'Hello World'

In mid-1936 and 1938, German Konrad Zuse created the Z1 in his parents' living room. It was the first really functional modern computer and also considered the first electromechanical binary programmable computer.

-Source

It won't be a biological virus that destroys humanity.

Computers are the virus that will end life on earth as we know it.

TPTB have decided that scientific breakthroughs are more important than the fate of humanity itself.

Perhaps the pivotal moment came when the 1st atom bomb was invented.

How many politicians are speaking out on the dangers of AI?

Instead we will be coerced into accepting a computer in our bodies.

Like a virus taking over its host until we are no longer human.

The death of our species by EULA.

End User License Agreement.

Perhaps it was staring us in the face all along.

If you can't watch the video above without being absolutely horrified, then you have reached a point where you no longer believe that human right to exist is sacred, and something to be protected.

Interesting video, though I think their proposed timeline is too optimistic/aggressive. I'd add 50-75-100 years before any of that becomes routine and World Wide capable --if ever. There's too much unproven/undeveloped/non-commercialized science that isn't sorted out regarding the Singularity for it to be a real threat just yet. Not saying they are not working on it, but it's not going to be weaponized anytime soon.

a reply to: 19Bones79

They stopped the video too soon.

'And God said, "Let there be light".' And once again, the big bang occured. The universe again spewed forth from a singularity.

This video is stating that humans are the most important thing in the universe. Because we evolved and created the instrument of both it's destruction and creation.

You see it as humans destroying themselves. I see it as the universe creating its own destruction and recreation.

Good science fiction there.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Instead we will be coerced into accepting a computer in our bodies.

The lemmings perhaps, the ones you generally see in TikTok and Instagram.

Everyone else has autonomy.

a reply to: BaconCrusader

I personally believe we won't recognize the world we were born in in about 20 years.

I wouldn't mind being wrong.

a reply to: beyondknowledge

Everything the human race has achieved was science fiction at some point.

a reply to: TzarChasm

They tried taking away our autonomy with the covid jabs.

They'll keep on trying.

Next stop, government digital currencies and implanted chips.

a reply to: 19Bones79

I was asked very politely, during exactly one appointment, if I wanted the jab. They asked me 3 times during that exchange, just to make sure I know what I'm about. I did, and I walked away.

Whoever "lost" their autonomy, gave it away for a paycheck and that's the simple fact of the matter. They could have said no, they could have gone home, but they permitted the system to pigeonhole them. I guess for some it's easier to be a victim and thus a patriot by default, than stand up and walk out with your dignity intact.

Still employed, still lawful, still safe.

What did I do that no one else could?

a reply to: TzarChasm

In South Africa we came very close to the government mandating covid vaccines due to pressure from a group called B4SA (Business for South Africa) which was spearheaded by the CEO of Rothschild Inc.

Many people lost their jobs worldwide because they refused the vaccine.

There will be a next time body autonomy gets challenged, very likely when the government digital currencies are rolled out.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: 19Bones79

Instead we will be coerced into accepting a computer in our bodies.

The lemmings perhaps, the ones you generally see in TikTok and Instagram.

Everyone else has autonomy.

Yes, people can carry computers in their pocket like good little minions.

It saves the need to waste energy on their resistance towards an implant.

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: 19Bones79

Instead we will be coerced into accepting a computer in our bodies.

The lemmings perhaps, the ones you generally see in TikTok and Instagram.

Everyone else has autonomy.

Yes, people can carry computers in their pocket like good little minions.

It saves the need to waste energy on their resistance towards an implant.

You might be facetious, but you're also correct. The vast majority of conspiracy minded individuals still own at least one wifi connected appliance, an email address and a credit card. All of which require the same information, triangulating your entire identity through the same industry. No car, no house, no job and no 401K without it. Who needs to implant nanobots in humans? Absolutely impractical, no matter what Yuval Harari says.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
You might be facetious, but you're also correct.

Thanks, I tried to keep it "tame".

Computers are the virus that will end life on earth as we know it.

a reply to: 19Bones79

Did you feel the irony crawling up your spine when you typed this?

However, I also think technology as in bio/chem/nukes will bring about the apocalypse/Armageddon.

You reap what you sow...Gal. 6:8

originally posted by: nerbot

originally posted by: TzarChasm
You might be facetious, but you're also correct.

Thanks, I tried to keep it "tame".

2nd

a reply to: TzarChasm

Perhaps being patient with yourself?

I am not interested in the vaccine and strongly believe in natural immunity. When I look back, it's important to remember that not everyone felt forced into making this decision. Many individuals I knew, especially towards beginning were really optimistic that the vaccines they had choosen would help to keep their loved ones safe. It may have been different in your area, but there were plenty of people who took it on good faith, who did not suspect that there could have been other reasons until they noticed how hard the push became further down the line.

Please keep that in mind, an us and them mentality dehumanizes those who have had to pay a severe price for making that decision. I know you are as level headed as any other in our community, so I am replying to your post more to express myself then take a dig at you.

