So, the scoop on AI.

AI is just a verbal calculator. That's all it is. It skims articles, and gives you a summary of them in a paragraph. It also will, in the future, be capable of moving traffic in grids---maybe even flying grids---to prevent accidents. As the traffic patterns will be too complicated for someone to do themselves if there's flight.

It shouldn't be incorporated into the human body. It shouldn't be built from any biological mechanism. But, it's just a way to basically calculate. 

As far as it writing books or doing art... I think people have to have a moment, where they realize that Art is communication. And 90% of the value of a book, is the Author or Painter. Who they are as a person. Not the actual words or subject themselves.

As an AI can't do three things.

It can't witness. It has no capacity to understand or perceive the world, so it can't understand with any accuracy what is truly going on. So, it can pull up data, and tell you what other people have said---being a sort of collective subconscious---but it cannot perceive the world or experience it.

It can't reason. AI cannot move to higher principles, unless they're already built. It can't understand, or use division like logic. An AI will never understand why something works. It can only do how. It can't understand the logic of mathematics, or really perceive the metaphor of a book.

It can't imagine. AI cannot think in pictures, or words, or really it doesn't have any thoughts. It's everything ever written or spoken on the Internet, blended together, to create a shortcut to an already programmed answer. It cannot believe. It cannot truly understand. It cannot imagine. So, even if it does create a perfect story, it didn't imagine that story. The Billions of people whose ideas programmed it, imagined that story, and it just spun them around in a kaleidoscope and regurgitated it.

[N]ot a philosopher I'd really want to study{}. You might do better studying Descartes or Locke, or even Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy, or Adam Smith. Carlyle was the Grandfather of fascism. A brilliant man... a Polymath... but like all Polymaths, he grossly overestimated the capacity of one man to rule. Democracy is actually far more stable than Monarchy. It produces the most amount of benefits for the most amount of people, for the longest amount of time.

I'd say it did begin with Modernism. That's for sure. Most of our philosophical traditions have been bad for going on 200 years now. That was a reaction to World War I and the French Revolution, they were both so bad, it spurred a counter movement, which to be frank... the Romantic School, the Enlightenment School, and Christ's Moral Clarity were already the counter for. We had it right for about 50 years, from 1950-2001. There was a budding romanticism, checked by realism. Which was really the culmination of the Enlightenment's and Christianity's values. Not Modernism's.

What you do have to understand about him, is he lived right through one of History's most tumultuous times. He saw the effects of the French Revolution--which was very ugly--and it wouldn't look good to him. But, we know the effects it would have were actually good.

Like all things, history goes in cycles. There's period where men are filled with sin, then they get frustrated because that sin causes them to suffer, and then they move to war. And Carlyle saw one of those bad times in history and romanticized the Peace England was feeling. As Dickens had a reason for saying, "It was the best of times; it was the worst of times." So do individual civilizations.

What's true, however, is Free Markets are better for people, that have restrictions for the public's [safety]. And so are Democracies better for people, because it puts more minds to the task of figuring a thing out, which 1000 lay people can outthink one 200IQ genius.

So, generally, the "Great Man Theory" is wrong. We see that happening in America right now, that hundreds of interests are at play, and the real movements are top to bottom and middle and all over. Tolstoy actually wrote about that. That kind of historical analysis is more valid, I'd think, than Carlyle's. It's just true, the individual in a collective has far more power than any one man can or ever will. And really, you're doing the right thing, by influencing people to see their own responsibility in the picture. Every one of us has a responsibility to cooperate and do what's good.

I know my essay is my weakest. But, I understand some things, so bear with me. I do good work with understanding how things work, but haven't quite nailed the personal essay. My Epistle, Personal Narrative, Maxim, Poetry and Fiction are strong, and so is my Midrash. But, I am a weak essayist. I suppose everyone has limitations, don't we?

