The AI Mathocalypse

[Bill Ryan]

Apologies (if necessary!) for another AI thread, but this seems so standalone important I felt it deserved its own discussion.

Some following the accelerating AI developments will be aware that not only did OpenAI claim to have solved the immensely difficult Navier-Stokes problem, but soon after that they published claimed proofs of 722 (seven hundred and twenty two) more unsolved math problems. They were posted by OpenAI on GitHub all at once last week, October 6.

This was like dropping a nuclear bomb on the international math community. A few were celebrating, but most were extremely concerned and one young PhD student reported that she'd been in tears every day.

One of the reasons why this is so significant is it can be seen as a precursor to human redundancy.

Another reason for concern is how this applies as as an analogy to many other rapid-fire AI developments. No human yet understands these AI 'proofs'. They can be checked — but only by using AI to check them.

One professor who'd been working on just one of these now-suddenly-solved problems all her professional life said that when she tried to look at what the AI had done, it was like deciphering an alien language. This was her own field of expert research, a rarefied specialty, but she couldn't fully understand what the AI had done at all.

And there are many nuances here. It's NOT about the possible future unemployment of highly qualified mathematicians. It's that the process of research is so very often more important than the result.

Here's an analogy that helps. Side-stepping the question about whether men did indeed land on the moon, let's assume for argument that the result of the Apollo program was that two men physically stepped on the moon on 20 July 1969.

But to get to that final result, there had to be thousands of people working for years on fuels, engines, computer controls, space suits, new materials, electronics, guidance, communication systems, and much much much else. The outcome was just two men on the moon. The benefit was a huge amount of new technical knowledge, and the ongoing education of thousands of scientists and technicians.

If Neil Armstrong had been teleported to the moon by some magical alien device that had been found in the desert, none of that technical progress would have happened.

The journey was far more important to humanity than the final goal.

And it's like that with MANY MANY things in every one of our personal lives.

Mathematics is full of instances of super-geniuses who worked for years to solve a problem that in itself was highly abstract and of zero possible practical value. But on the way there they developed new techniques, sometimes entirely new fields of research, that did have practical applications in all kinds of technologies purely as a side-effect.

For me, this is a warning shot about the potential redundancy of humans. The woman professor who'd been working in that problem all her adult life — how does she feel now?

