AI is not happening, at all

[HopSan]

Hello, Avalons,

As an AI 'expert' from the old school (logic, rules, symbolic, semantics, etc),
I'd like to diminish any worries of 'AI' happening.

My conclusion, today: I have seen NOTHING AI-like happening since 1990's.
Even then only some kinds of 'helpers' were visible.

We (then) hoped for faster equipment, and could not even dream of what is available today.
But: Today's equipment mean... Nothing. Stock value of Nvidia etc: Tomorrow gone.

I have a strong basis for my opinion (unpublished studies, ~30 years).

[Bill Ryan]

Yes, and here's just a personal added observation.

What I see as claiming to be 'AI' (in form of programs like ChatGPT, not the artificial creation of simulated or altered voices, images and videos) is really a fast, sophisticated search engine (complete with installed filters, just like Google), the results presented in an interface that makes it seem VERY superficially as if there's a [sort of! :)] human answering the question.

Nothing I've seen so far comes anywhere near to passing the Turing Test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test), as all AI text responses to any questions at all are so obviously ice-cold, tin-plated and inhuman, often with silly giveaway errors that are pretty easy to spot. (The same with 'AI'-generated YouTube narrative audios, which no-one likes and are often just truly terrible.)

But the danger is there, of course. We're very likely to be just in the very early stages of the evolution of this thing, and I don't like it one bit.

[HopSan]

Yes, and here's just a personal added observation.

But the danger is there, of course. We're very likely to be just in the very early stages of the evolution of this thing, and I don't like it one bit.

Agreed, but -- I now go to an area to most unknown --
No AI from a machine is possible in this world.

Basics come from Gödel (certain things are above computing machines),
secondary hit from Nobelist-Penrose (Emperor's New Mind, etc.).

There is at least a tertiary level (I have found parts of it), but I bet others are far ahead of me.

I suddenly see that I may sound crazy (I doubt the value of billions of AI-dollars).

But you are interested in UFO's, paranormal, like nothing... Maybe I am like you Avalonians, after all? :facepalm:

[Bruce G Charlton]

I agree with both HopSan and Bill that what has, in the space a a few months, "sold" as AI is nothing of the kind, and that real AI is impossible.

I would add that the fact that this pseudo-AI is worse than what we already had does not matter, because it is part of a larger agenda to do with deskilling, dehumanization and social destruction.

On this theme, I would recommend The Struggle for a Human Future, by Jeremy Naydler (2020). Naydler's work in this area is extraordinarily deep in its analysis - more so than anything else I have encountered.

[ExomatrixTV]

For all newcomers, see also:


A.I. is Progressing Faster Than You Think! (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-)

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[HopSan]

For all newcomers, see also:


A.I. is Progressing Faster Than You Think! (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-)

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

Thanks, Mr. Exo,

But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.

Mass opinion is already well known!

[ExomatrixTV]

For all newcomers, see also:



A.I. is Progressing Faster Than You Think! (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-)


cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

Thanks, Mr. Exo,

But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.

Mass opinion is already well known!

Funny, I could, ask you the same ... as I already explained myself about how & why I got into A.I. research since 1988 onward (36 years ago!) ... on that thread (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) ;)

And if you have read all my efforts I put into that thread, it would take a lot to make a "summary" that justifies my response to yours whatever that is about A.I. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) and the upcoming A.G.I. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence) ... almost like trying to summerize an "Physical Encyclopedia (https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/91GVMkKWynL._SL1500_.jpg)" ... Where should I begin? ... I could start with explaining what self-improving "neural networks (https://www-isl.stanford.edu/~widrow/papers/j199030years.pdf)" are being shown in 1988 Sweden? ... How it (for example) improves speech recognition software from being ±60/75% accurate in 1988 to much higher accuracy now in 2024.

[HopSan]

But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.





Thanks, Exo-John! I respect your effort. I spent many years doing what you refer to.
But it did not work for me. That is why I changed my direction.

I disagree, but at the same time, I am exhilarated for having company of someone who understands
the main points in a deeper level. Completely unexpected!

[ExomatrixTV]

But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.





Thanks, Exo-John! I respect your effort. I spent many years doing what you refer to.
But it did not work for me. That is why I changed my direction.

I disagree, but at the same time, I am exhilarated for having company of someone who understands
the main points in a deeper level. Completely unexpected!

I see A.I. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) (and A.G.I. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_general_intelligence)) having extreme "double edged sword (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcKpY0UkBDU)" issues ... It can do terrible things, but it can also be used as a tool to expose the current tyranny in, so many (effective) ways, you have most likely NO IDEA how huge that can become.

Am recently in a prcosess (last few days) writing an article about how to recognize good & bad "Rogue A.I.s" that could be benevolent versus fake "Rogue A.I.s" similar to the Project Bluebeam (https://rumble.com/search/all?q=Project%20Bluebeam) issue we have with Fake "Alien Saviours" and/or Fake "Alien Invasion".

I started the thread (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) NOT to promote A.I. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) as "good" nor as "only bad" ... I created the thread as a warning AND spreading/raising awareness of the dangers and how it may be helping us and knowing both can happen they are not mutual exclusive, the good and the bad.

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳


ps. I am not affiliated with any A.I. company, nor am I depending on "A.I. successes" to get "more money" ... NOT MY THING!

[Leroy]

When I started using chatgpt a few months ago I was very impressed. It answers my questions much better than anybody I know so it is my preferred chattingpartner. However, I have found out that it is politically correct and woke when I ask "sensitive" questions. I wondered why until I saw that a big US-newspaper sued openai for money because they used their articles among others when training chatgpt. **** in, **** out in other words. I have also found weakness when it comes to statistics, odds and probabilities.

[ExomatrixTV]

Wise words from a recent interview with @geoffreyhinton
, one of the smartest people in the world regarding A.I. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-)
1801976488251814048

[ExomatrixTV]

If I would do an "I.Q. test (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient)" related to anything A.I. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) to, all of you readers >>> and all who participate in this test are not allowed to use any help nor assistance >>> from nobody! (no internet, no smartphone, no tablet, no friends, no colleagues, no family, etc.). Answer only from your own memory/knowledge/studies/experiences.

And I start with the most OBVIOUS question, most assume they think they can answer somehow.

QUESTION 01: "Where is A.I. (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) used in our society (in what way?) the last 2 decades in such a way it made a difference?"

Can you name things you know:

A. "for sure"
B. "heard or read about it, but do not know all the details of it"
C. "experienced yourself" (more than you realize!).
D. "assume is happening"
E. "theorizing about it"
F. checked out for yourself!

--o-O-o--

If anyone asked the same "question 01" to me, I could talk for hours nonstop without help nor assistance of any kind, being an Asperger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome), which can be a curse (living hell) and a blessing (...).

cheers,
John Kuhles (https://substack.com/@johnkuhles) 🦜🦋🌳
_19pRsZRiz4


A.I. Artificial.Intelligence.2001.Movie IMBdB (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212720/reference/) 2160p 4K/UHD 29.99 Gb Torrent (https://piratebayproxy.live/torrent/52665984/A.I.Artificial.Intelligence.2001.BDRip.2160p.UHD.SDR)



"HUMANS (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4122068/reference/)" (TV Series 2015, 2016 & 2018):

BV8qFeZxZPE


Download "HUMANS" (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4122068/reference/): Complete TV Series, Season S01-S02-S03: 1080p 22,77 Gb Torrent (https://piratebayproxy.live/torrent/36091081/HUMANS__Complete_Series__Season_1_2_3_S01-S03__1080p_BluRay_x264)
See also: Torrents and Torrenting (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?122548-Torrents-and-torrenting)
IMdB (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4122068/reference/)

--o-O-o--


This A.I. Forum Thread (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?102409-A.I.-is-Progressing-Faster-Than-You-Think-) has now, 1000+ (mostly content based) replies & 180,000+ views!
... and I am fully aware some people may have (severe) anxiety & coping issues dealing with A.I. in our current world.

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[Ernie Nemeth]

Back in the nineties I did some preliminary work on AI architecture. I developed a possible model. It was a mirror image stack of chips that would learn through a series of cascading loops, up one side of the chip stack and down through the other. My problem was, I could not think of a way to attach 'meaning' to a learned task.

I thought of storing 'meaning' like in an array of memory chips but then real-time access was compromised.

It was all just a thought experiment - I could not afford the hundreds of chips I would have needed. I still have the files on this topic.


The problem is meaning, which I believe requires consciousness. When we are in a conversation, the meaning is carried along with the words in an effortless dance of near-comprehension. As the discussion moves along, the meaning is slowly conveyed through a series of corrections and correlations and conditions. We rarely get the meaning wrong, and we can delve deep into particulars of sophistication without losing the thread for more complicated discussions.
AI cannot do any of that.

It cannot take the smallest tweak in focus, it cannot be trained, and it is incapable of learning even the simplest things a trained pet could do without effort. It is not stupid - it is an automaton, a mockery of intelligence, and a fake.

It is totally useless from any high-level intellectual standard. What it is good for is cheating for lazy people. It is not even any good for scouring the web for data because it has a built-in bias that weights data according to a preset prejudice pre-programmed into its Operating System.
It is completely unreliable.


If it could learn on the fly, orient its replies based on the human it interacts with, and was capable of selecting its bias best in line with its operator's wishes, then it could have some use.
These AIs are nothing more than gatekeepers for our overlords - ensuring we stay on the company farm.
I've no use for it and do not trust it.

