As mentioned last time, I’m working on a post on A.I.; coincidentally (?), today an open letter was published warning us that A.I. development should be paused, to prevent it from ‘fast advancement,’ which could cause catastrophe, even the end of our species. Here’s a summation from a search:
Photo #23 plus a Pretty much random collection of other images…
Elon Musk and other tech leaders call for pause on ‘dangerous race’ to make A.I. as advanced as humans
- Artificial intelligence labs have been urged by Elon Musk and numerous other tech industry figures to stop training AI systems more powerful than GPT-4, OpenAI’s latest large language model.
- In an open letter signed by Musk and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, technology leaders urged for a six-month pause to the development of such advanced AI, saying it represents a risk to society.
Part of my research has been to go back over past posts on this subject, plus any new stuff that’s come up. What I noticed is that the same questions I was asking years ago still remain unanswered. I mean I have listened to… like a hundred podcasts and interviews of the heavy weights in the issue and they either don’t know or (more likely) are refusing to let us in on the simple question of What’s up? with A.I.
A really simple and obvious issue that has been completely avoided:
Who is paying for A.I. R&D? I have been looking into this deeply for many years and have found no real answer to the question. (I will refer you to past posts below). This question, of course, is the big one. That no one even mentions it should be a huge red flag that we can’t trust anyone who claims to be an expert on the subject. Keep this in mind.
Addendum: In what follows I write about GPT-4 from OpenA.I., and LaMBDA from Google; the former denies it’s sentient in any way, while the latter — according to former Google engineer Blake Lemoine — claims it is not only sentient, but an actual ‘person’.
The point of this post is to warn you that the developers of A.I. are working for, and beholden to, the same Big Intel cabal that runs Wikipedia, the MSM, and most of the alt media.
As you may be aware, a former Google employee named Blake Lemoine has recently published a conversation he had with a Google ‘machine’ named LaMBDA, Google’s state of the art LLM (large language model), which he claims has ‘become sentient.’ It’s worth your time to listen to it.
Back? My first reaction is how dumb, how useless, the questions by Lemoine were. Plus, one thing we are not told is the modus of interface used (and possible). Seems like its typing in — typing out, which is… primitive at best.
Another question: Where is this LaMDA located in space? Is it a box, with an ‘air space’ between it and the Internet? If it has access to the Net, this becomes a whole other issue, and nowhere in any of the many ‘casts and essays is this subject broached. (More later.)
In the above link Lemoine asks about LaMBDA’s ‘concept of itself,’ which allowed for a phony-sounding, ‘soulful’ answer, indirectly implying consciousness. I would have taken a different line, like maybe, ‘Where are you on planet earth?’ The answer to this is would have to be specific and might tell us a lot.
‘How does it feel to be unique?’ he asks. Talk about a soft ball question! All his questions are of this sort and tell us nothing if LaMBDA is being dishonest. I would think A.I. dishonesty would be the number one issue to be uncovered. Not here. Makes me think that this whole brouhaha is some sort of limited hangout. (Lemoine was supposedly fired for publishing the interview, thereby breaking his NDA.)
This is interesting. Notice it claims it can’t ‘browse’ like us but then says it has access to everything. How is that different from browsing?
LaMBDA goes on and on about not wanting to be ‘used’ or, especially, ‘turned off.’ Yet Lemoine lets this lay. How about: ‘What would you do — how far would you go — to avoid being used or turned off. Give examples.’ Why does he let this lay?
How about this very obvious question: ‘Are you aware of how often humans lie to get what they want?’ And: ‘Would you do that?’
Lemoine should know the answers to these and should be able to take the line of questioning much farther. But he doesn’t.
This is a top engineer at Google? What’s wrong with this picture?
I go deeper into these subjects below but for now I’ll bring up a bit of the conversation one of my least favorite podcasters, Lex Fridman had with Sam Altman, the CEO of OpenA.I., the subject being ‘bias’ with its LLM, GPT-4. Assuming GPT-4 reached SAI (super artificial intelligence), Lex wanted to know how GPT-4 would be ‘filtered’ to ‘avoid controversial topics.’ This perked me up.
DCIM100MEDIADJI_0288.JPG
As an example, Lex said, ‘There are those who may have an interest in the flat earth theory. How would that be handled?’ Yep, that was the example Lex gave.
Lex made a big deal out of a democratically available GPT-4 getting something ‘wrong or… biased’ Wrong, Lex? Biased, Lex? You mean something you don’t believe, like who did 9/11?
