Thanks, looks like it's that since Epstein was giving money to that lab's director: https://www.technologyreview.com/2019/10/23/132483/a-tumultuous-month-at-mit/
The American Dream (about money and banking): https://odysee.com/@BoundaryCrack:2/The-American-Dream:7
(For more detail but less entertainment is The Money Masters: https://odysee.com/@scoobyburn:1/DOC-The-Money-Masters-%281996%29:e)
Even if I agree with you I don't think think c/Conspiracies is the place for mudslinging posts
Here's a link to the paper being discussed. At a glance it looks like the plan is to broaden coverage with drones and small satellites, use machine learning to improve data flow, use a different frequency band (THz) and use backscatter signals (like RFID tags) to save power. They say this can be used by the Internet of BioNanoThings (i.e., invisible smart dust that can affect your biology). It seems that backscatter signals could potentially enable devices to send data over 6G without batteries or a wall outlet, enabling them to spy on you without power.
Of course every part of an AI's code is only doing what it was programmed to do. But there are several reasons why this is of no relevance to whether the AI is artificially intelligent.
One reason is that there's nothing in the definition of artificial intelligence that says the intelligence must be doing things it wasn't programmed to do. Another reason is that training data are not commands or lines of code for the AI to perform and do not actually program the AI - all they do is affect weights or other values in a system already programmed. Then the AI is capable of repeating patterns from its training data without actually being programmed to produce those patterns.
But suppose I were to let you redefine AI as needing to do things it wasn't programmed to do and also to consider training data as instructions that form part of an Ai's programming. Even then there's still the fact that although the components of the AI are only doing as programmed, they interact in a way that leads to behaviors which weren't specifically considered by the programmer, weren't specifically in the training data and which the programmer could not do himself even if he were to read all the training data. For example you can have an AI chatbot give a reasonable response to a question that never appeared in its training data. In that case the AI is clearly not doing something it was told how to do.
It was never told how to answer this question other than to encode the input in a certain way and feed it through the neural network (or whatever system it uses). You could say this is in a sense being told how to respond, but it's not being told to give an output that was ever conceived of by the programmer or those who made the training data. Nor would they have conceived of this response if they had thought about the same question. This is how AI is different from other computer systems. It synthesizes things in ways that its creators didn't and couldn't have conceived of. In this way it is able to output meaningful responses that are only indirectly related to the thoughts of its creators. Other computer systems just output things that are directly related to the thoughts of their creators.
Your talk of bugs introducing intelligence makes no sense to me. If a computer followed a program with bugs in it it would still be doing as its programmed, which according to you means it can't be intelligent. But anyway why would you want computers to become intelligent like humans? That's a death sentence for humanity. Your claim that I'm supporting corporate narratives makes no sense either because my whole point is that AI development needs to be stopped because it's anti-human.
Notice also that both accounts in those archives have much less activity marked "1 day ago" than within the last 24 hours, "2 days ago", "3 days ago" (although RWR is somewhat less active that day), "4 days ago" and so on. His mom must have forced him to leave the basement and go outside that day.
It's very pathetic how he and Imp both waste all their time on this site spouting retarded nonsense across multiple accounts.
So you want me to talk about matrix transformations, word vectors, the softmax function, multi-head attention mechanism implementation details and so forth because that will make this conversation somehow more informed? That's like saying to argue that cars can go faster than humans need to talk about engine parts and their limitations. It's completely irrelevant. We can observe cars go faster than humans. Similarly we can observe various computer programs do tasks that were previously only possible by human understanding, judgement and creativity and thus we decided to call that "artificial intelligence". As opposed to natural/genuine intelligence that comes from a mind, but something that to an outside observer is indistinguishable from a mind.
Your only contribution to this conversation is finding excuses to discuss anything other than the actual arguments.
I never said anything about my knowledge coming from marketing articles. I have actually taken courses on things like machine learning and LLM's. Are you projecting your own ignorance onto me?
You're using "artificial intelligence" in a different way to everybody else on the planet. Nobody is saying that your idea of AI is going to happen. What people are saying is that machines are going to be able to do everything that humans do with their intelligence.
And that is obviously going to be a disaster for the human race because humans are going to be powerless compared to robot police, endless AI propaganda, AI taking their jobs and all the weapons of mass destruction that AI-driven science is going to discover. But you want to ignore what is obviously coming and stick to your own magical thinking that because AI is never going to be conscious it's nothing to worry about.
I don't think washing clothes manually involves any higher cognitive functions, although the way the machine does it could involve some kind of analysis that in previous times would have required human intelligence. So then we would say the washing machine has AI in it. Of course there will always be gray areas just as there are with who counts as a mentally competent human.
I don't see where I'm employing any "magic[al] thinking". I have studied how AI's work, but it sounds as though you haven't since you keep talking about consciousness as though that has ever been relevant to AI.
You're engaging in linguistic revisionism like the establishment does. "Artificial intelligence" has been talked about for over 80 years and the definition hasn't changed. It was never about consciousness or whatever you're trying to make it about. It was always about machines being able to perform tasks that could previously only be done by human intelligence.
Why wouldn't there be an alternative? When has apocalypse been the only possible future in previous generations? If you think things are different so that there's no hope this time then you've been successfully demoralized.
They're not merely allowing it they're going as fast as they can to develop AI. They're softening the climate hysteria, talking about small modular nuclear reactors, inflating the stock market and building huge data centers all around the idea of better AI and AI companies that openly work towards AGI and have clearly been making progress in that direction.
It's not clear to me if this is a photo of the woman (Esther Cohen-Tizer-Epstein) writing the letter or someone else like one of her daughters. Probably Esther though. Never heard of the Divine Madness cult before, but it has a Wikipedia page.