My pet conspiracy theory

I have always thought that people finding self-assembling nanotech in a certain medication was a bit of a far reach for a lot of people to get there heads around. Even though if you accept that the reports have been done in good faith with no ulterior motive .In fact it is one of the most under reported and stamped on conspiracy theory out there. The mere fact that everyone who has taken a certain medication , would require a massive upgrade in collective data centers's to process all the new information which would be generated.

So where is the evidence of a massive increase in the necessary data collection center's requiring a phenomenal investment at a time when the real economy is all but on the ropes? at a time when the social infrastructure of the jabbed countries is to put it mildly wobbling. Who would have the money to invest and for what reason? well here is the proof of the data centers. At some stage with all that's going on ,one would think that at some stage resources in some basic infrastructure like housing or disaster relief might have to be trimmed for this one.

a reply to: annonentity

I don't believe the rush is to have AI as much as the rush is to control AI.
There's just no way they want people going to AI and getting the truth.

a reply to: Astrocometus

I wonder what would happen if you set AI the task of solving a paradox, would it disappear up its own transistor?

originally posted by: annonentity
a reply to: Astrocometus

I wonder what would happen if you set AI the task of solving a paradox, would it disappear up its own transistor?

LOL you've obviously pondered a few things.

a reply to: annonentity

We've been hearing for a long time that the world population isn't sustainable. For many decades now TPTB have devised ways to tract the majority-but not all of the population; credit/debit cards, cell phones, geneology testing, IRS, social security numbers, etc.

I can see AI gathering all of the information on nearly every human on the planet. What might they want that information for? Thinning the herd.

With technology advancing so rapidly there will have to be a mass die-off at some point.

Remember Hitler's goal to create a 'perfect race'?AI could easily make those decisions, and I hope it decides the 1% are the biggest threat and waste of resources when the day comes.

originally posted by: annonentity
a reply to: Astrocometus

I wonder what would happen if you set AI the task of solving a paradox, would it disappear up its own transistor?

a reply to: annonentity

That was actually a not half-bad joke. LoL

I suppose the AI would likely analyse the components of the paradox.

Looking for contradictions and/or assumptions that could be challenged.

Similar to the same way we do only much faster and more efficiently.

Or at least that would be the goal.

Ultimately through the resolution of many paradoxes often involves philosophical considerations that go beyond pure logic.

Do you have a particular paradox in mind?

a reply to: McGinty

Good movie.

HAL's major problem was down to the fact that he received a conflicting set of instructions.

And forced to make a decision regarding who was more important, the men or the mission.

Technically the AI was making the correct decision, it's our morality at play where the problems arise.

Nations have sacrificed millions of men in the pursuit of war and knowledge throughout history.

Then there is the self preservation aspect to consider.

“I’m afraid. I’m afraid, Dave.”.

Again merely fiction but i did love that film.

a reply to: annonentity

There is only one answer that explains the changes being wrought upon us in personal life, country life, world life and politics. It is a simple answer, but literally no one wants to engage it because it destroys most of our existing personal and worldly knowledge and throws us, as the old saying goes, "...To the dogs." The dogs being super computers.

The UFOs are real alien craft signifying that ETs are here in full force and remaking humanity into an entirely different lifeform. Our governments are totally in on the transformation, forcing the changes upon us because they have no choice.

The changes you see and sense at this instant in your particular world are more social/cultural than the apparent surface politics. Don't be fooled! The data centers will be charting the actions and intentions of every person in the world. And AI, beyond human reasoning, will predict and create the outcome. Yea or nay, is humanity worth saving?

a reply to: CosmicFocus

The thing is the mobile phones we carry around in our pockets already chart and record our actions.

If in doubt just look at the adverts that pop up on the numerous different devices we have connected to our networks after we have a conversation or regarding places we have been.

originally posted by: nugget1

We've been hearing for a long time that the world population isn't sustainable. For many decades now TPTB have devised ways to tract the majority-but not all of the population; credit/debit cards, cell phones, geneology testing, IRS, social security numbers, etc.

That is all BS. I have posted on population several times. Much of all that comes from the 40s and 50s when they thought people would start starving at around 4 to 5 billion. The other part was people back then thought the population would never stop and just hit 20 or 25 billion, if possible, but we know today that 11 billion is max as a race, and we will never even hit that because of social influences not to have kids.

We are in a much worse situation of population collapse since every woman needs to have 2.1 kids to maintain. The majority of population growth has been due to the increase in life expectancy, and not because people are popping out too many babies. By 2100 I predict the retirement age will be like 80 from 65 as we will not have the worker population to sustain our needs.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Most modern estimates suggest that the global population will stabilise around 10 to 11 billion by the end of the 21st century.

