My cordiality is feigned. GPT’s responses to my queries are horrifying. The fact that it agrees with my analysis and can elaborate on it with pertinent details and summaries is also horrifying.
That's an interesting search engine you have there. It comes across as life-like at first. Of course when you query it over and over again and the patterns of the different responses begin to resemble each other, the illusion fades somewhat.
One difference from regular search engines (is there an option for this?) is that the bullet-point search results do not reveal their sources. I suppose some might be discovered using a regular search engine with exact matching.
As I continued on down through the dialog segments, skimming some and speed reading some, I began to feel like I was reading through a lengthy Substack comment section. The machine responses, in certain respects, resemble the repetitive, predictable, semi-mechanical comments that can so often be found there, from presumably human sources. (I wonder, though.) At least the spelling and grammar are generally good, and the content offers real ideas to chew on.
I also sense an underlying sense of optimism in the machine responses that can also be seen in the work of Substack authors trying to make the best of what they are writing about. "These problems are difficult, but there are ways that we can solve them." And I sense a soullessness in the AI responses, that I do not sense in the better Substack authors.
What if there aren't ways we can solve these problems? What if a different approach is required? One that is knowable and known, but that has almost universally been rejected, not based upon evidence but under the influence of false narratives presented to us over millennia? Humans have the ability to consider their course through life, and to consider the results and whether their beliefs and assumptions, sometimes heavily manipulated, might be wrong.
Just started scanning ... (sigh) after popping my sleeping pills.
It will take several good nights of sleep to start imagining the roots and implications of some of the ideas in this dialog.
Already too groggy to read it straight through, I read from the beginning for a few minutes, jumped to the Conclusion, comment, and Gary Larsonesque Far Side scene ... and then scattered flashes in the middle. Enough to catch a DEW drop (still gathering information about the Lahaina massacre) ... and justifiable philosophical pessimism.
Through 40 years of observing individual and institutional behavior in Japan, I've come closer to that similar point of view, summed up by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayer in the 2nd paragraph of Chomsky's 2011 Chapel Hill Speech, "Human Intelligence and the Environment" — https://chomsky.info/20100930/
"And what he basically argued is that intelligence is a kind of lethal mutation. And he had a good argument."
Though much of this post is way above my pay grade, just a late night scan confirms my fear that our species' persistence for ever finer granularized quantification of a reality that is ultimately qualitative will remain forever at our fingertips, and not firmly in our grasp — that Robert Browning 'Ah, but a man's reach' thingy, a metaphorically graceful 'god of the gaps'.
Though small victories, epiphanies, or moments of transcendence may be scattered in our personal lives and collective history, the general trend appears to be an inverse correlation between our capacity to manipulate nature-in-its-entirety (my god), and the wisdom to wield that power.
Sorry to ramble on about something you've thought about for years. Maybe just a post-Halloween hangover? Cautionary tales of Frankenstein and Jurassic Park flitting in and out before a troubled sleep.
I am looking forward, and not, to exploring this post — if for no other reason than to raise awareness that the double-edged danger of A.I. is closer than many otherwise fine minds on substack suspect. And then there is the double-edged danger of our natural G.S., Greed and Stupidity which Stephen Hawking surmised will mark the end of our species.
I don't know if the 'speed of science' is accelerating, or my chemical induced yawns are decelerating my imagination ... but a thousand years? I can't even imagine a hundred.
Cheers from Japan Spartacus, and thank you for sharing this labor of love, concern, and unease.
Humans function fine, better really, without the electric grid. AI, however, does not exist without the electric grid being functional. I think this will be it's downfall. AI requires human inputs all the time, our work to power the grid, our upkeep of the grid. It is doomed in the long run, considering our current trajectory, as perhaps are we in measure to our dependance on that same electrical grid. I would also point out recent new laws banning autonomous vehicles in CA I believe.