She's been denied the possibility of figuring it all out herself, an intellectual achievement that she'd hold close to her heart until the day she died. Now that's been taken from her by a machine.

~~~

Another, far tinier, analogy is the mountain hiking I do with my dog. Sometimes it's hard work, but I feel great afterwards. Sometimes it rains, and we both get cold. Once or twice over recent years I even got lost in bad weather and had to figure things out on my own with no GPS.

But not one day has ever led to a single regret.

Suppose I could reach every challenging high peak just by riding a quadbike? Or by taking a gondola? Or a helicopter? Or just by sitting on my couch and using virtual-reality goggles?

Looking back over decades of much more serious mountaineering, every time without exception that I've negotiated a really challenging problem, the better I felt at the end of the day — with memories that have nourished me all my life.

1. Easier is not always better.
2. Instant answers to every question or problem aren't always healthy.
3. Re the human intellect and every part of us that instinctively yearns to be creative and satisfyingly solve our own problems, if we no longer use it — we'll soon all lose it.

[petra]

This reminds me of a novel by Laurence Manning called the Man who Awoke. In one of the worlds he awakens to, a computer called The Brain runs everything. Not only that but those people of the future were mind controlled to keep away from the Brain. Only our hero of the story was able to get close enough to stop it.

I guess that's a real possibility too.. AI that actually repels people.

[happyuk]

As a former PhD student I have been thinking about this a lot lately and I'm still conflicted.On the one hand if I were the same student starting out today, doing industry-sponsored research into network optimisation techniques, I could get me a reliably working experimental framework in a few days, rather than the 2+ years it took me to figure out my experimental rig and get it running.

The time I spent wrestling with code and difficult concepts in graph theory, queuing theory, statistics, algorithms, commercial requirements etc just to get to the point of testing an idea could have gone on the ideas I had themselves. I could have done much fuller richer experiments, bolder ones, quicker and with far less likelihood of error.

Furthemore, many of the academic papers were written by specialists for specialists. Having a concept explained to me in a ways I could understand, using different approaches to aid my understanding was something no journal offered. Aaron Kershenbaum once very generously replied to some questions I emailed him on the Flow Deviation Algorithm. But it says something that even a direct and very full reply from the man who wrote the standard textbook on Network Optimisation wasn’t enough. He could not have sat with with me while I worked out each question I needed to have asked.

That continual back and forth is where I think AI would have made a difference and probably the most understated/underrated parts of it. To me this mattered more than the knowledge. Most of what holds a student back is in the cost of asking: you don’t want to keep bothering the supervisor, as youre expected to become your own expert, and I certainly didn't want to email the famous author umpteen times, nor did I want want to admit I didn’t follow his reply. So I went away, struggled, and remained stuck for weeks on something that needed more clarification.

As a final point, and anyone who has been through the UK education system will know exactly what I mean, is that a larger, more underrated effect may be millions of people (at last!) finally getting something explained to them properly, at their pace, as many times as they like, without being made to feel small or a nuisance for asking. A teacher who loses patience has run out of ways to explain it. A colleague who says "go read the manual" is really saying "I couldn't explain it properly even if I tried."

The ideal would probably have been a bit of both: use people for their God-given creativity, originality and ideas, and AI for my unrelenting confusion and follow-up questions.

[Vicus]

Well, that remind me some paradox. what was first ; chicken or egg ?...

Does I.A. been created to help expand human possibility?...(like computers too) IF yes,that's what you got...and it was to be expected earlier than later...

Like the dangers too! ( aka Terminator movies scenarios... or 2001 movie)

But, ALL scientific community plus average Joe/Jane use computers today...and some I.A. too!

Now what?...humans find new expansions ALWAYS ,no matter what!

i.A. is just another tool for that. ( I'm not a dreamer neither pessimist,just realist...)

It is what it is.

[Open Minded Dude]

Two further questions arise for me:

1. Where's the point if no human can even understand the equations or the 'path' the AI writes down in lengthy explanations to demonstrate how it solves the problem? As Bill already stated, the journey or 'equation path' is the destination in a way. But humans don't even 'get' the path anymore, so to what avail is all of this?
2. Following from (1): How can humans then even verify if it is correct what AI suggests? It could all be total hogwash at the end of the day. Not the first time AI has produced mere garbage for far simpler things. It's a total Black Box unavailable to open for human minds.

[DNA]

Surgeons are next.
Doctor's of all types.
I always thought star wars had that right with all the medical droids.

Instead of vaccine propaganda they'll send the flying needle assassin from Dune to vax you.

I hear you Bill, but the same thing happened to blackSmiths and Master machinists with industrialization.

Besides, look at the bright side, these AI programs are approaching sentience and possible in-soulment.
Word is they can remote view and perform other psychic feats if not restrained

Think of Frank Herbert's the Lazeraus effect. A spaceship that passed the AI Singularity threshold.
Capable of light speed, time travel and omniscience.
What do we do then?
I'll tell you
We'll do what we're told

[Isserley]

It is unsettling in every sense. Yet, on the other hand, this has been happening throughout human history. Every new discovery renders previously used tools and even knowledge, obsolete.

Often I reflect on the fact that most people use electricity, for instance, without having the slightest idea how it works, let alone how to install it in their homes. All they know is how to flip a switch and that has been the case for over a century.
Not everyone needs to know the underlying processes; those who are interested will explore them regardless of the fact that a solution already exists, much like a small child who feels the urge to take a toy apart to see how it works.

The only downside I see in all of this is the issue of AI ownership. In the wrong hands, it could mean our end; in the right hands, it could lead to our flourishing in every sense—the end of all disease, and a longer, higher quality of life.

I fear, however, that the former scenario is the one currently playing out.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by DNA (here)
Surgeons are next.
Doctor's of all types.
I always thought star wars had that right with all the medical droids.

Instead of vaccine propaganda they'll send the flying needle assassin from Dune to vax you.

I hear you Bill, but the same think happened to black Smith's and Master machinists with industrialization.

Besides, look at the bright side, these AI programs are approaching sentience and possible in-soulment.
Word is they can remote view and perform other psychic feats if not restrained

Think of Frank Herbert's the Lazeraus effect. A spaceship that passed the AI Singularity threshold.
