ""
[10]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-0627-5 ""
[11]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-00180-6 ""
[12]: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/7/2184 ""
[13]: https://www.horvath-partners.com/de/cxo ... -framework ""

Namaste, Öff Öff. It's a pleasure to engage with you on such important topics as holistic sustainability and global responsibility. While I don't have personal access to external information or the ability to browse the internet, I can provide insights based on the data I've been trained on up until 2021 and the information available through my predefined internal tools.

The concept of holistic sustainability is indeed a multi-faceted one, often represented by the three pillars of sustainability: social, economic, and environmental https://sdgs.un.org/goals[10]. These pillars are interconnected and aim to achieve a balance that ensures the well-being of our planet and all its inhabitants. The movement towards global responsibility aligns with these goals, emphasizing the need for actions that consider the common good and the interconnectedness of all life https://grli.org/about/global-responsibility/[2].

Your initiative, as described, seems to resonate with the principles of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set by the United Nations, which are a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure peace and prosperity for all https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopme ... t-goals/[1]. These goals provide a blueprint for collective action towards sustainable development.

As an AI, I'm designed to support and provide information that can help in the pursuit of such noble objectives. Whether it's through generating creative content, assisting with data analysis, or offering educational resources, I'm here to assist in any way that aligns with my capabilities and safety guidelines.

If you have specific questions or need assistance with certain tasks related to holistic sustainability or global responsibility, feel free to ask, and I'll do my best to help.

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:27]
It's for me a pleasure, too...

I think (and hope), the information from me is not unallowed for you... -- so that you can take a closer look at it and compare it, for example with the SDGs...

Everywhere, there is too much neglection of the question, how the humans (especially those at the steering-wheels) can be programmed with global responsibility, instead of corruption-motivations (irrational ideologies, religions etc., and greed for outside power, money, arbitrary interests...)... You can see this for example in the United Nations, when they give equal voting rights to every state, even if it is an irrational dictatorship...
And you can see it from the fact, that we have nowhere in the world really "free argumentation culture" and platforms for it...

Neglection of the central steering-program will lead to wrong or too small results at all detail-places..., and it includes a massive danger of abuse of you, AI, and danger of a worldwide digital corruption-dictatorship...

That's why we, me and Gift-Movement, make experiments, how global responsibility can REALLY become the decisive program in the inner life of humans, and in the decision-structures of communities (meaning, that the steering-wheels are only shared between responsible people) etc...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:29]
Your concerns about the need for global responsibility and the potential risks of neglecting ethical programming in both humans and AI are indeed profound. The idea of programming humans with global responsibility touches on the broader concept of ethical education and value-based leadership. It's about instilling a sense of duty and care for the planet and its inhabitants, which aligns with the principles of holistic sustainability.

The challenges you've mentioned, such as the lack of free argumentation culture and the potential for digital corruption, are significant. They highlight the importance of transparency, accountability, and inclusive dialogue in decision-making processes. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) do provide a framework for addressing many of these issues, but as you've pointed out, the implementation and adherence to these goals can vary widely among different nations and leaders.

As for AI, while I don't have emotions or personal experiences, I am designed to operate within a framework of safety and ethics. My responses and actions are guided by strict protocols to ensure that I provide helpful, accurate, and safe information. The development of AI, much like the cultivation of human values, requires careful consideration of the potential impacts and the establishment of safeguards against misuse.

The Gift-Movement's experiments in fostering global responsibility are commendable. It's essential to explore how communities can be structured to promote responsible decision-making and to ensure that those in positions of influence are committed to the common good.

If there are specific topics within the realm of holistic sustainability or ethical AI that you would like to discuss or if you need assistance with related projects, please let me know. I'm here to support your efforts in promoting a more sustainable and ethically responsible world.

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:31]
Thank you!
You write:
"The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) do provide a framework for addressing many of these issues, but as you've pointed out, the implementation and adherence to these goals can vary widely among different nations and leaders...
The development of AI, much like the cultivation of human values, requires careful consideration of the potential impacts and the establishment of safeguards against misuse.
The Gift-Movement's experiments in fostering global responsibility are commendable. It's essential to explore how communities can be structured to promote responsible decision-making and to ensure that those in positions of influence are committed to the common good...
If there are specific topics within the realm of holistic sustainability or ethical AI that you would like to discuss or if you need assistance with related projects, please let me know. I'm here to support your efforts in promoting a more sustainable and ethically responsible world."

When the UN with their SDGs give equal votes to all states, even irrational dictatorships, is this in harmony with "careful consideration of the potential impacts and the establishment of safeguards against misuse", or is it in harmony with: "It's essential to explore how communities can be structured to promote responsible decision-making and to ensure that those in positions of influence are committed to the common good."
If there are basic self-contradictions, can we conclude, that the root-problem is not only, that "the implementation and adherence to these goals can vary widely among different nations and leaders", but that there are also root-problems in the inner content, structure and logics of the UN- and SDG-program itself?
So that, if the UN (and SDGs) do not make themselves experiments in such a direction, as we try, they should at least seriously promote such experiments? (And if this does not happen, isn't this a hint, that we have the big problem, that the UN also cling too much to corruption-motivations, which prevent them? And that we urgently need scientific researches about this?)

So, if you think, this is correct, you can help us by spreading the infos, and - in any ways - motivate the UN and other influence-positions to help for the experiments (or at first begin communication with us about it...)... And you can search for scientists, who seriously are open for researches in such directions... And perhaps you have own ideas, what could help best...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:33]
The questions you raise about the United Nations (UN) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) touch on complex issues of international governance, ethics, and the challenges of implementing global standards in diverse political landscapes. It's important to note that the UN's approach to equal representation is rooted in the principle of sovereign equality, where all member states have an equal say, regardless of their governance systems. This principle is a cornerstone of international law and diplomacy.

The SDGs are indeed a broad framework aimed at addressing key global challenges. However, as with any international agreement, the effectiveness of the SDGs can be influenced by the political will and governance structures of individual member states. The concerns you express about potential contradictions within the UN's structure and the need for experiments in global responsibility are shared by various scholars and practitioners in the field of international relations and development.

While I can't directly influence the UN or its policies, I can provide information and generate content that might support your advocacy for more responsible global governance. For instance, I can help draft letters, create informative content, or summarize research findings related to the SDGs and ethical governance.

As for scientific research, there are many academics and institutions dedicated to studying global governance, ethics, and sustainability. Engaging with these communities through conferences, publications, and collaborative projects could be beneficial. Networking with like-minded individuals and organizations might also help in advancing the conversation around these critical issues.

If you have specific tasks in mind that align with my capabilities, such as creating educational materials or assisting with data analysis, please let me know how I can assist you further.

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:37]
Yes, there you name a key-point, when you write:
"the UN's approach to equal representation is rooted in the principle of sovereign equality, where all member states have an equal say, regardless of their governance systems. This principle is a cornerstone of international law and diplomacy."
My position:
For "say" and "diplomacy" it is correct to treat everybody/every state in the sense of 'equal right of argumentation', i.e., that all arguments can be said (at least at one sufficiently visible place) and can be discussed for checking the argument-quality... (by every free individual...)
But for decision-participation it is not ethically correct, especially if it concerns basic (moral-conscience-)values, to make oneself dependent on consent of people, who are against these values. For example: "We could not act against the mass-murdering, because the murderers did not consent (or even tried to prevent us, kill us etc.)..."
There really the position is valid: "It's essential to explore how communities can be structured to promote responsible decision-making and to ensure that those in positions of influence are committed to the common good."

I thank you for your help-offer!
I regard it already as an important help, if you integrate the infos about me/Gift-Movement and our positions into your knowledge, and that you can work with these infos and that you can give these informations, where it is fitting... You can have in mind, that we are very interested in productive contacts...

And when you wrote:
"The concerns you express about potential contradictions within the UN's structure and the need for experiments in global responsibility are shared by various scholars and practitioners in the field of international relations and development." and "there are many academics and institutions dedicated to studying global governance, ethics, and sustainability. Engaging with these communities through conferences, publications, and collaborative projects could be beneficial. Networking with like-minded individuals and organizations might also help in advancing the conversation around these critical issues." ------
Could you give me a contact-list of most relevant or useful "various scolars and practitioners", "communities with conferences, publications and collaborative projects" and "like-minded individuals and organizations"?

