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I have a strong basis for my opinion (unpublished studies, ~30 years).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

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
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?

[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!

cheers,
John 🦜🦋🌳

[HopSan]

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)
For all newcomers, see also:

• 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]

Posted by HopSan (here)

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)
For all newcomers, see also:

• 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

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. and the upcoming A.G.I. ... almost like trying to summerize an "Physical Encyclopedia" ... Where should I begin? ... I could start with explaining what self-improving "neural networks" 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]

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)

Posted by HopSan (here)

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]

Posted by HopSan (here)

Posted by ExomatrixTV (here)

Posted by HopSan (here)

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. (and A.G.I.) having extreme "double edged sword" 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 issue we have with Fake "Alien Saviours" and/or Fake "Alien Invasion".

• I started the thread NOT to promote A.I. 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.

[ExomatrixTV]

If I would do an "I.Q. test" related to anything A.I. 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. 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, which can be a curse (living hell) and a blessing (...).

cheers,
John Kuhles 🦜🦋🌳

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=_19pRsZRiz4

• A.I. Artificial.Intelligence.2001.Movie IMBdB 2160p 4K/UHD 29.99 Gb Torrent

• "HUMANS" (TV Series 2015, 2016 & 2018):

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=BV8qFeZxZPE

• Download "HUMANS": Complete TV Series, Season S01-S02-S03: 1080p 22,77 Gb Torrent
• See also: Torrents and Torrenting
• IMdB

--o-O-o--

• This A.I. Forum Thread 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]

Posted by HopSan (here)
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.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1w41gH6x_30

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%...uter_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%...uter_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 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 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]

Posted by Ernie Nemeth (here)

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]

Posted by Denise/Dizi (here)

Posted by HopSan (here)
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]

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

For instance, there is DEFINITELY Nanotechnology, and there are Algorithms 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.