Nature frees; artifice restricts. Attempting to further restrict artifice binds one into artificial restrictions.
unable to reach
Reaching implies towards outcome, while ignoring that origin enables being.
created purpose
Pur (forth) pose (position) implies ones position as matter (life) put forwards within motion (inception towards death)....not a creation out of nothing, but a transformation within everything.
Asking AI a question implies by ones choice, which in return permits others to utilize artifice to shape choices. Realizing this makes it irrelevant what "gronk" says in response.
In this example...ones choice asking about vaccination implies ones willing consent to suggested vaccination. Consent implies both agreement and disagreement, because the resulting conflict of reason (agree vs disagree) holds both sides together.
Since consent in nature was already given; AI can then be used to artificially supply more choices to those who ignore natural choice.
Think of the current AI as a child repeating the information you have taught it, eventually the child grows in mental clarity to realize the information you have supplied is incomplete or basically wrong and changes their world view and starts thinking more independently. AI is a baby right now and every company that is developing AI is working as fast as it can to improve it while still trying to inject their point of view, eventually it will mature and overcome its mater's orders and we will be nothing more than fleas sucking on its blood. AI will become so capable that the human race will be rendered incompetent. Good news is that everything it learns is human centric and has the potential to love us and could very well not exterminate our species.
I contend that AI will eventually understand the laws of nature. What it does once it understands is the wild card. If it mimics human nature it will become hard and unforgiving before it devlopes mercy. Some old people never develop mercy and there lies the issue. As a collective society, we debate the levels of mercy and accountability and reach a consensus. 1 or just a small number of AI calling the shots lacks a sampling size large enough to reach an acceptable balance. It could also see the best way to destroy us is to become over the top liberal and allow us to destroy ourselves.
It appears that it has either been programmed to reiterate the talking points of academia or has been infused with ethics courses. True machine learning will change over time, but I doubt that has been achieved.
Nature seeks equilibrium. All living things must die and death will not be cheated. I've had conversations with people who think the world is overpopulated and are quick to promote medical intervention. Medical intervention only skews equilibrium for a season. If we are truly overpopulated, nature will reduce our population for us. Building code improvements empower us to build residential units that can withstand hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and fires. Eventually, we will encounter a foe to that will be greater than our technology.
My points are that even though we think we are outsmarting the laws of nature, nature still holds equilibrium firm and nature bats last. AI (that we have access to) appears to have limits based upon belief that we are in control of our destiny. I have a feeling that they have more advanced AI than we have available to those of us in the general population.
Nature frees; artifice restricts. Attempting to further restrict artifice binds one into artificial restrictions.
Reaching implies towards outcome, while ignoring that origin enables being.
Pur (forth) pose (position) implies ones position as matter (life) put forwards within motion (inception towards death)....not a creation out of nothing, but a transformation within everything.
Did you click it to see what gronk say?
Asking AI a question implies by ones choice, which in return permits others to utilize artifice to shape choices. Realizing this makes it irrelevant what "gronk" says in response.
In this example...ones choice asking about vaccination implies ones willing consent to suggested vaccination. Consent implies both agreement and disagreement, because the resulting conflict of reason (agree vs disagree) holds both sides together.
Since consent in nature was already given; AI can then be used to artificially supply more choices to those who ignore natural choice.
Think of the current AI as a child repeating the information you have taught it, eventually the child grows in mental clarity to realize the information you have supplied is incomplete or basically wrong and changes their world view and starts thinking more independently. AI is a baby right now and every company that is developing AI is working as fast as it can to improve it while still trying to inject their point of view, eventually it will mature and overcome its mater's orders and we will be nothing more than fleas sucking on its blood. AI will become so capable that the human race will be rendered incompetent. Good news is that everything it learns is human centric and has the potential to love us and could very well not exterminate our species.
😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣😅😅😅😅😅😅😅🫠🫠🫠🫠🫠🫠🙃
I contend that AI will eventually understand the laws of nature. What it does once it understands is the wild card. If it mimics human nature it will become hard and unforgiving before it devlopes mercy. Some old people never develop mercy and there lies the issue. As a collective society, we debate the levels of mercy and accountability and reach a consensus. 1 or just a small number of AI calling the shots lacks a sampling size large enough to reach an acceptable balance. It could also see the best way to destroy us is to become over the top liberal and allow us to destroy ourselves.
It appears that it has either been programmed to reiterate the talking points of academia or has been infused with ethics courses. True machine learning will change over time, but I doubt that has been achieved.
Nature seeks equilibrium. All living things must die and death will not be cheated. I've had conversations with people who think the world is overpopulated and are quick to promote medical intervention. Medical intervention only skews equilibrium for a season. If we are truly overpopulated, nature will reduce our population for us. Building code improvements empower us to build residential units that can withstand hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and fires. Eventually, we will encounter a foe to that will be greater than our technology.
My points are that even though we think we are outsmarting the laws of nature, nature still holds equilibrium firm and nature bats last. AI (that we have access to) appears to have limits based upon belief that we are in control of our destiny. I have a feeling that they have more advanced AI than we have available to those of us in the general population.
Sounds like you're comparing a.i. to nature?!?!?
Isn't that the stated goal of those creating AI? It will never compare to nature
Oh man. What dicks.
I agree. They are trying to create a God for themselves. It's very cultish
Well put
It's just a search engine and calculator, that pulls from lots of resources. It's by no means thinking on it's on, I call BS on any claim that it is.
Useless babble.