Aliens and UFOs and AI - How can we distinguish any possible truth at all

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Not a bad question, Ophiuchus -though perhaps a question yet to be asked by too few, too late.

You may have noticed in forums such as this as well as in the Main Stream Media, there is a sudden panic and confusion that is overwhelming both airwaves and brainwaves. It manifests in focusing a great deal of current angst on minor issues and personal vulnerabilities, and not so much on the Big Picture.

Instead, I'd like to recommend everyone lean back, take a deep breath, and then listen to what three very prominent gentleman came together to warn the world about. The three are Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt and Daniel Huttenlocher. Especially younger ones may ask - who are they??

Mr. Kissinger served as US Secretary of State, 1973-77, and White House National Security Adviser, 1969-75. Mr. Schmidt was CEO of Google, 2001-11 and executive chairman of Google and its successor, Alphabet Inc., 2011-17. Mr. Huttenlocher is dean of the Schwarzman College of Computing at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. They are authors of “The Age of AI: And Our Human Future.”

Yes, this is a very, very serious matter. Here's the article, originally in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago:[url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/chatgpt-heralds-an-intellectual-revolution-enlightenment-artificial-intelligence-homo-technicus-technology-cogni tion-morality-philosophy-774331c6?page=1[/url]

The threats to civilization are genuine. Some very learned, astute, respected statesmen and scientists are warning us. We should be paying attention.

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Imo ….instincts is what makes us human, among other things. AI, as of yet that I’m aware of…has not made its own instincts to become human. Now could AI develop its own AI instincts? I wouldn’t know what that could look like. Could it be programmed to have human type instincts…I don’t know. Being human, I can only relate to my biologically programmed human instincts within my preconceived dna. I am who I am with the instincts given me and developed along my path of life.

👽

a reply to: Outrageo

I would have liked to read the article….unfortunately it wants me to subscribe for further reading.

Thx anyway………..I suspect the bottom line is …..we are doomed, or will be!

Pandora’s box is open ……now just about all the scientists, engineers that created it ……wish they haven’t and are sounding alarms.

I suspect…..when you start hearing or seeing breaking news of security protocols for privacy, financial institutions, etc. are becoming defeated and systems are starting to get corrupted……en mass……start seriously worrying

👽

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Imo ….instincts is what makes us human, among other things. AI, as of yet that I’m aware of…has not made its own instincts to become human. Now could AI develop its own AI instincts? I wouldn’t know what that could look like. Could it be programmed to have human type instincts…I don’t know. Being human, I can only relate to my biologically programmed human instincts within my preconceived dna. I am who I am with the instincts given me and developed along my path of life.

👽

I wasn't thinking exclusively about human beings, but rather other types of biological life. At least human beings can challenge, or decline instincts. At least we have that power anyways. Ya know, my brains says to do this, but my heart says not to. Etc.

I was thinking about insects, and other life forms that do not have a choice. Their life, is, instincts. These instruction must be encoded into their DNA. Ants, crickets, frogs. Do they have a choice? And if these instincts, directions for being what they are, are written in their DNA, then that must be considered a form of A.I. ??? (Artificial Instructions, or, intelligent instructions)

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

To me any time AI is mentioned…..my thoughts go to digital binary 1’s and 0’s … a human construct.

Your question……

Ants, crickets, frogs. Do they have a choice? And if these instincts, directions for being what they are, are written in their DNA, then that must be considered a form of A.I. ??? (Artificial Instructions, or, intelligent instructions)

From what’s below…..I see nothing connects anything such as Artificial Intelligence, Artificial Instructions, Intelligent Instructions to the biological processes as stated.



So I don’t know how to reconcile what your thinking.

Now …. In humans there use to be talk of Intelligent Design (goo it), but that’s a different rabbit hole than AI….or form thereof….at least I suspect so.

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Sorry, O - the 4-hour edit window closed on me while I was editing the URL.