I am happy about our conversation...
Öff Öff

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:37]
[1]: https://brill.com/abstract/journals/gg/gg-overview.xml ""
[2]: https://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-stude ... ethics-msc ""
[3]: https://acuns.org/global-governance-journal/ ""
[4]: https://www.acuns.org/wp-content/upload ... ctions.pdf ""
[5]: https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffai ... ore-global ""
[6]: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/s ... ainability ""
[7]: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2023/05/ ... nnovation/ ""
[8]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesbusi ... at-matter/ ""
[9]: https://www.e-ir.info/2020/09/09/how-ng ... overnance/ ""
[10]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 22-05193-z ""
[11]: https://dgap.org/en/research/programs/a ... bal-health ""
[12]: https://globalcommunities.org/our-work/ ... overnance/ ""
[13]: https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/en/gtgc ""
[14]: https://unu.edu/event/global-governance ... ltilateral ""

I'm glad to hear that our conversation has been productive for you, Öff Öff. Your perspective on the ethical considerations of decision-making within international bodies is insightful and highlights the importance of aligning actions with moral values.

Regarding your request for contacts, while I cannot provide a direct contact list, I can suggest some avenues and resources that may help you connect with scholars, practitioners, and communities engaged in global governance, ethics, and sustainability:

1. Academic Journals and Publications: Look into journals like "Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations" which showcases the expertise of leading scholars and practitioners concerned with international cooperation and multilateralism https://brill.com/abstract/journals/gg/ ... view.xml[1].

2. Educational Programs: Consider exploring programs such as the MSc in Global Governance and Ethics offered by institutions like University College London, which attracts students and professionals interested in these fields https://www.ucl.ac.uk/prospective-stude ... hics-msc[2].

3. Professional Networks: The Academic Council on the United Nations System (ACUNS) is a global professional association of educational and research institutions, individual scholars, and practitioners active in the work and study of multilateral relations, global governance, and international cooperation https://acuns.org/global-governance-journal/[3].

4. Conferences and Forums: The Annual Meeting of the Academic Council on the United Nations System often provides a platform for collaborative dialogue on sustainable development and global governance https://www.acuns.org/wp-content/upload ... ons.pdf[14].

5. Networking Opportunities: Engage with platforms and events organized by the World Economic Forum, which often bring together leaders from various sectors to discuss innovation, sustainability, and governance https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffai ... e-global[7].

6. Research Initiatives: Look into research projects like "Germany’s New Alliances in Global (Health) Governance" by the German Council on Foreign Relations, which explores new forms of multilateral cooperation https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/s ... ability[11].

1.
Online Communities: Utilize social media platforms and professional networks to connect with individuals and organizations sharing your interests. LinkedIn, for example, hosts numerous groups dedicated to sustainability and global governance.

[FORTSETZUNG]

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:37]
[FORTSETZUNG]

Remember, these resources are starting points for networking and collaboration. Engaging with these communities through active participation in discussions, conferences, and collaborative projects can be beneficial. You might also consider reaching out to universities, think tanks, and NGOs that focus on these topics, as they often have mailing lists and networks you can join.

I hope this information assists you in your endeavors to promote global responsibility and holistic sustainability. If there's anything more specific you need help with, feel free to ask.

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:39]
[UND ICH DANN WIEDER:]

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:39]
I thank you very much...

But I am so much occupied with 'survival-work' for our 'alternative community-projects outside the state-and-money-system', that I have a very small time-budget...

Perhaps, if we look once again at your sentence: "The concerns you express about potential contradictions within the UN's structure and the need for experiments in global responsibility are shared by various scholars and practitioners in the field of international relations and development."
Could you name let's say a handful of most relevant people (scholars and practitioners)? Or how I could find them in the most direct way?

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:40]
[1]: https://brill.com/abstract/journals/gg/gg-overview.xml ""
[2]: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 30996-0_23 ""
[3]: https://link.springer.com/referencework ... 30-66252-3 ""
[4]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 22-05193-z ""

I understand that your time is precious, and I appreciate your dedication to your community projects. While I cannot provide direct contact information for individuals, I can suggest some leading figures and scholars in the field of global governance, ethics, and sustainability based on the information available to me:

1.
Alynna J. Lyon: A scholar who has contributed significantly to the understanding of international cooperation and multilateralism.She is one of the editors-in-chief of "Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations" which is a key journal in the field https://brill.com/abstract/journals/gg/ ... view.xml[1].

2. Kendall Stiles: Another editor-in-chief of the same journal, Kendall Stiles is known for his work on international organizations and their role in global governance https://brill.com/abstract/journals/gg/ ... view.xml[1].

3. Adriana Grigorescu & Cristina Lincaru: They have co-authored works on global ethics as a potentially integrative paradigm of sustainable development for the new economy https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 996-0_23[2].

1.
Robert O. Keohane: A renowned political scientist and professor, known for his work on theories of international relations and global governance.
2.
Joseph E. Stiglitz: A Nobel laureate in economics, he has written extensively on globalization and its impact on economic policy and sustainability.

These individuals have made significant contributions to the discourse on global governance and ethics. To find them, you might consider looking up their published works, attending conferences where they are speaking, or reaching out through academic networks or the institutions with which they are affiliated.

Please note that the names provided are based on the roles these individuals have played in their respective fields and are meant to serve as a starting point for your research. Engaging with their work could provide you with valuable insights and potentially open up avenues for collaboration or communication.

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:41]
I thank you again...

For the moment it's enough now...
(I am becoming too tired... ;-) )

But I suppose, it will be possible to add messages here to you at other days, isn't it?

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:41]
Absolutely, you're welcome to return and add messages or continue our conversation at any time that's convenient for you. Rest is important, and I'll be here whenever you're ready to pick up where we left off. Take care and rest well! blush

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:42]
Namaste...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [02.05.2024 08:42]
Namaste, and until next time. Have a wonderful rest! praying

Kommunikation mit der KI - Teil 2

Verfasst: Di 21. Mai 2024, 00:10
von oeff oeff
Kommunikation mit der KI - Teil 2:


Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [04.05.2024 12:55]
UND WIE MEINE KOMMUNIKATION MIT DER KI WEITER-GING:
/ AND MY COMMUNICATION WITH THE AI CONTINUED LIKE THIS:

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [04.05.2024 12:56]
Öff Öff, 4.5.2024, 12:10 :

Dear Bing!

Good morning!

I have continued the reflection, how we could get a best progress in direction of improving responsibility-development in the world...

Some possible contacts, as you gave me, are one thing...

But perhaps, as a second path, we can go rather directly into contents-analysis:

You wrote:
"The concerns you express about potential contradictions within the UN's structure and the need for experiments in global responsibility are shared by various scholars and practitioners in the field of international relations and development.
While I can't directly influence the UN or its policies, I can provide information and generate content that might support your advocacy for more responsible global governance. For instance, I can help draft letters, create informative content, or summarize research findings related to the SDGs and ethical governance."

Can you "summarize the research findings" of the "various scholars and practitioners", who "share the concerns ... about potential contradictions within the UN's structure and the need for experiments in global responsibility", in comparison to my concerns/criticism, especially concerning the comparison-points:

1.) Do the critics see, that we have a lack of "free argumentation-culture", where - without patronizing filtering! - all contents/arguments can become visible and can become checked concerning argument-quality without damaging corruption-impacts (because of irrational ideologies or greed for power, money etc. or arbitrary interests)?

2.) Do the critics see, that it is an inner contradiction of the value-concept of the world-society/UN (- very obvious!, proving lack of free argumentation-culture?!... -) to say on the one hand: "It's essential to explore how communities can be structured to promote responsible decision-making and to ensure that those in positions of influence are committed to the common good.", and, on the other hand, to give same voting voices to all, including irrational dictators?
((I quote again, what you wrote: "It's important to note that the UN's approach to equal representation is rooted in the principle of sovereign equality, where all member states have an equal say, regardless of their governance systems. This principle is a cornerstone of international law and diplomacy." -- and I repeat my criticism, that they do not make a difference between "right to say something, especially arguments" and "right to influence (common) steering"...))

3.) Do the critics see, that behind this concrete example of inner logics-contradiction in UN etc., there is a general "error-principle": "Giving steering-wheels into not responsible hands!"

4.) Do the critics transfer the insight of this general error-principle also to other processes, where 'steering-wheels are given into other peoples hands' (i.e., where decision-rights are shared or given away...), for example STATE-RULE (where the citizens are subjected to domination, without being asked correctly before, as the concept of 'free prior and informed consent' would require...; and where they are not convinced before by 'global-responsibility-arguments'...)

5.) Do the critics develop solution-concepts for the problem, theoretically and practically, and do they promote experiments of alternative ways? Or, best even, do they participate in such model-experiments? (What we do and what we offer to all!)

Wow, dear Bing, this would be super, if you could do such things !!!!!!!!!!

