>a year late
Almost to the day, too. That's alright though, I'm still here.
Affection could be considered a side-effect of friendship, but it's still different enough to warrant a seperate classification. Plus, it's something that different people will have different opinions on what this should look like, to which I bring back my argument of a modular system.
Loyalty, again though possibly a side-effect, is still different enough to require seperate classification. Unlike other components, however, the concept of loyalty is unwavering and static, and as such should be made so in programming. Devotion, though perhaps a stronger version of loyalty, is similar to affection in that people will have wildly different opinions on how this should look, and how strong it should be. With this in mind, it should be classified separately.
For common interests and beliefs, however, I will concede that there may be better and more efficient ways of going about it. Looking back, they would have to be so tailored that each owner would have to do the coding himself. Therefore, I now think that It'd be best to have a learning system instead of modules, so that the owner could teach the AI about his interests, similar to how he would with a real person. This will also have the added benefit of providing an organic bonding experience.
You're only painting yourself as an antagonist by introducing yourself in a manner so hostile, and you kill your argument with ad-hominems and unfounded theories.
You speak of how his sources are tainted by modern academia, which you claim is inherently corrupt. You speak of the government keeping technological secrets from us, and how the state is performing secret tests and making developments to further their own power, and subdue us. I will not argue against these points, as I wholly believe them, same as everyone else on this board (to varying extents).
However, you link back to occult studies and cult beliefs on how the world really works. Have you once stopped to consider that the information you're gathering may be similarly manufactured?
Where does this information come from? Who obtained it? Why did they release it? Wouldn't the state and elites benefit from this by sending hardcore dissenters on a wild goose chase? If not, don't you think they'd be trying a bit harder to contain and delete this information? Or similarly, maybe they have little to do with it, and are choosing not to do anything about it because it has no effect on them?
Furthermore, consider the nature of the elite families of the world. They're real cultists, and I think it'd be safe to assume that they wouldn't take kindly to actual sensitive documents being released. They would certainly notice such things on a place as high-profile as 8chan. Your entire argument against him is founded on the assumption that the information he has is false because it's relatively mainstream, and that yours is infallible even though its true sources are unknown, an assumption that has little merit, and which you've provided no real proof for.
Now, I will come out and say that I am biased. I have a virulent hatred for occultism, stemming from my hatred of the organizations that practice it. As such, I will by default treat occult science with the same trust as a televised news report, unless given ample reason to believe the information relayed is credible.
In conclusion, I say that the nonsense you're spouting should be treated as if a Rothschild came up to me personally and said it, which is with complete distrust, unless you can provide some real substance to your theories.