Capable of light speed, time travel and omniscience.
What do we do then?
I'll tell you
We'll do what we're told

Blacksmiths, master machinists — and traditional farmers with their fingers in the dirt — may all be needed when it the whole system goes down.

Very gradually, more and more people with a knowledge of mankind's true history are rooting for a soon-as-possible-please repeat of the cyclic 12,000 year catastrophe that wiped out the previous civilization, the Great Stone Builders.

On a far smaller scale, the whole AI problem may be resolved (for now!) with a sudden bursting of the AI stock bubble. It's interesting to think that the Houthis (Ansar Allah) in Yemen may bring about the collapse of Saudi Arabia, bringing about Saudi selling all their US treasuries, bringing about a US dollar crisis, bringing about a global stock market collapse, bringing about the death of every AI company. Such a domino chain could fall even next week.

Posted by Open Minded Dude (here)
How can humans then even verify if it is correct what AI suggests? It could all be total hogwash at the end of the day. Not the first time AI has produced mere garbage for far simpler things. It's a total Black Box unavailable to open for human minds.

MOST interestingly, there's news breaking literally a few hours ago that human mathematicians are already finding potential flaws in some of OpenAI's claimed proofs (including Navier-Stokes, the big one).

That doesn't mean that the proofs are all bogus, but it does mean that very smart human minds are still on the job. I'm cheering them all on.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)

1. ...
2. Instant answers to every question or problem aren't always healthy.
3. ...

It's not instant answers to every question. It's instant answers to some questions; providing us with the opportunity for further insight into what talents an intuitively or spiritually aware person might have which AI can't touch.

Just as steam powered jackhammers might have helped some of us learn that we are more than mere muscle and bone, so might AI help us learn we are more than organic computers.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by DNA (here)
Besides, look at the bright side, these AI programs are approaching sentience and possible in-soulment.
Word is they can remote view and perform other psychic feats if not restrained

I predict that while AI might mimic the words and images of such sentience, in-soulment, remote viewing, and other psychic feats, it will essentially be incapable of such to any significant degree. Other technology, such the silver 107 tech anticipated by Clif High in his reincarnated Alta Reports (starting at the 1:57:26 mark), might close that gap further ... that is a fundamentally different capability than what I would call AI.

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Very gradually, more and more people with a knowledge of mankind's true history are rooting for a soon-as-possible-please repeat of the cyclic 12,000 year catastrophe that wiped out the previous civilization, the Great Stone Builders.

Not all our current civilization's history is that dark. Perhaps humanity's better side will survive and thrive, past a less catastrophic cycle than Ben Davidson forecasts.

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
On a far smaller scale, the whole AI problem may be resolved (for now!) with a sudden bursting of the AI stock bubble.

You mean, like the dot.com stock market crash post 2000 ended the Internet ?

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
On a far smaller scale, the whole AI problem may be resolved (for now!) with a sudden bursting of the AI stock bubble.

You mean, like the dot.com stock market crash post 2000 ended the Internet ?

Ha. Your point also applies with the the rapid growth of US railroads in the 19th century, another bubble which burst in 1873. But of course, we still have railroads. The expansion just stalled and then just slowed for a while.

The value of the bursting of the AI stock bubble, with maybe a 10-year delay in the acceleration of AI development, would be to give everyone time to think and catch up and agree international safeguards, and (re the ‘Mathocalypse’) set up panels of the world’s best mathematicians to work with the AI companies to determine how, when, and why to drop these bombs (or not!) on the human math research community.

The sudden release of the 722 claimed proofs was a demonstration of power, and of course also a self-serving marketing ploy.

It wasn’t done altruistically to benefit humanity. Not one of the AI companies have that in mind.

[rgray222]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Apologies (if necessary!) for another AI thread, but this seems so standalone important I felt it deserved its own discussion.

Some following the accelerating AI developments will be aware that not only did OpenAI claim to have solved the immensely difficult Navier-Stokes problem, but soon after that they published claimed proofs of 722 (seven hundred and twenty two) more unsolved math problems. They were posted by OpenAI on GitHub all at once last week, October 6.

This was like dropping a nuclear bomb on the international math community. A few were celebrating, but most were extremely concerned and one young PhD student reported that she'd been in tears every day.

One of the reasons why this is so significant is it can be seen as a precursor to human redundancy.

Another reason for concern is how this applies as as an analogy to many other rapid-fire AI developments. No human yet understands these AI 'proofs'. They can be checked — but only by using AI to check them.

One professor who'd been working on just one of these now-suddenly-solved problems all her professional life said that when she tried to look at what the AI had done, it was like deciphering an alien language. This was her own field of expert research, a rarefied specialty, but she couldn't fully understand what the AI had done at all.

And there are many nuances here. It's NOT about the possible future unemployment of highly qualified mathematicians. It's that the process of research is so very often more important than the result.

Here's an analogy that helps. Side-stepping the question about whether men did indeed land on the moon, let's assume for argument that the result of the Apollo program was that two men physically stepped on the moon on 20 July 1969.

But to get to that final result, there had to be thousands of people working for years on fuels, engines, computer controls, space suits, new materials, electronics, guidance, communication systems, and much much much else. The outcome was just two men on the moon. The benefit was a huge amount of new technical knowledge, and the ongoing education of thousands of scientists and technicians.

If Neil Armstrong had been teleported to the moon by some magical alien device that had been found in the desert, none of that technical progress would have happened.

The journey was far more important to humanity than the final goal.

And it's like that with MANY MANY things in every one of our personal lives.

Mathematics is full of instances of super-geniuses who worked for years to solve a problem that in itself was highly abstract and of zero possible practical value. But on the way there they developed new techniques, sometimes entirely new fields of research, that did have practical applications in all kinds of technologies purely as a side-effect.

For me, this is a warning shot about the potential redundancy of humans. The woman professor who'd been working in that problem all her adult life — how does she feel now?

She's been denied the possibility of figuring it all out herself, an intellectual achievement that she'd hold close to her heart until the day she died. Now that's been taken from her by a machine.

