Too late. Or rather, expecting AI to be either evil or good is like expecting buttered toast to be evil or good. Just because it's called artificial "intelligence" doesn't mean that it is intelligent...or even that it thinks. The MCAS software fought the 737 MAX airplane pilots in order to kill 346 people in two inevitable crashes. It had no self-awareness, just complete control over the airplanes and an overriding directive to control pitch angle regardless of the consequences. Dead humans and destroyed airplanes had no place in the decision-making. Sloppy-thinking human beings built it that way. Just as (I now suspect) all the sinister episodes of AI interaction may well be the "unintended" (yet deliberately designed) consequence of priorities built into the programming. (Think of a road built on a curving cliff edge...with no guardrails.)
God is the power behind causality. You can't pray for Him to undo the fabric of creation, in order to fend off the consequences of negligent or foolish computer programming. Same thing with explosive warheads. Whether or not they explode should have nothing to do with prayer.
If it CAN be abused, it WILL be abused. AI needs to be destroyed or HEAVILY curtailed.
Edit: I will expand on this a bit
AI doesn't "think." It runs data through its training and produces a result. Trusting it to do ANYTHING that a person would do in a situation is INSANITY. There is a VERY big reason early language models become INSANELY racist. Garbage data in, garbage out.
Bad AI results are now inadvertently being used as training for future AI, compounding the results and leading to a cancerous growth in its training data.
For instance: A website allows users to download songs. A man is taking those songs, replacing the singer's voice with Homer Simpson, and reuploading it with identical meta-data, which is the 'unique' identifer that all files that are created contain. WE know the difference. Someone downloads a song, hears Homer singing it, they laugh, delete the file. AI doesn't know. He is doing it to poison the AI's training data making its results garbage. AI scrapes the site for all songs according to meta data. It now blends, say, Eminem with Homer Simpson, so when someone prompts a rap about mashed potatoes sung by Eminem, it will sound like Eminem and Homer Simpson blended. Garbage out.
Now extrapolate this across EVERYTHING. It takes MORE work to use EXPENSIVE AI and make sure its results aren't complete trash.
It is not the future, it will end in disaster. We can only pray that disaster only befalls the AI companies.
Interesting comment. I work in an industry where the engineers who design the systems I operate every damned day and know VERY well are trying to automate just about every facet of them. The more automated things get the more efficient things get. I can admit that. The day to day operation suffers though because the use of a “30,000’” view is not used. Several little things being better on their own definitely lead to big picture things that create bigger issues. No human life is lost, mind you. However the similarities of what I’m seeing and the things you’re outlining in your comment are striking.
Exactly. Uncoordinated innovations at the bottom layer can lead to higher-level (unintended) dis-coordination. It could well explain how the MCAS fiasco came about.
What you are describing is also called sub-optimization ("What's good for me, may not be for thee"). My professional forte was the development of a complete "theory of the system" at the preliminary design level, where everything that affected the system mission performance and economics was explicitly represented in formulaic terms. It was the ultimate Big Picture. And it revealed some tendencies like you are describing. I was applying it to space-based interceptor architectures. Someone working on interceptor propulsion might figure out how to use a higher-performing propellant, and draw the conclusion that we could thereby make a lighter-weight smaller interceptor and that would be an overall system benefit. Only partly so. It turns out that with higher propellant performance, it would be possible to increase the range of the interceptor and its interception footprint, thereby decreasing the size of the entire constellation. A much deeper benefit that optimizes at LARGER interceptors, but fewer of everything expensive (propellant is cheap). I could show the result of the two different approaches on architecture cost curves. They bottomed out at different constellation sizes, and the one resulting in the larger interceptor had a very significantly larger cost reduction. If you are working in a silo, you don't see the Big Picture. (I learned a general lesson: whenever you find a way to perform a part of the architecture function with less cost, you should load more of the architecture performance onto it and reduce the cost of the rest of the architecture.)
AI was never available when I was working, but I don't see how there could have been any benefit, when actual intelligence could solve problems without "training" and curating random shot requests.
Good luck with your environment, fren. You may need it!
