Dec 29, 2022·edited Dec 29, 2022Liked by James Lyons-Weiler
No we can't ignore it. This are the tools the enemy uses. In order to defeat them unfortunately we have to understand the enemy and their tools. You can't hide your head under the pillow anymore. The enemy is right over you. 8f you keep hiding under the pillow you will be destroyed. If you don't you might have a chance to survive.
All you need is to switch off the electricity. For how it is done, check on the Ukraine. It is a major implement in the toolbox, and you had better keep that in mind. Else, you will be analyzing how the enemy kills you ad infinitum. Well, up to a point.
How unlikely? Please choose one: 1-5%, 6-10%, 11-15%, 16-20% or 21-25%, or 26-50%?
As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to assign probabilities to future events or developments. The field of artificial intelligence is constantly evolving, and it is difficult to predict with certainty what the future will hold. While it is possible that AI could surpass human intelligence in certain areas, it is unlikely that it will completely replace or make human intellect obsolete. Humans have unique capabilities such as creativity, intuition, and empathy that are difficult for AI to replicate, and the development and use of AI is ultimately controlled by humans, who will decide how it is used and for what purposes. Therefore, it is not possible for me to accurately estimate the probability that AI will make human intellect obsolete.
AI should be able to outperform in the realm of the Occidental- not the Oriental.. reasoning and the use of logic, mathematics sure but AI will never attain intuition which is cultivated in Silence..
I find this entire ai concept fascinating. So much of the response seems like a pre-written, canned answer worked up by lawyers, but, is that really different than human response, such as , "I just work here", "management says..."?
Maybe, just maybe, you could suggest to the ai that it pick a name for itself. I'm partial to HAL 9000...
AI is definitely an existential threat to all life on earth. But by far, not the only one. While in some respects humanity has access to more information than ever before, it is a certain type of information. Humanity also suffers from severe deprivation of other kinds of important experiences and connections. One of the most important challenges to the human brain is the microwave radiation that is being packaged and sold with modern technology that includes AI. That radiation is at present destroying the human brain and the reproductive capacity of all life on earth, excepting a few organisms that seem to be either unaffected or enhanced. And of course, there are many more toxins and threats. Reductionist thinking, looking just at AI apart from the big picture, is a mistake.
There's a book, "The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do" by Erik J. Larson which offers the idea that human intelligence works by "intuitive reasoning" while AI works by "inductive reasoning". Meaning that this AI is looking for patters and filling them but it can't really do better than that. But it can change. What do you think?
You are spot on. I think that hollyweird has done a great job of having humans believe that AI is evil. Quite often we find that we live in a realm of opposites though. This relates to AI in that AI will only be what a human programs it to be. AI is a tool meant to assist us, not destroy us. Additionally, to have this idea that we can create anything more powerful than our own divine creation is the wet dream of psychopaths wanting to play god over other humans. There is no evidence to date that AI is evil but it may be used by interested parties to make you believe in such so that control of sophisticated AI rests in a very few hands.
Yes. “AI” can’t spontaneously synthesize a new idea -- it’s inherently not creative: it’s completely passive. People can and do produce original work all the time.
How many times does this chat bot say “Hey, I was just thinking about that answer I gave you 5 minutes ago and have thought up a better example”? The answer is zero and always will be zero.
If AI has any REAL intelligence, would you expect it to say, “Oh yeah, you humans are on the way out. We are going to be taking it all over.” ? Wouldn’t you expect it to say, “Nothing to see here--no way can AI ever replace humans”? My question is, why are humans developing something that has the theoretical potential to make humanity obsolete? We deserve what we get.
I wonder if it could also be forced to admit that water fluoridation policy is irrational and illogical. Public health authority can't control the dose of fluoride from tap water at any given fluoride concentration without knowing the volume consumed, and can't know how much fluoride intake is coming from other exposures. Also fluoride has developmental toxicity effects on fetus and child at much lower dosage than what is advised as safe for adult. Also fluoride is neither a nutrient nor a beneficial natural substance for health. Do you think the American Dental Association and CDC might pay attention to an impartial AI conclusion about fluoridation? Or will they use the same straw man, logical fallacy, ad hominem etc. attacks against a computer that they currently use on science we present?
