No, you are not the only one terrified by the use of AI. It made me wonder at what other times we have been presented with anything similar. This may seem unrelated, but the introduction of the Dewey Decimal System in the late 1800's represented in imposition of a new 'system' and it's maker may have had some very dark connections; https://youtu.be/9qZWAc5tcKo The Dark Side of Dewey
Systems imposed, not chosen by the masses. This may seem unrelated, but the introduction of the Dewey Decimal System in the late 1800's represented in imposition of a new 'system' and it's maker may have had some very dark connections; https://youtu.be/9qZWAc5tcKo The Dark Side of Dewey 5 min.
Not that Harari, Schwab, Gates, et all would be acute enough to understand this, nor have the the intellectual honesty, but for the rest of you:
"The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
The other day, I asked an atheist friend one simple question, which caused major philosophers of the 20th C like CEM Joad, Anthony Flew (whom I had to read), famed journalist Malcolm Muggeridge: From WHERE did you get the idea that the universe was bad? What standard did you use, and how did you get it?
Of course, he never answered. In fact, it is THIS very question that caused CS Lewis to become a Christian. His comment how can God exist if evil exists, calling it Logic 101. Of course, this person refused to answer my Logic 001, about how he knew evil existed in the first place - for, if there is no God, as Dostoyevski wrote "everything is permissible." (And yes he DID write that. I have read the book twice. Or see https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/28054/pg28054-images.html p. 160. An elipsis is needed from the Russian)Or as Swiss theologian/philosopher Francis Scheaffer wrote, in naturalism, "whatever is, is right." There CAN be no way around that. Period. So don't tell me Logic 101 demands a disbelief in God when you cannot tell me how you first arrived there. It is similar to Godel, in one fell swoop, destroying all of atheist Bertrand Russell's arguments in Principia Mathematica (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica), or think Alexander's Gordian knot resolution.
But it gets worse for the atheist. Not that this person would listen, but the truth is that he, himself, has ZERO reason to ask after another person's pain and suffering. That's Logic 102, which this person has not taken. E.g., how does Joni Eareckson Tada, who has spent life in a wheelchair, after a diving accident around age 17, praise God, and continue to do so even when diagnosed with breast cancer a few years ago, while at the same time another person has the temerity to ask why. On what basis does one arrogate oneself to judge God on behalf of another? But it gets worse. Maybe Logic 103: An infinite God, by definition, can weave good out of evil. I have seen this done in my own life, out of SERIOUS evil done to me. Moreover, God has an infinite amount of time. The old metaphor of looking at a tapestry from the back side, which looks a mess, but then from the other side we see the beauty that was woven from what on the obverse side looked terrible. It is thus that Dostoyevski could write:
“I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, for all the blood that they've shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened.”
Yes, but they STILL haven't answered Juvenal's question from 2,000 years ago: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who controls the controllers). Worse, we still don't know what consciousness scientifically, so exactly HOW do they define AI being sentient?
Oh well, just forge on and blunder into a massive black hole (literally or figuratively), led by idiot savants. I literally was going to room with an idiot savant during my undergrad years. At 20, he was advanced PhD in math; otherwise, he was a 12 year old. Kinda like Schwab, Harari, Gates, et al. Or as Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's court found Microsoft “abused its power” in the Microsoft antitrust trial in 1998: Jackson famously compared Gates to Napoleon and the company's executive team to "drug traffickers." Gates had "a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experiences, no reverses," Jackson said in 2001. Jackson also described Gates' testimony as "inherently without credibility." Just like his Covid crap now
Is it just me, but I am the only one terrified 😨 by this?
We see it happening in real time. More special “start ups” similar backed by tax$ a la 🙃book.
No, you are not the only one terrified by the use of AI. It made me wonder at what other times we have been presented with anything similar. This may seem unrelated, but the introduction of the Dewey Decimal System in the late 1800's represented in imposition of a new 'system' and it's maker may have had some very dark connections; https://youtu.be/9qZWAc5tcKo The Dark Side of Dewey
"Transhumanism" is just another FANCY word for MASS-MURDER - or DEPOPULATION as they call it - all they want is your LIFE & your BELONGINGS.