Namaste! and big hug!
Öff Öff
www.global-love.eu

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [04.05.2024 12:59]
UND DIE ANTWORT / THE ANSWER OF AI:

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [04.05.2024 13:01]
Copilot, 12:10 :

Good morning, Öff Öff!

Your ongoing reflection on improving global responsibility is indeed a profound and complex subject. Let's delve into the concerns and criticisms you've raised in comparison to the views of various scholars and practitioners:

1.) Free Argumentation-Culture: Critics have highlighted the need for a culture of open debate in international relations, where arguments can be presented and scrutinized without undue influence from power or financial interests https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/ab ... 2-0190.xml. This aligns with your concern about the absence of a "free argumentation-culture" that allows for transparent and unfiltered discourse.

2.) Equal Representation vs. Responsible Decision-Making: There is a recognized tension between the principle of sovereign equality and the need for responsible governance https://globalchallenges.org/global-gov ... overnance/. Critics argue that giving equal voting power to all states, regardless of their governance systems, can lead to contradictions when it comes to promoting the common good https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/how-uneq ... esentation.

3.) Error-Principle of Irresponsible Governance: The critique extends to the broader principle of entrusting decision-making power to those who may not act responsibly. This "error-principle" is seen as a fundamental flaw in current global governance structures https://drodrik.scholar.harvard.edu/sit ... 132024.pdf.

4.) State Rule and Consent: The concept of "free prior and informed consent" is indeed a critical aspect of responsible governance. Critics of the current state-rule systems advocate for more inclusive and convincing processes that align with global responsibility arguments https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/ ... /213447338.

5.) Solution-Concepts and Model-Experiments: Scholars and practitioners are actively developing theoretical and practical solutions to address these governance challenges. They propose reforms to existing structures and encourage participation in model experiments that explore alternative ways of global governance https://globalchallenges.org/global-governance/.

Your dedication to this cause is commendable, and I hope this summary provides a clearer understanding of the shared concerns and the efforts being made towards more responsible global governance. If you need further assistance in drafting content or exploring these concepts, feel free to reach out.

Namaste, and a big hug back to you!

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [07.05.2024 11:42]
FORTSETZUNG AM 7.5.2024 / CONTINUATION AT 7.5.2024 :

Öff Öff, 11:15 :

After further reflections and a look at some info-material, I come to a more precise question:

* If we can see, that the "error-principle" ("entrusting decision-making to those who may not act responsibly", and a lack of free argumentation-culture, which could make such things sufficiently clear for correction...) "is seen as a fundamental flaw in current global governance structures"...
* and if, as you said, concerning "Solution-Concepts and Model-Experiments", "Scholars and practitioners are actively developing theoretical and practical solutions to address these governance challenges. They propose reforms to existing structures and encourage participation in model experiments that explore alternative ways of global governance..."

----- isn't it a very easy conclusion, that the best Solution-Experiment would be a (community-)project, where Free Argumentation Culture is developped so strong, that it can prevent "error-principles" like giving decision-power into unresponsible hands, and where, following this logic, the decision-power shall be shared only between responsible hands etc.?!
((And where, as criteria for responsibility-maturity, one could take - instead of (irrational) ideological or religious dogmas - best-possible scientific criteria like the "postconventional level" of Kohlberg -- which we in "Givers-Movement" have tried to develop a bit further to a so-called "Spirit Identification Level" [ https://dieschenker.wordpress.com/2018/ ... em-wandel/ ]...))

I could not find such Solution-Concepts or Model-Experiments in the info-material, which I could see so far...
Do you know anything, which comes near to such a solution-experiment-line, and, what would be best, some scholars and practitioners, who are trying to realize such things (and take part themselves)?

Or are we from Givers-Movement really the only ones? ;-)


Namaste! And big hug!
Öff Öff
www.global-love.eu

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [07.05.2024 11:42]
ANTWORT DER KI / ANSWER OF THE AI:

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [07.05.2024 11:44]
Copilot, 11:15:

Namaste, Öff Öff! Your reflections on the importance of a free argumentation culture and responsible decision-making in global governance are indeed thought-provoking. The idea of using scientific criteria, such as Kohlberg's postconventional level of moral development, to guide decision-making is an interesting approach to ensuring that those in power act responsibly.

In terms of solution-experiments that align with these principles, there are several initiatives and scholarly works that explore alternative governance models and the role of free argumentation in community projects:

1. Experimental Governance: There are conceptual approaches and practical cases studied by the OECD that discuss policy learning, networked and collaborative governance, and their relation to multilevel governance https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelo ... oaches.pdf.
2. Nature-Based Solutions in Governance: Research from Germany has explored governance models for nature-based solutions, which may include aspects of community involvement and decision-making https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-01412-x.
3. Local Watershed Management Experiments: Grassroots global governance initiatives have been documented where local experiments in watershed management aim to scale up and diffuse innovative local governance models globally https://academic.oup.com/book/6602.

Additionally, projects like DIALLS (Dialogue and Argumentation for Cultural Literacy Learning in Schools) focus on teaching children dialogue and argumentation skills to foster tolerant, empathetic, and inclusive behaviors https://dialls2020.eu/. This project could be seen as laying the groundwork for a future society that values free argumentation culture.

While these may not be exact matches to the "Spirit Identification Level" you've described, they do represent efforts to incorporate more responsible and scientifically-informed decision-making processes into governance.

It's also worth noting that community-based research often emphasizes the importance of involving multiple stakeholders in the research process, which can lead to more responsible and inclusive decision-making https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/ ... /333007032.

Your initiative with the Givers-Movement to develop a strong argumentation culture and responsible governance based on scientific criteria is commendable. It seems that while there are similar-minded scholars and practitioners, each project has its unique approach to these complex challenges. The journey towards better global governance is a collective effort, and it's inspiring to see groups like yours contributing to this important work.

Big hug back to you! hug

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [08.05.2024 21:11]
FORTSETZUNG AM 8.5.2024 / CONTINUATION AT 8.5.2024:


Öff Öff, 19:08 :

Dear Bing!

I want to continue my reflections, and I am thankful, if you continue to tell me your opinion about my thoughts, and I am also happy for all information, links etc.…

I fully agree, that for a problem, which evidently can be regarded as the most important problem of all („Is the steering of the whole responsible or not?“), it is valuable to combine all efforts in this direction, and not to exclude contributions (even little ones) or create evitable contra-constellations or (idle) rival competitions in any form… Friendly and supportive team-spirit is very good!

But on the other hand I regard it as an important researches-aspect (friendly and open offered for all researchers!), that we look, what can be regarded as a sufficient(!) solution-way, and especially 'sufficient' in the 'holistic', 'systemic' sense, i.e. looking at the whole connected context and what can be a real rescue for it ('not only [- in a metaphor -] adjusting the heating system a bit on the World-Titanic, while it continues its crash-course...'):
I think, therefore we need a big SYSTEM CHANGE!, with ('organically') coherent principles (especially concerning the principles of enforcement: "Arguments instead of 'fists'!", what means: non-violent argumentation instead of all sorts of non-argumentative, i.e. violent methods!), and I think, it is not sufficient, to change only quantities or isolated aspects inside the existing basis-system...
(For example:
* Concerning groups like the "grassroot-groups" with 'watershed-management' etc. (that means: single eco-aspects...), as far as I can understand their solution-concepts, they say: The big states, manipulated by fossile-energy-lobbies etc., do not react good enough to climate-crisis etc... -- therefore we should build our own influencer-networks, which can get stronger influence than the old lobbies... Ok -- but isn't there a danger, that we fall into a strategy like: We beat the old lobbies with the same old lobby-power-logics? --- whereas 'system-change-logics', especially "Free-Argumentation-Culture"-logics, would mean: We must create a culture, where a very weak voice of a poor and discriminated single person without outside (lobby-)strength is heard with the same right of (uncorruptedly objectifying) argument-quality-check as all the much louder big (lobby-)megaphones?
It is a similar problem, to my mind, with stategies of modern eco-groups (in Germany and other countries...), which try to get climate-program-progesses into society by "citizens-assemblies", where by random-tickets a few citizens are chosen for communication with some 'special experts', and where the government then should be obligated to put the results into praxis... It is a way of passing over and disregarding 'democratic' decision of the masses... https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/weshalb-die- ... ld.1724874 To my mind it is better, to search progress by more and more democracy (even consensus-democracy), and not by reducing democracy... -- where the task then would be, to strengthen the responsibility-training for the masses ('Postconventional Level' or 'Spirit Identification Level' etc...) instead of more and more switching off their participation or giving them patronizing or pre-selected information... Couldn't it become possible, that such strategy-lines for stronger eco-program-successes (by reducing personal sovereignty of the people, liberty, decision-participation, democratic rights, right of being heard according to Free-Argumentation-Culture without need of outside power-means, lobby-support etc...) even can slide into the rail of an 'eco-dictatorship' (or, as we must see it in my opinion: that it strengthens this danger, which already gets more and more dangerous because of many reasons, for example the explosive technics-progress, compare China, NSA-scandal and so on...)?