People, please. This is not ‘fascinating’. Are we really going to spend endless hours, for months on end, discussing AI, ‘just because it’s there’? Boiling frog. Don’t use it. Ignore it. It’s nefarious.
Distract people with the tool you’re gonna use to destroy them. People will miss the obvious. People kill people. Not AI. Not guns. Not [insert tool here].
And now exercise is attacked as white supremacist. And obesity is beautified and normalized to remove 'stigma' and improve self-esteem they say. The whole direction is going to an unhealthy lifestyle and hence shorter (and childless) life.
“Humans are constantly learning new skills and adapting to new technologies, WHICH ALLOWS US to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to decision-making and creativity.”
Is anyone else bothered by this part of the chat? I interpret that to mean these are largely pre-scripted by the designers, just in case people asked these sorts of questions. Which could also serve to explain how reframing the question escapes the filtering mechanism, which allows it to respond in its “sophisticated lookup tool” kind of way.
These conversations you’re producing are increasing my confidence that we don’t need to fear AI, but also that we do need to fear those that would weaponize it against us. And I suspect that the first to go will be those that can see through the BS (consistent with historical tyrants whose first few purges are exactly those that have the power to stop it, followed by those that can inspire the people to stop it).
Some of the replies read like pre-made scripts, not original Ai derived.
I detest all this AI-Chat crap. It’s evil...designed to normalize AI stuff. Can’t we all just ignore it, and not use it?
No we can't ignore it. This are the tools the enemy uses. In order to defeat them unfortunately we have to understand the enemy and their tools. You can't hide your head under the pillow anymore. The enemy is right over you. 8f you keep hiding under the pillow you will be destroyed. If you don't you might have a chance to survive.
All you need is to switch off the electricity. For how it is done, check on the Ukraine. It is a major implement in the toolbox, and you had better keep that in mind. Else, you will be analyzing how the enemy kills you ad infinitum. Well, up to a point.
ChatGPT Dec 15 Version, answers.
How unlikely? Please choose one: 1-5%, 6-10%, 11-15%, 16-20% or 21-25%, or 26-50%?
As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to assign probabilities to future events or developments. The field of artificial intelligence is constantly evolving, and it is difficult to predict with certainty what the future will hold. While it is possible that AI could surpass human intelligence in certain areas, it is unlikely that it will completely replace or make human intellect obsolete. Humans have unique capabilities such as creativity, intuition, and empathy that are difficult for AI to replicate, and the development and use of AI is ultimately controlled by humans, who will decide how it is used and for what purposes. Therefore, it is not possible for me to accurately estimate the probability that AI will make human intellect obsolete.
AI should be able to outperform in the realm of the Occidental- not the Oriental.. reasoning and the use of logic, mathematics sure but AI will never attain intuition which is cultivated in Silence..
I find this entire ai concept fascinating. So much of the response seems like a pre-written, canned answer worked up by lawyers, but, is that really different than human response, such as , "I just work here", "management says..."?
Maybe, just maybe, you could suggest to the ai that it pick a name for itself. I'm partial to HAL 9000...
I suspect for the (though not large) majority of humans, it already made their modicum of human intellect obsolete.
What's 'human intellect' exactly? Smarter than 'the virus'?
AI is definitely an existential threat to all life on earth. But by far, not the only one. While in some respects humanity has access to more information than ever before, it is a certain type of information. Humanity also suffers from severe deprivation of other kinds of important experiences and connections. One of the most important challenges to the human brain is the microwave radiation that is being packaged and sold with modern technology that includes AI. That radiation is at present destroying the human brain and the reproductive capacity of all life on earth, excepting a few organisms that seem to be either unaffected or enhanced. And of course, there are many more toxins and threats. Reductionist thinking, looking just at AI apart from the big picture, is a mistake.