Artificial Intelligence: Unseating the Inevitability Narrative (by William A. Dembski, April 19, 2021)

Back in 1998, I moderated a discussion at which Ray Kurzweil gave listeners a preview of his then forthcoming book The Age of Spiritual Machines, in which he described how machines were poised to match and then exceed human cognition, a theme he doubled down on in subsequent books (such as The Singularity Is Near and How to Create a Mind). For Kurzweil, it is inevitable that machines will match and then exceed us: Moore’s Law guarantees that machines will attain the needed computational power to simulate our brains, after which the challenge will be for us to keep pace with machines..

Kurzweil’s respondents at the discussion were John Searle, Thomas Ray, and Michael Denton, and they were all to varying degrees critical of his strong AI view. Searle recycled his Chinese Room thought experiment to argue that computers don’t/can’t actually understand anything. Denton made an interesting argument about the complexity and richness of individual neurons and how inadequate is our understanding of them and how even more inadequate our ability is to realistically model them computationally. At the end of the discussion, however, Kurzweil’s overweening confidence in the glowing prospects for strong AI’s future were undiminished. And indeed, they remain undiminished to this day (I last saw Kurzweil at a Seattle tech conference in 2019 — age seemed to have mellowed his person but not his views).

Erik Larson’s The Myth of Artificial Intelligence (published by Harvard/Belknap) is far and away the best refutation of Kurzweil’s overpromises, but also of the hype pressed by those who have fallen in love with AI’s latest incarnation, which is the combination of big data with machine learning. ...

... In the spirit of this parable, Larson makes a compelling case that actual research on AI is happening in those areas where the keys to artificial general intelligence simply cannot exist. But he goes the parable even one better: because no theory exists of what it means for a machine to have a cognitive life, he suggests it’s not clear that artificial general intelligence even has a solution — human intelligence may not in the end be reducible to machine intelligence. In consequence, if there are keys to unlocking AGI, we’re looking for them in the wrong places; and it may even be that there are no such keys.

Larson does not argue that artificial general intelligence is impossible but rather that we have no grounds to think it must be so. He is therefore directly challenging the inevitability narrative promoted by people like Ray Kurzweil, Nick Bostrom, and Elon Musk. At the same time, Larson leaves AGI as a live possibility throughout the book, and he seems genuinely curious to hear from anybody who might have some good ideas about how to proceed. His central point, however, is that such good ideas are for now wholly lacking — that research on AI is producing results only when it works on narrow problems and that this research isn’t even scratching the surface of the sorts of problems that need to be resolved in order to create an artificial general intelligence. Larson’s case is devastating, and I use this adjective without exaggeration.

...

The Myth of Artificial Intelligence is not just insightful and timely, but it is also funny. Larson, with an insider’s knowledge, describes how the sausage of AI is made, and it’s not pretty — it can even be ridiculous. Larson retells with enjoyable irony the story of Eugene Goostman, the Ukranian 13-year-old chatbot, who/which through sarcasm and misdirection convinced a third of judges in a Turing test, over a five-minute interaction, that it was an actual human being. No, argues Larson, Goostman did not legitimately pass the Turing test and computers are still nowhere near passing it, especially if people and computers need to answer rather than evade questions. ...

...

... Larson in The Myth of Artificial Intelligence successfully unseats this inevitability narrative. After reading this book, believe if you like that the singularity is right around the corner, that humans will soon be pets of machines, that benign or malevolent machine overlords are about to become our masters. But know that such a belief is unsubstantiated and that neither science nor philosophy backs it up.

But I guess it makes for good conspiracy entertainment to get some attention and make some money in that industry (the entertainment industry, and in this case, that segment that targets the niche market for conspiracy entertainment).

We met The Borg.

The Borg is Us.

originally posted by: 19Bones79

a reply to: olaru12

Did you feel the irony crawling up your spine when you typed this?

Now that you mention it.

However, I also think technology as in bio/chem/nukes will bring about the apocalypse/Armageddon.

With communications technologies being utilized as they are, I suspect governments won't go that route as the other side is always listening in.

But with AI nobody is going to stop developing it because whoever creates true self-aware AI first will have the ultimate advantage over everyone else.

Right before they lose control of the thing they created.

a reply to: 19Bones79

The good thing about a real superintelligence is that it will behave as the aliens do: it will be totally uninterested in humans. The bad thing is that, contrary to aliens, the superintelligence thinks this is its home planet, and has no plans to leave.

So did the Neanderthals, the dinosaurs and many other species before them. And they all disappeared. In the blink of an eye.

a reply to: 19Bones79

any person that subscribes to any sort of chip that goes into their brain that promises heightened awareness etc
without scratching the surface of their own potentialities is making a mistake, i have scratched that surface and
what is beyond average awareness, is something so sublime that no technology could achieve or replicate, if people decide
to go the easy way for an extra sensory experience they are willfully allowing a cap to be put on their potential
advancement and evolution, they are essentially putting themselves in a larger prison cell and believing they are free


thats my opinion