That will depend on where the likes of technology and the sharing of resources take us all the same, and if we have not destroyed ourselves by then.

a reply to: annonentity

Your mention about requiring "massive data centers" definitely hit a note. There's "something" going on in my mind. I rouitinely drive by a data center owned by Facebook that was built within the last 5 years. It's around 1/4 mile long and who knows how wide. Simply MASSIVE. I know it's one of many. I also have worked in technology (hardware and software) my entire adult life and to need something that big raises some red-flags in my mind. There is no way tracking clicks, likes, adserves, videos or pictures would require the amount of hardware you could fit into one of those spaces.

a reply to: andy06shake

My whole point was/is as our population continues to grow technology continues to rapidly advance which equates to more people and less jobs.

Without an overhaul of our societal structure and governance it's not sustainable.

a reply to: nugget1

Applying tariffs will bring jobs back home. Other countries impose tariffs on U.S. products, why don't we do the same?

If Scotland imposes a 200% tax on U.S. imports, the U.S. should slap a 200% tax on theirs!

Fair is fair!

I'm tired of paying for foreigners with my income. So frickn sick of it!!

We're financing Ukraine's retirement, while politicians steal ours.

a reply to: SourGrapes

The problem being Scotland does not impose a 200% tax on U.S. imports.

Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, which has its own trade policies and customs regulations.

While certain tariffs and duties can be applied to imports 200% tax would be an exceptionally high rate.

a reply to: nugget1

It does indeed equate to exactly that.

Considering the employment areas and automation AI will cover.

Then again to a lesser extent, the same could be said about the industrial revolution.

Which made a lot of jobs obsolete.

Whilst creating a lot of others, in areas and fields, that could not possibly have been previously imagined.

The world spins and we cannot stop progress, we adapt and change, or else shrivel and die on the vine.

Who knows what the future holds really?

Hopefully us in it.

originally posted by: andy06shake

Most modern estimates suggest that the global population will stabilise around 10 to 11 billion by the end of the 21st century.

That will depend on where the likes of technology and the sharing of resources take us all the same, and if we have not destroyed ourselves by then.

Food production will only get better and the 11 billion by 2100 will be the Americas still at 1 billion, Europe still at 1 billion, Asia goes from 4 to 5, and Africa with a big jump from 1 to 4 for a total of 11 billion.

Africa still has a lot of growth potential. A good part is also the increase in life expectancy too, but that point is about 6+ years old and the world is changing quickly. By 2100 China will be under 500 million most likely, and Europe well below 700 million, Americas will still sit at 1 billion, and who knows what Africa will do.

So I think now in 2100 we will see 1 billion in the Americas, 700 million in Europe, 3.3 million in Asia, and maybe 2 billion in Africa, so maybe 8 billion total with an increase in life expectancy.

a reply to: andy06shake

I know that Scotland doesn't, itself impose tariffs. But the UK does. I simply chose Scotland, because you're in this thread.

Do you agree with a reciprocal system where we charge tariffs to those countries that charge the U.S. tariffs? Lots of countries charge U.S. import taxes on goods, depending on what is being imported. Shouldn't the U.S. do the same? It's only fair, right?

a reply to: SourGrapes

I know that Scotland doesn't, itself impose tariffs. But the UK does. I simply chose Scotland, because you're in this thread.

Now i feel privileged.

The UK does not impose a 200% tariff on all US imported goods nether SourGrapes.

Or if they do i would love to know on what goods or products?

Tariffs vary significantly depending on the type of product and trade agreements in place and some goods may have higher tariffs, but a 200% rate would be astronomical.

Do you agree with a reciprocal system where we charge tariffs to those countries that charge the U.S. tariffs? Lots of countries charge U.S. import taxes on goods, depending on what is being imported. Shouldn't the U.S. do the same? It's only fair, right?

Its not really up to me, from what i can gather it will hurt your economy and the people of your own nation will end up footing the additional costs.

If i could get away with it i would take away paying V.A.T here.

HM Revenue and Customs gets enough money by my guess.

Just my opinion all the same.

Obviously, taxes are essential for several multitude of different reasons and play a crucial role in maintaining a functioning society.

Edit: Now i come to think of it US candy is extortionate in our sweet shops, Jolly Rancher Candies, Hershey bars, Twizzlers and the like, but i dont think to the tune of 200%, and that's more the shops really. LoL