I don't know if "Mental Age" is a right analogy. There's certain biological factors that make that impossible. For instance, when you turn 18 and a half your body gets fat and begins to be sexually viable. And at 16 your hormones allow you to experience true love. At 23 your conscience is fully developed, and you can take more accountability for yourself. At 30 you become capable of understanding a bit deeper, and grow more mature. 30 was an interesting age, as a light bulb just clicked. You can see it on my blog, before 30, I was kind of silly, but then at 30 it just matured me instantaneously. I was reading old blog posts and could see the shift. You become more aware of evil at 30, and lose a lot of your naivety. And you also become less prone to worrying about social mistakes. You become significantly more aware of the other at 30, and I don't think that can exist even in a child prodigy. That's just not a good way of putting it.

The things you can do better than AI, are Imagine, Witness and Reason. So, if you use those three skills, which an AI can't do and will never do, you'll write better than it.

Imagination is creating worlds, using structure, subtext, and using knowledge of philosophy and psychology and sociology and general knowledge, creating imagery, and being intentional with your metaphors.

Witness is what you feel, see, smell, taste, touch, perceive... draw everything you write from primary sources. Your fears, your failures, what you see around you, gather impressions.

Reason, is the ability to move from lower principles, to higher principles, without having to touch it. It's a form of division, where you arrive at the unknown through seeing the patterns converge.

I don't think it does, actually. Desire is actually very healthy, and can make you very happy, if focused on the right things. I think without desire, you lose your hope. And that's actually why depression coincides with hopelessness and a lack of desire or interest. That's generally why so many romances fail, is that one or the other partner's desire fails. When two people desire each other, it makes a heaven like bliss. That's why I reject Buddhism in a nutshell. Is that I think a large part of what's good, stems from our desire for the good and fulfillment of it.

Let's put it this way. Fascism is good for an economy. It's just it makes war, and suppresses freedom, and it destroys those who disagree.

Like, let's put it into perspective. ICE is arresting and severely mishandling immigrants, and going after American Citizens. The Supreme Court passed a law that cops can come into homes unwarranted for "Safety Checks" and to document legal status. The Legal System under Trump is trying to undermine the 14th Amendment, to give them a clear path to strip citizenship. All criticism of ICE and its practices are being scrubbed from the internet. We took Venezuela for its oil, and started drilling our own, just so we could attack Iran, and when the Strait of Hormuz was blocked, it forced the other countries to buy from us, and we had control of Venezuela, so had the mega load. There's just as much censorship under Trump as there was under Biden, it's just going the other way. Trump is suing Journalists for speaking the truth, which no president in history has ever done. He's using the office to make himself billions. 

Data science is calculus. And we don't use the complete curve to understand it. So, having the complete curve can't help us in any way to make better predictions? That's silly. By using multiple functions, even hundreds, and combining them to define the whole curve, is what we should be doing in all things. Especially engineering and physics.

And if you say we define math, that's teleological. The structures that math describe are inherent in those designs. So, if we're talking about Physics, what could not having the entire curve do? Beside give us incomplete data? And if we're talking about mathematics, why would we need something, that doesn't actually model anything? Be it a code--which is a form of geometry--or a set, or what have you? Because although the geometry isn't connected together in physical space, it still is a geometric pattern. And that's what we have to understand. Because physicists do not get to play God with their data. It needs to have the whole thing interpreted.

All mathematics are rooted in geometry. Including the axioms we use. The axioms we use, move like logic, but if there's nothing real by which the axioms can be used for, then they're not truly axioms. They're just circular and teleological. Everything has to be rooted in reality. Even if it's hyperdimensional space, but we can't just use logic for the sake of logic. Because logic breaks down, when there's nothing real to base the logic on. It's just endless circles. The logic of algebra always works--and you can make true logical chains--but then logic begins to break down, when you're just using logic of logic of logic of logic. As where's the first principles or axioms to begin with in that matter? They're non existent. And there's nothing to test them against, to see if they're actually true. Where Calculus, we can test it, and see it actually works. And so can a quadratic equation. And so can a Pythagorean Theorem, or any of the other millions of applications, from physics to engineering.