Obviously it would be someone entering queries and such but the idea that gov and others have better tech than currently public plus people thinking it was an a.i, perhaps it was a group of people asking a chatgpt or they might call theirs Q
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (13)
sorted by:
Would you be able to see an advanced enough neural net be used in conjunction with experts in different fields to ask questions about specifics, summarise large info into digestible pieces, find reference for and to within the past, zeitgeist (described to it for understanding if needed) and the media & further as you added obfuscate the author/s while retaining the main info. So less a general a.i giving the answers the people but... almost acting as a p.r for the white hats that work with/under/for Q (the person/organisation)
A tool rather than a leading intelligence
Short answer, yes, that seems plausible.
That's where I struggle to believe that human minds could make plans that far out and accurately enough to where they could have Q posts where people are finding 'proofs' 5 years out now. (Unless they happened to encode the drops such that they are leveraging the gambler's fallacy, where people tend to focus on the hits, and the misses get ignored) That kind of plan would need to have branches for various contingencies, counter-moves, delays, etc. where the further out things get the less likely that things would remain relevant to anyone who is given aspects of that plan.
This is why thinking through what would be needed, looking glass tech or actual time travel becomes the most likely tools that could meet the needs of making a plan AND maintaining a level of certainty in outcomes to be able to lay it out for people outside the plan and to show "future proving the past drops" 5 years out now.