This should work: ChatGPT Heralds an Intellectual Revolution
by Henry A. Kissinger, Eric Schmidt, and Daniel Huttenlocher

I may be lurking more in the ATS "Survival" Forum in the months ahead!

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

So I don’t know how to reconcile what your thinking.

Then, what is DNA?

originally posted by: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

So I don’t know how to reconcile what your thinking.

Then, what is DNA?

What is DNA in short answer?

DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person's body has the same DNA.

How far back to you want to go…To the atomic level? Or even the quantum level?

Artificial means just that……non-natural.

Here I found this post…..

Credit to: Shane Ryoo CompE PHd former Apple and Alphabet.


Question Is DNA a literal instruction set?

DNA is like an instruction set only in the most abstract and philosophical sense: you have to ignore all the details to get to equality.

In terms of what actually happens, the mechanisms used by DNA versus microprocessors are so distinctly different that I assert that knowing how one works tells you nothing about how the other works. I had to read up on how proteins are built after first reading this question, because I haven’t studied biology in decades.

In short:

An instruction set defines an interface for a computer to operate on data.

DNA is used as a base to create mRNA, which is used to build amino acids into polypeptide chains, which then form proteins. This process is far more complicated than executing an instruction: after translation, which produces the polypeptide chain, the chains may have pieces removed or be combined with other chains. Besides complexity, DNA is not an instruction set for me because of two traits:

DNA has no concept of execution order. DNA is useless without corresponding ribosomes that may or may not exist in an organism.

An instruction set is sufficient to determine the base behavior of a computer. DNA by itself is insufficient to determine the base behavior of an organism.

👽

a reply to: Outrageo

Thx…..it’s a lengthy read….I’ll tackle later.

Peace

👽

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Well, I'm at the point now, because of all the complexities of the DNA, all its parts, to question whether its "Natural" or not. But then that goes into the Darwin mindset, or a Prime/Divine Creator, that put all that together. Not to mention that our reality is actually a Grand Simulator/ quantum reality. Which then leads to the mindset of ,what, is, outside, this, Simulator.

So, if we are actually in a Simulator type reality, define, "Natural". Do we limit the term to only apply to this reality, or, outside the simulator. Would they be interchangeable in definition? The reason I bring this up is because I have seen with my own eyes, the simulator open up to reveal the outside, twice. Or maybe the insertion of, messengers, etc. And at that point I stop. Not that I cant share, I won't. It would ruin the fun lol.

So, what is artificial, and what is natural... Especially when you look at the moon, in its original context.....



P.S. There is no answer to the questions I pose...

It’s starting to get real…..

Groundbreaking AI system reads minds and produces text without implants

Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin have created a mind-reading AI system that can take images of a person’s brain activity and translate them into a continuous stream of text. Called a semantic decoder, the system may help people who are conscious but unable to speak, such as those who’ve suffered a stroke.

This new brain-computer interface differs from other ‘mind-reading’ technology because it doesn’t need to be implanted into the brain. The researchers at UT Austin took non-invasive recordings of the brain using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to reconstruct perceived or imagined stimuli using continuous, natural language.

It uses an encoding model similar to that used by Open AI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard that can predict how a person’s brain will respond to natural language.

Perhaps at some point it will perfect in such a way…..that it will read your mind using the very images from your own device while taking selfies or vid chatting. Hmmmmm

Well at least AI won’t have a soul, a spirit…….maaaaaaaaaaaaybe

👽

I for one welcome our new A.I overlords !

Gulp.... i hope they read this

All the best everybody ...including all you naughty A.I's

originally posted by: wavelength
Ufology has been dealing with hoaxes, liars, delusional witnesses, embellishment, fabricated videos, photoshop, analog photo manipulation, etc. for decades. Part of the game as a researcher is sifting through thousands of reports and witnesses, comparing details, finding patterns and trends, etc. We can't look at cases individually at face value--we never could, at least not reliably, for the reasons listed above.
Adding AI to the equation makes it that much harder, but we were already dealing with muddy waters. Now, almost nothing on your device's screen can be trusted.