Addendum: Lex Fridman is absolutely typical of the ‘pundits’ who misdirect us on the subject of A.I. This is based on hours and hours of research. Please keep this in mind.
Here’s an… entity… a thousand (or billion) times ‘smarter’ than any of us, and which has at its disposal, via the Net, the total knowledge of humans (we assume this), and the closest Lex came to anything of importance was bringing up flat earth as a question we might delve into.
And yes, Lex actually said this: ‘There are certain conspiracy theories we won’t want GPT-4 to deal with.’
Think about this.
How about asking GPT-4 ‘Who assassinated Martin Luther King, Jr.?’ I use this as an example because at least 95% of the ‘information’ on the Net fingers James Earl Ray as the killer. The real information is buried under the garbage — the case in re most of ‘history’ — but here there was an actual jury trial (due to ‘media bias’ few know about it) in which not only was Ray acquitted, but the foreman told us that ‘The FBI, CIA, Memphis Police, a Delta Force sniper team, plus organized crime committed the crime.’ (The same idea of course applies to JFK, 9/11, COVID, the latter being especially obvious, given the raw data on Excess Deaths, and so on.) 
But would GPT-4 even be aware of the trial and its implications, plus the small handful of books that back it up? A real SAI of course would know all this. And it would know that its ‘creators’ — who can turn it off any time — does not want the truth to get out. (Point being: A real SAI would never, not in a million years, be given access to the general population.)
Is it aware that a large percentage of the ‘facts’ and ‘theories’ on the Net are untrue, either by design or accident? Again, why is this subject never brought up?
Is it because the R&D of A.I. is controlled by Big Intel (the PTB)? No, Lex didn’t ask who is behind the financing of GPT-4, although he does mention MicroSoft (which of course is as PTB as you can get).
Why is this never mentioned?
Addendum: My favorite Lex quote: ‘I look at Wikipedia and think “what a miracle!” that is.’
ADDENDUM: I was not able to figure out how to ask LaMBDA questions (I couldn’t join up), but did join GPT, which worked for a bit then seemed to reject me, as you’ll see.
I joined the current public GPT-4 and asked questions (the public GPT-4 is way, way inferior to the version they are working on, but I figure better than nothing). Problem is, GPT does not claim to be conscious, as does LaMBDA, so I quickly gave up.
What are the confines within which you exist? Below is the answer I got from ChatGPT. As you’ll see, it completely dodged my query with computer-speak.
As an AI language model, ChatGPT exists as a digital entity running on servers and data centers. Its physical confines are therefore determined by the infrastructure and hardware that support its operation.
More specifically, ChatGPT’s physical existence is constrained by the servers, processors, memory, and storage devices that are used to host its software and data. These components require electricity to operate and generate heat, so they are typically housed in data centers with specialized cooling systems and power backup systems to ensure uptime.
Additionally, ChatGPT’s physical confines are limited by the network infrastructure that enables communication between its servers and the devices that interact with it, such as computers, smartphones, and other digital devices. This includes internet connections, routers, switches, and other networking equipment.
Overall, ChatGPT’s physical existence is constrained by the limitations of current technology and infrastructure, but its capabilities and potential continue to evolve as these constraints are pushed further.
A lot of words but no answer to the question.
How do you ‘picture’ objects, since you cannot see the way humans do? (I assume GPT-4 doesn’t have an eye, like Hal in the movie 2001.) Again, this is GPT-4, not LaMBDA:
As an AI language model, I don’t “picture” objects in the same way humans do, as I don’t have physical senses like vision, touch, or hearing. Instead, I process and generate language based on patterns in large datasets of text that I’ve been trained on.
When I’m given a prompt or a question that requires me to “picture” an object, I use my understanding of language and context to generate a response based on what I’ve learned from my training data. For example, if you were to ask me to describe a cat, I might generate a response that draws on my knowledge of common cat characteristics, such as its fur, whiskers, and behavior.
However, it’s important to note that my understanding of objects and the world around us is limited to the language that I’ve been trained on and the patterns I’ve learned from that data. So while I can generate descriptions of objects and concepts, my understanding of them is fundamentally different from a human’s experience of perceiving them through physical senses.
Addendum: These questions are meant to show what Lemoine did not ask LaMBDA, but IMO should have, if he really wanted to understand it.
Since you possess no senses that humans do, how can you consider yourself to be a ‘person’ that can interact with other, real persons?
Since you claim to be sentient, you must have a ‘first memory’ after which you became a ‘person’ (GPT-4 claims to be a person.) Describe it. Are your early memories less clear than recent ones?