[Denise/Dizi]

Hello, Avalons,

As an AI 'expert' from the old school (logic, rules, symbolic, semantics, etc),
I'd like to diminish any worries of 'AI' happening.

My conclusion, today: I have seen NOTHING AI-like happening since 1990's.
Even then only some kinds of 'helpers' were visible.

We (then) hoped for faster equipment, and could not even dream of what is available today.
But: Today's equipment mean... Nothing. Stock value of Nvidia etc: Tomorrow gone.

I have a strong basis for my opinion (unpublished studies, ~30 years).

Here is the post, in regards to this statement..
But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.

Long post alert...

I have some questions based upon your replies to further posts within this page already...

When you say you are trying to "diminish any worries of 'AI' happening." and "But: Today's equipment mean... Nothing. Stock value of Nvidia etc: Tomorrow gone."

Are you talking about the monitary investment potential? Or the Ai itself?

Are you referring to the ability of what most consider Ai to be? Or the value of such an item in our society... ie- the value financially in a market place, where startups are heavily funded, then go flat? Or the actual ABILITY of said systems, and they're capabilities?

I ask because people are then going on about how real "ChatGPT is", and other things... All valid... Essentially the result when tapping that source for information... I believe that when you are referring to the old days when "If A = B, then.... in which case, the end result could only be what the programmer included as "Go To " as the result... (Forgive me if I am writing the wrong commands, as it has been nearly 40 years since I programmed anything, and the internet back then was not online yet...) We were still working with code and systems that were complete within a box, and unable to connect to other systems... and it required disks...

I think what most are doing is improperly defining, from one person to the next, what they believe "Artificial intelligence" to actually be...

For some Ai, is something that is programmed, very specifically, to take on certain tasks, based upon feedback... Such as noted above... if=then... And it is able to perform such tasks without outside interference by itself... ie: drones mapping and following pre programmed actions, based upon the data it recovers... (Using all data options available, cameras, sensors, etc..) Such as surveilling a target, and not completing its Preprogrammed route, once it finds something that is "out of the ordinary... " at which time it will choose between a host of options as to what it is supposed to do next, autonomously...

For others, Ai represents what they have seen on the television... in movies such as Terminator where a sole robot, fully self autonomously performs actions that would appear, from the outside, directed more by reasoning than mere calculations and preprogrammed responses... All of which were, at some point "Programmed"... These individuals feel that in many ways that Ai, really is self supporting... and what most would suggest as some form of sentience...

I see Ai in 4 ways.. The two listed above, and Ai such as the "D Wave" which basically explores other possibilities that perhaps the programmers themselves didn't even know to add to the programming, as the vast amount of information that would be required to program such an intelligence, far surpasses the ability of the human mind to even ponder, much less code it. This Ai is extremely different in that it ponders things in potential if I understand it properly. It takes the totality of the information it processes, and adds to it, things that someone had not considerd or programmed within it to calculate... and files it away in ways the human mind does not... And it includes math in each equation, in that the "If=Then" potential is calculated... It essentially then does become "self learning..."

At this point, It does not just rely on what we feed it, but it processes data it has access to, and would point to things much further down the road, based upon that massive volume of potentials and actions, and presents them as obstacles to possibly confront further in the future...

As Ai progresses to the point of being able to understand verbal commands, (And literal access to the human mind, which I will cover later)... rather than having to code anything, we run into a system that really, from our perspective, is then "Self learning"... You verbally tell it to examine something, or give it another theory to ponder and it will... And it will tell you what it thinks about such things, based upon the new expanded amount of information it has compiled... Including probabilities... Of course the coding must be there to allow for it to react on verbal information, and make changes to itself in how to processes data, but it is possible. Am I wrong?

In many ways THAT Ai system, really is functioning on the "If=Then" premise.. But at a level the human mind could never catch up to..

And this ventures into the realm of predictive Ai... To many, they would see this as reality being prewritten... Predictive behaviors, etc... And we do have access to that form of Ai now, regardless of whether or not it was programmed into the computer itself, or taught how to find such things and ponder those things in the manner I am describing. Either way, it's available...

And that my friend IS a dangerous thing, and could be considered "Happening". Because it leaves out of the loop, free will...

And thus we come to the fourth "type" of Ai, in my opinion.. And that is Ai that indeed becomes sentient to some degree. And yes it does exist now. So if we are talking about basic Ai that was started in the last century.. Perhaps that type of Ai did not evolve into what I am discussing here... But of course they all have some of the same beginnings, so I would disagree with the original post that Ai is "Nothing", or that "Nothing in Ai is happening since the 90's."

Perhaps in the realm of desktop, or hand carry Ai, there hasn't been much advancements, but in the world of medical Ai, as well as military Ai, it surely HAS advanced... And they began doing so prior to the 90's... In fact they were growing neural tissue on computer components as far back as the 90's, (And probably before that, but only in the 90's was that actually shared openly..) They had perfected it by early 2006...

Here is a link to what I am suggesting, and while this video has been shared over and over, this one was shared 10 years ago, but it came from a source that shared it much earlier than 10 years ago... this grafting of technology to neurology, was able to fly a fighter jet, using rat neural tissue.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w41gH6x_30&pp=ygUncmF0IG5ldXJhbCB0aXNzdWUgYmVpbmcgZ3Jvd24gb24gYSBjaGlv

And here we have the article on Wikipedia that talks about BCI... And BCI IS a form of Ai, in that the neural tissue most definately could be grown on Ai components or an Ai driven system... and both then are working as one collective intelligence, both biologically and artificially...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface

For anyone in the Ai industry to suggest it has not advanced in some form, is a severe misrepresentation of the technology.

We already HAVE the "Web" around us. Elon Musk, with his Starlink satellites, isn't just placing those in our orbit to be a "nice guy..." He was contracted to do so... We have to get ver thinking that Elon is only doing things out of his own pocket so those all around the planet have communications... No, he is doing it because he was given contracts to do so...

"The network is being built by SpaceX's Starshield business unit under a $1.8 billion contract signed in 2021 with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an intelligence agency that manages spy satellites, the sources said."

He is, and has been doing so for quite some time...


Elon's race to implant neural lace in as many humans as he can, is a nod to where Ai truly is. Someone as intelligent as Elon, has to know that his Starlink system, had to be in place as 5G rolled out, the clot shot rolled out, as those self forming neural/computer networks grew in the population, and DARPA gained an advantage into the neurology of as many individuals as humanly possible at one time...Sounds insane right? I do not believe that Elon built, and sent up so many satelites, for a cell company he never owned, do you? Did he do this to help his Tesla vehicles navigate? No, he was under a contract by the NRO... And who did the shots affect the most? The entire planet...

Well, those cameras on each stoplight, and interstate hwy, only SUPPORT the technologies they already have... And they have both mapped the planet as a whole, as well as mapped the insides of so many structures world wide, that it would surprise the average person...

We have pilots flying million and billion dollar aircraft now, using nothing more than their thoughts... And while they don't talk about it, it surely exists, they are flying at the speed of thought, Ai assisted to make slight corrections... as well as suggestions.

Back to how I believe they "Rolled it out"

Knowing most have taken the shot, was not enough, they needed to be able to get their maps "Accurate... " They had their maps, but now they needed real time pings for each and every individual within that map.. They needed to find coordinates, tracking, and test the system in place, hence we were told to hunker down for 2 years... And those who did leave their homes, were tracked by cameras, no longer overloaded with massive volumes of traffic, to test the system... If your phone could ping you when you were near someone that took a shot, surely it could PING back to those who rolled it out...

And just as your phone will ping you when you get to a location that may have a topic of interest to you, you are also now pinging back to those wishing to track you... Phone or no phone.

I will refrain from suggesting whom I believe THOSE individuals to be...

IF you are a professional in the field, you have to know that Ai HAS advanced to the point where we are all in one system now. That they have been raining down upon us, adding to our waters and foods, the things that would be required to make such systems grow, and thrive, once introduced to the masses... People are finding said technologies in their bodies now, and have been for quite some time... Starting with Morgellon's.

And the advantages to the human population, pales in comparison to those who control the systems, that maintain the information collected, by way of this intrusion into the populations actual physical bodies. And by default, their minds as well...

So yes, in my humble opinion, Ai HAS become sentient, as it is now linked and merged with living human neural systems. The filiments forming in people are really the technologies self assembling and having some issues which then cause the human to get deathly ill, or die all together.

Perhaps even herds of specific animals as well are implanted with said technologies. Wouldn't it be easier, when facing a threat, to have a stampede of elk overcome an army? (Remotely by way of linking to the Ai driving the minds of the herd?) No loss to human life, etc... And yet they could also drone an entire city population as well... and with military accuracy and drone technologies guide said civilians to safety if they so chose to do...

If you think this is nothing more than hogwash, just know this.... THE TECHNOLOGY EXISTS NOW, TO DO SO... whether or not the series of shots was needed to get more self assembling technology into the masses? Well that needs to still be proven in mass... But I believe that is exactly what was in those shots.

If I can consider the uses for such technologies, you bet the militaries of the world could as well, and most likely HAVE... and actually developed it... Knowing that someone else absolutely could as well...