I'll take this in order off your comment here Spartacus:
@ScottAdamsSays:
"I'm a trained hypnotist I learned hypnosis in my 20s and that changes forever how you see everything so so hypnotists don't see rational people walking around doing rational stuff we see irrational people
who rationalize what they did after they did it so in other words we're just a a voice in our head that tells you a story of why you did something and you don't really know why just cause and effect you know I don't believe in free will but that's another story so from that uh and the understanding that people are irrational one of the things the hypnotist knew I think before the AI scientists knew it is that the thing that you think is intelligence in a human being is really just combinations of words that they've heard in that combination before and you can definitely tell that when you see political arguments because you know 99%of the the world is not really closely paying attention..."
With the advent of quantum physics and the slow but increasing recognition that this discipline cannot be ignored in biological research ( especially when dealing with membrane physiology) the question of consciousness becomes more opaque, not less. When I was a teenager my Dad, who was a radio enthusiast and eclectic reader, told me that it looked to him like the brain functioned like a receiver and transmitter. Given its evolutionary history, it seems like it is an expansion of the rudimentary sense organs that enabled cells to get together and function as a unit. We know that thought alone is connected to physical changes via activation of neurochemical responses and that there are a vast number of unexplained experiences that suggest that consciousness can escape the confines of the body ( one of the best documented is the neurosurgical case of Pam Reynolds). Adding hardware, however microscopic, to a system like this one, without understanding how it works and in an attempt to control its integrated output, seems like a fool’s errand. Maybe it might work for a simple localized synaptic response, but the aim here, is much more grandiose and likely to fail.
Interestingly, while both the GPT and even though I know you know better Spartacus, this piece still reads very "pie in the sky", future, one day-esque.😐
This is only the published information available. The reality is they are 15-30yrs ahead on this. To the point that decisions were made, to "innoculate", or "seed" humanity with the nanoparticles required to enable functionality for not only IoNT and Host, but to also begin the IoQT.
It's begun already. Look at the bloods.
Humanity's singularity and genome has been augmented, without any need for individual consent, because they have laid it all out in these and many other documents.
Those that wish to remain as close to 1st gen augmented (now), and not participate in the future argumentation as discussed here, will become the new world Amish. 🤔😐🤐
I've found it helpful to get ChatGPT to hypothesize some truly horrifying plausible scenarios by telling it I'm a science fiction writer (which I am) and then referring it to various technological studies and then asking it to help me build a hero (citing a plotting method such as "heroes journey" or "save the cat") who would then navigate through and defeat this evil plan in a plausible way, citing actual science.
Thank you for this in depth look at a possible tragic future. I note (although I did not read everything exhaustively) that patience is not a theme. I also noted that there is apparently no time in history of humanity that rushing pell mell (reckless haste) was ever stopped so that time and cooler minds and hearts could prevail.
At the very least we need all of these avenues of researched to be fully open to public scrutiny. No patenting of anything related to life. Taking the profit out of this research would slow it down a bit.
Thank you for awakening us up to this possible future.
If we lived in a truly free world where thought and question was encouraged from the very start of our education, if we lived in a world where we have all been taught that every action has a knock on effect and that we are therefor each one of us responsible for all we do, and maybe even think. Were all this new technology guided by human curiosity...the desire to see where 'possibilities' can be taken to, an 'adventure' into possibilities. Were the experiments carried out by those wanting to know more, carried out on themselves or on wholeheartedly willing participants, then I would wholeheartedly follow along, inspired by my own curiosity.
Unfortunately these technologies were long ago captured by various countries 'Defence Forces' (emphasis on the word 'forces') with no precautionary measures ever legally implemented by our governments, and defence forces traditionally have no concern for how much human life may be lost in the pursuit of might, life being seen by the top bods as 'collateral damage'; I therefore have no trust whatsoever that this modern tech will serve humanity well under existing circumstances. Sad! Maybe we will learn in time, just in time?
Just a heads up about something that popped up in my YouTube feed.
Even though I have not yet settled down to watch this, I am such a big fan of Whitney Webb, that I am recommending this to anyone following Spartacus's lead here.
My cordiality is feigned. GPT’s responses to my queries are horrifying. The fact that it agrees with my analysis and can elaborate on it with pertinent details and summaries is also horrifying.
This was a Homeric undertaking staring into the Abyss.
That's an interesting search engine you have there. It comes across as life-like at first. Of course when you query it over and over again and the patterns of the different responses begin to resemble each other, the illusion fades somewhat.