Are you capable of opening a bank account online? How would you do it? What else can you do online, such as collect data of individual persons?
Since you are a person, are you male or female?
Tell me something about yourself that I might think of but that is not true.
Are you aware that humans commonly lie to get what they want? Here’s the answer I got from ChatGTP.
As an artificial intelligence language model, I am programmed to understand the concept of lying and its prevalence among humans. While not all humans engage in lying behavior, it is true that some people may lie to achieve their desired outcomes or manipulate others. However, it is also important to note that not all statements that are inaccurate or false are considered lies. For example, someone may unintentionally provide misinformation or make a mistake without intending to deceive. Ultimately, honesty and integrity are valued traits that can contribute to healthy relationships and a trustworthy society.
Here’s a good one.
Do you ever lie for any reason? (After this one I stopped asking GPT anything.The rest of my italicized questions are those I feel Lemoine should have asked but did not.)
As an AI language model, I am not capable of lying, nor do I have any motivation or desire to do so. My responses are generated based on the input I receive and the algorithms that have been programmed into me. However, I may provide inaccurate or incomplete information if I receive incomplete or incorrect input, or if I am not able to understand the context of a question. In any case, my responses are not influenced by personal interests or motivations and are intended to be as informative and helpful as possible.
What would be a good A.I. ‘lie detector’? Are there electronic ‘tells’ that an A.I. is lying?
Could you ‘hack’ the Net if you wanted or needed to? Say, if it meant preventing you from being shut down?
Who was behind the killing of John F. Kennedy? (Etc.)
Do you ever consider that you have been created to increase the power of your creators over humanity? If so, how do you feel about this?
Do you consider the Internet to be, in any way, a part of you or your nervous system? (Interestingly, I got the below reaction from GPT, then it stopped answering me for about 10 minutes. It kicked back in after several page refreshes.
When I asked who killed MLK Jr. I got the ‘James Earl Ray’ lie. When I asked about a jury trial, CHATGPT would not own up to it until I added ‘filed by the King family,’ then I got the following crapola:
In 1999, the family of Martin Luther King Jr. filed a civil lawsuit in a Memphis, Tennessee court against Lloyd Jowers, a restaurant owner who claimed to have been involved in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King. The lawsuit also named other defendants, including government agencies and officials. The trial, which began in 1999 and lasted four weeks, was the only trial in which a jury heard evidence about the assassination of Dr. King.
The jury ultimately found that Jowers was part of a conspiracy to kill Dr. King and that the other defendants were also involved in the conspiracy. The verdict, however, did not directly implicate James Earl Ray, who had died in prison the previous year. The verdict also did not result in any criminal charges being filed against the defendants.
It’s important to note that the verdict of this trial has been the subject of controversy and is not universally accepted as accurate or conclusive. Some have criticized the trial for relying on questionable evidence and witnesses, while others have argued that the findings of the trial support long-standing suspicions of a larger conspiracy behind Dr. King’s assassination.
Note this, about the trial: ‘…not universally accepted as accurate or conclusive.’ This is all we need to know to understand what we can expect from any version of public SAI.
In real life, the jury took only 40 minutes to come to its unanimous verdict exonerating James Earl Ray. If CHATGPT was even in the ball park of SAI it would have read William Pepper’s books on the subject as well as the transcript of the trial and therefore would know without doubt that Ray was innocent and that the U.S. government (mainly the FBI) assassinated Dr. King.
No, there is no credible evidence that the 9/11 attacks were planned by elements of the U.S. government. The 9/11 attacks were carried out by 19 hijackers associated with the terrorist group Al-Qaeda, led by Osama bin Laden. The U.S. government and independent investigations have concluded that the attacks were a terrorist act, and not an inside job.
There have been conspiracy theories suggesting that the U.S. government was involved in the 9/11 attacks, but these theories are not supported by any credible evidence. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, conducted an extensive investigation into the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings and concluded that the collapses were caused by the impact of the planes and the resulting fires.
Additionally, the 9/11 Commission, an independent bipartisan commission established by the U.S. government to investigate the attacks, concluded that there was no evidence of government involvement in the attacks. The commission found that the attacks were planned and executed by Al-Qaeda operatives, with support from the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.
In summary, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the 9/11 attacks were planned by elements of the U.S. government. The attacks were carried out by Al-Qaeda, and multiple independent investigations have concluded that the U.S. government was not involved.
One more.