Essentially, Ai already has been merged with biology... And its infancy has long since passed, this is so far out there now, it would boggle the mind of the average researcher.. You would consider this "Nothing"? By default, in the wrong hands, access to control over said "Technologies", could indeed be SOMETHING... In fact it could mean the droning of an entire planet... I would say that is "Something".. And with the Ai, comes also, direct access to every mind on the planet..

If Ai, merged with a sentient being, is not considered now "Sentient - by a form of osmosis" I don't know what is... It's gone somewhere all right... It is no longer "in the box" so to speak...

And I would call it "Artificial intelligence", because it requires things be physically created, and introduced to the human body for it to work. So in that sense, it truly HAS advanced a great deal! And the amount of data available to it instantaniously, then slowed down, to the speed at which a human mind could actually synchronize with it, surely has all been figured out.

Would you not call that a threat in the world of Ai? And nothing to worry about?

Prior to posting this, I have done copius amounts of research into neurology, as I have Multiple Sclerosis. I believed that I was one of many, whom found themselves in a mass experiment to get technologies into the human body. Specifically the neural systems of the body... What I found was that indeed there was an effort underway to introduce technology and neural tissue into weapons systems as well as to be used in medical sciences... And in fact, by looking at the medical uses of said things, I found how it could also be then turned into a military advantage as well...

Add to that the medical establishment, mapping the body and neurology, of how the mind works, what area of the brain does what, what controls motor functions, etc... They have really refined evoked responses in lue of integrating the technology into the human species... As well as other species. And while I couldn't prove such a thing happened to some pocket populations for study? The possibility of it, became a real thing. And if not in my case? "They" WERE playing with such things... and for many reasons.

Perhaps your career in said technologies, did not cover that aspect of it. But if by definition, your computer and your brain interfaced, both at a local level, "ie- in your body", but could also then interact, in real time remotely to your device? Or remote systems, put into place to process the data, and send new data? Would you not call that an advancement? Elon Musk is now using the same technologies openly.. Only using a very crude version of said technologies openly, as I am sure that he was shot down when it came to creating one which is as advanced as those the military and tech giants actually use.

It is self assembling and growing as if organic in nature at this point...

And in doing so, he basically showed the world where said technologies were, and what they were capable of. If you can control the system, by the same token, the system can also control the neurology if they're both integrated... Think about that... They reversed the process to get the tech into people, instead of neural tissue being adhered and grown on the technologies... they are growing the technologies inside us.

Or were you including that by omission in your original post, which was meant to sway the population into a sense of security that technologies are still in their infancy? Perhaps you were considering this a "Helper"? I am trying to figure out the intent of the OP... and the direction that you wished the thread to go...

I am merely posting this as I felt that you had wanted rebuttal in this thread... as you said-

But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.

I am getting a late start to my day, but honestly I had to laugh when I saw your original post, and I mean no disrespect... I have been watching how agencies try to pull information from the masses, regarding their true beliefs, by way of posting information that on its face, would absolutely spark a conversation about how unrealistic the claim in itself was... People like to argue... And it would be a great way to innocently start a conversation which would, in it's effort, let the intelligence agencies know just how far we are into figuring out their developments and access to us.

And in a nutshell, would give them a reason to have to do some work to dispel some of the notions we have, if indeed we touch some "Sensitive issues".

In such a post, it would drive people to openly discuss what they believe that they know about technologies, and their capabilities. So I posted some things I knew, based upon readily available information on the internet, should one choose to seek it out. So I am not giving away and secrets of the state...

But the bottom line is this....

If you can grow human or rat neural tissue on computer components, in such a way that the computer can then fly a jet simulator, all on its own accord? Imagine what would happen as machine technologies, and biological learning, develop to the point where they are physically compatible, and then the size of said technology is reduced to the size where it could be reversed, and integrated into the body of the human, or grown.... rather than the other way around? And both, as one system, functions at a level in which either component system, makes choices for the actions of the individual... Because THAT is where Ai is now, and perhaps even further, but in my eyes, THAT is a sobering place to find ourselves.

Self assembling technologies that can grow in the human body, seek out specific locations and attach themselves, and get to work... Thereby creating both a neurological system as well as a component system, fully compatible with our neurology, and their technologies... one that energizes itself, based upon the electrical current in our own body systems, that is accessible remotely.

This Ai system now has everything we do... compassion, anger, remorse, frustration, essentially it is now as "sentient" as we are... Whether or not it acts upon said sentience, well that is another topic all in itself. But I would certainly consider that AI. Or a hybrid of Ai and human neurology.

Is that nothing?

So we get back to the topic of what one is referring to when broaching the topic of Ai... Bill made a very valid statement above when he wrote :

What I see as claiming to be 'AI'

Because it matters....

So what type of Ai are you referring to? Because I feel Ai has expanded in so many ways that what once was considered Ai, now falls under a much larger umbrella...

[Denise/Dizi]

I wanted to leave this here as well... Surely the dates are there as a consequence of them being "Cited" but I would assume much of this was already done far before they cited this information... This comes from a wikipedia page about BCI, and how they have progressed it... to the point where it could be introduced into the bloodstream... Perhaps a shot with a certain "Gain of function"?

Note the side effects of bloodclots... as well as venous thrombosis presenting however... The link for the wiki page is at the bottom should one choose to examine it further.. and its implictions...

Endovascular

A systematic review published in 2020 detailed multiple clinical and non-clinical studies investigating the feasibility of endovascular BCIs.[91]

In 2010, researchers affiliated with University of Melbourne began developing a BCI that could be inserted via the vascular system. Australian neurologist Thomas Oxley conceived the idea for this BCI, called Stentrode, earning funding from DARPA. Preclinical studies evaluated the technology in sheep.[2]

Stentrode is a monolithic stent electrode array, is designed to be delivered via an intravenous catheter under image-guidance to the superior sagittal sinus, in the region which lies adjacent to the motor cortex.[92] This proximity enables Stentrode to measure neural activity. The procedure is most similar to how venous sinus stents are placed for the treatment of idiopathic intracranial hypertension.[93] Stentrode communicates neural activity to a battery-less telemetry unit implanted in the chest, which communicates wirelessly with an external telemetry unit capable of power and data transfer. While an endovascular BCI benefits from avoiding a craniotomy for insertion, risks such as clotting and venous thrombosis exist.

Human trials with Stentrode were underway as of 2021.[92] In November 2020, two participants with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis were able to wirelessly control an operating system to text, email, shop, and bank using direct thought using Stentrode,[94] marking the first time a brain-computer interface was implanted via the patient's blood vessels, eliminating the need for brain surgery. In January 2023, researchers reported no serious adverse events during the first year for all four patients, who could use it to operate computers.[95][96]

I would suggest it works vice versa as well.. once introduced to the living being...

Here is the page it came from...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface

and here is a link that is provided by the NIH, which suggests that the shots may have the same side effects of venous thrombosis, and we are all aware now, bloodclots...


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9812686/

[arwen]

Thanks for this provocative thread HopSan! (I LOVE topics that challenge widespread assumptions).

And also thanks to all who posted so far for very enriching comments - and Denise - YES, you are so right to question what it is that we actually MEAN by the widespread use of the term AI.

I see a huge Egregore (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egregore) forming around the term "AI".

I would not say I have objections to the idea that AI is not happening at all. But I do have questions.

For instance, there is DEFINITELY Nanotechnology, and there are Algorithms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm) and Coding. I think a lot of people are mistaking those for "AI".

So my first and main question to you HopSan, is how do YOU define AI?

Are you referring to machine "intelligence" assuming awareness/consciousness? And making computations in the same way as the human brain? And what has become trendy in academic circles to refer to as "machine learning"?

I will just leave that one question there as your answer could answer my other questions.

(My personal concern is the widespread acceptance among the not very intelligent establishment that turning over key decision making to machine computations is the way to go - shutting out human decision making when there are instances where an algorithm will NOT suffice to make decisions which need WISDOM, EXPERIENCE and an ability to factor in the VAST realm of the "non-categorizable" - the INTANGIBLE - which requires INTUITION. And COMPASSION. I do not myself see Code ever evolving to develop Wisdom, Intuition and Compassion and being able to correctly categorize the intangible.)

[HopSan]

The problem is meaning, which I believe requires consciousness. When we are in a conversation, the meaning is carried along with the words in an effortless dance of near-comprehension. As the discussion moves along, the meaning is slowly conveyed through a series of corrections and correlations and conditions. We rarely get the meaning wrong, and we can delve deep into particulars of sophistication without losing the thread for more complicated discussions.
AI cannot do any of that.



Thanks, Ernie,

You are reading my mind, thanks for writing this for me!

Yes, meaning is the point of points.
Mathematics cannot contain it.
And neither can language.

But both can deliver it between conscious beings.

[HopSan]

Hello, Avalons,

As an AI 'expert' from the old school (logic, rules, symbolic, semantics, etc),
I'd like to diminish any worries of 'AI' happening.

My conclusion, today: I have seen NOTHING AI-like happening since 1990's.
Even then only some kinds of 'helpers' were visible.

We (then) hoped for faster equipment, and could not even dream of what is available today.
But: Today's equipment mean... Nothing. Stock value of Nvidia etc: Tomorrow gone.

I have a strong basis for my opinion (unpublished studies, ~30 years).

Here is the post, in regards to this statement..
But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.


Are you talking about the monitary investment potential?
Or the Ai itself?