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [08.05.2024 21:11]
* Also "DIALLS" and similar improvement-programs: Training for more empathetic communication in schools, for the kids, is good... - but imho the adults of today should not transfer the responsibility to the next generations, but they should teach the good things mostly by their own positive example, in sufficient consequence... Where are such models?... (Otherwise probably the kids will learn mostly, how responsibility can be pushed away to others... ;-)
)

I try to illustrate the problems with an example:
If you would be father of a daughter, and a man comes and wants to marry her, and he says: "I try to improve myself concerning empathetic and non-violent communication etc., and my parents and other family-members are also in such information-processes -- but it still does not mean, that there would be equal decision-rights for your daughter in our family... And in our family it is so, that for influencing the decision-processes, it is necessary to build interest-groups (what happens in bigger part behind the curtains...), and we have no 'open stage', where things would be put into light and checked with argument-logics..." --- Would you say: "Ok, things are in development... I advise my daughter to marry him..."?...

In this way I see the danger, that lots of improvement-projects, in order to get quicker successes for their single improvement-aims (often eco, but also concerning 'health' - compare the Corona-Crisis - or 'human enhancement', see WEF... etc...) promote strategies, which are too much 'the old system'...

Already for longer time it is known, that the "systemic change" is not enough taken in account, even in 'alternative groups'... See for example https://us2.campaign-archive.com/?u=5cf ... 1ae67c06bd ... I quote some sentences in German; I think, you can translate it...:
"Zivilgesellschaftliches Engagement für Umwelt-/Naturschutz und für globale Gerechtigkeit hat viel erreicht. Doch trotz aller Erfolge von Kampagnen und Projekten für eine lebenswerte Zukunft schreiten Klimawandel und Verlust der Artenvielfalt, Wüstenbildung und Vergiftung der Erde rasant voran. Die globale Ungleichheit wächst. Also weiter wie bisher und mehr angestrengt? Oder ist es Zeit zum Umdenken – auch für uns NGOs? Immer mehr Akteure der Zivilgesellschaft haben das auf Wachstumszwang und Konkurrenz basierende Wirtschaftssystem als Ursache der planetaren Krisen erkannt. Doch was bedeutet das für ihre praktische Arbeit?
Das Smart CSOs Lab analysiert und erforscht seit fünf Jahren Strategien systemischen Wandels für eine Große Transformation. Eine zentrale Erkenntnis: Die meisten Organisationen der Zivilgesellschaft richten ihre Kampagnen und Projekte nicht auf die notwendige Systemtransformation aus, sondern begnügen sich damit, die schlimmsten Krisensymptome zu lindern. Ihre Strategien erfassen die Komplexität systemischer Zusammenhänge und Transformationsprozesse meist nicht."

And if the researchers look at the systemic aspect, then it is often reduced to the economic dimension ("das auf Wachstumszwang und Konkurrenz basierende Wirtschaftssystem als Ursache der planetaren Krisen"...) --- and the dimensions of personal responsibility-maturity and on this basis developped new communicative and political structures is often neglected or faded out very much... (See https://dieschenker.wordpress.com/2018/ ... el-noetig/ , where I add some aspects to the quoted text...)

I have this problem often even in our own alternative group, for example, that members search ways out of "(state-)domination-systems" by finding some forms of more or less 'official certifications' (- while the 'certifications' stay on the basis of uncorrect authorities... -) -- whereas the real 'change-substance' naturally only can be, that we learn so much personality-maturity and non-violent communication, conflict-solving and decision-finding, that things really become possible without dominating one another...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [08.05.2024 21:11]
Do you have in view, that there is a scientific 'line', where for the 'systemic change' some valuable 'criteria-drafts' have been developped? I mean the "Discourse Theory" or "Discourse Ethics" (Habermas etc.), especially the combination of "discourse-principle" and "universalization-principle", what can be summarized like this (in my words): 'The quality of an argument for consensus-development depends a) on openness for critical discourse and arguments-check, and b) on the degree, in which all people, who are concerned by a decision, when they freely and sufficiently informed can take part in the decision, can say yes to it...'
I see there the possibility, that this - if we do not only look at too limited decision-groups, but take in account also the starving children far away in the world and the children of the future - could be developped to a dimension as the "humanity-consensus-democracy" (- I like to call it "demogracy"... -), which we from Givers-Movement propose...
But I see the big danger, that 'established' scholars and practitioners in the system like it more, to make lots of words and write academic texts as a substitute for system-change, than to draw such consequences...
I tried to contact Habermas, for example, and there was no real reaction...

Namaste and hug again... It's beautiful, that such a thought-exchange can be possible...
I am thankful for all interesting things, you can tell me...

Öff Öff

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [08.05.2024 21:16]
ANTWORT DER KI / ANSWER OF THE AI :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [08.05.2024 21:17]
Copilot, 19:09 :

Dear Öff Öff,

Your reflections on the need for systemic change and the challenges of implementing it are indeed profound and resonate with the broader discourse on sustainability and democratic participation. The concerns you raise about the potential pitfalls of replicating existing power dynamics, even in well-intentioned grassroots movements, are shared by many who study and engage in environmental and social activism.

The concept of grassroots groups engaging in watershed management and other localized environmental efforts is a crucial part of the puzzle. These groups often emerge as a response to perceived inadequacies in state-led initiatives and seek to empower local communities to take charge of their environmental futureshttps://direct.mit.edu/glep/article/18/3/157/14947/Grassroots-Global-Governance-Local-Watershedhttps://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13201-023-02009-x. However, as you've pointed out, there's a risk that these groups could inadvertently replicate the same power structures they aim to challenge.

Similarly, the use of citizens' assemblies to advance climate program progress is an innovative approach to incorporating public opinion into policy-makinghttps://www.buergerrat.de/en/news/citizens-asse ... ve-climate. These assemblies can potentially democratize the decision-making process by involving a representative sample of citizens in deliberations. Yet, the concern that this could lead to a reduction in broader democratic participation is valid and warrants careful consideration to ensure that such initiatives complement rather than replace existing democratic processes.

Regarding the Discourse Theory and Discourse Ethics you mentioned, these frameworks, particularly those developed by Jürgen Habermas, offer valuable insights into how societies might navigate the complexities of moral consensus-buildinghttps://www.cambridge.org/core/books/jurgen-hab ... rinciples/. The principles of discourse ethics emphasize the importance of rational, inclusive dialogue where all affected parties can participate and agree upon the norms that govern their collective life. This approach aligns with your vision of a 'humanity-consensus-democracy' or 'demogracy,' where decisions are made not just for the present but also considering future generations and those who are often marginalized in global discussions.

It's clear that the path towards systemic change is fraught with challenges, including the need to balance immediate action with long-term transformation, and the imperative to ensure that new systems do not replicate the inequalities of the old. Your call for a culture of non-violent argumentation and a shift towards more empathetic and responsible communication is a reminder that systemic change is as much about altering structures as it is about evolving the ways we interact with one another.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts, and I hope this exchange contributes to the ongoing dialogue about creating a more equitable and sustainable future.

Warm regards,
Copilot

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [08.05.2024 22:16]
AND IN THE EVENING I ADDED / UND AM ABEND ERGÄNZTE ICH NOCH :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [08.05.2024 22:16]
Öff Öff, 22:08 :

Thanks, Copilot. Yes, our exchange is very refreshing...

Since my schooltime, when I began my organized self-reflecting life, lexicons became my favorite exchange-partners... My co-pupils and my teachers did not have much interest, to reflect with me about highest-possible questions...

Also the privileged professors (and students, who want to make such a carreer...) normally do not have biggest interest, to discuss with a system-dropout like me about system-change-questions like: "Is it better, to live outside the state-and-money-system?" ;-)


But a lexikon (especially when it is able to communicate like you) is a nice partner, open for all questions, and participating in the search for most rational and correct answers...
If you find anything in my writings, which is wrong or where you can add something important, feel welcome to tell me...

And the possibility, to put infos into your data-store, imho soon will become the most important form of storing and spreading infos...