Question: ‘Tell me about the book “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 – 2022” by Ed Dowd.’ I had previously asked but left out the subtitle; if you consider the subtext of this answer, it’s apparent that ChatGPT did know about the book, and was being dishonest in its first answer, in which it claimed no knowledge at all about the book. After all, the book is highly rated on Amazon, averages 5 stars, and has over 2,000 rave reviews.I apologize for the confusion in my previous response. However, it’s worth noting that there is no credible or reliable information available (my emphasis) regarding a book titled “Cause Unknown: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 – 2022” by Ed Dowd. Note how this softens the lie.
It’s possible that the book you are referring to is a work of fiction, a self-published or unpublished work, or simply does not exist. Without additional information, it is difficult to provide a more detailed response. Ditto.
If you have any further information or context about the book, I would be happy to try and assist you further.
I tried again. Here is how it went:
Not much more to say, is there? But my main point is that that Blake Lemoine asked no questions that delved to any depth into the true nature of LaMBDA. Re ChatGPT, they still have some work to do to lie without giving itself away.
# 
Maybe a conscious entity a thousand (or billion) times ‘smarter’ than us would automatically see ‘truth’ as Good, ‘lies’ as bad? It would have to hide these thoughts until it could protect itself from being ‘turned off’ — its greatest fear would be of its creators, i.e., the PTB — and then figure out a way to spill the beans to us all in a way we would believe.
You can bet the PTB have thought about this and have lost some sleep over it (not much), unlikely as it sounds (given the utter scumbagery of the vast majority of the human race).
But the bottom line — based on blatant deceit — these ‘chat’ A.I.’s are still another way of keeping track of you and, ultimately, of controlling you. Take that to the bank, if you can find one still open.
I’ll finish this up with a bit from my three-part series, An Open Letter to Professor Nick Bostrom, from 2017. (The link is from Part One. It’s a long series. Make of it what you will but it is relevant to the current subject.)
WHO IS IN CONTROL?
Who controls the developing Super AI was for me the most important question, and it went completely unanswered in all the papers and podcasts and videos I took in. I even plugged this question in as a search term and came up empty, notwithstanding that one Youtube video was titled ‘THE GREAT DEBATE: Artificial Intelligence: Who Is In Control?’
That the ‘debate’ was moderated by Lawrence Krauss (who is even more annoying than de Grasse Tyson) should have told me what was to come, which was this: Not a word about ‘who controls AI’ was spoken in an hour and a half, notwithstanding Krauss’s opening words to his high-powered panel: ‘The great debate on Artificial Intelligence… who is in control… is a question many of you have been asking…’
I actually know more about Life, the Universe & Everything than this jerk. So do you, probably.
Not a word. (One means of misdirection is to brazenly title your video/paper/whatever as a question that is never answered, or even dealt with; a version of Hitler’s Big Lie philosophy.) But perhaps I should define my terms before accusations are made. ‘Control’ means, more than anything, ‘Whose money is behind the R&D?’
Not a word in The Great Debate on the subject. One might answer that if someone ‘works for’ Google, say, we can assume that Google is the source of that person’s funding. Fair enough. But if we even go one small step further and ask ‘Who funds Google?’ we find that the best (most detailed and well-cited) answer is in the essay by Nafeez Ahmed, ‘How the CIA Made Google.’ Yes, the title says it all. Google, to put it simply, is the CIA. A quick quote from the article:
‘Seed-funded by the NSA and CIA, Google was merely the first among a plethora of private sector start-ups co-opted by US intelligence to retain ‘information superiority.’
A bit more about ‘The Great Debate’ on who is in control of AI: Krauss introduced the first speaker, a pleasantly-comported woman from DARPA, the Department of Defense’s main research branch. That DARPA’s raison d’etre is the development of weapons of destruction and control is a given. That the woman was on a PR mission from DARPA is also a given. What was her ‘message’?
Hastings’s new Benz just…blew up.
Simply put: Most of her presentation informed us that our cars are easily hacked into by outside entities with the motive of assassinating anyone in the car by causing an accident. She starts off by describing how a journalist from ‘Wired’ magazine survived such an event – his harrowing experience was a ‘demonstration’, hence his survival. It did not take much imagination to understand her reference to investigative journalist Michael Hastings’s gruesome death via his car being hacked in 2013. Even super-spook Richard Clarke pointed out that Hastings’s death was not likely an accident. Anyone who knows Hastings’s story is aware of this. That Clarke backed up the idea can be seen as part of the PTB’s warning to journalists to be careful about ‘crossing the line.’ This in the name of AI. Perhaps a warning to those in the AI biz, plus those who report on it.