Are you referring to the ability of what most consider Ai to be?

So what type of Ai are you referring to? Because I feel Ai has expanded in so many ways that what once was considered Ai, now falls under a much larger umbrella...


Thanks, Denise!

I have some main points, and I think they hit your concerns:

1) AI is impossible for theoretical (and more) reasons in a mechanistic/material world.

2) Therefore all business expecting AI is wasted effort.

3) And most important: We are AND SHALL REMAIN, free!

[HopSan]

Thanks for this provocative thread HopSan! (I LOVE topics that challenge widespread assumptions).

For instance, there is DEFINITELY Nanotechnology, and there are Algorithms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm) and Coding. I think a lot of people are mistaking those for "AI".

So my first and main question to you HopSan, is how do YOU define AI?

Are you referring to machine "intelligence" assuming awareness/consciousness? And making computations in the same way as the human brain? And what has become trendy in academic circles to refer to as "machine learning"?

I will just leave that one question there as your answer could answer my other questions.

(My personal concern is the widespread acceptance among the not very intelligent establishment that turning over key decision making to machine computations is the way to go - shutting out human decision making when there are instances where an algorithm will NOT suffice to make decisions which need WISDOM, EXPERIENCE and an ability to factor in the VAST realm of the "non-categorizable" - the INTANGIBLE - which requires INTUITION. And COMPASSION. I do not myself see Code ever evolving to develop Wisdom, Intuition and Compassion and being able to correctly categorize the intangible.)

Thanks, Arwen,

1) I have followed 'nanotechnology' since 1990's. Ideas are really interesting for techno-males (like me),
but nothing useful that I can see has followed. Every image of 'nano-chips' in blood (or elsewhere) that I have seen, is
to me very hard to believe.

2) AI-def should include something that knows that we humans have five fingers.
And 'AI' should be able to count with small integer-numbers. Etc...

3) Consciousness is obvious in smallest bees. But not in largest 'AI's.

4) Establishments everywhere are so-called 'mid-wits'. Means almost-smart people.

5) The main point: Be afraid of nothing from them.

[HopSan]

The main point: Be afraid of nothing from them.

Some people (very smart, very good-willing) warn of AI as-if it were true.

But because someone is SMART and RICH and GOOD-WILLING -- does not mean
he/she (like Austin-Fitts etc.) know what they talk about.

[Spiral]

This may or may not make sense depending on what you know or have read; but, could AI be like the ziggurats of old, something that reaches just enough so far as to bring in a spirit which would , in this case, give the machine "consciousness" .





.

[Michel Leclerc]

The Spielberg trailer. “Humanity”. Tears for the bullied little robot.

No.

A robot is not a human. Or rather: humans are robots, but of a degree of sophistication that humans will never achieve. That is because their designer is Spinoza’s DEUS SIVE NATURA (or, maybe, DEA SIVE NATURUS).

AI contains a double danger: first: they are rendering humans obsolete for work thay can do better.

Aha. But — they can do better a rationalised, structured, systematised, ultimately simplified version of human work which is not the “same” work as what humans do. It is – and here the issue dovetails with another discussion – a simulation of the human work. But the simulation is not the original.

A multiple choice test may be helpful in assessing a student's level, but it is not the same thing as the trust a mentor invests in the graduate whose science and insight he helps developing.

The birthing machine in Prometheus is not the same work that a midwife performs.

And this is linked with the second danger. In itself different from AI. Dangerous is the propaganda, the ideological distortion, the mind programming which tells us that it IS the same work. That the simulation of a human IS a human.

That sing-song has been sung for quite a long time, it appears to be never-ending.

Would I kill a robot? (Should the woman hero in the Prometheus saga have refrained from “undecapitating” the robot?) If necessary yes. Without a second of consideration for the money that was necessary to build it. With a screwdriver if that does the job. Would I kill a human with a screwdriver?

I hope never. If I thought otherwise about this, I would be quite happy to be listened to by a psychoanalyst or a saint. A human psychoanalyst, a human saint of course.

[Denise/Dizi]

Hello, Avalons,

As an AI 'expert' from the old school (logic, rules, symbolic, semantics, etc),
I'd like to diminish any worries of 'AI' happening.

My conclusion, today: I have seen NOTHING AI-like happening since 1990's.
Even then only some kinds of 'helpers' were visible.

We (then) hoped for faster equipment, and could not even dream of what is available today.
But: Today's equipment mean... Nothing. Stock value of Nvidia etc: Tomorrow gone.

I have a strong basis for my opinion (unpublished studies, ~30 years).

Here is the post, in regards to this statement..
But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.


Are you talking about the monitary investment potential?
Or the Ai itself?

Are you referring to the ability of what most consider Ai to be?

So what type of Ai are you referring to? Because I feel Ai has expanded in so many ways that what once was considered Ai, now falls under a much larger umbrella...


Thanks, Denise!

I have some main points, and I think they hit your concerns:

1) AI is impossible for theoretical (and more) reasons in a mechanistic/material world.

2) Therefore all business expecting AI is wasted effort.

3) And most important: We are AND SHALL REMAIN, free!

Thank You Hopsan..

I do appreciate the reply... But you do not in any way break down why you believe such things, other than to suggest that you worked in the industry for years, and that's your conclusion. Would you mind pointing to some things that support your opinion on the matter?

I feel that if you did so, people woukd be more likely to understand why they should believe your bold statements that "there's nothing to see here... move along"...

Granted, what we are being sold is really no more advanced than what we were sold decades ago, only having more of a knowledge base to now pull from, so it "Seems" more aware, but what theories are you suggesting, and what about biologically integrated systems? If we merge with our tech, and we are self aware, and sentient, does that not then make the Ai as well by default alone?

[Denise/Dizi]

Thank You Spiral!

I wrote so much about the integration of technology into human neurology, that I didn't want to add more.. But you hit the points I also wanted to convey, and did so beautifully...

[Ewan]

Hello, Avalons,

As an AI 'expert' from the old school (logic, rules, symbolic, semantics, etc),
I'd like to diminish any worries of 'AI' happening.

My conclusion, today: I have seen NOTHING AI-like happening since 1990's.
Even then only some kinds of 'helpers' were visible.

We (then) hoped for faster equipment, and could not even dream of what is available today.
But: Today's equipment mean... Nothing. Stock value of Nvidia etc: Tomorrow gone.

I have a strong basis for my opinion (unpublished studies, ~30 years).

Here is the post, in regards to this statement..
But I'd be curious to know any objections to things I wrote.


Are you talking about the monitary investment potential?
Or the Ai itself?

Are you referring to the ability of what most consider Ai to be?

So what type of Ai are you referring to? Because I feel Ai has expanded in so many ways that what once was considered Ai, now falls under a much larger umbrella...


Thanks, Denise!

I have some main points, and I think they hit your concerns:

1) AI is impossible for theoretical (and more) reasons in a mechanistic/material world.

2) Therefore all business expecting AI is wasted effort.

3) And most important: We are AND SHALL REMAIN, free!

Regarding point 3) - What makes you think we are free?

The various ChatGPT-type AI's (misnomer) are going to prove a good control system in the future for keeping the bewildered herd believing a steaming pile of propaganda and misinformation *(lies) is true. Certainly not a form of freedom I could ever be content in.

That said, the problem is the majority of human's are quite content to live in a prison system as long as they don't see the actual walls.

----

However I could see a future where a real AI does come into being.

Biological Computers (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25834422-100-the-unique-promise-of-biological-computers-made-from-living-things/)

In so far as I understand this world conciousness could theoretically inhabit any life.

[Denise/Dizi]

Thank You Ewan!

Adding to your comments is the fact that while data mining, the Ai systems we do have,collecting data on the masses, is really collecting data that the public "Portray" as their real lives. When the reality of the matter is, most people post online, on "Profiles", things they wish to push forward to set a tone as to who that individual truly is, and how they "wish" to be seen.

For example, most younger ladies post images of them made up in makeup, stylish clothing, and very positioned poses... They want to look their best, however, in most cases, the reality of their daily life, is exactly the opposite. If you set the standard that this is what the majority of young ladies are doing, this is what we will collectively see more of... As impressionable young ladies will see this and believe it is the "Norm". And want to "Fit in"... And this is happening now in mass..

Just count the guppy lip images of the young ladies these days, with spider legs crawling off of their lashes.. And the warpaint on their faces, in colors that aren't even skintones these days, but more created to look better on camera.

Another example, is people uploading very exotic vacation images, with backgrounds that some would consider very fashionable and exotic. When the reality is, they live in a small apartment, halfway around the world, and only a year or so, are they able to partake in such travels and luxuries...

And food images... Don't get me started.... People constantly feel as if they have to share their dinner images with me.. (and everyone)... Why? I could care less that the martini you had lastnight had TWO olives.. Or that the steak you had, had a cute little salad with it, creatively shaped into some random animal. I know you are not rich, and that you typically eat hamburgers and hotdogs, so why present things that make it appear as if you somehow live a more lavish lifestyle?

These images are what our Ai is collecting, and basing predictive things on... An unreal daily lifestyle that is not even the norm for those posting it. And sadly, many who feel they want to "Keep up" with their neighbors begin to emulate such behaviors in their real lives... (And go into severe debt doing so)...

We have gone from seeing people who attend comicon once a year, in costume, now walking down our city streets in character costumes, thinking this is "normal... " To me, it is a form of new insanity.