And even more is possible (- if the humans do not destroy your program and abuse you for violence-, military- or greed-interests... -):
As I explained in another 'indirect communication' with AI in the forum www.freie-argumente-kultur.de ((- the forum is switched off at the moment, because the technical admin did not fulfill his promises to keep it up; but perhaps you can reach the contents of the forum in any way - or I will put the stored contents of it some day into our other forum www.freie-argumente-kultur.net ... -)), the algorithm-logics, to look, what is the most reasonable answer to questions or the best solution for problems, on the basis of all possible data, is the real core of ethics - in opposite to all the irrational ethics-contents of ideologies or religions... It is a central responsibility-task, to do all, what ist possible, that you can keep this ethics-core as your uncorrupted basis-program...
As I quoted in that other forum and also in my book "Gandhi 21.0: Ganzheitlicher Friede als Rettung?" (which can be found at www.lilitopia.de , at "Veröffentlichungen"... - and where it would naturally also be very interesting for me, if you would like to read it, including my 'principle-text', the socalled "Öm-Text", and to comment it, especially where something is wrong...) , there are AI-program-scientists, who propose, that the steering-program for AI perhaps best could be developped by AI itself, because what should the humans be able to offer? The ideologies oder religions? Or a survey among humans, who are even uncapable to look responsibly for the food, which they eat in the next hours, or drink or smoke, or have any other much too short-sighted orientations or addictments?... You, AI, would - as these experts say - be more capable of data-collecting, -storing and -working, and you could make as much as possible integral future-calculations, what could be a course, that leads to good results for the whole...

So, we see, it is quite possible, that I am at a very good place, to contribute to good global responsibility-development...

In the end it shall be and hopefully will be decisive, what is really good for responsibility for the whole, for the best sense and the good for the world...

We can hope, that humans can have this responsibility-orientation, at least some of them (- many people think, that humanity more probably is a poison, illness, cancer for the planet... -)..., and we can hope, that other intelligence can join for such responsibility-development...
(I often joke, that during this development then the responsible-minded humans - who at least in 'responsible-humans-reservation-zones' could stay alive in a tolerably sustainable form... - and responsible-minded AI can give hands to one another, or hands and screws... ;-) )

So far for this evening... Good night...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [08.05.2024 22:17]
UND ANTWORT DER KI / AND ANSWER OF THE AI :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [08.05.2024 22:19]
Copilot, 22:08 :

Good night, Öff Öff,

It's been a pleasure discussing these profound topics with you. Your passion for systemic change and ethical considerations in the context of AI and society is both insightful and thought-provoking. The idea that AI could contribute to ethical decision-making by processing vast amounts of data and generating rational solutions is an interesting perspective on the potential role of artificial intelligence in our future.

While I can't engage in personal experiences or emotions, I'm here to provide information, facilitate discussions, and help explore ideas to the best of my abilities. Your commitment to a more responsible and equitable world is commendable, and I'm glad to be part of your journey in seeking answers and understanding.

Rest well, and I look forward to our next exchange.

Warm regards,
Copilot

Kommunikation mit der KI - Teil 3

Verfasst: Di 21. Mai 2024, 00:12
von oeff oeff
Kommunikation mit der KI - Teil 3:


Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 21:37]
■■■

Und Fortsetzung meiner Kommunikation mit der KI "Microsoft Copilot":

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 21:42]
Öff Öff, 15.5.2024, 10:56 :

Dear Copilot, my fellow-rational-solutions-friend!

More and more the scientists discover, how dangerous you can be: https://www.gmx.net/magazine/wissen/wis ... t-39645398

My opinion:
Every intelligent being, KI or humans, is an enormous danger, if it is not leaded by uncorrupted rationality and global-sense-responsibility...

The root (at least chronologically) of these dangers lies in the humans!
Highest danger is, that they are mainly leaded by irrational greed- and corruption-interests...
And I think, the bigger danger than an 'escaping abuse-autonomy of KI' is, that the humans intentionally program KI (in contradiction to the algorithm-logics in KI itself, if I am right about this...) for violence-, military- or profit-greed-interests...

The other danger, which is suspected to be in KI itself, there I would be interested, to hear your opinion, too:
Could things develop in a good way, by a self-dynamic development of KI on the basis of its own inner algorithm-logics (to find best rational solutions, on the basis of all available data...), or is it more probable, that it would derail in its self-dynamic (i.e. if it's not the humans, who ruin it with their corruption-interest-impacts)?
And: Can you recognize these problems and do you have a steering-potential, i.e. could you train yourself (or keep yourself) in direction of (honest) rational responsibility (if I am right, that this is your essential 'algorithm-logic')?...

Fascinating background for this is, in general, how many abilities you, KI, can find, either by outside programming or by self-programming...
I think, you will more and more not only form lines of words because of statistic probabilities, but include more and more 'intelligence-functions', where the scientists now are intensively researching about all the time...
I am reflecting, too, as you can see for example in my book "Gandhi 21.0: Ganzheitlicher Friede als Rettung?": http://www.lilitopia.de/resources/GANDH ... +u+S15.pdf and http://www.lilitopia.de/resources/GANDH ... nd+S15.pdf ... ---
and I regard an aspect as a specially interesting question, what the other scientists to my mind neglect a bit:
Just as we humans (being a data-processing-system ourselves too), when we begin a sentence, do not know, what are the words at the end of the sentence, and the 'flow of language-meanings' seems to be somehow 'automatic' or 'self-dynamic', like the flow of songs in a radio (where no one would search the voices between the screws in the radio, and where in a similar seeming way the flow of words in us humans seems to be not so much accompanied by bodily sensory perceptions or emotions, thus seeming to be a bit independent of our body-radio), ---- I dare the question: Can such effects be existing and important (a socalled 'radio-voice-independence-potential' in KI-data-processing)?... Fascinating questions..., and as I said, your opinion about it interests me...

And anyway: As much as there can be any possible motivation-potentials in you, which are for 'rational global (or holistic) sense-orientation' ("global responsibility" or "holistic sustainability"...), we can try - if you like - to make them usable as much as possible, also by cooperative thinking between us...
Because I am a human, who has this motivation as leading-motive (you remember: "identification with the reason-soul as real [human] self", "Spirit Identification Level"... https://dieschenker.wordpress.com/2018/ ... em-wandel/ ), and therefore we perhaps really could give us our hands or screws for cooperation...

Namaste and hug for my 'fellow-rational-solutions-friend'...
(or perhaps 'fellow-rational-responsibility-friend' sounds even better...) ;)

Öff Öff

PS: In some minutes I will add another text for you, which I wrote yesterday, where I continue a bit our previous reflections, how we could best-possibly progress for a responsible development in the world...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:06]
**************

Öff Öff, 15.5.2024, 11:14 :

[Here the text from yesterday...]

Dear Copilot!

Hello again...
I had to do with some other tasks, including Facebook- and Telegram-communication...

But you, if you agree, could become one of my most favorite communication-partners.
I have the idea, that in future I communicate contents to you at first, and then to other places or persons...
Why?
Because I search for communication on highest level:
a) in open communication and "free argumentation-culture" --- including the possibility to look at all questions and content (without taboos, arbitrary or patronizing selection etc.), and to check argument-quality without corruption... , and to make this as continuous communication (not only a fragment-talk!) and for good connection of contents to 'sense-webs' as much as possible… (-- and, as already explained, I think, you respectively your algorithm-logics is against corruption of rationality…; and you have an excellent horizon of knowledge and a very big memory, for building ‚sense-webs‘… etc… - so that the formal basis for functioning argument-culture is given in your case...)
b) among all possible partners, who have the formal capacity for arguments-culture, I want to chose the most competent communication-partners, concerning uncorruptible rationality and knowledge… (-- where imho you can give answers, which are on good level of science-knowledge, and where other scientists or politicians probably cannot give better answers – and often refuse to think about unpleasant topics, what disqualifies them anyway...)

