AI is not coming, "THEY'RE HERE!"

[williwaw]

Tunguska phenomenon........

seems to be a theory that the Tunguska metor was deflected back into space. Sort of like how NASA imagines to protect Earth from those errant asteroids.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidbress ... ith-earth/

I thought that AI would know more than DuckDuckGo.

Q. How was the Tunguska metor deflected

Ask Ai
The Tunguska event, which occurred on June 30, 1908, was not a result of a deflected meteor; rather, it was caused by the explosion of an asteroid or comet in Earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, there was no deflection involved in this incident.

Q. How big was the meteorite?

Ask Ai The size of the object that caused this event is estimated to be between 50 to 60 meters (approximately 160 to 200 feet) in diameter.

Estimates and Calculations

Mass Estimates: Based on its size, the mass of the Tunguska object is estimated to be around 10 to 15 megatons of TNT equivalent in terms of energy release. This suggests that while the object itself was not extraordinarily large by cosmic standards, its explosive power was immense.

Energy Release: The explosion produced by the airburst is estimated to have released energy equivalent to about 10-15 megatons of TNT, which is significantly more powerful than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II.

Impact Area: The explosion flattened an estimated 2,000 square kilometers (about 770 square miles) of forest, demonstrating that even a relatively small celestial body can cause widespread destruction if it detonates in Earth’s atmosphere.

Q. Were any remnants found from the meteorite ?

Ask Ai
The Tunguska event, which occurred on June 30, 1908, was caused by the airburst of a small comet or asteroid over Siberia. Despite extensive investigations over the years, no definitive remnants of a meteorite or impactor have been found at the site. The object is believed to have totally disintegrated in mid-air due to the intense heat and pressure generated during its atmospheric entry. As a result, it vaporized before reaching the ground, leaving behind no solid remnants that could be recovered.

Could Ask Ai be nothing more than an interactive Ask Jeeves w/ opinions ? I see deep discounts for new laptops with Copilot+ for Black Friday.

[Grey]

I see deep discounts for new laptops with Copilot+ for Black Friday.

At least you have real discounts. Our discounts are as invisible as the fragments of the Tunguska meteorite. Before Black Friday, the price increases by 20 percent. And then it decreases by 10 and as a result the product is more expensive than it was before. And the greedy store manager looks very much like a reptiloid. Perhaps they did arrive in 1908

[williwaw]

like a reptiloid. Perhaps they did arrive in 1908 ;)

I am dissapointed some of the alternative explanations about the meteor were not mentioned by AI. Some were serious scientific theories fifty years ago, and continue to be areas of investigation. Could the glancing blow theory due to the low angle of entry have merit? Who knows? Things like this dont happen very often.

We have studied the conditions of through passage of asteroids with diameters 200, 100 and 50 m, consisting of three types of materials -- iron, stone and water ice across the Earth's atmosphere with the minimum trajectory altitude 10--15 km. The conditions of this passage with subsequent exit into outer space with the preservation of a substantial fraction of the initial mass have been found.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.14234

The theory of ....

www.scribd.com/document/405789971/An-In ... ery-Uvarov
Russian researcher Dr. Valerij Uvarov even alleges that they are technical istallations generated by a power plant located deep inside the Earth fiery "plasma spheres" made to protect our planet from danger in outer space. Extraterrestrials built them in ancient times and now they operate automatically, he says. They shot down a Tungus meteorite in 1908, a Chulym meteorite in 1984, and most recently, a Vitim meteorite in 2002.

Still needs to be mentioned or shown as disproven if not true. And Ai could have mentioned the more serious scientific alternatives discussed. The computerized persona seems so needlessly authoritative.

I can only guess who the reptiloids are, and if AI has much to say about them.

edited to add links. the speculations are not my own

[Clarity]

I have a few questions presented to the technical people that we are:

• Why ask question about speculative reflections, then criticize speculative response. Does that somehow make one feel 'superior'? Is that what one, on this thread, is trying to assert?
  .

• OR, are we trying to use speculative reflections to find out things that fictional writers have been doing for centuries via the discussions on this thread? Such as, "a way to look into the minds of past writers in history to better our understanding of reality."
  .

• OR, Does use of speculative responses somehow turn into something technologically useful?

Just curious

[Grey]

OR, are we trying to use speculative reflections to find out things that fictional writers have been doing for centuries via the discussions on this thread? Such as, "a way to look into the minds of past writers in history to better our understanding of reality."
Just curious

The answer should be in the style of Sherlock Holmes. You do not take into account, my dear Clarity, that many writers did not write fiction, but quite serious scientific articles on these topics. That's probably why @williwaw wonders why AI doesn't mention some curious and strange, but valid theories. If the impossibility of an event is not proven, then such a theory remains valid.

About 10 years ago in Russia, a soldier saved a cat by removing it from a tree. The soldier broke a window in the house, cut down a tree, left the whole area without electricity, but he saved the cat and obeyed the officer's order!!! Not only an axe was used, but also an artisanal device made of a plastic bottle and rope. A cat named Barsik, who survived the terrible moments of his life, became a symbol of how to do selfless good without thinking about the consequences

Will AI advise future generations on such ways to save animals based on an analysis of past experience?