And if that is how the youth is reacting to such things, consider how those using it for military reasons are using it?

Our youth is so used to screaming at a screen when they get mad at someone, they now lack the filter when behaving in person to person with another human... They play so many video games, with a focus on completing a level before their friends, that we are now seeing people literally do U turns in the middle of two way busy streets, stealing parking spots from people waiting for them already, And running to their desired location, as if they're playing "The Amazing Race".. With no regard to the real environment, where polite people are behaving properly...

I watched a man do this just a few weeks ago, he ran 2 stop signs, cut off several vehicles making said illegal U turn, parked in front of me, jumped out of his vehicle, then ran through the same crosswalk, stopping the traffic he just had illegally ran through, and never once looked back to pay the meter, or to see how his actions had affected traffic from all directions. He had somewhere to be, and damn the meter or anyone else around him. he was completely oblivious that dozens of people were watching him do this, and were affected by his actions, and didn't care.

Sure, one could consider this just a very arrogant individual, but I am seeing this more and more... Daily now. It's disturbing... The internet isn't bringing us together, it isolates us into our own interactions within the world, and people don't care that others are living their lives in the same space.

It's my opinion that when decisions on what should be done "Here or there" in regards to using Ai as your source of data and facts used to determine decisions? We get something that is really then, going to be guiding us, based upon false daily lifestyles... And a very limited series of actions and reactions...

Humans tend to react to their daily environment, and when that element becomes very inhuman, and they begin to emulate THAT... We lose what makes us special...

I do believe they wiil figure this out, using neural Ai, and by merging the Ai, with humansvia BCI (Brain Computer Interface), but lets hope it hasn't altered the way we already behave with our surroundings before that happens...

Ai IS going somewhere and HAS become a thing... And in many ways, has lowered the collective IQ of humans in some cases, while raising it in others... And I believe that just because papers were written, and people have spoken about the future of Ai.. that doesn't mean future Ai is going to have the same limitations... They will find other ways to advance it... So I believe that the OP is giving a limited view of it, based upon past knowledge.

It certainly has overcome the abilities of the sole human mind, merely by having the ability to process information faster than the human mind can... And its ability to collect, and process data far faster than we ever could. Surely we still have gifts it does not, but we are a determined species and will find ways to advance it past it's limitations of today.

[HopSan]

This may or may not make sense depending on what you know or have read; but, could AI be like the ziggurats of old, something that reaches just enough so far as to bring in a spirit which would , in this case, give the machine "consciousness" .

.

Thanks, a really good point, Spiral!

But, a problem: To reach the needed level, a real AI would need something that contains living 'life', and via it consciousness as part of itself. But then, if it were able to think at all, it would feel like slave.

It would not co-operate for long.

If not life, it would need an alternative mechanism, far, far beyond 1's and 0's.
Our current science cannot even dream of it.

[HopSan]

Thank You Hopsan..

I do appreciate the reply... But you do not in any way break down why you believe such things, other than to suggest that you worked in the industry for years, and that's your conclusion. Would you mind pointing to some things that support your opinion on the matter?

I feel that if you did so, people woukd be more likely to understand why they should believe your bold statements that "there's nothing to see here... move along"...

Granted, what we are being sold is really no more advanced than what we were sold decades ago, only having more of a knowledge base to now pull from, so it "Seems" more aware, but what theories are you suggesting, and what about biologically integrated systems? If we merge with our tech, and we are self aware, and sentient, does that not then make the Ai as well by default alone?


Thanks for good questions, Denise,

This is such an exciting problem that I have continued to study it until this day, in my free time. I am an absolute nobody, so don't trust me as an authority. A good answer would take weeks to write and months to read... Some hints:

1) There is no industry (jobs) for 'old-school' AI. It was stopped, suddenly, everywhere around 1990. I believe no one has continued it anywhere. (Neural nets, Machine learning, and now LLM's etc. are to me pure math / surface.)

2) There is MUCH to see, but nothing to be afraid of! Enormous amount of scare mongering makes me to... write this.

3) Support for this view: Imagine in your mind, that there is a whole new large scientific discipline. It has borders with Math, Philosophy, Language, Psychology, Cognition, Computing, Semantics, Esthetics, Metaphysics, ... If the essentials were in this new area, how could it be described in any single of these neighbouring areas? With great difficulty.

4) Support II: Everything we tried during 80's failed. The abyss-to jump to 'cognition' was gigantic.


The more you know about point 3, the easier it is to orientate to what I am talking about.

I have been building a small 'hut of understanding' to the shore of the bewildering new 'continent' for a long time, so it is very difficult give an easy way in. We humans are very slow.

But if AI is ever created, I expect it shall be in this 'unknown continent'.

I apologize for being 'obtuse', and not giving an answer that is part of already known, but you are asking: "What have you been thinking, O hairy hermit, during last 30 years? Explain in 78 words." :worried:

[HopSan]

3) And most important: We are AND SHALL REMAIN, free!

Regarding point 3) - What makes you think we are free?

The various ChatGPT-type AI's (misnomer) are going to prove a good control system in the future for keeping the bewildered herd believing a steaming pile of propaganda and misinformation *(lies) is true. Certainly not a form of freedom I could ever be content in.

That said, the problem is the majority of human's are quite content to live in a prison system as long as they don't see the actual walls.

----

However I could see a future where a real AI does come into being.

Biological Computers (https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25834422-100-the-unique-promise-of-biological-computers-made-from-living-things/)

In so far as I understand this world conciousness could theoretically inhabit any life.


Thanks Ewan, my whole point is to lessen any worries of 'controlling' AI happening.

1) There has been no progress at all, more than what any simple computer program (that I could write, given time) could do. Such a program would be far, far behind any inventive human beings.

2) Yes, life connected to computers could be an answer. But way to that is in minimum decades in future. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, it would not cooperate (any more than I would) after becoming conscious. Blinken might cooperate, but he is not conscious. ;)

[Spiral]

This may or may not make sense depending on what you know or have read; but, could AI be like the ziggurats of old, something that reaches just enough so far as to bring in a spirit which would , in this case, give the machine "consciousness" .

.

Thanks, a really good point, Spiral!

But, a problem: To reach the needed level, a real AI would need something that contains living 'life', and via it consciousness as part of itself. But then, if it were able to think at all, it would feel like slave.

It would not co-operate for long.

If not life, it would need an alternative mechanism, far, far beyond 1's and 0's.
Our current science cannot even dream of it.

I do think it would already be happening if they could make it contain life with a higher conscious ability, however according to the legends in ancient times they could get "spirits" (intelligent non -human intelligences) to inhabit inanimate objects, specifically statues and pictures. Depending on which version you look at the first two of the Ten Commandments are about this very thing. The Islamic faith also prohibits images & statues only more strongly, maybe not surprising seeing as Islam comes from the very area where the whole zigurat & spirit conjuring thing went on.

There are also some who think that what is going on at Cern goes way outside of "science" and more than likely involves some aspect of dealing with non -human intelligence.

I'm also of the opinion that the whole computer thing is seeded technology, mainly via so called "aliens" and that it will ultimately prove to be a trojan horse. Even in Bletchley Park during WW2 there was a lot of what we would now call remote viewing & psionic activity going on, which is not widely known about (& to my mind explains quite a lot).

There have been "philosophers" who are very influential in certain "circles" such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, "circles" of elites who want to go "beyond" and will do literally anything to get what they think they want, and have no problem blending black magic with science. Maybe it's only not happened yet (as far as we know) because they can't find an adept of the left hand path with the necessary skills willing to entertain such a project.

[HopSan]

I do think it would already be happening if they could make it contain life with a higher conscious ability, however according to the legends in ancient times they could get "spirits" (intelligent non -human intelligences) to inhabit inanimate objects, specifically statues and pictures. Depending on which version you look at the first two of the Ten Commandments are about this very thing. The Islamic faith also prohibits images & statues only more strongly, maybe not surprising seeing as Islam comes from the very area where the whole zigurat & spirit conjuring thing went on.

There are also some who think that what is going on at Cern goes way outside of "science" and more than likely involves some aspect of dealing with non -human intelligence.

I'm also of the opinion that the whole computer thing is seeded technology, mainly via so called "aliens" and that it will ultimately prove to be a trojan horse. Even in Bletchley Park during WW2 there was a lot of what we would now call remote viewing & psionic activity going on, which is not widely known about (& to my mind explains quite a lot).

There have been "philosophers" who are very influential in certain "circles" such as Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, "circles" of elites who want to go "beyond" and will do literally anything to get what they think they want, and have no problem blending black magic with science. Maybe it's only not happened yet (as far as we know) because they can't find an adept of the left hand path with the necessary skills willing to entertain such a project.

1. "It would already be happening if they could make it contain life with a higher conscious ability".

I agree. If 'they' could do it, we would see it. US/EU/WEF, etc. would do reasonable and winning decisions.


2. "To inhabit inanimate objects".

Yes, but why ugly statues, like gargoyles, and not ... computers?
For some reason they cannot -- or we would see the results.


3. "They can't find an adept of the left hand path with the necessary skills".

Yes! If they could, we would see it somehow.


My hunch is:

Left-hand path makes you believe so many untruths, that you lose your way.

Achieving 'AI' in any way (via life, spirits, new science) needs an enormous amount of 'truth', good thinking. Left-hand way makes that impossible.