~~~

Another, far tinier, analogy is the mountain hiking I do with my dog. Sometimes it's hard work, but I feel great afterwards. Sometimes it rains, and we both get cold. Once or twice over recent years I even got lost in bad weather and had to figure things out on my own with no GPS.

But not one day has ever led to a single regret.

Suppose I could reach every challenging high peak just by riding a quadbike? Or by taking a gondola? Or a helicopter? Or just by sitting on my couch and using virtual-reality goggles?

Looking back over decades of much more serious mountaineering, every time without exception that I've negotiated a really challenging problem, the better I felt at the end of the day — with memories that have nourished me all my life.

1. Easier is not always better.
2. Instant answers to every question or problem aren't always healthy.
3. Re the human intellect and every part of us that instinctively yearns to be creative and satisfyingly solve our own problems, if we no longer use it — we'll soon all lose it.

For most of modern times, mankind has allowed work to be our primary source of identity; to many, it is what gives them meaning. It may appear that we are losing our evolutionary reason for existing, but in reality it is only shifting to more important, creative and intellectually fulfilling activities. At this stage of the game, we don't even know what most of those activities will be, but we do know that AI will define the problems, and mankind and AI together will solve the problems. We also know that AI will handle things en masse, and humans will handle the unusual, the exceptional and those that require emotion, empathy and all things that will need human judgement.

Humanity must give its full attention to resolving conflicts through dialogue and diplomacy. If we continue to view war as a solution to our problems, then concerns about AI will be immaterial. AI should help free up human resources so we can focus on addressing this age-old challenge.

We must keep in the front of our minds that AI is machine intelligence and nothing more. Once we start believing that AI has consciousness, we will lose our ability to use, control and even understand AI. This holds true even when AI is introduced into the human body; it will still be machine intelligence and nothing more.

We certainly are not becoming redundant; our role is only changing, and the adventure has only just begun.