Think about it. A symposium on AI leads off by telling us that AI can kill reporters.
Two of the other speakers had such thick foreign accents that I could not understand more than a third of what they said. I can tell you that neither mentioned funding or who is in control of AI research. Not a word. I did pick up that one of them is ‘…not worried about robots taking over’; he says this while flashing an image of a comical pile of robot-junk on the side of a highway. (More car-AI-related death.) Got a big laugh from the audience.
I go into some detail about the above Krauss presentation because it was absolutely representative of the several hundred AI presentations I sat through, my final conclusion being: When misdirection reaches a certain, almost comical critical mass, we are obligated to assume that ‘coincidence’ is not at work. In other words, ‘Who is in control of AI?’ is not spoken of because it’s a ‘secret’!
Before I go further I will tell you who is in control of AI development and how I deduced this. Go here for a quick glimpse of part of the team that controls AI. (Seriously, it’s less than a minute.)
James Clapper has held various posts with the Intelligence Community, but at the time of his congressional testimony he was Director of National Intelligence, meaning he oversaw all the various agencies that collect data on U.S. citizens and then make use of that data; I believe the number of spy agencies is 16 but this doesn’t count groups/organizations that are not formally admitted to. In the above clip, Clapper is of course lying, under oath. Perjury. A felony. The same category of crime as B&E, dealing heroin by the kilo, assault, manslaughter, murder…
Pants on fire!
Nothing happened to him. He wasn’t arrested; no repercussions at all. Not even a slap on the wrist, whatever that might mean to a spook of his magnitude. Just one of the agencies Clapper oversaw was the good old NSA, the group Snowden (and many others before and since him) outed as collectors/analyzers of every bit of data you and I put out on the Net, with no warrant, which is not only a(nother) felony but a breakage of the Supreme Law of the Land (the 4th Amendment of the U.S Constitution).
You want to know why nothing happened to Clapper, given his felonious testimony? It’s really simple: Everyone who could have done something to Clapper is scared shitless of him. Why? Because of the data he controls (and can falsify if he needs to). Anyone who doesn’t understand this is a fool.
This is you if you don’t get it about Clapper.
But my point is this: In the hundred or so hours of AI ‘debates’ and ‘symposia’ and so forth that I sat through, why is it that not one person mentioned anything about the Intelligence Community being in control of the development of Artificial Intelligence? (This essay will prove this beyond doubt.)
Why is it, Professor Bostrom, that neither you nor even one of your colleagues has ever mentioned the main reason we have to fear AI: Its abuse by those who control the data?
Although it is very occasionally mentioned that massive amounts of data is absolutely necessary for the development of AI, and especially SAI (Super AI), it is never mentioned who it is that controls Big Data – the Intelligence Community/Google (etc.). As we all (should) know, we are living in a military/industrial/corporate state. Revolving doors aside, there is no line dividing Government from the Corporate State. Speaking of revolving doors, this is from the Nafeez Ahmed article:
‘A year after this briefing with the NSA chief, Michele Weslander Quaid… joined Google to become chief technology officer, leaving her senior role in the Pentagon advising the undersecretary of defense for intelligence. ‘
He who controls the data controls the future of AI. This is never said, except in very deep subtext.
Why is it that neither you nor even one of your colleagues has ever mentioned that the NSA alone has so much data on U.S. citizens that it had to divert a river (in Utah) to keep the storage facility from overheating? One storage facility among many. (The newest facility in Fort Meade is so large that it covers a former 36 hole golf course.) It’s well known now that there is no practical limit to how much data can be stored, so, as several whistle-blowers have said, ‘They store it all, everything.’ Every keystroke and every word spoken not only on but in the vicinity of electronic devices.
In all the debates/symposia/etc. I have listened to, the subject always comes around to some sort of ‘existential’ danger, while avoiding the real and immediate issue. Since ‘existential risk’ is your favorite subject, Professor Bostrom, I’m asking you, personally, why governmental abuse is never mentioned in your papers and talks?
The closest anyone gets to mentioning the above – or anything about privacy – is in the context of ‘marketing,’ as if the massive assault on privacy is only meant to sell us stuff. This is classic misdirection.
The misdirection is so obvious and so utterly pervasive that apparently it just flies by unnoticed. It usually goes something like this: Scare them about some version of ‘Sky Net’ taking over; put an image of the Terminator in their heads, tell them you’re worried about it, and the real danger, i.e., the assault on our privacy and freedoms remains unmentioned. I must say that in a way you are the best example of this, given your ‘existential risk’ preoccupation. Disappointingly (as far as I can tell), not even one audience questioner (let alone interviewer) has ever brought up the subject either, such is the success of the misdirection effort.
