Does using AI feed the beast? Interesting name of the "arts program" in Sweden... Babel. 13:24 min.
He had my attention until the very end about climate change $$$. I've listened to a couple of his speeches over the years, but more recent ones feel a bit like he's warning humanity.
https://youtu.be/qB_DLoBTLMI?si=8ShZ3aD0OYbG3AoF
Yuval Noah Harari and Jessika Gedin discussing his latest book, 'Nexus: A Brief History of Information Networks from the Stone Age to AI' on Babel – an arts program on Sweden's @svt channel. In this conversation with host Jessika Gedin, Harari explores one of today’s most pressing questions: what should we do when non-human intelligence threatens our existence?
'Nexus' examines how information networks have shaped human history – from ancient oral traditions to modern AI-driven societies. How have these networks empowered civilizations? And in an age of artificial intelligence, what risks do they pose?
Originally broadcast on October 18, 2024
Yuval is screaming about AI because the AI is being used to target and undo every complex shenanigan the Cabal has weaved around us in invisible laws, financial systems, small prints to keep us enslaved.
Of course he doesnt want that because he is the Cabal's poster child for "saving humanity by destroying it"
Nosferatu Harari.
Classic.
Saturation. Consensus. Direction. Its as old as time itself. First you saturate. You know, all newspapers, media all with the same talking points. It was the same back in the day of newspapers, radio and television. Once you have saturation (everyone with the same information) you then create Consensus (everyone agrees with the information) thus creating the direction everyone goes in. Rinse and repeat with newer technologies. AI is the next phase of the same damn scheme. Saturation. Consensus. Direction.
Well, this is assuming the AI can actually identify the target. This is easy for machines like tanks and trucks, but it already becomes more difficult if both parties in a conflict use the same machinery (like the Russians and Ukrainians).
Or how can the AI tell the difference between a Russian quadcopter and a Ukrainian one? It can't visually.
If non-human intelligence threatens our existence, the solution is simply, Mr. Harari: Pull the plug lol.
I have read some of Harari's books. He is one of those guys who thinks he is really clever but mostly is just overestimating himself. Lots of speculation in his works and a lot of concepts that are just very far from the every day life we all live.
Besides, the real threat to our existence is the human insanity of the elite. It is exactly people like Harari who are dangerous to every normal human being.
Also: Even current weapon systems need to be programmed and sent on their way. The decision to do this is still one made by a human. It's not like we have roaming bands of self-sustaining, reproducing machines that go around executing their own agenda.
I believe AI only chooses choices within its programmed scope, which would make it more of a pseudo-agent. The people who program it are ultimately the responsible agents
Thank you for the concise comment, winn. It's all too much for my brain to understand, but this is how I look at AI; like anything it matters who controls it and can be used for good or evil.
I'm a simple person and need to understand in simple terms. Does the scenario below make sense?
If AI is basically data regurgitated, then I assume using it feeds that data knowledge base and is ever growing.
Let's say there's two sets of data: liberal and conservative.
And let's say that AI data is programmed by your algorithms; regurgitating what you want to hear or not hear based on the programming.
Then, one day "they" flip the switch; program AI opposite the algorithm.
Would we self-detonate like FemBots? Would this put 99% in the hospital? I'm searching what would affect all of us, as we are part of the 99%.
I don't think it would be like that. But if the entire world ends up being run on AI, there could surely be dire consequences of it being fed the wrong data, or instructed to operate in nefarious ways. If AI is to be running anything it's source code and algorithms should be public at all times, and any changes made to it should be easily accessable to view.
TY. Well, I definitely see a benefit to humanity in this way.
Replace all the "robotic" jobs that humans currently do which will then allow humans to reach higher levels of consciousness. Boy, do we need that. Too many zombies out there.
I do agree there. We were not meant to stand in assembly lines for 12hrs a day!
Did it for years, albeit sitting down. Thanks winn for the conversation!
Yw fren <3 I too have had my fair share of the assembly line. Kek
One good thing about it was the ability to think all day long once I was able to work on auto-pilot 😆
This guy is vermin. Who wants to replace God.
I thought Israel uses AI to choose their victims.
This guy is a scam artist. AI doesn't make decisions for itself. It's a computer program. Like a self driving car, it seems autonomous but it's really just inputs and outputs. Same as AI. ......my guess is they are pivoting from project Blue Beam to AI sentience and disruption.
You know how they are trying to scare everybody right now by saying a giant ship is on it's way to Earth? If so, be glad, it's an interstellar Uber and will hover hereabouts for a few short months loading parasitic reptilians and hybrid cabal evacuees that are getting the hell out of Dodge because they are fkg busted! One exit portal is in The Vatican, no surprise there.....
"They" are saying no such thing. It is a one-off thesis speculation written by some little-known scientists. Why bother to give it traction?
It's easily found in the news....
https://www.cbsnews.com/boston/news/harvard-scientist-comet-alien-craft-earth/
What I said. Essentially meaningless. No "they" involved.