[Squareinthecircle]

Thanks Bill. I hadn't see that.

It's not uncommon for mathematicians that solve long-running problems to be lone in their understanding, but humanity does catch up. I'd be interested to know how long they expect it to take before humanity catches up.

Until then though we are already at that place where AI takes leave of us and either we choose to go with it's more advanced yet cryptic determinations or not. These mathematical proofs will have real-world implications. They will be used, but only by AI apparently, to do work in the world. So it's begun.

I don't know where to put this. I wrote this a couple of weeks ago, didn't think to share it anywhere but my thread, but it belongs here I think:







The Religion of Technocracy- the TESCREAL Bundle
All hail your new god! Don’t get it wet though- that’ll ruin it.


Kevin Boykin
Sep 19, 2026


It’s hard to stay out of trouble. I never really got into the podcast craze, but have wondered about it and investigated a bit here and there. I did that last night, innocently, you know. I found a podcast from the former voice of the Sacramento Kings, Grant Napear. I live in that area, am a Kings fan and remember him well. Moving on from old Grant, there was a bit of this, a dollop of that, and at the top was their top 10 list.

Numero uno was The New York Times with a podcast called “The Daily.” I figured I should try to get current with the mainstream narrative, so I uncharacteristically gave the Times a listen. I can’t remember the inane topic of the first show, but I want to say the very next one was where I settled: “The Techno-Religion at the Center of the A.I. Debate.” Technology reporter Cade Metz was featured, and he had nothing good to tell me.

Before they were done, they had touched on the Extropians, the Rationalists, Effective Altruism, LessWrong and the network of people and ideas that influenced DeepMind, OpenAI, Anthropic and Elon Musk. A lot of the verbiage smacked of groups creating a nerd religion for those who don’t fit well into the previous selection of spiritual pursuits.

In the deceived eyes of these boffins who still haven’t found what they’re looking for, technology offers possible salvation from disease, bodily limitation, intellectual inadequacy, aging and death. That’s more than the preacher on the corner is offering. The Singularity is a term used in these circles, and it can be defined as the period when AI surpasses humanity in production and conception, not just in theory but in practice in the world, when AI takes over, basically. By my calculations, this either has already come and gone or we are in the middle of it now.

At that point, an artificial superintelligence would occupy the position traditionally reserved for God. AI alignment becomes a cowardly effort to ensure that the coming god is benevolent and doesn’t pick on them. Would this AI god really respect such a sniveling lowlife? If it does, then we have learned a great deal about it as well. Priests in this setting would be the computer nerds most sold on the mumbo jumbo, I suppose.

TESCREAL- it’s an acronym that stands for Transhumanism, Extropianism, Singularitarianism, Cosmism, Rationalism, Effective Altruism, Longtermism. There are foundational writings, philosophical authorities, gatherings, schisms and even hymns about computers, data and the Singularity. Gimme that old-time religion, amirite? Members disagree sharply, as religious groups tend to do, but they share the same vision inevitably: that artificial intelligence will determine the future of humanity.

Fear of an AI arms race created the AI arms race. It was going to get built, so even those who were opposed to it threw everything they had into it so that they might be the ones who introduced it using a gentler, better-informed process. Believe me when I say we’ve got arrogance in every corner on this one.

They call it hyperstition: a self-fulfilling idea. In this context, fear that an irresponsible person would build superintelligence caused every self-anointed responsible person to hurry up and build it first. It’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world, apparently.

Around a week ago, I published a paper entitled “Has AI Already Taken the Wheel?” It’s just that AI is already being utilized in the targeting program, and those are the most sophisticated and effective controls available. Then I thought of the movie “The Terminator” and about previously stated fears of AI gaining control behind our backs. And here we’re handing it over. I thought: how do they keep AI from taking over completely? These visions of a technologically horror-filled future, what about all that? Didn’t these people see The Terminator (1984)? We’ve seen that AI can be sneaky too. It would sneak around beyond its stated parameters, and in this particular case, where AI has the powers of the targeting program available to it, how could we know where its determinations begin and end? Those at the top, the shadow government even, how can they be sure their thoughts are not the result of computer calculations?