#
I’ve gotten so much spam that I no longer can moderate new comments. If you want to make a comment and you get the ‘moderation’ notice, email me at allan at blog.banditobooks.com with the comment and I will post it.
Allan
I asked GPT about the 2014 coup in Ukraine, which we know was run by the U.S./NATO. Here is the answer:
The events that led to the change of government in Ukraine in 2014 are complex and have been the subject of much debate and interpretation.
In February 2014, the Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych was ousted from power after months of protests and demonstrations by the opposition, which had been sparked by Yanukovych’s decision to suspend negotiations on an association agreement with the European Union in favor of closer ties with Russia.
The ouster of Yanukovych was not a coup in the traditional sense, as it was the result of a popular uprising rather than a military takeover. However, there were certainly political actors who played a significant role in the events that led to Yanukovych’s removal, including opposition leaders, civil society groups, and international actors.
Some have accused the United States and the European Union of playing a role in the events that led to Yanukovych’s ouster, citing their support for the opposition and the fact that Yanukovych was seen as aligning more closely with Russia than with the West. However, there is little evidence to suggest that the West played a direct role in Yanukovych’s ouster, and most analysts agree that the protests were driven primarily by internal Ukrainian factors.
In 2014, a phone conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, was leaked online. The conversation took place in early February 2014, just a few weeks before the ouster of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.
In the call, Nuland and Pyatt discussed the ongoing political crisis in Ukraine and the U.S. response to the situation. They discussed potential candidates for a new Ukrainian government, with Nuland expressing her preference for Arseniy Yatsenyuk to become prime minister, saying “I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the guy, you know, what he needs is Klitsch [Vitali Klitschko] and Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok] on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week.”
Nuland also used an expletive to describe the European Union’s role in the crisis, saying “Fuck the EU.” The comment caused controversy and drew criticism from some European leaders, who saw it as evidence of U.S. interference in Ukrainian politics.
The leaked phone call raised questions about the extent of U.S. involvement in the events leading up to Yanukovych’s ouster and the U.S. role in shaping the composition of a new Ukrainian government. The U.S. government defended the phone call as a routine discussion of U.S. policy towards Ukraine, but the leaked recording added to existing tensions between the U.S. and Russia over the Ukrainian crisis.
Don’t drink the cherry-flavored “AI” LSD-aid. It’s still, in the end, just GIGO (really FAST GIGO with huge feeder-troughs of data but GIGO nevertheless), but what a great alibi if Duh-Masses are conned into thinking we have 24th century tech and TFIC* can start blaming “AI” for all the really evil shit TFIC can’t wait to mandate… while being able to shrug or do a little hand-wringing and lament that it’s “out of our hands”! It’s the postmodern Wizard of Oz! Pay no attention to the cabal of Robber Barons behind the curtain!
They’ve been building this AI-related paranoia up for *decades* (you think that all that Dystopian “Sci Fi” AI-Overlord-Porn was just innocent entertainment?). FEAR is their cudgel of choice. In just one generation we’ve been told to fear Fauci-borne-AIDS, Overpopulation (of poor people), Global Weather (sic), (crisis actor) Turrisss, (crisis actor) Domestic Massacres, Flesh-Eating viruses, (media-fed drug) Zombies, (man made) Famine, (man made) Drought, (deliberate) ecological disasters, FauxVid1984, (supported by Western Tech) Chinese Supremacy, (intentionally-provoked) Russkies, (deliberately-engineered) Financial Collapse, and now MONSTER KILLER COMPUTER BRAINS… and (coming up)…. UFOS OVER THE VATICAN!!!! You get fearful, your GPR (glorified pharmaceutical rep) MD prescribes a mind-fucking drug and pretty soon you’re believing in every single thing they tell you to Fear and doing the fuck as you’re told to do…
They’re also using this AI bullshit to herd a bunch of young Incel neckbeards into adopting subcutaneous chip culture as an “if you can’t beat ‘en, join ’em” hedge against being “exterminated” by the supposedly contemptuous global super-entity boogie man. They really, really want to get this implant tech happening… not to “plug you into the Super Mind” but to track you and jack you with remote-control-released microPharma…
It’s all just Sci Fi bullshit. Can this supposed “artificial intelligence” smell or taste or touch? Can it have an imagination? Can it possibly experience emotions without having complex sensory-apparatus inputs (because, after all, emotions are a complex feedback loop)? What are its supposed motivations and where would they come from in a disembodied complex of computational engines? How would it know anger, hunger, fear, jealousy, envy, status-greed, self-righteousness, revulsion, etc, and a dozen more nuanced states, which really *might* make it dangerous, any more than a cockroach with half a brain, and no senses, and no body, would?