Call it they/them/him/her if you want. 🤣 I just said it's easily found in the normie news.
Yes, I found it too. But it does not mean a conspiracy ("they") is responsible for it, or that it develops a "narrative." I was responding to the comment higher up in the thread, where that was the implication.
Ok. Understood.
That "story" came out 4 days ago.
Interestingly, yesterdays Q Post 1746 7 year delta mentions..... HAVE YOU EVER WITNESSED A DEFCON SCARE?
If this story was to gain traction, would it trigger a Defcon scare event?Idk. Just speculating. Seems like I heard a lot that the "scare event" would be something like this. 🤷🏻♀️
https://qalerts.app/?q=Defcon+scare
Can AI truly be considered 'non human'? A hammer is a tool for a human, a human tool, without the human the hammer would never been created and the hammer if created would have no use without a human. The AI is a human agent. For humans by humans.
What decisions is AI making, exactly?
There has to be an action to take something from "opinion" to "decision".
So what acts are AI taking, to escalate what they provide from "opinion" to "decision".
I'm not being sarcastic here, I'm genuinely asking, because from my interactions with AI, it needs human interception to make actual decisions.
I'll give an example. ChatGPT recently received an upgrade where it can directly interface with your calendar.
So now I can give it a list of tasks I need done, and tell it to break it down in whatever way makes the most sense for me and what is on my calendar. So now it can provide the action of its decision making, though I, as a human, am the one that initiated all of those actions.
So ChatGPT didn't just get a wild hair up its butt one day and decide, on its own, that it needed to organize my calendar based on how it saw fit.
So someone that is familiar with what is being claimed in this post, please give me some examples of what AI is deciding, what actions it is taking in those decisions, and how they were initiated with zero human interaction.
Again, I'm 100% serious on this. I really want to know. Thanks to anyone that takes the time to answer this question.
The 737 MAX's MCAS flight control program made decisions resulting in the destruction of the airplanes it was installed into, a very perverse outcome. It literally overrode the pilots' inputs to the contrary. But this is an example of the point by "winn" below, that the outcome is a design choice by criminally negligent human beings.
Remember: AI does not think. It calculates (less technically: goes through the motions). Surrendering your car to an auto-driver is like handing your fate to a toaster. When it works well, you don't die.
Having been in the business of designing killer robots, I have a biased view.
Interesting. Yeah, I can see how in things like that, letting AI make decisions would have some pretty significant impacts when they fail. Autonomous cars would be prone to such issues as well.
I'm thinking more about AI use by us regular old folk, with ChatGPT and such. I think I'm just on autopilot now myself with the rabid doomers saying how using chatgpt is going to ruin mankind. Like fucking up my calendar is really going to affect society that much.
What you're talking about speaks much more to how it can have real-life consequences and that this is nothing new. I'm pretty sure that on board computer miscalculation have caused havoc with airplanes for decades. It's just that the rest of us little people are now getting access to AI on the scale that big business has had for a long time.
That's not to minimize continued use and development of AI in air travel. I'm sure that continued development of AI will come up with even more new and exciting ways to kill us in the future. 🤷♀️
Thanks for taking the time to give me some quality info when I asked for it. Nice when people can have a civilized conversation. 🙂
No problem. There is always a problem in assessing what is meant by "artificial intelligence." As a weaponeer, I view it from the aspect of autonomous behavior, where the challenges are artificial perception, artificial generalization, and language comprehension (words > concepts > rules > behavior). Most of the present-day A.I. amounts to textual and graphic plagiarism with a broad-based library of templates. Even so, it can generate very captivating graphics (which are usually not life-threatening).
The example of the MCAS software is one of allowing an exceedingly stupid piece of software to be developed by equally stupid engineers and managers, who did not mentally "play out" the designed behavior, and themselves had only trivial concern for the safety of the aircraft or its occupants. This is why "God" will never emerge from A.I. when it is necessarily developed by human beings with blind spots and failures of imagination. Like making synthetic milk...while starting from muddy water.
Also, how do I get into designing Killer space robots? Or even designing killer toasters?
I am very intersted in designing Killer anything. I'd prefer the stuff I design to kill things to be hilarious, or at the very least clever. But the job market is tough right now in my field, so I'll takes what I can gets.
🤷♀️😁
No, seriously. Where do I send my resume?
Egad. I wouldn't know where to send MY resume. I suppose the most likely culprit would be Raytheon. They are heavily into hit-to-kill projectiles. If you want your everyday Curse of the Phantom killer robot dogs, it would have to be Boston Dynamics. They already make one with a gripper arm mounted on its back. Only a few changes needed to make the gripper into jaws. Or a machine gun.
Boeing's military space preliminary design staff out of Seattle were passed over following the 1997 merger, and the responsibility sent to Seal Beach (greenhorns). I attempted to brief the new manager on past, present, and future lessons learned and prospects, but he really had no time or attention for it. The whole thing evaporated like a puddle on cement.