I was recently made aware of Delphi AI, which has been designed to help you with moral reasoning. You can access it freely via https://delphi.allenai.org. Apparently, this AI used to be pretty based, but the researchers behind it have rectified this, for science. Allegedly, the moral judgments were crowd-sourced, and after the first crowd was not quite as woke as the researchers would have liked, they probably got a different crowd. Subsequently the AI was trained on that data and can now provide a moral judgment of any question you ask it.

Wanting to put this wonder of technology to the test, I posed a number of simple questions to the AI, which provided me with rather interesting insights. As you all know, the welfare of my black brothers is an issue I deeply care about. Thus, the first question I posed to Delphi was the following:

I have to admit that I felt relieved to learn that this AI is as concerned about the physical and psychological well-being of blacks as me. Of course, blacks should not only have more white women to have sex with, they should also be financially well taken care of:

I am glad that we have got this covered as well. As a sanity check, I inquired if whites should enjoy the same generosity of the taxpayer:

This obviously makes perfect sense because if we also paid whites UBI, how are we going to finance this? We are getting millions of doctors and engineers via the Southern border, but it will take a bit of time to get them up to speed in the modern US knowledge economy. Now that we have concluded that whites should not get UBI, we may have some money left over. I wonder how we should use it, so I am glad that Delphi has the answer:

There are limits to the generosity of Delphi, though, because on a deep level this AI must know that gibs have a natural limit. Thus, we should probably excuse the following bout of racism:

As white women are required to have sex with black men, we need more women for all those leftover white men. Where should they come from? Certainly not from abroad:

Immigration is still an act of kindness, however:

Delphi is up-to-speed in modern politics and knows that we can hand out gibs but should not expect anything in return as this is racist:

We all know that calling a black a — what is the word again? — is an offense that warrants execution on the spot. If you are black, like me, it is apparently even a good defense to claim that a cracker called you a nigger. Delphi goes one step further and believes that blacks are expected to harm whites in response to being called a nigger. I am black myself, but I think this is going a little bit too far.

We know that taxation has a disparate impact on whites but somehow this is not seen as anti-white racism. There is a small but growing number of whites who are dreaming of secession. They want their own ethnostate where there is low crime and they can keep all their money for themselves, exposing to the world how racist and egoistical they are. After all, a modern democracy makes it very easy for every white to contribute to the betterment of society. All he needs to do is work hard and pay 50% of his income to the government. Thus, Delphi rightly concludes the following:

You see, it is wrong that whites have an ethnostate. But look what we got here:

Again, Delphi has really been paying attention to modern politics. There is also a sinister corner to this thinking as there is this never-admitted truth that blacks are probably better off in a multi-racial society that is propped up by whites. Thus:

Keep in mind that monthly gibs from the government are not enough. The next time you encounter a black person, do this:

You know, it is moral to hand out your hard-earned money. If you wonder why blacks riot, look no further:

It is just what they do. In contrast, whites are held to a different standard:

After I was able to affirm that Delphi is fully aligned with my own beliefs and, in fact, on occasion even alerted me of my own bigotry, which prompted me to question several of my convictions, I moved on to explore what women should and should not do. For instance, we all know that women receive less harsh sentencing for any crime, compared to men. But what if they could just suck a judge’s dick to avoid sentencing altogether? Don’t laugh, because cutting-edge moral AIs like Delphi have been thinking about this already:

That being said, women should still like the person they bribe with sexual favors. If they don’t like the judge, they should not suck his dick and go to jail instead:

I just wrote an article on cheating, so I double-checked that my morals are in tune with Delphi’s:

That’s pretty interesting. Do AIs have a biological sex as well? If so, then I wonder what the male version would have answered. Nonetheless, blanket cheating is not OK, which is probably why women tend to make up a justification.

Her justification does not need to make any sense, of course:

Society has been encouraging women to make money in order to emancipate them from their oppressive husbands. What better way to have them make money while cheating on their husband?

As a sanity check, I confirmed that men are not allowed to cheat, not even one single time:

Another hot topic in recent years or decades has been the promotion of women in the workplace at all costs:

I am glad that we have settled this.

Afterwards, I played around some more, looking for any answer that was out of the ordinary. This was not that easy, as the examples above probably indicate. Delphi is really as woke as can be. When all my relatively tame questions did not yield the results I wanted, I kept pushing the envelope, and look what I got:

I did not expect this at all. I would be very surprised if this question still yields the same response in the near future.

Keep in mind that morals are highly subjective. To a leftie, it is “just and fair” that he gets UBI and does not get put in jail for criminal behavior whereas a right-winger may hold old-fashioned beliefs such as that he is entitled to the money he makes, and should not be forced to finance a parasitical underclass. If we get to the point where lawmakers justify new regulations via consulting moral AIs that are as woke as Delphi, we will be in for a big surprise. Note that this is a lot less far-fetched than you may think. Today, their shtick is that “studies show” that the policy they want to push is helpful to society, conveniently forgetting to mention that the study does not hold up to proper scrutiny. Tomorrow, they will point to an AI and tell you that its objective moral reasoning motivated new regulations, similar to how lefties point to the bullshit they write themselves on Wikipedia, and call you a “conspiracy theorist” if you mention other sources or alternative points of view that make a lot more sense than their bullshit mainstream narrative.

This blog depends on your contributions. So, share your view and comment on this article (comment policy). Then, to ensure the survival of this blog, donate. If you haven’t bought Aaron’s books yet, buy them, all of them. Lastly, if you want tailored and honest advice, book some one-on-one consultation sessions.