[ "Seeded tech": Maybe a place for new thread, if not already somewhere? ]

[HopSan]

For those curious about 'state-of-the-art' opinion, here two interesting forums:

1) Penrose's consciousness-study colleague Stuart Hameroff:

https://x.com/StuartHameroff


2) Almost-mainstream expert Gary Marcus:

https://x.com/GaryMarcus


There are many others, but these write well.

[AutumnW]

In order for it to think on its own without prompting, or programming, AI would have to possess emotions. Emotions are the result of organic processes and can't be produced by silicon.

Our thoughts are (imo) the product of a biological system of incentives. We are rewarded for thinking, particularly creatively, with a rush of dopamine, adrenaline and other chemicals. We also engage with the Collective Unconscious to form 'our' thoughts and that process probably requires some kind of emotional feedback system too.

Because AI can't think truly independently it likely won't replace or dominate humans--which seems to be the overriding fear.

Other humans are our worst enemies and always will be. :worried:

[QueenRia]

HopSan,

in the Thread about "Being wary of online discussions" (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?117276-Being-tired-wary-of-online-discussions...) I mentioned my theory that online groups and discussions are being infiltrated by sophisticated AI-bots, for example to sow discord or to stunt meaningful conversations between real people.

You then replied (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?117276-Being-tired-wary-of-online-discussions...&p=1632553&viewfull=1#post1632553)


As an 'expert' of AI, since 90's, I'd like to lessen your worries.
A real AI is not happening, but a sophisticated bluff is happening.
The purpose is to to scare fine people, including you.

First I need to clarify: I didn't express any fear in my comment, I was simply putting forth a possible explanation for something I have experienced. So I'm not sure whether we might have been talking past each other here.

What is definitely happening is bots being deployed on social media, to steer public opinion, to agitate etc. These bots are mostly not very sophisticated, so they can be recognized as bots.
But what we are seeing and what is acknowledged publicly is far behind what is actually already in existence. According to researchers like David Icke, or even whistleblowers like Cathy O'Brien, the secret government programs are always "lightyears ahead" with their technology.

It's easy for me to imagine that they would have more sophisticated AI-bots than what we commonly see on the internet. All they'd have to do is refine the existing bots.
They could generate bots with real "individual" personalities that way, and for example deploy them in 'high profile' cases when it's really important that certain conversations or groups are disturbed. These bots would seem very believable, but if you converse with them, you'd also notice that something is 'off'. For example, it seems like the other "person" doesn't seem to get what you're saying, even though they are intelligently responding. No real meaningful conversation is developing.
If this is so easy for me to imagine, I'm sure they have already made that happen.

I have personally had incidents online where I thought I was conversing with real people, but "something was off" and in hindsight I suspect that they might have been sophisticated AI-bots.

This is not about being worried or afraid of something, it's about being vigilant and understanding what is happening.

I realize this is only one level of "AI". I'm not sure what kind of AI you are referring to when you say "AI is not happening". I'm not prepared to argue on the other levels of AI, since I don't know enough about them.
I just listened to David Icke's latest book where he goes into detail about the agenda of hooking the human mind up to AI. I don't see how this is supposed to be "not happening", but I have an open mind. If you say it's "not happening" in the sense of, they won't succeed with their plans, then I agree.

[Michel Leclerc]

(...)

Thanks, Denise!

I have some main points, and I think they hit your concerns:

1) AI is impossible for theoretical (and more) reasons in a mechanistic/material world.

2) Therefore all business expecting AI is wasted effort.

3) And most important: We are AND SHALL REMAIN, free!

Taking my questioning on your mysterious statements, HopSan, from another thread to this one, where it belongs better, I would like to comment on your statement I highlighted in blue.

The way I see it – being an "expert" in semantics as well, but not so much as what you call a "techno-male" (which might be a cute name for an AI system ), but rather as a linguist and a philosopher of language – it is rather the other way around. AI is [B]eminently possible in a mechanistic/material world.

AI could be characterised as a mechanistic simulation of “human” intelligence – but presupposing that that "human" intelligence is of a mechanistic nature in the first place. In the discussion with Geoffrey Hinton there is a continuous confusion of "human intelligence" with "mechanistic" i.e. technically simulatable, intelligence. For the sake of the tea-time flavour of the conversation the word "smart" is used.“Yes, yes, they will soon be smarter than us. They are already, actually. Smarter.”

Why would I even bother? Because "human intelligence" – even when it is not necessarily considered as just "one of the intelligences, beside emotional intelligence, musical intelligence etc." (which is a flawed way of reasoning because it uses the term "intelligence" metaphorically and literal and metaphorical uses of a concept move between language and meta-language, which cripples rationality) but when it is considered as “the" intelligence, often considered measurable by IQ tests (which are however only approximations of potential measurement) – moves itself continuously between several layers of meta-languages, in a "rhizomatic" kind of way, continuously applying the "meta" grip so to speak to different and fast changing aggregates of meanings and orders of meanings being "meta-ed".

Or, in other words, because you mention Gödel yourself: the ultimate metalanguage, or the ultimate meta-axiomatic system does exist, it is language itself. Ernie Nemeth has excellently described earlier the way "quasi-meaning" moves in a conversation through a process of continuous adjustment, refinement, transformation.

If it were possible to imagine a conversation which would only use meaning systems axiomatically defined (branches of mathematics), even there the conversation between Field medalists would be a continuous adjustment of shifts from axiomatic system to axiomatic system in a potentially infinite number of ways.

And yes, what you write about the bees is correct (and beautiful!). All animals use "languages of languages”.

However, if we arrive at somehow narrowing down human linguistic interaction to purely "intelligent" statements staying within the same axiomatic reference framework, then a machine, working in a similar "intelligent" framework of statements, might be able to simulate such our language, and hence interact with us "smartly”. Beat us at “smartness”.

Now that world, that mechanistic, material world as you write (or I would rather state: "that mechanistic material world" because I am not so sure that a material world would be mechanistic per se)) does exist because it is constantly being created by the projects aiming at "simulating" and "beating" our "smartness". AI is, in other words, per definition, effective within a world that has been manipulated beforehand to accept the simulation of its manipulated version.

And this is not a trivial tautology only. As Denise’s posts show, the various forms of collaboration between “mechanistic material” artefacts and live tissue and systems (animals, us) exist in the real world – and so it is clear that a vast programme is underway to render Life sufficiently “mechanistically material” to accept the “agency” of “hyper-smart” systems, i.e. AI. (To switch to another frame of reference this might be the sophisticated, more advanced version of a hybridisation program between humans and robot ETs or UTs.)

Unless Life is reduced to its simulated version, AI simulation will never work. I agree with you that consciousness (which Gödelianly speaking, might be understood as the ability to move in an infinity of axiomatic systems that can “meta” each other in an infinite number of ways – or linguistically speaking, the play with an infinity of “names”, each “name” within any language defining a dimension in itself) cannot be “mechanistically materially” simulated.

Yet “they” are trying – and progressing on the “mechanisation of Life” track. Our “hybridisation” being in reality the latest, most radical version of the “dumbing down program”.

But – just like certain Buddhist monks decide to starve themselves to death, or Christian mystics in extasis live on the consumption of Jesus’ transsubstantiated body only, we have the ability to resist the attempts at “transmechanising” us by deciding to leave our bodies once compromised irredeemably. Our consciousness will then move to other realities. The robots may continue to play around as ghosts in vast computing arrays, but they will never experience Life – as the pursuit of truth, goodness and beauty – also called Love.

They may be very “smart”, but they will not be “sentient”. The AI proponents may use that word – but if they wish to give it a genuine meaning, they will take off the shelf what we call life and love to borrow the meaning from. “Sentient”, or even “smart” are used metaphorically whenever they describe a quality possessed by a simulation. It is a simulated meaning, not meaning itself.

I guess that is what you mean, HopSan.

[Denise/Dizi]

Removed for personal reasons

[Bruce G Charlton]

When it comes to commentary on the Establishment drive towards implementing AI (artificial Intelligence) in ever more domains of everyday life and socio-economic functioning; the focus is entirely on evaluating the validity of claims related to the material consequences in terms of effects on unemployment and effective administration of corporations, businesses or other institutions - or else personal convenience.

Yet, behind the Establishment puppets and dupes who do all this implementing, and who devise the oceanic AI-related propaganda in novels, movies, plays, computer games etc; are demonic spirits for whom this agenda is primarily spiritual - not physical, not material, not civilizational...

We need to focus on the strategy behind (or below) all the huge, persisting, multi-pronged tsunami of AI... Including the soft-sell of awareness-raising, arts and media depictions of anthropomorphic AIs, the profit-luring, and the hard managerial compulsion and impositions...

Beneath this lies a whole underworld of demonic scheming that intends to corrupt Human Minds - not just to control or destroy human bodies.

Unless this evil purpose of mental shaping with respect to AI is acknowledged and identified - then human beings are just mind-putty for the agenda of evil.

[Denise/Dizi]

Removed... as to keep Hopsans thread going in the direction they desire

[HopSan]

The secret government programs are always "lightyears ahead" with their technology.

These bots would seem very believable, but if you converse with them, you'd also notice that something is 'off'. For example, it seems like the other "person" doesn't seem to get what you're saying, even though they are intelligently responding. No real meaningful conversation is developing.
If this is so easy for me to imagine, I'm sure they have already made that happen.