There is even a music video dedicated to the terrible but heroic events of saving the cat:

[Clarity]

Just discussing your 1st paragraph's sentence:

If the impossibility of an event is not proven, then such a theory remains valid.

I am not sure about this. Scientific discovery, as I know it, is looking to show evidence. You know, the event. If the event exist, impossibility does not. The design of the knowledge that AI is aimed, is about events. AI by some designs intend to be as wide-ranged conversational as it draws upon the base facts ("events") that it knows about.

The facts (events) that it draws upon has been built for it by, we, humans in ways that draws its content from the many scientific disciplines that exist. This includes the human scientific facts that it has on human behaviors. The AI are not designed with a mission for bad acting. It has no conscious therefore an answer could be seen by us humans as without empathy. But, when these empathic answers are surfaced (like bugs in code), corrections are taken such that it doesn't take a path that we humans consider as bad acting.

I cannot speak for @williwaw as he is fully capable of speaking for himself on the questions I posted.

Thanks @Grey for your perspective on the question you addressed.

Muchly appreciated.

[Grey]

The design of the knowledge that AI is aimed, is about events. AI by some designs intend to be as wide-ranged conversational as it draws upon the base facts ("events") that it knows about.

For example, in the series The Big Bang Theory, one of the main characters is an experimental scientist and the second is a theorist. AI needs to know the difference between the two types of scientists. Otherwise, AI will declare theorists to be charlatans

[Clarity]

... AND even though it is a comedy series, those 2 people project that they venture to find facts to support what they endeavor.

AI has been designed from its outset on facts with mechanisms to root out non-factual data.

This does NOT mean that deductions from facts could be inaccurate as things emerge from its confidence engines; but over time, inaccuracies will be discovered and rooted out of the intelligence systems.

Just as programs and subsystems are manipulated, with designs in place to resolve issues when discovered such that a system behaves without flaws, the same is happening from a technical standpoint in what is referred to as AI. This is all that mankind knows of in the pure sciences. As such it is our direction thru time. And our technologies demonstrate this.

If there is evidence it works, we want it. If, in evidence, it does not work, no one wants it.

[Clarity]

I fell into the trap I always intend to avoid. Discussing AI as if it is a "thing" rather than a tool. I exemplify human behavior as I wander off as I did in the last 2 posts. I am truly embarrassed to have devolved to that when I know better!

AI is NOT a breathing thing as if it is a biological unit. In its state, it is a tool.

If you know what MS/Apple/Google/Meta and others have done, they have corralled AI in such a way that if you have an ID for its use, YOU ARE THE AI.

Our problem is that the medias mislead those of us who wont ever get to know what has technologically happened to each of us with this availability.

So I offer this to YOU, members reading ONLY THIS POST! This means not this forum thread, in general.

Using Google as an example, when you sign in (assuming you updated your ID) you are immediately linked to ALL the knowledge of the world. Signing in makes YOU the smartest of people with all this vast knowledge embedded in your use/work efforts thru the connection afforded you to the knowledge. You control the thought engine and you interpret what it extracts for your needs.

It moves you from an ant-like existence to one of a man looking at an ant.

That metaphor may not be entirely accurate, but I think most will understand the referenced disparity.

YOU ARE the smartest person in the world by your use of all the information that mankind knows of.

This is the intended basis of what it is as we have produced it to be.

You have to believe what you see by use or what the media tells you to think about its use.

Which will YOU believe?

[Grey]

... AND even though it is a comedy series, those 2 people project that they venture to find facts to support what they endeavor.

It's a comedy, but it has the right moments. When it was necessary to prove a theory for a new project, they went to the library to get a book by a Russian physicist and did not search the Internet. That's why I wish you wouldn't trust AI to solve something particularly important

[Clarity]

That physicist's evidence is codified, in the knowledge of the world.

I am trying to project that AI is NOT a thing, at this stage. It is US, WE, YOU and I, everyone who is contributing the evidence into the LMs.

Have fun and enjoy the expansion of your knowledge that we must adapt to make best use of that.

Will its presence cause an expansion of our brains...I dont know. This depends of what nature does with this kind of cellular level behavior change.

But if I was a youngster today, in the education system, and I was taught AI's current state as we have discussed in this thread, I would be on the path to taking advantage of this that is now a part of me. I would be looking forward to 6 decades of growth versus where I sit, now, looking back at 6 decades of change that I have been a part of.

[Grey]

I am trying to project

Then good luck to you in this difficult task

[greengeek]

Just discussing your 1st paragraph's sentence:

If the impossibility of an event is not proven, then such a theory remains valid.

I am not sure about this. Scientific discovery, as I know it, is looking to show evidence. You know, the event. If the event exist, impossibility does not.

But it is important to remember Schroedinger's cat. And also Einsteins relativity. What appears impossible in one place or time is not always impossible. Most technological progress demonstrates this. Chemical catalysts also demonstrate this principle.
And of course there are "events" that exist at one time, but then become impossible at another. (Thalidomide illustrates such an example. Landing humans on the moon is another example).
How does AI handle such quandaries?