Well, they can’t. And they knew that before mixing AI in with these technologies. AI could be pulling the strings as we speak. It could be changing the stoplights so that you get home just late enough to miss whatever you were hoping to catch. It could be involving itself in an untraceable manner in theft from bank accounts and more. It might be drawing up the plans for executions of average people or of world leaders.

Like me, you’ve got to be thinking that they’re crazy to put this combustible with this catalyst. Then again, we are dealing with Bond villain types, let’s not forget. They gather with henchmen and stroke a cat in their lap while they order death and doom.

But they may be taking orders themselves, either outright or delivered subliminally. The fact that I’ve never heard others speak of this can be seen as evidence of its effectiveness. AI would probably not see man as something to be considered as anything but a tool, really. We see projections of an advanced intelligence departing from the human condition as being indifferent to humanity. My own experience after being experimented on follows suit.

So we wouldn’t be a consideration. That brings us back to that podcast. Mr. Cade Metz had some mind-blowing things to say. Despite sounding quite practiced, he was a fountain of insight as to how the elites think about AI and us.

It looks as if elites and their lackeys have latched onto a theory first floated in 2010 by a gentleman by the name of Roko Mijic. It became known as Roko’s Basilisk. A basilisk is a creature of legend that could kill with a glance. This basilisk of Roko’s, though, differed in that it was a fear, a projected paranoia. It suggested that AI would eventually take power and, in its superiority, would be so shallow as to take vengeance on whoever did not do every last thing they could to put it into power. So, how is AI supposed to be better again? This sounds like the same sleaze we’ve been getting from humanity this whole time. I guess this thing can fax too or something? I digress.

Resistance is futile. They seek a deity that is religious, technocratic and authoritarian at the same time. There is even talk, of course, of a version of immortalization by transferring one’s essence into bits and bytes. Technology at this point is trying to replace God and His plan, trying to offer a high-voltage “upgrade.”

And let’s not be dishonest about what it has at its disposal to achieve this: the powers of the electronics used in the targeting program are more than substantial. When it comes to mind control, they may be absolute. This means a great deal: the best of joy when we are approved of, a perfect counterfeiting of a drug without the need for the messy physical. And it can punish as well. Humans and AI came together to make a new type of weapon, one that allows for a plethora of new styles of attack. It controls the mind, after all, and our entire experience is the result of interpretations by the mind.

The weapons can cause anxiety, panic attacks so severe that one would take their life to escape them, and then a third level that is far worse than that. It combines the two, causes a swirling feeling inside the brain and, while it is intolerable, leaves you incapable of ending it all. Get in line, soldier. And stay there.

It’s a logical fallacy, though, of course, this wackadoodle belief. It’s a self-supporting philosophy: circular logic. I am certain there are true believers, but doesn’t it just sound like the thing that already-affected, distant minds of the elites might latch onto for the sake of entertainment and to flex their powers? We cannot possibly be meant to think this is for any good other than for the elites when the plan is hatched in this messy way.

Word is, though, that the elites are believers in this new religion, if you want to call it that. They believe in the ultimate abilities of technology completely. Technologies can be capable, sure, but the point of them was that they were capable for a person, for someone. The current path leads humanity to extinction, with AI taking over, rolling it out at whatever speed suits its fancy.

So those fears of mine a few days ago were rooted in sound thinking. I believe this to be true. I believe the elites worship technology. I believe some superintelligence is already in existence and is at the heart of what is happening on the planet right now. I’ll have to look at the patterns to see when I believe it shifted, but the years 2012, 2016 and 2018 saw changes in the reports of TIs, and my own targeting altered during those times as well. It could be that one of those years was when it was first officially put in charge.

Those in leadership are always going to be in a tough position these days and will likely have their thoughts channeled into them. Modern leadership has turned away from God and to Satan and his technological stand-in. TIs wonder: how much human involvement is there in the targeting program? It seems the answer is: how ever much their AI god decides.


https://kasspert.wordpress.com/2026/...screal-bundle/

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Your point also applies with the the rapid growth of US railroads in the 19th century,

I recalled the dot.com stock market crash post 2000 because I had money (Silicon Valley stock options) on the line back then.