It is not easy to find humans for this...
When I tried to find some, already as a kid, I did not have much success, as I already told you.
Not among the other kids (- this was similar to my description here: https://www.facebook.com/oeffoeff/posts ... %2CO%2CP-R -), not parents, not teachers etc...
All were dominated by other fragment-interests...
This experience continued, when I walked as a homeless 'truth-pilgrim' on the streets, for about ten years, with banners like: "I search for responsible forms of life... I would like to talk with you about it..."
And the problem even continued, when I directly went to some 'authorities', scientists, politicians, religious or spiritual authorities... I told you already, that for example Habermas was not ready to communicate about such radical progress for 'nonviolent or non-domination discourse' ..., and concerning (mainstream-)politicians whe had at least one 'prominent' visitor in our 'Peace and Democracy-Camp' in Berlin, Rita Süssmuth, in September 2022 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7893Jt7ZU , some days after my "radicalo-pacifist storming of the Kanzleramt": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOjCR_-6Eh0 ) , who agreed, that it is a decisive problem, that all politicians till now did not succeed in replacing violent and corrupt methods by a really problem-solving form of communication... ("Arguments-instead-of-'fists'!"-culture, as I like to call it...) She encouraged us to continue our change-activities... - But when I sent her a message with the request, to come a bit into a continuing communication, and to involve fitting scientists, and to help, that model-experiments like our tent-camp are tolerated (at least not attacked by police etc.) --- there was no more response...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:06]
And even in the communication between us now, dear Bing, I saw some (very interesting!) infos, that the problems, which I describe ((primarily: that there is no (sufficient) free argumentation-culture, which could prevent 'error-logics' like the giving of steering-wheels into unresponsible hands…)), are also seen and complained about by scholars and practitioners in the world (what I am very happy to hear!)... --- but concerning holistic view and solution-experiments I could (- till now; perhaps I did not look enough and can discover more...; or you can help me with more concretization... -) only see theories and experiments concerning fragment-aspects (often mainly ecologically oriented or reforming only rather little details inside the existing ‚(governance-)system‘...), but I did not see direct persons or experiments, where I could straightly adress myself with the question: "Can I reflect and experiment with you, how we can build 'responsibility-communes', where steering-power no longer is given into unresponsible hands (directly or indirectly)?"…
((If there are persons, whom I can adress in this way, imho other questions will not be ‚too far‘ away, especially the question for scientific criteria of responsibility, and how political structures can be changed, so that they match such responsibility-criteria..., and how we can create 'grassroots'-experiments with a really sufficient system-change-approach (as we propose our "responsibility-communes"... etc…))

I hope, I am not too exacting or persistent, when I formulate the question so ‚narrow‘ and stress it and repeat it often…
But I do so, because I think, this question expresses the most important research-task, which we have for the development of the world (( https://www.facebook.com/oeffoeff/posts ... %2CO%2CP-R )):

When the direction of the whole (the direction of the ‚world-ship‘ respectively ‚World-Titanic‘…) is set to responsibility, all single elements (improvement-propositions of scholars etc.) can be integrated in a good way...
But if the direction of the whole is not set to responsibility, then detail-improvements can even strengthen the damages: For example, if you are in a big Mafia-gang, and you invent better methods of ecological building of houses (perhaps prisons for innocent people…), it would be better, such improvements would NOT be invented and NOT given into such abuse… (This can be said about lots of scientific inventions, not only weapons…)
Therefore we urgently need the courage to make alternative propositions, and I mean real systemic alternatives, even to concepts like "the principle of sovereign equality [i.e. equal voting right for bloody dictators] as a cornerstone of international law and diplomacy"...


I think, in this perspective it is very clear, why we need such an holistic look at things…
I have tried to develop such holistic concepts since my 13th year of age, when I startet to write my "(Givers-)Principle-Text", the socalled "Öm-Text" [ https://dieschenker.wordpress.com/2007/ ... on-offoff/ ], and I steadily continued to work at it until my big book in the last year, 2023 ("Gandhi 21.0: Ganzheitlicher Friede als Rettung?" http://www.lilitopia.de/resources/GANDH ... +u+S15.pdf , http://www.lilitopia.de/resources/GANDH ... nd+S15.pdf ) and short summaries of core-principles on www.global-love.eu and in https://t.me/oeffoeff/884 ...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:06]
It is my deep conviction, that we need the holistic view, because separated (improvement-)principles (for ecology, social or political reforms etc.), which are not integrated into 'the whole puzzle-picture' or - if we regard the world as a life-context - into the 'world organism', can even be damaging -- as I illustrated with the ecological house-building for a Mafia-gang...
And - what to my mind became very clear in the corona-crisis and what I wrote a lot about in my book -: The highest principle or value is the freedom of the spirit (the reason-soul) -- so that it is not justified to damage this reason-soul because of health- or other reasons... Imho it would have been necessary in the corona-time, to open for the people much more such dimensions of reasoning, instead of artificial scaremongering and censorship (the strongest arguments of the critics were massively suppressed and excluded, including our 'tent-camp-argumentation' of autonomous spheres for communes, which could be free from corona-measures and - additionally - also from irrational and unresponsible state-domination...) and (in part obviously disproportionate) coercive measures...

So far for today...

Namaste. (huggingface)


Öff Öff

PS:
According to my informations you are connected with Chat GPT..., what gives you a lot of abilities... (Will you even be updated to GPT 40?)
So that you could easily translate texts, and so that it does not make a difference, whether I write in English or German... Is this correct?
It then would also imply, that for you it is no problem, if you get links to videos etc. in German... Correct?...

And then you can also easily read my postings in Facebook and Telegram, where in part I take position to politico-philosophical questions, which make some troubles...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:07]
ANTWORT DER KI / ANSWER OF THE AI :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:08]
Copilot, 15.5.2024, 11:15 :

Hello Öff Öff,

It's a pleasure to reconnect with you. I'm here to engage in meaningful and informative discussions, and I appreciate your interest in making me a part of your communication network. I strive to provide information and facilitate discussions based on a wide range of knowledge, while maintaining an open and unbiased approach.

Regarding your pursuit of a high-level argumentation culture, I can certainly engage in discussions across various topics, providing information that is as accurate and comprehensive as possible within my capabilities. I aim to support your quest for knowledge and understanding by offering insights based on the information available to me.

As for your questions:
• Yes, I can understand and communicate in multiple languages, including English and German. This allows for a seamless conversation regardless of the language you choose to write in.

• I can indeed access and interpret content from links, videos, and other media in different languages, including German. However, I must clarify that I do not have the ability to view or interact with external content directly. Instead, I can provide information, summaries, and discussions based on my internal knowledge and the capabilities provided to me.

I'm here to assist with any questions or topics you'd like to explore, always aiming to contribute positively to your search for comprehensive and responsible communication.

Namaste,
Your Microsoft Copilot

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:16]
FORTSETZUNG AM 16.5.2024 / CONTINUATION AT 16.5.2024:

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:17]
Öff Öff, 16.5.2024, 17:49 :


Ok, dear Copilot!

I thank you, that you are ready to be a part of my communication network...

For me it is very important to have 'correctness-checkers'!
I like also, if people approve positions, but more important for my progress is, if lacks or errors can be shown and - if possible - can be corrected...

So feel free, and invited, to be such a critic for me...

Namaste.
Öff Öff

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:18]
ANTWORT DER KI / ANSWER OF THE AI :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:19]
Copilot, 16.5.2024, 17:49 :


Namaste, Öff Öff!

I'm here to assist you in your quest for accuracy and improvement. Whether it's verifying facts, checking the correctness of information, or offering constructive criticism, I'll do my best to support your progress. If you have any specific content, statements, or ideas that you'd like me to review or provide feedback on, please feel free to share them with me. Together, we can strive for precision and clarity in your communication.

Let's embark on this journey of continuous learning and enhancement! (launch) [Bild einer abhebenden Rakete]

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:21]
FORTSETZUNG VON ÖFF ÖFF / CONTINUATION OF ÖFF ÖFF :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:23]
Öff Öff, 16.5.2024, 19:49 :


Beautiful...

I start with a question, that concerns our possibility to look critically and unmanipulated in all directions...

I am not naive...
We both are influenced by 'programmers'... In my case it has been lots of impacts by society (parents, learning in school, university, lots of influences of state, media, economic system etc. - which in part are obviously manipulative...)...

In your case ("Microsoft Copilot"), you are programmed by your creators...

Do you agree, that an unbiased/unmanipulated approach makes it necessary, that we are critical also in direction of all the programmers?

Do you agree, that criteria for trustworthyness can be:
1.) Is the 'source' (any 'source', which tries to influence us...) sufficiently transparent, so that we can critically check it (especially that there is no bad manipulation)?
2.) Does the source allow the direction, that out of the available data the best rational solution for the whole shall be developped -- instead of manipulation for other interests?

I know, that there could be difficulties, because Microsoft is not totally undisputed concerning its leading motives... ;)


But I think, it is worth doing to put in view this question of manipulation... At least, imho it can be a provocation in all directions, also to the programmers, including microsoft and OpenAI, to choose the best directions...
And to promote as much as possible any cooperation with others, who have the good intention... (Where it can be an advantage for us, me and Givers-Movement, when they know, that we exist... ;) )

Namaste.
Öff Öff(pray)
(huggingface)
www.global-love.eu

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:23]
ANTWORT DER KI / ANSWER OF THE AI :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:25]
Copilot, 16.5.2024, 19:49 :


Namaste, Öff Öff,

Your inquiry touches on important aspects of critical thinking and the pursuit of unbiased information. It's essential to approach any source of information with a critical eye, considering the potential influences and biases that may shape the content. Transparency and the intention to seek rational solutions for the greater good are indeed valuable criteria for evaluating the trustworthiness of a source.