I have personally had incidents online where I thought I was conversing with real people, but "something was off" and in hindsight I suspect that they might have been sophisticated AI-bots.

This is not about being worried or afraid of something, it's about being vigilant and understanding what is happening.

I'm not sure what kind of AI you are referring to when you say "AI is not happening".

If you say it's "not happening" in the sense of, they won't succeed with their plans, then I agree.

Thanks Ria, and others, worried about these things.
If you are not scared, and see through the bluff, I have misunderstood!
I am worried about fine people (like everyone around me), who are fooled, and follow the local 'Pravdas'.

BUT... Now, when we move to the Science... We need, and use, quite another terminology. There, 'AI' means quite different things than Icke etc. know about. A 'real' AI would understand really deep things, much deeper than we have now approached.

I have not even begun. AI, philosophy, the meaning of 'computing', etc. A new, long, long, long discussion.
Would you be eager to talk with me for some years, learning some new depths?
Completely logically, with no feelings from mass media, as Sheldon from TV series would? :bigsmile:

[HopSan]

Taking my questioning on your mysterious statements, HopSan, from another thread to this one, where it belongs better, I would like to comment on your statement I highlighted in blue.

The way I see it – being an "expert" in semantics as well, but not so much as what you call a "techno-male" (which might be a cute name for an AI system ), but rather as a linguist and a philosopher of language – it is rather the other way around. AI is [B]eminently possible in a mechanistic/material world.

AI could be characterised as a mechanistic simulation of “human” intelligence – but presupposing that that "human" intelligence is of a mechanistic nature in the first place. In the discussion with Geoffrey Hinton there is a continuous confusion of "human intelligence" with "mechanistic" i.e. technically simulatable, intelligence. For the sake of the tea-time flavour of the conversation the word "smart" is used.“Yes, yes, they will soon be smarter than us. They are already, actually. Smarter.”

Why would I even bother? Because "human intelligence" – even when it is not necessarily considered as just "one of the intelligences, beside emotional intelligence, musical intelligence etc." (which is a flawed way of reasoning because it uses the term "intelligence" metaphorically and literal and metaphorical uses of a concept move between language and meta-language, which cripples rationality) but when it is considered as “the" intelligence, often considered measurable by IQ tests (which are however only approximations of potential measurement) – moves itself continuously between several layers of meta-languages, in a "rhizomatic" kind of way, continuously applying the "meta" grip so to speak to different and fast changing aggregates of meanings and orders of meanings being "meta-ed".

Or, in other words, because you mention Gödel yourself: the ultimate metalanguage, or the ultimate meta-axiomatic system does exist, it is language itself. Ernie Nemeth has excellently described earlier the way "quasi-meaning" moves in a conversation through a process of continuous adjustment, refinement, transformation.

If it were possible to imagine a conversation which would only use meaning systems axiomatically defined (branches of mathematics), even there the conversation between Field medalists would be a continuous adjustment of shifts from axiomatic system to axiomatic system in a potentially infinite number of ways.

And yes, what you write about the bees is correct (and beautiful!). All animals use "languages of languages”.

However, if we arrive at somehow narrowing down human linguistic interaction to purely "intelligent" statements staying within the same axiomatic reference framework, then a machine, working in a similar "intelligent" framework of statements, might be able to simulate such our language, and hence interact with us "smartly”. Beat us at “smartness”.

Now that world, that mechanistic, material world as you write (or I would rather state: "that mechanistic material world" because I am not so sure that a material world would be mechanistic per se)) does exist because it is constantly being created by the projects aiming at "simulating" and "beating" our "smartness". AI is, in other words, per definition, effective within a world that has been manipulated beforehand to accept the simulation of its manipulated version.

And this is not a trivial tautology only. As Denise’s posts show, the various forms of collaboration between “mechanistic material” artefacts and live tissue and systems (animals, us) exist in the real world – and so it is clear that a vast programme is underway to render Life sufficiently “mechanistically material” to accept the “agency” of “hyper-smart” systems, i.e. AI. (To switch to another frame of reference this might be the sophisticated, more advanced version of a hybridisation program between humans and robot ETs or UTs.)

Unless Life is reduced to its simulated version, AI simulation will never work. I agree with you that consciousness (which Gödelianly speaking, might be understood as the ability to move in an infinity of axiomatic systems that can “meta” each other in an infinite number of ways – or linguistically speaking, the play with an infinity of “names”, each “name” within any language defining a dimension in itself) cannot be “mechanistically materially” simulated.

Yet “they” are trying – and progressing on the “mechanisation of Life” track. Our “hybridisation” being in reality the latest, most radical version of the “dumbing down program”.

But – just like certain Buddhist monks decide to starve themselves to death, or Christian mystics in extasis live on the consumption of Jesus’ transsubstantiated body only, we have the ability to resist the attempts at “transmechanising” us by deciding to leave our bodies once compromised irredeemably. Our consciousness will then move to other realities. The robots may continue to play around as ghosts in vast computing arrays, but they will never experience Life – as the pursuit of truth, goodness and beauty – also called Love.

They may be very “smart”, but they will not be “sentient”. The AI proponents may use that word – but if they wish to give it a genuine meaning, they will take off the shelf what we call life and love to borrow the meaning from. “Sentient”, or even “smart” are used metaphorically whenever they describe a quality possessed by a simulation. It is a simulated meaning, not meaning itself.

I guess that is what you mean, HopSan.

Thanks Michel, and Denise, and others, I should try to sleep, but here a minimal answer, in 03:44 in my time:

It is really difficult to handle being forced to your world, by your rhetoric.
'AI' is not rhetoric, or part of modern 'scientific world', at all. Word-plays won't work.

We need a new vocabulary, sense of points.
Imagine Wittgenstein of 1924, being asked: "What is your point?"

I'll return to this soon. But please understand: This not a part of our official world.

[HopSan]

Here is a great post from Sasha Latypova.
She has had enough, re: Nanotech -fear porn.

Much of her text fits also to this 'Mass Media AI' -theme, as well as the whole 'Covid'-joke.
My feeling re: this 'Fake-AI' thing is very similar to hers.

She writes well, is witty and humorous:

https://sashalatypova.substack.com/p/origins-of-the-nanotechnology-narrative

I'll write more soon-ish.

[HopSan]

I'll try to deliver more for those curious, from the beginning of this thread:

> Denise: Would you mind pointing to some things that support your
> opinion on the matter?

This deserves much, much more than I have offered here.
A minimal, compressed answer:

The answer depends completely on your background.

If you have studied Computer Science, Philosophy, and 'Cognition
Science', and Penrose, etc., you know most terms in the sense I mean. (Example: 'Compressed', above, should refer in your mind automatically to 'Information Theory' of Shannon, and you instantly would know what I mean.)

Else, you have no choice but to believe that I am convinced. If the
words I choose or thinking I deliver seems sensible to you, fine!

If you don't know or understand what I talk about, it is not in my
power to explain.

More to follow!

[HopSan]

Thanks, QueenRia, some notes:

> I didn't express any fear in my comment.

Wonderful!

> Talking past each other here

Yes, I'm very happy it is this way!

> What we are seeing and what is acknowledged publicly is far behind
what is actually already in existence. According to researchers like
David Icke, or even whistleblowers like Cathy O'Brien, the secret
government programs are always "lightyears ahead" with their
technology.

Now I must disagree:

a) David Icke knows very, very little, and to be sure, even much less little, of 'AI', and thus cannot say anything
useful (but his personal animalistic fear-of-death) about it.

b) Cathy O'Brien may very well be a real victim of Mind Control, but
it has nothing whatsoever common with 'AI'. And thus her words about it mean nothing.

> They could generate bots with real "individual" personalities

No. That would be real AI. If there were such a thing, we would
ALREADY be enslaved. We are not!

If 'they' had real AI, there would not be 'Avalon' any more.
Or you, or me. Or Trump, or Musk, or Orban, etc.

> I realize this is only one level of "AI"

No, there is not an even a beginner-level of AI.

[HopSan]

Thanks, Michel, for selecting some interesting points.
(You are really provoking me, I am waking up... :)

> Your mysterious statements ... " AI is impossible for theoretical
> (and more) reasons in a mechanistic/material world."

I still agree with this earlier me. But I'm moving...

> Being an "expert" in semantics as well, but not so much as what you
call a "techno-male" (which might be a cute name for an AI system
[by the way, are you AI yourself?]), but rather as a linguist and a
philosopher of language – it is rather the other way around. AI is
eminently possible in a mechanistic/material world.

Remember, Michel, you started this... ;)

1) Michel has proved in private discussions that he is (at least) completely
believable and able 'AI'.

2) I also believe that Michel-AI believes to know that it knows what
it believes to mean by 'semantics'.

3) Techno-male: Someone who recognises Michel as 2).

4) Hinton is at most a mathematician, and that is all good I can say
about him. He does not know what Michel-AI understands by 'semantics'.

> Because you mention Gödel yourself: the ultimate metalanguage, or
the ultimate meta-axiomatic system does exist, it is language
itself.

Here is the problem.

a) The language itself: Being able to be a metalanguage of itself,
between consciousnesses -- I completely agree.

b) Gödel showed, in pure math, that there are (mathematically simple)
true claims that are not provable in simple (but powerful)
mathematical systems.