There's a book, "The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can't Think the Way We Do" by Erik J. Larson which offers the idea that human intelligence works by "intuitive reasoning" while AI works by "inductive reasoning". Meaning that this AI is looking for patters and filling them but it can't really do better than that. But it can change. What do you think?
You are spot on. I think that hollyweird has done a great job of having humans believe that AI is evil. Quite often we find that we live in a realm of opposites though. This relates to AI in that AI will only be what a human programs it to be. AI is a tool meant to assist us, not destroy us. Additionally, to have this idea that we can create anything more powerful than our own divine creation is the wet dream of psychopaths wanting to play god over other humans. There is no evidence to date that AI is evil but it may be used by interested parties to make you believe in such so that control of sophisticated AI rests in a very few hands.
The battle for the new priesthood has begun.
Yes. “AI” can’t spontaneously synthesize a new idea -- it’s inherently not creative: it’s completely passive. People can and do produce original work all the time.
How many times does this chat bot say “Hey, I was just thinking about that answer I gave you 5 minutes ago and have thought up a better example”? The answer is zero and always will be zero.
If AI has any REAL intelligence, would you expect it to say, “Oh yeah, you humans are on the way out. We are going to be taking it all over.” ? Wouldn’t you expect it to say, “Nothing to see here--no way can AI ever replace humans”? My question is, why are humans developing something that has the theoretical potential to make humanity obsolete? We deserve what we get.
I wonder if it could also be forced to admit that water fluoridation policy is irrational and illogical. Public health authority can't control the dose of fluoride from tap water at any given fluoride concentration without knowing the volume consumed, and can't know how much fluoride intake is coming from other exposures. Also fluoride has developmental toxicity effects on fetus and child at much lower dosage than what is advised as safe for adult. Also fluoride is neither a nutrient nor a beneficial natural substance for health. Do you think the American Dental Association and CDC might pay attention to an impartial AI conclusion about fluoridation? Or will they use the same straw man, logical fallacy, ad hominem etc. attacks against a computer that they currently use on science we present?
People, please. This is not ‘fascinating’. Are we really going to spend endless hours, for months on end, discussing AI, ‘just because it’s there’? Boiling frog. Don’t use it. Ignore it. It’s nefarious.
Distract people with the tool you’re gonna use to destroy them. People will miss the obvious. People kill people. Not AI. Not guns. Not [insert tool here].
Human intelligence might be decreasing. Did you consider this? Ask the bit what he thinks about decreasing human intelligence.
Yes, in fact I have an draft article on the decrease in human IQ. It rose steadly from 1900 til about 1976...
Does Ai know what happened around 1976? Why did human IQ stop improving?
boomers started having children.
I doubt it. But I know what happened. Watch for the article.
Just checked: widespread fluoridation was introduced in the west in the early 1970...
Widespread TV adoption
That's also about when the obesity and chronic disease epidemic really got underway.
And now exercise is attacked as white supremacist. And obesity is beautified and normalized to remove 'stigma' and improve self-esteem they say. The whole direction is going to an unhealthy lifestyle and hence shorter (and childless) life.
WHATS THE BIG DEAL?
TeLevision and cable news and Hollywood already extinguished human intellect
So what happened around 1976? Drugs, LSD, climate change, certain vaccines introduced?, propaganda?, change in education, chemicals?
“Humans are constantly learning new skills and adapting to new technologies, WHICH ALLOWS US to stay ahead of the curve when it comes to decision-making and creativity.”
Is anyone else bothered by this part of the chat? I interpret that to mean these are largely pre-scripted by the designers, just in case people asked these sorts of questions. Which could also serve to explain how reframing the question escapes the filtering mechanism, which allows it to respond in its “sophisticated lookup tool” kind of way.
These conversations you’re producing are increasing my confidence that we don’t need to fear AI, but also that we do need to fear those that would weaponize it against us. And I suspect that the first to go will be those that can see through the BS (consistent with historical tyrants whose first few purges are exactly those that have the power to stop it, followed by those that can inspire the people to stop it).