I have always thought that with enough information AI could predict events with a high percentage of accuracy. Humans have this capability also but to a lessor degree. We are subject to lies and inaccuracies put forth to muddy that ability.
AI can probably filter through without emotion.
It's the lack of all kinds of humane characteristics, including emotion that is most con-CERN-ing about using AI.
It's all been thought out as Future Shock.
Thinking about the problems it would cause, the Laws of Robotics were laid out in the book I Robot, by Isaac Asimov.
Replicant human androids in Blade Runner showed 'what could go wrong' with androids.
Our human predictive programmers, science fiction writers, including some categorized as 'remote viewers', (Frank Herbert, who's subject matter covers most of the varieties of AI/human interface, (and good researchers) use this technique of "If A, then B, then what?........and all various alternatives to test....."
that is amplified and sped up in computers. The results will not always be the same for reasons, and it still takes a human to DECODE the answer back into humane terms of understanding.
See Douglas Adams computer's answer to the universe as '42'.
Anyone can do it....given the input....what a computer CAN'T do is to gauge human responses accurately, and again.....it's those 'human' aspects that SHOULD help to guide us, Spoc, you cold-blooded alien ! ____ Dr. McCoy
Does the idea enrage you? Or thrill you, or give you a 'bad feeling' that it could go wrong? Make you feel inferior or useless? It wouldn't a computer. Those don't enter into the equation. Is that a good thing?
One whole side of our brains are dedicated to this 'emotional' subject matter that the computer lacks.
Reasons.
Prometheus as technology.....his liver is pecked out daily as punishment for over-reaching ambition causing harm to mankind.
Frankenstein's Monster: Prometheus Unbound was the original title of an early warning as to 'what could go wrong' with a soul less ghola (AI).
The Message of the Oracle is always 'death'. __ Ancient saying.
It's clear you never read "Frankenstein." The warning was the backlash that comes from creating a human creature and treating it inhumanly. We see it all the time with pit bulls, and have created a bad rap for an innocent breed.
I bet it doesn't work with lottery numbers. It would be interesting though, if a deep dive into lottery winners backgrounds showed a lot coming from Defense Dept.
If you can reduce 'random' to a predictable number, it wouldn't be random and I'd be out of a job. ____ Joker/Jackyl/Green Man/Loki/Trickster - Your local lottery director.
To top that.............I highly doubt that billion dollar lottery winnings are 'random' number events in the first place.
Q: What are the odds that NO winning numbers were picked over 40 times IN A ROW for the last super jackpot?
'When are the odds so high that it's impossible?' Q
I get Publishers Clearing House mailings all the time. The odds against winning the big prize are in the billions to one. No difficulty in believing that no winning numbers would be picked 40 times in a row---or even 400 times in a row---or possibly 4000 times in a row.
I actually dreamt of 7 numbers years back. Asked someone how many numbers in lotto "7". Pity I didn't write them down when 1st awake, now I'll never know
this is based on description from Drs. Dan Burisch and Marcia McDowell. Here's an old Project Camelot interview by Kerry Cassidy from 2006. https://www.bitchute.com/video/9M4qphMzxB7k/
I have always thought that with enough information AI could predict events with a high percentage of accuracy. Humans have this capability also but to a lessor degree. We are subject to lies and inaccuracies put forth to muddy that ability. AI can probably filter through without emotion.
It's the lack of all kinds of humane characteristics, including emotion that is most con-CERN-ing about using AI.
It's all been thought out as Future Shock.
Thinking about the problems it would cause, the Laws of Robotics were laid out in the book I Robot, by Isaac Asimov.
Replicant human androids in Blade Runner showed 'what could go wrong' with androids.
Our human predictive programmers, science fiction writers, including some categorized as 'remote viewers', (Frank Herbert, who's subject matter covers most of the varieties of AI/human interface, (and good researchers) use this technique of "If A, then B, then what?........and all various alternatives to test....." that is amplified and sped up in computers. The results will not always be the same for reasons, and it still takes a human to DECODE the answer back into humane terms of understanding.
See Douglas Adams computer's answer to the universe as '42'.
Anyone can do it....given the input....what a computer CAN'T do is to gauge human responses accurately, and again.....it's those 'human' aspects that SHOULD help to guide us, Spoc, you cold-blooded alien ! ____ Dr. McCoy
Does the idea enrage you? Or thrill you, or give you a 'bad feeling' that it could go wrong? Make you feel inferior or useless? It wouldn't a computer. Those don't enter into the equation. Is that a good thing? One whole side of our brains are dedicated to this 'emotional' subject matter that the computer lacks. Reasons.
Prometheus as technology.....his liver is pecked out daily as punishment for over-reaching ambition causing harm to mankind.
Frankenstein's Monster: Prometheus Unbound was the original title of an early warning as to 'what could go wrong' with a soul less ghola (AI).
The Message of the Oracle is always 'death'. __ Ancient saying.
agreed
Humans are given glands ..they give the emotions . When we die we become spirit ..bereft of human emotions until the next body
AI will never be able to do anything other than it's programmed to do
It's clear you never read "Frankenstein." The warning was the backlash that comes from creating a human creature and treating it inhumanly. We see it all the time with pit bulls, and have created a bad rap for an innocent breed.
“Bad Rap” I see what you did there
It's clear you assume too much.
Too much what?
I believe you are correct u/treepainter! And I believe we still have incredible capabilities within a us...probably squashed when we became verbal.
Time to re-watch Minority Report....
I bet it doesn't work with lottery numbers. It would be interesting though, if a deep dive into lottery winners backgrounds showed a lot coming from Defense Dept.
If you can reduce 'random' to a predictable number, it wouldn't be random and I'd be out of a job. ____ Joker/Jackyl/Green Man/Loki/Trickster - Your local lottery director.
To top that.............I highly doubt that billion dollar lottery winnings are 'random' number events in the first place.
Q: What are the odds that NO winning numbers were picked over 40 times IN A ROW for the last super jackpot?
'When are the odds so high that it's impossible?' Q
Correct!
I get Publishers Clearing House mailings all the time. The odds against winning the big prize are in the billions to one. No difficulty in believing that no winning numbers would be picked 40 times in a row---or even 400 times in a row---or possibly 4000 times in a row.
I actually dreamt of 7 numbers years back. Asked someone how many numbers in lotto "7". Pity I didn't write them down when 1st awake, now I'll never know
https://www.theorionlines.com/project-looking-glass
Thanks fren!
https://www.docdroid.net/12xut/a-supposed-map-of-the-s4-facility-at-area-51-odt
this is based on description from Drs. Dan Burisch and Marcia McDowell. Here's an old Project Camelot interview by Kerry Cassidy from 2006. https://www.bitchute.com/video/9M4qphMzxB7k/
This is not "information." It is fantasy.
Q = AI PSY-OP. It learns as is goes...
However, a human has to input info to AI, past, present & potential future possibilities.. Think on that for a while.
AI can only do what it's software is programmed to do. They do not think
Pentagon?truth?
Wrong.