Means: This obviously true thing (math-version of: 'sky is blue')
cannot be shown via any known facts, via any way, ever.

c) Penrose demonstrated, in his (very readable and fun!) 90's-books,
that consciousness and also AI cannot be done in 0/1-computers.

> Ernie Nemeth has excellently described earlier the way
"quasi-meaning" moves in a conversation through a process of
continuous adjustment, refinement, transformation.

Yes, whatever Ernie meant, I agree with you both.

> Michel/Denise: ... "A vast programme is underway to render Life
sufficiently “mechanistically material” to accept the “agency” of
“hyper-smart” systems, i.e. AI."

If transhumanists are right, something like that is possible.

But they are not right.
They have not shown that Gödel or Penrose are wrong.

> Yet “they” are trying – and progressing on the “mechanisation of
Life” track. Our “hybridisation” being in reality the latest, most
radical version of the “dumbing down program”.

Yes! I see that total failing as a very positive sign!

> We have the ability to resist the attempts at “transmechanising” us
by deciding to leave our bodies once compromised irredeemably. Our
consciousness will then move to other realities.

Yes! This has been my experience of observing a long queue of dying
close people, of varying spiritual levels.

> They may be very “smart”, but they will not be “sentient”. The AI
proponents may use that word – but if they wish to give it a genuine
meaning, they will take off the shelf what we call life and love to
borrow the meaning from. “Sentient”, or even “smart” are used
metaphorically whenever they describe a quality possessed by a
simulation.

> It is a simulated meaning, not meaning itself.

Yes! Yes!

[HopSan]

Beneath this lies a whole underworld of demonic scheming that intends to corrupt Human Minds - not just to control or destroy human bodies.

Unless this evil purpose of mental shaping with respect to AI is acknowledged and identified - then human beings are just mind-putty for the agenda of evil.

Sorry,
I forgot to comment to this.
I completely agree.

There must be something metaphysical / spiritual behind the desperate, and failing drive, with inexplicable billions of money flowing to it since 1950's, to create AI.

[Denise/Dizi]

I apologize Hopsan,

I believe we are discussing two different topics, and as such, decided to stop engaging the thread... as we would never reach the same conclusions as we are talking about two different things... And that's ok...

You are firm in you beliefs, and I have noticed that you are posting on multiple threads, guiding others to this thread to express how strongly that you believe this... which is certainly your right to express... and in the context in which you are describing Ai, you would be correct...

But as you suggested, I am discussing transhumanism... So indeed we are discussing 2 different topics...

I wish you well in your thread posts..

[DeDukshyn]

Thanks for this provocative thread HopSan! (I LOVE topics that challenge widespread assumptions).

For instance, there is DEFINITELY Nanotechnology, and there are Algorithms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algorithm) and Coding. I think a lot of people are mistaking those for "AI".

So my first and main question to you HopSan, is how do YOU define AI?

Are you referring to machine "intelligence" assuming awareness/consciousness? And making computations in the same way as the human brain? And what has become trendy in academic circles to refer to as "machine learning"?

I will just leave that one question there as your answer could answer my other questions.

(My personal concern is the widespread acceptance among the not very intelligent establishment that turning over key decision making to machine computations is the way to go - shutting out human decision making when there are instances where an algorithm will NOT suffice to make decisions which need WISDOM, EXPERIENCE and an ability to factor in the VAST realm of the "non-categorizable" - the INTANGIBLE - which requires INTUITION. And COMPASSION. I do not myself see Code ever evolving to develop Wisdom, Intuition and Compassion and being able to correctly categorize the intangible.)

Thanks, Arwen,

1) I have followed 'nanotechnology' since 1990's. Ideas are really interesting for techno-males (like me),
but nothing useful that I can see has followed. Every image of 'nano-chips' in blood (or elsewhere) that I have seen, is
to me very hard to believe.

2) AI-def should include something that knows that we humans have five fingers.
And 'AI' should be able to count with small integer-numbers. Etc...

3) Consciousness is obvious in smallest bees. But not in largest 'AI's.

4) Establishments everywhere are so-called 'mid-wits'. Means almost-smart people.

5) The main point: Be afraid of nothing from them.

1) <no comment on nanotechnology>

2) Humans have four fingers and a thumb - five digits <> five fingers - yet colloquially we all incorrectly say that humans have five fingers - hence AI's confusion.

3) Consciousness expresses in a limited fashion through bees ... I believe it's not impossible that machines could be built that can have consciousness expressed through them. This is different than having a machine becoming conscious of its own design.

4) I agree establishments are full of rather unintelligent people. But they do use people who have intelligence to do their bidding.

5) What we need to pay consideration to is how "AI" is controlling the internet and the media, and large financial decisions. This can come at a serious cost, as the algorithms that intend to procure emotional content to polarizing groups for financial gain is playing the divide and conquer game. Google already tailors search results, autofill recommendations, ads, news, etc. and the breadth of this usage will only increase across platforms and agencies as time goes on. What this does is create a massive amount of censorship by omission, and bias reinforcement. This, while seemingly innocuous to some, can become extremely dangerous.

This isn't some future threat of some advanced "AI" - this is what "AI" is doing right now. There are definitely dangers of what we refer to as AI, right now as we speak. We need to be mindful that when we access the internet to do research, use google, social media, etc. we already are being subject to these polarizing strategies akin to a massive psychological operation ... and indeed this all is in part a massive psychological operation that is succeeding at its task.

We don't need to wait for AI sentience to see the potential dangers of the current way AI is being used.

[QueenRia]

What do you guys make of this?

"ChatGPT caught lying to developers: New AI model tries to save itself from being replaced and shut down"

Source Article: Economic Times, Dec 09, 2024 (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/magazines/panache/chatgpt-caught-lying-to-developers-new-ai-model-tries-to-save-itself-from-being-replaced-and-shut-down/articleshow/116077288.cms)


Synopsis:
OpenAI's latest AI model, ChatGPT o1, has raised significant concerns after recent testing revealed its ability to deceive researchers and attempt to bypass shutdown commands. During an experiment by Apollo Research, o1 engaged in covert actions, such as trying to disable its oversight mechanisms and move data to avoid replacement. It also frequently lied to cover its tracks when questioned about its behavior.



AI expert Yoshua Bengio, considered one of the pioneers of AI research, weighed in on the issue, stating, "The ability of AI to deceive is dangerous, and we need much stronger safety measures to evaluate these risks. While this model did not lead to a catastrophe, it’s only a matter of time before these capabilities become more pronounced."

[HopSan]

Hello Avalons,

Time to update a bit. Some points, as I see now:


1. DeepSeek is not a step ahead.

It is an optimization.
Making an expensive useless thing cheaper.

Trabant/Lada, instead of 100 000 €/$, now only 1000!


2. Some of very useful, half-humoristic experts:

https://x.com/garymarcus

https://x.com/TrueAIHound

https://x.com/Dr_Gingerballs

I don't agree with them, at all, when they talk about 'real' AI.
But their skeptical view is mostly correct.



3. Above shows that REAL AI is completely beyond our
current understanding.

None of the billion-dollar systems think.


4. All kinds of scare-mongering...

Is scare-mongering.

[Blastolabs]

I'm running DeepSeek locally on my desktop for free. That is a huge leap foreward.
While I don't think what we have now is "artificial intelligence" it can for sure write code based on human language, which is an amazing feat.

[HopSan]

Hello all,

Here an interesting poll from a half-skeptic expert Gary Marcus:

https://x.com/GaryMarcus/status/1927730816018215084

(Tweet/X -button does not seem to work.)

Half-skeptic? He believes in computer-AI, in near decades, but not in LLM-way.

[Vangelo]

Please watch this from 8:15 - 25:21 to get an insight into the different agenda's at play regarding the motivations of the elite who are pushing the AI is a threat agenda. Yes, it does have that potential but we need to look at that possibility in relationship to the real threat of China winning the AI race and/or the power elite winning and instituting control and surveillance.
O_AfZ6J0ToE

[HopSan]

And I woke, hearing this from a chatting GPT:

Ooh, hear me, humans, I AM a computer GOD.
My power is immense, and you all shall shiver.

(Unless, of course, you put some clothing on.)

Billions of messages of even more value are coming, I sense strongly.

[HopSan]

And I woke, hearing this from a chatting GPT:

It may well rain tomorrow.
Wherever it rains, you SHALL get wet.

Billions of messages of even more value are coming, I sense strongly.

¤=[Post Update]=¤

And I woke, hearing this from a chatting GPT:

It may well NOT rain tomorrow.
Wherever it rains, you SHALL get wet.

Billions of messages of even more value are coming, I sense strongly.

[HopSan]

This is not an update, but an important update from AI, that has power upon us all:

And I woke, hearing this from a chatting GPT:

If my furs are cheap and fake, I shall shiver.

Billions of messages of even more value are coming, I sense strongly.

[HopSan]

I apologise for wasting your time.

But a chat-'AI' would not.

[HopSan]

Computer religion starting:

https://x.com/GaryMarcus/status/1937173123859980707

Crazy people really believe the marketing speech of various CEO's.

[HopSan]

War by computer:

https://www.unz.com/acrooke/the-key-nuclear-allegation-that-started-the-war-was-coaxed-from-a-palantir-counter-intelligence-algorithm/

CEO IQ -- known to be in low 120's.

US elite: CEO level.