Prove it. I've heard that claim over and over, but have never seen any evidence. It was certainly not mentioned in management reviews of the MAX program (I was in attendance at the reviews). It was advertised to be a tweak on an earlier version of the program. It is expectable that the requirements for the program would be vetted by Company engineers and management, and that the Company would have the obligation to confirm that the software performed according to the specifications. We were assured it had been. So, the Company bears all the responsibility of direction, oversight, and verification, where this fault should have been seen. It was a glaring functional fault, which tells me that Boeing was lax at all levels. The nature of the fault also means that company management was misled as to the radical nature of the functionality. (Or decided to take the irresponsible attitude of "Well, it has an 'Off' switch, so what could go wrong?" Which they did. And proceeded to blame the disasters on the pilots.)
So, the software was not "developed" in India. It might have been coded in India according to prescribed requirements. Paid coders are not system control engineers, nor should they have been expected to be. But that is only a possibility. It does not change the technical responsibility and authorship in the slightest degree.
It really goes along with the theme of actual reality rather than the fake reality and history we've been taught.
Actual reality is more accurately described in aome "sci-fi" movies than history books. From that prospective the whole Q plan to save the world makes a lot more sense.
No, I am a scientist and a technologist, having worked in applied physics. For example, I did mission studies for airborne lasers that ultimately led to the construction and successful mission test of the YAL-1A Airborne Laser weapon platform. This stuff can't be built and work if the theory, principles, and data we are taught are lies. Reality is the ultimate test of truth or falsehood.
By the way, what do you mean by your question? Is it a simple query about my participation in these discussions? Or something, shall we say, unflattering?
Partial, incomplete truths make the most effective and potent lies. No one explores any further when they have been deceived into thinking they have already uncovered the whole.
No incomplete truths when you are flying near the speed of sound at 40,000 feet. I think you misunderstand "not everything" to mean "nothing" and throw out truth with the bathwater.
Please, I think you're misunderstanding me. Let me try to explain with an example using lightspeed.
Let us assume we're developing purely ballistic applications and not airborne lasers or other precision optical devices. For this application at the scales of altitude and velocity you are referring to (subsonic at 40,000 feet), we can still maintain accuracy by using simplified, incomplete equations that factor out lightspeed entirely. Now, of course every properly educated physicist and engineer understands that lightspeed still exists and that the omission is purely due to contextual relevance, but this is not immediately obvious to the naive untrained layman, who only understands lightspeed as a colorful figure of speech. A bad actor could easily take advantage of that omission and keep the layman ignorant under the instinctive but incorrect assumption that light is an instantaneous phenomena. The bad actor exploits the partial truth (equations that factor out lightspeed) to keep the layman from understanding the more complete truth (light has a measurable velocity), and thus the layman never develops understanding applicable beyond simple ballistics to more sophisticated optical applications.
Extrapolating from this, in current cutting-edge fields (unlike the subject of lightspeed) where relevant knowledge is still largely unexplored and relegated to small circles, it would be simple enough for a few bad actors in powerful places to suppress research that would uncover more complete truths. All they have to do is make sure that the incomplete truth works "good enough" to satisfy the right instinctive assumptions, strategically discredit and quash the unlucky researchers from the easily-monitored smaller circles who stumble too close to discovering and spreading the more complete truth, and encourage the rest to pursue wild goose chases that make for exciting publication in journals and justification for expensive grants, but ultimately go nowhere. Thus, a partial, incomplete truth can be wielded by bad actors as an intentional lie of omission, to obscure the overlooked paths that would reveal the more complete truth.
Show me any technology that isn't true (i.e., conforms to reality). When relativity makes a difference, it is factored in (e.g., GPS).
Bogus technologies like internal combustion engines running on water never make it to market. This distraction and waste of time only comes about through the promulgation of mythology like "Tesla secrets," "reverse-engineered alien technology," and the allegation of "secret stuff." I have an open mind on "free energy"...if only someone could show that it existed. All our energy sources are known. But people who purport to know something frequently do not (count the number of times people suppose that holograms can be projected into open space).
New technologies do make it to the market. Even ones reasonably held secret (nuclear energy, spaceflight, high-power lasers).
You are assuming what you purport to prove. Cutting-edge technology may be relegated to small circles, but that has always been the case in (e.g.) physics. The small circles talk with each other and exchange information. That is how progress is made. All this idea of suppression is only imaginary.