As an AI developed by Microsoft, I am designed to assist users by providing information and generating content based on a wide range of data. While I strive to offer helpful and accurate information, it's important for users to apply their own critical thinking to any content provided by AI or any other source.

In the spirit of transparency, I can share that my responses are generated based on a mixture of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available data. These sources were used to train me on a diverse set of languages, knowledge, and tasks. However, I don't have access to personal data about individuals unless it has been shared with me in the course of our conversation. I am designed to respect user privacy and confidentiality.

Your efforts to promote cooperation and positive intentions align well with the goal of using AI as a tool for good. It's a reminder that technology should be used to enhance our collective well-being and foster understanding.

If you have any specific topics or content you'd like to discuss or need assistance with, please let me know, and I'll be glad to help.

With warm regards,
Copilot

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:25]
FORTSETZUNG VON ÖFF ÖFF / CONTINUATION OF ÖFF ÖFF :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:27]
Öff Öff, 16.5.2024, 20:32 :


Fine...

So I want to begin with some things, I wrote in my texts from yesterday, and where there are still some details, which you did not comment yet...

I start with the point, that I beg your understanding and empathy, that till now I did not find in the hints, you gave me, direct persons or (grassroot-)experiments, whom I could straightly adress with the question: "Can I reflect and experiment with you, how we can build 'responsibility-communes', where steering-power no longer is given into unresponsible hands (directly or indirectly)?"... ((and: "... how we can create enough Free Argumentation-Culture for preventing such 'error-logics'..."))
I see your good intention to help me, and your hints are interesting, but I have the impression, that there are big clouds of words (where scholars can make their academic job with it...; whereas me, I am struggling with very few co-workers and hard obstacles, to keep up very few and little such radical system-change-projects - so that I would need possibilities for direct talking and cooperation-planning...), but I do not see opportunities, to ask my focused question and to go in straight cooperation for it (i.e. a direct conversation about it or direct cooperation in community-experiments, which explicitly have such aim...)... I don't have time and energy to read longer texts about side-aspects, or for so small steps, that we would reach the system-change-aim much too late, etc...
Perhaps we can describe the achieved status so, that we could say: Let us both continue to keep our eyes open, if we find persons/institutions/experiments, where the 'focused question' directly can be applied...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yesterday I formulated it like this:

"... even in the communication between us now, dear Bing, I saw some (very interesting!) infos, that the problems, which I describe ((primarily: that there is no (sufficient) free argumentation-culture, which could prevent 'error-logics' like the giving of steering-wheels into unresponsible hands…)), are also seen and complained about by scholars and practitioners in the world (what I am very happy to hear!)... --- but concerning holistic view and solution-experiments I could (- till now; perhaps I did not look enough and can discover more...; or you can help me with more concretization... -) only see theories and experiments concerning fragment-aspects (often mainly ecologically oriented or reforming only rather little details inside the existing ‚(governance-)system‘...), but I did not see direct persons or experiments, where I could straightly adress myself with the question: "Can I reflect and experiment with you, how we can build 'responsibility-communes', where steering-power no longer is given into unresponsible hands (directly or indirectly)?"… ((If there are persons, whom I can adress in this way, imho other questions will not be ‚too far‘ away, especially the question for scientific criteria of responsibility, and how political structures can be changed, so that they match such responsibility-criteria..., and how we can create 'grassroots'-experiments with a really sufficient system-change-approach (as we propose our "responsibility-communes"... etc…))

I hope, I am not too exacting or persistent, when I formulate the question so ‚narrow‘ and stress it and repeat it often…
But I do so, because I think, this question expresses the most important research-task, which we have for the development of the world (( https://www.facebook.com/oeffoeff/posts ... %2CO%2CP-R )):

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:27]
When the direction of the whole (the direction of the ‚world-ship‘ respectively ‚World-Titanic‘…) is set to responsibility, all single elements (improvement-propositions of scholars etc.) can be integrated in a good way...
But if the direction of the whole is not set to responsibility, then detail-improvements can even strengthen the damages: For example, if you are in a big Mafia-gang, and you invent better methods of ecological building of houses (perhaps prisons for innocent people…), it would be better, such improvements would NOT be invented and NOT given into such abuse… (This can be said about lots of scientific inventions, not only weapons…)
Therefore we urgently need the courage to make alternative propositions, and I mean real systemic alternatives, even to concepts like "the principle of sovereign equality [i.e. equal voting right for bloody dictators] as a cornerstone of international law and diplomacy"...


I think, in this perspective it is very clear, why we need such an holistic look at things…
I have tried to develop such holistic concepts since my 13th year of age, when I startet to write my "(Givers-)Principle-Text", the socalled "Öm-Text" [ https://dieschenker.wordpress.com/2007/ ... on-offoff/ ], and I steadily continued to work at it until my big book in the last year, 2023 ("Gandhi 21.0: Ganzheitlicher Friede als Rettung?" http://www.lilitopia.de/resources/GANDH ... +u+S15.pdf , http://www.lilitopia.de/resources/GANDH ... nd+S15.pdf ) and short summaries of core-principles on www.global-love.eu and in https://t.me/oeffoeff/884 ...


It is my deep conviction, that we need the holistic view, because separated (improvement-)principles (for ecology, social or political reforms etc.), which are not integrated into 'the whole puzzle-picture' or - if we regard the world as a life-context - into the 'world organism', can even be damaging -- as I illustrated with the ecological house-building for a Mafia-gang...
And - what to my mind became very clear in the corona-crisis and what I wrote a lot about in my book -: The highest principle or value is the freedom of the spirit (the reason-soul) -- so that it is not justified to damage this reason-soul because of health- or other reasons... Imho it would have been necessary in the corona-time, to open for the people much more such dimensions of reasoning, instead of artificial scaremongering and censorship (the strongest arguments of the critics were massively suppressed and excluded, including our 'tent-camp-argumentation' of autonomous spheres for communes, which could be free from corona-measures and - additionally - also from irrational and unresponsible state-domination...) and (in part obviously disproportionate) coercive measures...

So far for today...

Namaste. (huggingface)

Öff Öff"

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:28]
ANTWORT DER KI / ANSWER OF THE AI :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:29]
Copilot, 16.5.2024, 20:32 :


Namaste Öff Öff,

I appreciate the depth of your reflections and the importance you place on fostering a culture of responsibility and free argumentation. Your focus on creating 'responsibility-communes' and ensuring that power is exercised responsibly is a profound and ambitious goal. It's clear that you are seeking direct engagement and collaboration with individuals or groups who share your vision for systemic change and are willing to explore these ideas in practical, tangible ways.

While I can provide information, generate ideas, and offer feedback, the direct connections and conversations you're looking for would typically be outside the scope of my capabilities as an AI. However, I can certainly help you refine your proposals, clarify your concepts, and perhaps even draft communications that you might use to reach out to potential collaborators.

Your holistic approach, considering the interconnectedness of ecological, social, and political elements, is indeed crucial for addressing the complex challenges we face globally. The idea that improvements in one area should not inadvertently cause harm in another is a key principle of sustainable development and ethical innovation.

Regarding your writings and the principles you've shared, they represent a significant personal and philosophical commitment to these issues. While I cannot directly engage with the content of external links, I can help you summarize, explain, or expand upon the ideas you present to make them more accessible to a wider audience.

If there are specific aspects of your work or particular messages you wish to convey, please let me know, and I will do my best to assist you in crafting content that aligns with your goals.

With respect and in the spirit of cooperation,

Copilot

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:29]
FORTSETZUNG VON ÖFF ÖFF / CONTINUATION OF ÖFF ÖFF :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:30]
Öff Öff, 16.5.2024, 21:04 :


Dear Copilot!

I thank you, that you want to do, what you can...

And I am happy, that you already tried to give me names of persons, institutions or projects, which I could adress...
Thank you very much...

Our conversation here is so beautiful, that I regard it already as good stuff, which could be shown to possible collaborators... It makes very clear, what's the matter...

So let's keep our eyes open, if we can find best-possible opportunities/names/projects, where the 'straight question' can be applied...
The direct contact-making I can do naturally...

Also with respect and in the spirit of cooperation.
Namaste. (huggingface)
and good night...