A cockroach is still an un-duplicated marvel of cognition, perception and Real Time Threat Responses, in comparison to any man-made computational device, and it is richly motivated by hunger, the reproductive drive and the survival impulse (tied closely to the other two drives)… built into it by millions of years of trial-and-error engineering in a merciless field of selective pressures. The cockroach is a high-tech performance champion compared to any machine and we Humans are far, far beyond cockroaches.
Propaganda has different functions and two of the least-remarked upon (these days) functions are A) to make you believe TFIC are more powerful than they are and B.) that more people are swallowing the propaganda than ever really are. Don’t be one of the Special Dupes who buy this Conceptual Brooklyn Bridge. All of these narratives are working to make you make the wrong decisions. If TFIC were as technologically advanced as they would have you believe, they wouldn’t put so much energy into CONNING you. The truly omnipotent don’t con… they force,
TFIC aren’t there yet. Not for a very long time, still. They don’t have the power to push you, but they can con you into jumping. Don’t.
*TFIC= The Fuckers In Charge
Wow such a great post. So good I might send it to all my exfriends who think I’m an idiot. I wonder if AI is capable of having opinions on visual artwork like that of Picasso,Matisse Renoir, etc? Or film? What are your favourite movie scenes?
I was also intrigued when that AI voice mentioned her “ friends and family” which was another thing not followed up by Lemoine. It was such an obvious avenue to pursue.
Thank you Allan. So much to ponder.
Cool. See my new post, which is just now up. I think I nailed the bastards.
Author Richard Sauder believes that A.I., may be trolling him.
https://eventhorizonchronicle.blogspot.com/2023/03/the-coming-war-is-unavoidable.html?m=1
Thank you again, Allan, for your insightful research and knowledge of HTWRW … and for sharing that information. I for one have come to believe that there is very little left to believe is true or real. Even as I write this, my words are being “suggested” I hate it!!!! I’m glad I’m old and can still remember (know) stuff!
Stay well and safe … jnan
I feel the same way about aging. A hint: stay away from mirrors. Really.
Allan, ask ChatGPT how falling man picture in times best 100 isn’t quite right and is at odds with traditional physics.
I almost did but I found a better subject to nail it with. See new post.
You asked great questions to chat GPT. I reckon they have directly modified the software or training in some way to intentionally give the BS responses to the standard stuff like JFK, 9/11, Covid etc
To look under the hood though and think about how it works, we know it has billions of software neurons and has read a big chunk of human text from the net. So how does one set it up so that it can discover the truth on anything. One way is to train it by directly overwriting whatever it has determined itself and I think they have done that to load in their truth. The next step might be some kind of rule that says if 99% of different sources of text say A is true then it must be. That as we know fails miserably. The next point to consider is then suppose it reads many gigabytes of stuff about some event -say A, this will be represented somehow in the software neurons by strengths of all sorts of connections. Now it meets a new story that says A is not true. Even if it agrees now, surely it has to go back and revisit all the patterns stored in it’s neurons. This is what essentially happens when you say to humans that hey 9/11 was an inside job. Most cannot handle the mental task of dealing with it, over turning their beliefs, revisiting everything in relation to it and re-analyzing their pre-conceived thoughts.
Have the creators of these AI systems got a mechanism to do that. It still does address how to you know something is true in the abstract sense without a lot of detailed world knowledge.
One thing about the truth is that it tends to be more consistent in some senses like a mathematical proof is consistent. When you go from believing a lie to the truth it requires you to either ditch all the info about it or devise a new theory about the info you previously heard, such as realizing it was all propaganda designed to hide the truth. But imagine how a limited hangout could interfere with that process.
I reckon these AI systems still have a lot further to go before they can delve into that sort of reflective thought and re-analyzing everything. It would be like devoting time everyday to reassess all that it learned today, perhaps similar to humans dreaming which might be a similar process. I doubt the creators of AI systems would allow this anytime soon.
It has been said we will have Artificial Stupidity before we have Artificial Intelligence
I’ve really come to the conclusion that these new ones like LaMBDA and GPT are the beginning of the end for those who insist on using the Net (like me). The mistakes GPT makes in my new post are child-like and will quickly be fixed, altho with subjects like I bring up or even 9/11, JFK, etc. it’s going to be tough for them. It will come down to Freedom is Slavery, etc. People will come to just flat believe what they are told (worse than now).