One difference from regular search engines (is there an option for this?) is that the bullet-point search results do not reveal their sources. I suppose some might be discovered using a regular search engine with exact matching.
As I continued on down through the dialog segments, skimming some and speed reading some, I began to feel like I was reading through a lengthy Substack comment section. The machine responses, in certain respects, resemble the repetitive, predictable, semi-mechanical comments that can so often be found there, from presumably human sources. (I wonder, though.) At least the spelling and grammar are generally good, and the content offers real ideas to chew on.
I also sense an underlying sense of optimism in the machine responses that can also be seen in the work of Substack authors trying to make the best of what they are writing about. "These problems are difficult, but there are ways that we can solve them." And I sense a soullessness in the AI responses, that I do not sense in the better Substack authors.
What if there aren't ways we can solve these problems? What if a different approach is required? One that is knowable and known, but that has almost universally been rejected, not based upon evidence but under the influence of false narratives presented to us over millennia? Humans have the ability to consider their course through life, and to consider the results and whether their beliefs and assumptions, sometimes heavily manipulated, might be wrong.
Will we?
Just started scanning ... (sigh) after popping my sleeping pills.
It will take several good nights of sleep to start imagining the roots and implications of some of the ideas in this dialog.
Already too groggy to read it straight through, I read from the beginning for a few minutes, jumped to the Conclusion, comment, and Gary Larsonesque Far Side scene ... and then scattered flashes in the middle. Enough to catch a DEW drop (still gathering information about the Lahaina massacre) ... and justifiable philosophical pessimism.
Through 40 years of observing individual and institutional behavior in Japan, I've come closer to that similar point of view, summed up by evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayer in the 2nd paragraph of Chomsky's 2011 Chapel Hill Speech, "Human Intelligence and the Environment" — https://chomsky.info/20100930/
"And what he basically argued is that intelligence is a kind of lethal mutation. And he had a good argument."
Though much of this post is way above my pay grade, just a late night scan confirms my fear that our species' persistence for ever finer granularized quantification of a reality that is ultimately qualitative will remain forever at our fingertips, and not firmly in our grasp — that Robert Browning 'Ah, but a man's reach' thingy, a metaphorically graceful 'god of the gaps'.
Though small victories, epiphanies, or moments of transcendence may be scattered in our personal lives and collective history, the general trend appears to be an inverse correlation between our capacity to manipulate nature-in-its-entirety (my god), and the wisdom to wield that power.
Sorry to ramble on about something you've thought about for years. Maybe just a post-Halloween hangover? Cautionary tales of Frankenstein and Jurassic Park flitting in and out before a troubled sleep.
I am looking forward, and not, to exploring this post — if for no other reason than to raise awareness that the double-edged danger of A.I. is closer than many otherwise fine minds on substack suspect. And then there is the double-edged danger of our natural G.S., Greed and Stupidity which Stephen Hawking surmised will mark the end of our species.
I don't know if the 'speed of science' is accelerating, or my chemical induced yawns are decelerating my imagination ... but a thousand years? I can't even imagine a hundred.
Cheers from Japan Spartacus, and thank you for sharing this labor of love, concern, and unease.
steve
Humans function fine, better really, without the electric grid. AI, however, does not exist without the electric grid being functional. I think this will be it's downfall. AI requires human inputs all the time, our work to power the grid, our upkeep of the grid. It is doomed in the long run, considering our current trajectory, as perhaps are we in measure to our dependance on that same electrical grid. I would also point out recent new laws banning autonomous vehicles in CA I believe.
What a way to spend the morning. It is a nightmare.
I'll take this in order off your comment here Spartacus:
@ScottAdamsSays:
"I'm a trained hypnotist I learned hypnosis in my 20s and that changes forever how you see everything so so hypnotists don't see rational people walking around doing rational stuff we see irrational people
who rationalize what they did after they did it so in other words we're just a a voice in our head that tells you a story of why you did something and you don't really know why just cause and effect you know I don't believe in free will but that's another story so from that uh and the understanding that people are irrational one of the things the hypnotist knew I think before the AI scientists knew it is that the thing that you think is intelligence in a human being is really just combinations of words that they've heard in that combination before and you can definitely tell that when you see political arguments because you know 99%of the the world is not really closely paying attention..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rA8ilfBQZek
NASA has a super prompt that runs on big iron.
https://github.com/nasa-petal/discord_bot
https://asknature.org/
I have a deep gratitude for your original "I've had enough" expose.
