AI is not happening, at all

[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...logy-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]

Posted by Bruce G Charlton (here)

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]

Posted by HopSan (here)

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.

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

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.

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