I have a big video coming out in 2 days.
If we all don’t start thinking for ourselves we eventually won’t be able to to think at all.
Think about that!!!
Systems imposed, not chosen by the masses. This may seem unrelated, but the introduction of the Dewey Decimal System in the late 1800's represented in imposition of a new 'system' and it's maker may have had some very dark connections; https://youtu.be/9qZWAc5tcKo The Dark Side of Dewey 5 min.
Not that Harari, Schwab, Gates, et all would be acute enough to understand this, nor have the the intellectual honesty, but for the rest of you:
"The Tao, which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgments. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory. There has never been, and never will be, a radically new judgment of value in the history of the world. What purport to be new systems or…ideologies…all consist of fragments from the Tao itself, arbitrarily wrenched from their context in the whole and then swollen to madness in their isolation, yet still owing to the Tao and to it alone such validity as they posses.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man
The other day, I asked an atheist friend one simple question, which caused major philosophers of the 20th C like CEM Joad, Anthony Flew (whom I had to read), famed journalist Malcolm Muggeridge: From WHERE did you get the idea that the universe was bad? What standard did you use, and how did you get it?
Of course, he never answered. In fact, it is THIS very question that caused CS Lewis to become a Christian. His comment how can God exist if evil exists, calling it Logic 101. Of course, this person refused to answer my Logic 001, about how he knew evil existed in the first place - for, if there is no God, as Dostoyevski wrote "everything is permissible." (And yes he DID write that. I have read the book twice. Or see https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/28054/pg28054-images.html p. 160. An elipsis is needed from the Russian)Or as Swiss theologian/philosopher Francis Scheaffer wrote, in naturalism, "whatever is, is right." There CAN be no way around that. Period. So don't tell me Logic 101 demands a disbelief in God when you cannot tell me how you first arrived there. It is similar to Godel, in one fell swoop, destroying all of atheist Bertrand Russell's arguments in Principia Mathematica (Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica), or think Alexander's Gordian knot resolution.
But it gets worse for the atheist. Not that this person would listen, but the truth is that he, himself, has ZERO reason to ask after another person's pain and suffering. That's Logic 102, which this person has not taken. E.g., how does Joni Eareckson Tada, who has spent life in a wheelchair, after a diving accident around age 17, praise God, and continue to do so even when diagnosed with breast cancer a few years ago, while at the same time another person has the temerity to ask why. On what basis does one arrogate oneself to judge God on behalf of another? But it gets worse. Maybe Logic 103: An infinite God, by definition, can weave good out of evil. I have seen this done in my own life, out of SERIOUS evil done to me. Moreover, God has an infinite amount of time. The old metaphor of looking at a tapestry from the back side, which looks a mess, but then from the other side we see the beauty that was woven from what on the obverse side looked terrible. It is thus that Dostoyevski could write:
“I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, for all the blood that they've shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened.”
― Fyodor Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
Yes, but they STILL haven't answered Juvenal's question from 2,000 years ago: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes (who controls the controllers). Worse, we still don't know what consciousness scientifically, so exactly HOW do they define AI being sentient?
Oh well, just forge on and blunder into a massive black hole (literally or figuratively), led by idiot savants. I literally was going to room with an idiot savant during my undergrad years. At 20, he was advanced PhD in math; otherwise, he was a 12 year old. Kinda like Schwab, Harari, Gates, et al. Or as Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's court found Microsoft “abused its power” in the Microsoft antitrust trial in 1998: Jackson famously compared Gates to Napoleon and the company's executive team to "drug traffickers." Gates had "a Napoleonic concept of himself and his company, an arrogance that derives from power and unalloyed success, with no leavening hard experiences, no reverses," Jackson said in 2001. Jackson also described Gates' testimony as "inherently without credibility." Just like his Covid crap now