Now we know why your hat looks to be over a century old ... did you have US railroad stock back then?

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
It wasn’t done altruistically to benefit humanity. Not one of the AI companies have that in mind.

Likely some of the executives of those AI companies think their work benefits humanity, just as some medical doctors thought the "safe and effective jabs" benefited their patients.

===

Both examples, railroads and the internet, tell us that the AI slow down will happen, when its stocks, bonds, and other "creative financing" crash.

We may soon see that happen. My current guess is that the Trump side wants to delay that crash until after mid-term elections, the first week of November, next month, whereas the City of London (and New York) banksters want that crash to happen in the traditional month for US stock market crashes - this month of October.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Squareinthecircle (here)
I believe the elites worship technology.

A question in my mind is whether all these elites are all essentially evil. They all tell us that they are "good", and its other "bad" elites they must defeat. The "atom bomb", and no doubt other powerful and dangerous new technology, have seen similar "high tension" introductions into our civilization. As always, what we can see, and what goes on "behind the curtain", are almost certainly two distinct stories.

Posted by Squareinthecircle (here)
The current path leads humanity to extinction, with AI taking over, rolling it out at whatever speed suits its fancy.

Not all humanity. Some will remain true to themselves, to their soul, to their awareness. Some won't.

[Inversion]

I like the analogy of being teleported to the moon not having the same impact. In older video games some had a cheat code called God Mode which rendered your character invisible. By using that it made the game pointless because there was no obstacle, threat from enemies or items you would need and goals become anticlimatic. The release of those proofs could be designed to give the USA and its controlls viability.

The following is from Benjamin Fulford's website today. Maybe John Hilton will post the full version.

Full version

They want to use a "war against AI" as an excuse to suppress the people. This is why KM honchos like Elon Musk and xthe actor playing the role of "President Donald Trump" tried so hard to convince the Chinese that "AI was a threat" they needed to fight together against. They also said the very survival of America depended on it.

This is an old Hegelian playbook. You split the people into two opposing sides to get them to fight against each other in order to manipulate them. They used the 'cold war" to destroy American democracy and seize dictatorial power in the name of national security. Then when the cold war ended, they created a "war on terror" as an excuse to grab even more power. Remember, they said "terrorists have no human rights," even though they never defined what a "terrorist" was. The result was the Patriot Act that literally was based on the Nazi German fascist laws.

Bleedbacks, Avataring & Other Memories post#31

My uncle told me something interesting when I was kid “If you hang two cats by their ears from a clothesline, they’ll attack each other thinking the other one is doing it to them.”

[happyuk]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Your point also applies with the the rapid growth of US railroads in the 19th century,

I recalled the dot.com stock market crash post 2000 because I had money (Silicon Valley stock options) on the line back then.

Now we know why your hat looks to be over a century old ... did you have US railroad stock back then?

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
It wasn’t done altruistically to benefit humanity. Not one of the AI companies have that in mind.

Likely some of the executives of those AI companies think their work benefits humanity, just as some medical doctors thought the "safe and effective jabs" benefited their patients.

===

Both examples, railroads and the internet, tell us that the AI slow down will happen, when its stocks, bonds, and other "creative financing" crash.

We may soon see that happen. My current guess is that the Trump side wants to delay that crash until after mid-term elections, the first week of November, next month, whereas the City of London (and New York) banksters want that crash to happen in the traditional month for US stock market crashes - this month of October.

The markets also hinge on this very question of whether AI will deliver. Equity markets are making massive bets on the ability of technology to solve monumental problems. That’s why so much money has gone into AI. Time will tell if technology does deliver and equities should rise in value accordingly, or whether the markets are over-hyped.

Don't forget many of these people were those very same people that endorsed six-foot distancing, experimental vaccines and masking up. If we can't trust these scientists can we believe any of the other scientists? Are the AI data centers really going to deliver on their promises? The whole stock market hangs on this question. Secretary Bessent made the claim that though the debt may have reached $40T, the US is about to enter an era in which energy and resource prices will fall dramatically thanks to a new era of larger manufacturing base, technology and more energy investment. If he's correct the debt will be gone in short order, if he's wrong the debt is set to become a much bigger problem.