Look, I apologize if I wasn't clear and I seemed to be going on about all that free energy quackery to you. That wasn't my point. What I'm talking about are the clandestine struggles to control the timing of scientific and technological advancements to maximise greater strategic goals. You mentioned the market, and that is key. Please consider the parallels and contrasts between how a benevolent good actor would employ control over "reasonably held secrets" that eventually make it to the market, and the darker methods that a malicious bad actor with no moral restraints might employ. For even the market itself can and is used as strategic-level weapon.
AND WE ARE HERE! I got led to megaanon and fbi anon by diggin on totally unrelated matter. Did not know chans b4 that. But had already interacted with some of the team b4 that. Convinced they led me there.
The Wizards and Warlocks started in 1963 IMO, when JFK was assassinated. They said "no more" and put into operation "The Plan" knowing that they would never see its success. I have seen a non definite list of who they were, the only one I recognised was Averell Harriman. AI has only been here for > 5 years, far too short to do anything except tell us left wing disinfo and scream into a void.
Reminds me of this brilliant monologue from Andor, given by one of the men who has been for decades secretly funding the entire rebellion
What have i sacrificed?
Calm. Kindness. Kinship. Love. I've given up all chance at inner peace. I've made my mind a sunless space. I share my dreams with ghosts. I wake up every day to an equation I wrote 15 years ago from which there's only one conclusion: I'm damned for what I do. My anger, my ego, my unwillingness to yield, my eagerness to fight, they've set me on a path from which there is no escape. I yearned to be a savior against injustice without contemplating the cost and by the time I looked down there was no longer any ground beneath my feet. What is my, what is my sacrifice? I'm condemned to use the tools of my enemy to defeat them.
I burn my decency for someone else's future. I burn my life to make a sunrise that I know I'll never see. And the ego that started this fight will never have a mirror or an audience or the light of gratitude. So what do I sacrifice?
I pray that AI fights the evil rather than become evil like in the Terminator films.
Too late. Or rather, expecting AI to be either evil or good is like expecting buttered toast to be evil or good. Just because it's called artificial "intelligence" doesn't mean that it is intelligent...or even that it thinks. The MCAS software fought the 737 MAX airplane pilots in order to kill 346 people in two inevitable crashes. It had no self-awareness, just complete control over the airplanes and an overriding directive to control pitch angle regardless of the consequences. Dead humans and destroyed airplanes had no place in the decision-making. Sloppy-thinking human beings built it that way. Just as (I now suspect) all the sinister episodes of AI interaction may well be the "unintended" (yet deliberately designed) consequence of priorities built into the programming. (Think of a road built on a curving cliff edge...with no guardrails.)
God is the power behind causality. You can't pray for Him to undo the fabric of creation, in order to fend off the consequences of negligent or foolish computer programming. Same thing with explosive warheads. Whether or not they explode should have nothing to do with prayer.
People are people.
Any tool they can use for good they will use for evil.
It's our job to use the tools and shine the light on their devilish misdeeds
If it CAN be abused, it WILL be abused. AI needs to be destroyed or HEAVILY curtailed.
Edit: I will expand on this a bit
AI doesn't "think." It runs data through its training and produces a result. Trusting it to do ANYTHING that a person would do in a situation is INSANITY. There is a VERY big reason early language models become INSANELY racist. Garbage data in, garbage out.
Bad AI results are now inadvertently being used as training for future AI, compounding the results and leading to a cancerous growth in its training data.
For instance: A website allows users to download songs. A man is taking those songs, replacing the singer's voice with Homer Simpson, and reuploading it with identical meta-data, which is the 'unique' identifer that all files that are created contain. WE know the difference. Someone downloads a song, hears Homer singing it, they laugh, delete the file. AI doesn't know. He is doing it to poison the AI's training data making its results garbage. AI scrapes the site for all songs according to meta data. It now blends, say, Eminem with Homer Simpson, so when someone prompts a rap about mashed potatoes sung by Eminem, it will sound like Eminem and Homer Simpson blended. Garbage out.
Now extrapolate this across EVERYTHING. It takes MORE work to use EXPENSIVE AI and make sure its results aren't complete trash.
It is not the future, it will end in disaster. We can only pray that disaster only befalls the AI companies.