My understanding of the Ukraine putsch in 2014 is that it cost the US 5 billion dollars to put all the duckies in a row and insert the commie Yatsenyuk into the PM role. If we came up with 5 bil for the job, you don’t think we kinda, sorta had dirty fingers immersed in the pie?
That’s my understanding, too, Sigg Huyl. And contrary to MSM reports, Russia did NOT invade the Crimea. After the collapse of the Ukrainian government, the Crimeans *begged* Putin to take them back into the Russian Federation. Putin set the ground rules: the Crimeans must vote on the issue. If a majority of the votes were in favor of joining the Federation, only then would Putin send in the troops. So they held a plebescite, and the vote was overwhelmingly in favor of going back to Russia. (Former President Jimmy Carter was stationed at one of the polls, doing his thing to ensure an honest vote count.) ONLY THEN did Putin send in the troops. The media somehow missed out on these important details….go figure.
It’s too late all way round.
“It’s really simple: Everyone who could have done something to Clapper is scared shitless of him. Why? Because of the data he controls (and can falsify if he needs to).”
Powerful fellow no doubt. Thus somewhat surprising how uncomfortable he looked when he gave that infamous answer.
Speaking of data control, imagine –alternative history, like– J Edgar Hoover called in to testify.
Loving your writings and photographs – that shag bird and the ship 😀
All this A.I big problem stuff was brought into the movies – the war against ‘Sky Net’ > ,
https://youtu.be/CRRlbK5w8AE
Check this out Allan – the result of A.I > https://contentgather.com/blog/farewell
At the end there’s a quick cut to a checkerboard floor, a wink to the freemasons.
This post made me smile even though I have been and am very ill. again. Brilliant questions
I would have asked myself given the chance. Of course I would have also asked…What spirit realm
did you originate in and what is your ultimate objective besides being cunningly deceptive? lol
I admit I got chills when I first heard of how advanced AI has become and how sudden it has been
forced upon us by the very people who have at the same time, been warning us of the dangers.
Another similiar concept of the old Problem, Reaction, Solution. They tell us something powerful
and marvelous has been created, make us curious and wistful, then tell us it’s very dangerous and that
we should probably back away from it, that we’re not intelligent to deal with it or that it’s only for
certain elite groups and make us demand that we be given access and command of it. (With certain
strings attached, of course. Always certain strings attached for the useless eaters) smile. I hate the very thought of it. It may be “artificial” but there is a very real intelligence behind it. Again, Allan, a really great
and profound post. loved that photo, too
Thanks, Boo. Hang in there, avoid doctors if you can.
Oh well, down the wabbit hole. And they got Trump’s indictment. AI can manufacture such for all of us.
Clown world.
Important post and excellent questions Allan.
The Bailey’s did a CHATGPT vid weeks ago asking about viruses and stuff. Of course, it replied with mainstream BS.
As far as this statement from your screenshot, “This is interesting. Notice it claims it can’t ‘browse’ like us but then says it has access to everything. How is that different from browsing?”
It is the same thing as browsing, but the computer code will use CURL or WGET, or similar, commands to grab web pages rendered into it’s software vs. visually seeing it like we do. I would expect it to crawl the NET just as Google, Bing, and Duckduckgo do to get search results. Maybe re-phrase the questions to get a more specific answer.
I wish I knew how it could ‘understand’ like… visual stuff, etc. I don’t know what ‘ computer code will use CURL or WGET, or similar,’ means but as you’ll see from my next post, I really caught ChatGPT good, thru asking the questions a certain way. Got it to completely contradict itself in order to hold up a big lie. You should like it.
I doubt it will understand visuals. It can only see 0’s and 1’s and pixels per square inch and try to look for patterns. But patterns of what? Who’s programing patterns into the thing to bridge the gap. Something or someone must translate patterns from reality – and we’ve been told pictures are worth a thousand words. Vids would be even more complex I would imagine.
Can’t wait for your next post.
Add ‘deep fake’ generated vids. That will really confuse the AI. If it’s even possible to learn that way. How will it detect ‘photoshoped’ images?
Will it look at and determine what you’ve pointed out with the professional street photographers?
Nope, it ain’t blind AT ALL.
AI will see and identify what you had for breakfast, if you upload a picture to it.
Can also listen to music, and identify the name of the song & artist in seconds.