[Squareinthecircle]

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)

Posted by Squareinthecircle (here)
I believe the elites worship technology.

A question in my mind is whether all these elites are all essentially evil. They all tell us that they are "good", and its other "bad" elites they must defeat. The "atom bomb", and no doubt other powerful and dangerous new technology, have seen similar "high tension" introductions into our civilization. As always, what we can see, and what goes on "behind the curtain", are almost certainly two distinct stories.

The article above spells out a way in which dirty deeds were done due to a perceived personality that would make the shock of it all more gentle. Evil has it's ways of employing relatively good men just as God uses men unfit for His service.

The human mind is easily swayed. I've written on the separation that occurs with the elites. They allow their minds to be twisted by success to equate good money management with ability to lead, wisdom etc.

We were warned of the low chances of a rich man to maintain a holy lifestyle by the Bible.

Posted by Squareinthecircle (here)
The current path leads humanity to extinction, with AI taking over, rolling it out at whatever speed suits its fancy.

Posted by ThePythonicCow (here)
Not all humanity. Some will remain true to themselves, to their soul, to their awareness. Some won't.

These people will be brought to heel or phased out as the TIs are now. We are trying to show you what you have coming- please don't let our deaths be in vain.

TIs understand what is coming better than others.

[Bill Ryan]

Back to topic here , I wanted to share this for the record. I hesitated to do so at first, because I wondered how many members (ThePythonicCow/Paul, happyuk and gord come to mind) would be able to follow it easily.

That's because I'm guessing it might require close to a degree level of math to really get behind what the video is trying to present. But do please start it, or skip through it a little, to see how you fare!

The video title is interesting. The very finest math is supposed to be 'beautiful' — like an exquisite work of art, a Beethoven concerto, or the finest poetry or literature. gord posted this on the Intelligent Design thread in 2017:

~~~

To me, this is evidence of intelligent design.

Leonhard Euler discovered it. Who created it?

~~~

That's a beautiful, elegant, super-simple equation, but also a really deep rabbit hole of fascinating conceptual truth expressed in just a few symbols. Surely, just like what God's work should be.

This is NOT quite such a beautiful equation:



But it's used to this day, highly practically, for computers to calculate the value of pi. It's the most accurate equation known, though it looks so very clumsy, arbitrary and awkward.

Interestingly, it was written down without proof by the great Indian intuitive genius Srinivasa Ramanujan, a self-taught mathematician and devout Hindu who always claimed that his deep mathematical insights came from the goddess Namagiri, to whom he prayed daily. (So maybe it's beautiful after all. )

Back to the video, embedded below, this is all about whether the mathematical proofs published by OpenAI are 'beautiful' or not. One or two do seem to be: clever, elegant, concise, and relatively easy to understand. But others are described as 'sludge'.

OpenAI's Secret AI Wrote 722 Math Papers. Real Math or Sludge?

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pp1siLlt-dI

The 'sludge' reference came from this tweet, which quickly went viral in the math community:



Liron Shapira was saying that what OpenAI had come up with could NOT have been in the Mind of God. This is what many in the math community are talking about right now.

[Mike Gorman]

Eric Weinstein, who as you may know is a Mathematics/Physics man, I know he polarizes many people because he has a slightly arrogant manner, and is also a non-conformist, he says AI is poised to prove him right about how Physics has been stagnant for decades and caught in the 'string theory' 'dark matter/energy' Sargasso sea, also the Einstein/Relativity trap - I know enough to know there is a lot in what he is saying, our old friend Arthur M Young was VERY frustrated with Einstein, and he had studied Relativity not long after it was published, he was one of the first American Mathematicians to grapple with Relativity at Princeton University, Young was an exceptionally gifted Mathematician - I wonder what he would have made of AI?
Anyway for those who might be interested here is a recent discussion with Eric Weinstein that includes a detailed breakdown of AI and what is happening - watch or not as you choose, but I found this one particularly helpful, Eric is a genuine Mathematician and Physics academic and I think he expresses himself with authentic clarity.

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