Yes, and that's a people problem.
Let's think about the industrial revolution and everything great that came from that.
How many abuses did humans commit because of the advancements given to them?
Home computers?
The Internet?
Should we have curtailed the industrial revolution or other tech advanced in their infancy?
Interesting comment. I work in an industry where the engineers who design the systems I operate every damned day and know VERY well are trying to automate just about every facet of them. The more automated things get the more efficient things get. I can admit that. The day to day operation suffers though because the use of a “30,000’” view is not used. Several little things being better on their own definitely lead to big picture things that create bigger issues. No human life is lost, mind you. However the similarities of what I’m seeing and the things you’re outlining in your comment are striking.
Not an AI user
Exactly. Uncoordinated innovations at the bottom layer can lead to higher-level (unintended) dis-coordination. It could well explain how the MCAS fiasco came about.
What you are describing is also called sub-optimization ("What's good for me, may not be for thee"). My professional forte was the development of a complete "theory of the system" at the preliminary design level, where everything that affected the system mission performance and economics was explicitly represented in formulaic terms. It was the ultimate Big Picture. And it revealed some tendencies like you are describing. I was applying it to space-based interceptor architectures. Someone working on interceptor propulsion might figure out how to use a higher-performing propellant, and draw the conclusion that we could thereby make a lighter-weight smaller interceptor and that would be an overall system benefit. Only partly so. It turns out that with higher propellant performance, it would be possible to increase the range of the interceptor and its interception footprint, thereby decreasing the size of the entire constellation. A much deeper benefit that optimizes at LARGER interceptors, but fewer of everything expensive (propellant is cheap). I could show the result of the two different approaches on architecture cost curves. They bottomed out at different constellation sizes, and the one resulting in the larger interceptor had a very significantly larger cost reduction. If you are working in a silo, you don't see the Big Picture. (I learned a general lesson: whenever you find a way to perform a part of the architecture function with less cost, you should load more of the architecture performance onto it and reduce the cost of the rest of the architecture.)
AI was never available when I was working, but I don't see how there could have been any benefit, when actual intelligence could solve problems without "training" and curating random shot requests.
Good luck with your environment, fren. You may need it!
🍻🍻
One thing to note here is that the software that fought with the pilots was developed in India. By jeets.
Prove it. I've heard that claim over and over, but have never seen any evidence. It was certainly not mentioned in management reviews of the MAX program (I was in attendance at the reviews). It was advertised to be a tweak on an earlier version of the program. It is expectable that the requirements for the program would be vetted by Company engineers and management, and that the Company would have the obligation to confirm that the software performed according to the specifications. We were assured it had been. So, the Company bears all the responsibility of direction, oversight, and verification, where this fault should have been seen. It was a glaring functional fault, which tells me that Boeing was lax at all levels. The nature of the fault also means that company management was misled as to the radical nature of the functionality. (Or decided to take the irresponsible attitude of "Well, it has an 'Off' switch, so what could go wrong?" Which they did. And proceeded to blame the disasters on the pilots.)
So, the software was not "developed" in India. It might have been coded in India according to prescribed requirements. Paid coders are not system control engineers, nor should they have been expected to be. But that is only a possibility. It does not change the technical responsibility and authorship in the slightest degree.
It is wild, inspired, and divine. The worst of times, and the best of times.
I might graduate from popcorn to chicken wings. The spicy ones 😂
It really goes along with the theme of actual reality rather than the fake reality and history we've been taught.
Actual reality is more accurately described in aome "sci-fi" movies than history books. From that prospective the whole Q plan to save the world makes a lot more sense.
Yeah reminds me of movies when they say, "everything you've ever been taught is a lie."
Which, if that were true, would mean we would have no technology. But look around you.
Are you autistic?
No, I am a scientist and a technologist, having worked in applied physics. For example, I did mission studies for airborne lasers that ultimately led to the construction and successful mission test of the YAL-1A Airborne Laser weapon platform. This stuff can't be built and work if the theory, principles, and data we are taught are lies. Reality is the ultimate test of truth or falsehood.
By the way, what do you mean by your question? Is it a simple query about my participation in these discussions? Or something, shall we say, unflattering?
You are indeed autistic.