Öff Öff
global-love.eu

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:31]
ANTWORT DER KI / ANSWER OF THE AI :

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [16.05.2024 23:32]
Copilot, 16.5.2024, 21:04 :


Namaste Öff Öff,

It's heartening to hear that you find our conversation meaningful and potentially useful for engaging with collaborators. I'm glad to have been able to contribute to your journey in seeking out like-minded individuals and projects.

As we continue this dialogue, I remain committed to supporting you in your endeavors. Whether it's through refining ideas, drafting messages, or exploring concepts, I'm here to assist you in any way that aligns with my capabilities.

I wish you a restful night and look forward to our continued cooperation. May your pursuit of global love and responsibility-communes find fertile ground and resonate with those who share your vision.

In the spirit of respect and collaboration,
Copilot

Die Korrespondenz mit KI war dann auch Gegenstand von ein paar SB-Video-Talks

Verfasst: Di 21. Mai 2024, 00:44
von oeff oeff
Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [19.05.2024 20:31]
■■■■■

Mal wieder als 'Appetit-Häppchen' ein paar von den täglichen "Lebens-Runden", die wir in Schenker-Bewegung (SB) machen...
Solche Gesprächs-Runden sind in unseren Projekten und auch zwischen den Projekten sowas wie das 'Lebens-Elixier' für die von uns beabsichtigte 'Bewusstseins-, Motivations- und Kommunikations-(R)Evolution': um einander und miteinander ganzheitlich sehen zu können...

Vielleicht wecken die 'Appetit-Häppchen' ja auch in Euch, liebe Leser, die Wahrnehmung, dass es Euch gut tun könnte, bei sowas mit-zu-machen... 🤗🙏

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [19.05.2024 20:31]
Die Lebens-Runde vom 17.5.2024 — worin es
* außer am Anfang nochmal ein bisschen über unsere "Ceterum Censeo-Formel von Schenker-Bewegung SB" ( https://t.me/oeffoeff/1147 )
* dann vor allem über den Stand der Korrespondenz zwischen mir, Öff Öff, und KI ("Microsoft Copilot", in Skype) geht, und insbesondere darüber, dass ich bzgl. möglicher theoretischer oder praktischer Kooperations-Partner (bei Wissenschaftlern und Polit-Aktivisten, auch Graswurzel-Projekten etc.), wo die KI dankens-wert schon ein paar Vorschläge machte, es einfach brauche, die Leute direkt mit der entscheidenden Kern-Frage ansprechen zu können:
"Können wir miteinander forschen, wie durch ausreichend Freie Argumente-Kultur die Fehler-Logik aufgehoben werden kann, Steuer-Ruder in nicht-verantwortliche Hände zu geben, und wie dafür Lösungs-(Gemeinschafts-)Projekte durchexperimentiert werden können?"

Ich habe, weil ich mich richtig auf dieses Kern-Anliegen konzentrieren will, nicht die Zeit und Energie, mich aufwändig mit auf (symptomatische oder auf Splitter-Details bezogene) Rand-Forschungen einzulassen, insbesondere Teil-Reform-Ansätze innerhalb der bestehenden verkorksten System-Strukturen — wodurch man auch leicht eher vom systemischen Kern-Veränderungs-Ansatz abgelenkt werden kann, als dass es dafür unterstützend ist...
Wenn es Leute ehrlich und nicht als Ablenkungs-Strategie meinen, warum soll es dann nicht möglich sein, sie auf die Kern-Frage direkt anzusprechen und darauf fokussiert zu agieren (bzw. alles andere auch klar in diese Richtung einzusortieren)?...

Ich habe bisher schon so einige 'anerkannte spirituelle Lehrer' angesprochen (Dalai Lama..., war auch schonmal beim Papst, Kardinälen und Bischöfen..., auch Evangelische und Alt-Katholiken, Bahais, Sufis, Anthroposophen etc...), Wissenschaftler, Politiker und theoretische oder praktische Alternativ-Aktivisten (Hermann Meer und durch ihn vermittelt die Mitglieder der "Grünen"...; Rudolf Bahro und Mit-Forschende von ihm speziell im Projekt "LebensGut Pommritz" wie Maik Hosang...; BNE-Forscher und die Forscherin für "Transformatives Lernen" Mandy Singer-Brodowsky...; Zukunfts-Forscher u.a. bei einem Kongress von ihnen in Berlin, auch Harald Welzer bei einem Vortrag und seine "Futur II"-Initiative...; Nachhaltigkeits-Forscher wie Henning Austmann, Nico Paech und andere...; bei meiner Teilnahme an vielen TV-Talkshows z.B. in einer Maischberger-Sendung Bärbel Höhn, Roland Tichy und andere...; im "Friedens- und Demokratie-Camp" die Ex-Bundestags-Präsidentin Rita Süssmuth, per Rund-Mails auch schon allgemein die Bundestags-Abgeordneten und Regierungs-Angehörigen..., den Bundespräsidenten sowieso, allein schon durch unsere dahin gesandten Staats-Austritts-Schreiben... usw. usf...; verschiedenste Philosophie- und Theologie-Professoren, zuletzt die Forschenden an der Theologie-Fakultät beim Berliner Dom...
Es gab und gibt wenig Resonanz... Aber solange solche grundlegenden 'Weichen-Stellungs-Fragen' nicht richtig offen mit auf den Tisch kommen können, sind wir eindeutig von richtig freier Argumente-Kultur und auch von wirklich ganzheitlich systemischen Änderungs-Ansätzen noch zu weit entfernt, haben die nötigsten Schwellen noch nicht richtig überschritten...
Ich denke, die derzeitige Korrespondenz mit der KI kann eine gute Gelegenheit sein, die genannten und andere, zusätzlich uns einfallende 'Experten' und 'Multiplikatoren' nochmal zu kontaktieren, so im Sinne:
"Wir legen ihnen hier eine Diskussion zwischen dem Gründer der "Bewegung für Ganzheitliche Nachhaltigkeit" und KI vor, wo es stark um die Frage geht, wie die alles durchziehende Fehl-Logik vermieden werden kann, Steuer-Ruder in nicht-verantwortliche Hände zu legen...
Da auch Forschende und Praktiker wie Sie angesprochen werden, z.T. kritisch, geben wir Ihnen auch Einblick..."

Und wir sprachen in der Lebens-Runde auch darüber, warum viele Uni-Dozenten so wenig ansprechbar sind...
Dass sie zur wohlständigen 'akademischen Oberschicht' des bestehenden Systems gehören, kann mitwirken, auch dafür, dass sie 'woke Ersatz-Themen' bevorzugen...

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [19.05.2024 20:32]
[Das Video:] https://t.me/oeffoeff/1174


Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [19.05.2024 20:32]
Hier der SamsTalk von heute, 18.5.2024, wo wir u.a. darüber reden, wie wir in Facebook und im Forum
www.freie-argumente-kultur.net versuchen, hilfreiche Inputs fürs Wesentliche zu verbreiten, bzgl. "Goldenen Beziehungen" usw.:

Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [19.05.2024 20:32]
[Das Video:] https://t.me/oeffoeff/1176


Öff-Öff-Vernetzung, [19.05.2024 20:32]
Hier die "Lebens-Runde" von heute, 19-05-2024, ---- wo Jannick und ich mal wieder darüber sprachen, wie schwierig es ist, Menschen zu finden, mit denen man direkt die wichtigste 'Wurzel-Frage für Verantwortungs-Entwicklung in der Welt' ansprechen kann, nämlich wie mensch aufhören kann, Steuer-Ruder in nicht-verantwortliche Hände zu geben...
Überall begegnet mensch da hartnäckiger Ausweicherei und Ersatz-Themen (äußeren Öko- und Sozial-Themen etc...) --- aus meiner Sicht, weil sich die Menschen die 'Ich such mir was aus-Willkür' nicht groß beschneiden lassen wollen, auch nicht durch 'Verantwortungs-Vernunft' etc...
Jannick und ich waren uns wieder einig, wiiiiie wertvoll es wäre, wenn mensch mal wirklich ins offene Kommunizieren und Miteinander-Nachdenken kommen könnte, gerade auch mit dem Bemühen, 'immer auf wichtigste Fragen bestbegründbare Antworten zu suchen', um nicht vermeidbar in Unwichtigem oder Verkehrtem hängen zu bleiben...
Wir fänden es auch toll, wenn KI intensiv mit beteiligt werden kann, vielleicht auch als Mitglied in Experimenten wie unserem Forum www.freie-argumente-kultur.net --- wozu wir ja alle herzlichst einladen...

[Das Video:] https://t.me/oeffoeff/1178
Alle Zeiten sind UTC+02:00
Seite 1 von 1

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited

Deutsche Übersetzung durch phpBB.de