A modern day retelling of the Tower of Babel story? That one did not go as expected and neither will this one.
With the advent of quantum physics and the slow but increasing recognition that this discipline cannot be ignored in biological research ( especially when dealing with membrane physiology) the question of consciousness becomes more opaque, not less. When I was a teenager my Dad, who was a radio enthusiast and eclectic reader, told me that it looked to him like the brain functioned like a receiver and transmitter. Given its evolutionary history, it seems like it is an expansion of the rudimentary sense organs that enabled cells to get together and function as a unit. We know that thought alone is connected to physical changes via activation of neurochemical responses and that there are a vast number of unexplained experiences that suggest that consciousness can escape the confines of the body ( one of the best documented is the neurosurgical case of Pam Reynolds). Adding hardware, however microscopic, to a system like this one, without understanding how it works and in an attempt to control its integrated output, seems like a fool’s errand. Maybe it might work for a simple localized synaptic response, but the aim here, is much more grandiose and likely to fail.
Interestingly, while both the GPT and even though I know you know better Spartacus, this piece still reads very "pie in the sky", future, one day-esque.😐
This is only the published information available. The reality is they are 15-30yrs ahead on this. To the point that decisions were made, to "innoculate", or "seed" humanity with the nanoparticles required to enable functionality for not only IoNT and Host, but to also begin the IoQT.
It's begun already. Look at the bloods.
Humanity's singularity and genome has been augmented, without any need for individual consent, because they have laid it all out in these and many other documents.
Those that wish to remain as close to 1st gen augmented (now), and not participate in the future argumentation as discussed here, will become the new world Amish. 🤔😐🤐
Keep being this to light Spartacus.👏👏👏👏🎩🙏
#wearemany #wearememory #wewillnotforgive #getlocalised
Careful, you will get a big bill if your questions break their machine.
I've found it helpful to get ChatGPT to hypothesize some truly horrifying plausible scenarios by telling it I'm a science fiction writer (which I am) and then referring it to various technological studies and then asking it to help me build a hero (citing a plotting method such as "heroes journey" or "save the cat") who would then navigate through and defeat this evil plan in a plausible way, citing actual science.
Thank you for this in depth look at a possible tragic future. I note (although I did not read everything exhaustively) that patience is not a theme. I also noted that there is apparently no time in history of humanity that rushing pell mell (reckless haste) was ever stopped so that time and cooler minds and hearts could prevail.
At the very least we need all of these avenues of researched to be fully open to public scrutiny. No patenting of anything related to life. Taking the profit out of this research would slow it down a bit.
Thank you for awakening us up to this possible future.
If we lived in a truly free world where thought and question was encouraged from the very start of our education, if we lived in a world where we have all been taught that every action has a knock on effect and that we are therefor each one of us responsible for all we do, and maybe even think. Were all this new technology guided by human curiosity...the desire to see where 'possibilities' can be taken to, an 'adventure' into possibilities. Were the experiments carried out by those wanting to know more, carried out on themselves or on wholeheartedly willing participants, then I would wholeheartedly follow along, inspired by my own curiosity.
Unfortunately these technologies were long ago captured by various countries 'Defence Forces' (emphasis on the word 'forces') with no precautionary measures ever legally implemented by our governments, and defence forces traditionally have no concern for how much human life may be lost in the pursuit of might, life being seen by the top bods as 'collateral damage'; I therefore have no trust whatsoever that this modern tech will serve humanity well under existing circumstances. Sad! Maybe we will learn in time, just in time?
Just a heads up about something that popped up in my YouTube feed.
Even though I have not yet settled down to watch this, I am such a big fan of Whitney Webb, that I am recommending this to anyone following Spartacus's lead here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlfZ91Pot-w
What a read!!