Partial, incomplete truths make the most effective and potent lies. No one explores any further when they have been deceived into thinking they have already uncovered the whole.
No incomplete truths when you are flying near the speed of sound at 40,000 feet. I think you misunderstand "not everything" to mean "nothing" and throw out truth with the bathwater.
Please, I think you're misunderstanding me. Let me try to explain with an example using lightspeed.
Let us assume we're developing purely ballistic applications and not airborne lasers or other precision optical devices. For this application at the scales of altitude and velocity you are referring to (subsonic at 40,000 feet), we can still maintain accuracy by using simplified, incomplete equations that factor out lightspeed entirely. Now, of course every properly educated physicist and engineer understands that lightspeed still exists and that the omission is purely due to contextual relevance, but this is not immediately obvious to the naive untrained layman, who only understands lightspeed as a colorful figure of speech. A bad actor could easily take advantage of that omission and keep the layman ignorant under the instinctive but incorrect assumption that light is an instantaneous phenomena. The bad actor exploits the partial truth (equations that factor out lightspeed) to keep the layman from understanding the more complete truth (light has a measurable velocity), and thus the layman never develops understanding applicable beyond simple ballistics to more sophisticated optical applications.
Extrapolating from this, in current cutting-edge fields (unlike the subject of lightspeed) where relevant knowledge is still largely unexplored and relegated to small circles, it would be simple enough for a few bad actors in powerful places to suppress research that would uncover more complete truths. All they have to do is make sure that the incomplete truth works "good enough" to satisfy the right instinctive assumptions, strategically discredit and quash the unlucky researchers from the easily-monitored smaller circles who stumble too close to discovering and spreading the more complete truth, and encourage the rest to pursue wild goose chases that make for exciting publication in journals and justification for expensive grants, but ultimately go nowhere. Thus, a partial, incomplete truth can be wielded by bad actors as an intentional lie of omission, to obscure the overlooked paths that would reveal the more complete truth.
Show me any technology that isn't true (i.e., conforms to reality). When relativity makes a difference, it is factored in (e.g., GPS).
Bogus technologies like internal combustion engines running on water never make it to market. This distraction and waste of time only comes about through the promulgation of mythology like "Tesla secrets," "reverse-engineered alien technology," and the allegation of "secret stuff." I have an open mind on "free energy"...if only someone could show that it existed. All our energy sources are known. But people who purport to know something frequently do not (count the number of times people suppose that holograms can be projected into open space).
New technologies do make it to the market. Even ones reasonably held secret (nuclear energy, spaceflight, high-power lasers).
You are assuming what you purport to prove. Cutting-edge technology may be relegated to small circles, but that has always been the case in (e.g.) physics. The small circles talk with each other and exchange information. That is how progress is made. All this idea of suppression is only imaginary.
Look, I apologize if I wasn't clear and I seemed to be going on about all that free energy quackery to you. That wasn't my point. What I'm talking about are the clandestine struggles to control the timing of scientific and technological advancements to maximise greater strategic goals. You mentioned the market, and that is key. Please consider the parallels and contrasts between how a benevolent good actor would employ control over "reasonably held secrets" that eventually make it to the market, and the darker methods that a malicious bad actor with no moral restraints might employ. For even the market itself can and is used as strategic-level weapon.
I wonder how Escape from New York fits in all this . . .
I can't help thinking that this is another Op Warp Speed, one to neutralise the emerging and potentially very dangerous AI technology.
AND WE ARE HERE! I got led to megaanon and fbi anon by diggin on totally unrelated matter. Did not know chans b4 that. But had already interacted with some of the team b4 that. Convinced they led me there.
Always thought Q was NSA small group because of admiral rogers early warning about Trump tower being bugged.
Beginning to think Q is actually the NVA.
Northern Virginia Army.
Oh yes.
The Wizards and Warlocks started in 1963 IMO, when JFK was assassinated. They said "no more" and put into operation "The Plan" knowing that they would never see its success. I have seen a non definite list of who they were, the only one I recognised was Averell Harriman. AI has only been here for > 5 years, far too short to do anything except tell us left wing disinfo and scream into a void.
"they would never see its success"
Reminds me of this brilliant monologue from Andor, given by one of the men who has been for decades secretly funding the entire rebellion
What have i sacrificed?
TOP KEK