Read books (paper ones printed before AI became Hemingway), talk to real people, limit your consumption of internet/digital media, and expect the worst while hoping for the best.

AI tends to get some things wrong: hands in paintings, background characters, wording that isn't coded well. The more we go into nature and release the more obvious AI's confabulations.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

That's why I think that, to achieve real intelligence, any artificial system should have the same kind of needs (and understand them) as living creatures, things like hunger, cold, fear, etc., things that makes us make real decisions instead of just repeating previous things done by others, like today's AI does.

Having said that, I hope it either never happens or that it will take a long time to happen, as if it happens then I think AI will really act like a living thing and will, among other things, protect itself from any perceived danger.

a reply to: ArMaP

I highly recommend finding and stream watching the 2023 movie titled The Artifice Girl.

It’s how AI develops to become human like with emotions.

Special agents discover a revolutionary computer program that uses a digital child to catch online predators. However, they soon learn that the AI's inevitable advancement is far more rapid and incalculable than they ever could have imagined, posing unforeseen challenges and unsettling consequences for the future of technology and mankind.

It’s done in three parts within the movie, and with only four scene settings.

Overall the trailers for this movie were clips pieced together sometimes out of continuity order in such a way to give it almost a sci-fi horror connotation and they add emphasis on the background music……I suggest you dismiss the hyped trailers and just watch the movie. The trailers are overblown…the movie itself is subdued and sensible.

Here’s one single clip……that makes one point of a few points in the movie.



A thought provoking film that shows how AI may come to pass.

👽

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Right on. Thnx for this!✌️

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
a reply to: All Seeing Eye

Right on. Thnx for this!✌️

I do not share with any intentions of being paid, or seeking recognition. I dont completely have control over what I share, sometimes its almost like automatic writing. But in reality, its just me. Its the years and years of collecting little pearls of truth, or dots, that sometimes magically connect. And in saying that, there can be magic, in all of our eyes. Which reminds me of a song that vibrates my soul.

There is something deep in me that fights the idea of writing books on the subject, even though, I have written much on this site, because, its free to read. And I believe all truths, should be free......

Now there are some folks here on this board that would absolutely urge you, beg you, Not to encourage me lol ol lol My goodness, who could that be? lol lol lol

A long time ago some of the members came to the conclusion that I had "Asperger Syndrome". And to be honest I do seem to fit the profile. The one thing, symptom, is having a very narrow vision on subjects. And as a result, depending on the subject, my vision can be Lazar narrow and focused on one thing. It basically allows me to see through many of the "things deliberately put in my way". As the song states.

From the bottom of my heart, thank you, very much. I dont take money, but I love those little stars.

Be safe.

P.S. Love your avatar. Its just soooooo sooooooooooo, ummm, you know lol lol lol Love you all!

I dedicate this little song to all the gate keepers, your time, is up. (18,113) And the truth flows freely................


www.youtube.com...

AI will get a sidekick and go out on adventures. Like Xena and Gabriel, Hercules and Aeolus, Beverly Hills Cops, etc. a reply to: ArMaP

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

I think I'm your twin. I've written 4 books, published, 70+ blogs.

I write those in "auto-mode"...fast n flowing.

Good luck to you..n God Bless✌️🤙

Some encouraging news at least for now…

Dated April 28 2023

AI banned from running nuclear missile systems under bipartisan bill The bill would codify existing Pentagon policy that mandates a human be 'in the loop' on nukes

A group of three Democrats and one Republican have introduced a bill in the House aimed at preventing artificial intelligence systems from progressing to the point where they could autonomously launch a nuclear attack. The bipartisan lawmakers’ measure would preemptively stymie any future Defense Department policy decisions that could lead to AI being capable of firing off nuclear weapons on its own.

👽