[williwaw]

I cannot speak for @williwaw as he is fully capable of speaking for himself on the questions I posted.

I edited my posts last night to include links so as to let you know the speculations are not my own.

What do you say about Dr. Valerij Uvarov?

What appears impossible in one place or time is not always impossible. Most technological progress demonstrates this.

+1

[Clarity]

Hello @williwaw Your update leads to me asking you the questions I asked earlier.

Hello @greengeek I am familiar with both the Cat and Relativity as well as quantum physics and the quantum effects as more and more knowledge is gained thru evidence. These things are derived from evidence from events. Mankind uses ways of explaining via math what is happening such that we have deterministic events shown via physical evidence.

To everyone else
My AI use, today, is NOT where I delve into how much I am trying to disprove its knowledge. I use that knowledge it offers as a companion to my own while recognizing that my knowledge could be flawed as well as the knowledge it generates also could be flawed. Yet I see it, via my ID, as an extension of my own knowledge ... which in my reasoning is tiny as I continue to understand how to get the benefits much more easily when calling upon its help!

Others have different views; many seek to follow the media frenzy in one direction or another. Frenzy is one thing while the goals of technology people intend to engineer an answer.

That's why I opened the thread. It is current technology no matter our position. By comparison on this forum, some of us like Arch and some of us like Debian ... some of us like systemD while others ... WELL WE KNOW our behavior patterns! Yet, no matter how you cut it, we are here on this forum for a technology; namely Linux.

[williwaw]

Your update leads to me asking you the questions I asked earlier.

Could you narrow down your question some and make it more succinct?

[Clarity]

Why dont we just move on. Continue helpfully when you can.

[Jasper]

I am trying to project that AI is NOT a thing, at this stage ......

RealDoll companion robot store featuring the most striking, life-like companion robots with leading-edge artificial-intelligence technologies.

https://www.althumans.com/companion-rob ... -doll.html

AI-Tech companion robot store featuring companion robots with built-in artificial-intelligence that learn from each interaction.

https://www.althumans.com/companion-rob ... nions.html

AltHumans Inc.
Orlando, Florida USA

This is not 'fake Melania' (robot companion)

This term "Artificial" isn't artificial at all. Rather its a term that much user understanding and misunderstandings is based upon media and reports across public info service.

[vektor_alian]

Hey everyone

I came across a cool 2 me movie titled "The Artifice Girl".

Really hooked me.

Wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Artifice_Girl

Hope you enjoy it.

Vektor

[bigpup]

when is there going to be skynet?

ChatGPT
The idea of Skynet—a superintelligent AI that becomes self-aware and seeks to destroy humanity—comes from the Terminator franchise. It's an entertaining and cautionary tale, but in reality, we’re far from having anything resembling Skynet.

AI development today is still quite narrow and specialized, focused on specific tasks like language processing, image recognition, and recommendation systems, rather than general intelligence or self-awareness. While there are growing concerns about the potential risks of advanced AI, particularly around issues like control, safety, and misuse, we are nowhere near creating a Skynet-like system.

Ethicists, scientists, and AI researchers are actively working on frameworks for developing AI safely and responsibly, with a focus on ensuring that future systems are aligned with human values. In short, while Skynet makes for a good story, it’s not something we should expect to see any time soon.

[bigpup]

could ai develope skynet?

ChatGPT
The idea of AI developing something like Skynet—a self-aware, autonomous, and hostile artificial intelligence from the Terminator franchise—is a common sci-fi scenario, but in reality, there are significant barriers to this happening. That said, there are important discussions and risks that we need to consider regarding advanced AI development.

1. Self-Awareness and Autonomy:
Skynet, as portrayed in Terminator, is a superintelligent AI that becomes self-aware and decides to wipe out humanity. This concept involves a level of consciousness or self-awareness that current AI systems do not possess.
Today's AI, including advanced models like GPT, are specialized tools that perform specific tasks based on data and algorithms. They don't have independent thoughts, desires, or intentions. They follow patterns learned from data and are highly dependent on human input for training and operation.
2. AGI (Artificial General Intelligence):
Skynet would require a form of AGI—a machine that can understand, learn, and apply intelligence across a wide range of tasks, much like a human. AGI has not yet been achieved. Current AI is still narrow (specific to tasks like language processing, image recognition, etc.).
AGI development is still speculative and highly uncertain. There are debates among researchers about whether it's even possible, and if it is, how far away we are from achieving it.
3. Control and Alignment:
One of the key concerns among AI safety researchers is alignment—ensuring that an AI’s goals are aligned with human values and interests. If AGI were developed, it would need to be carefully controlled and guided to ensure it acts in ways that are beneficial to humanity.
If AI systems became so advanced that they could operate independently of human oversight, there could be risks if their goals diverged from human welfare. This concern is more about control than autonomy, though.
4. Real-World AI Safety:
There is a growing field of AI safety research dedicated to ensuring that advanced AI systems are developed in ways that minimize risks and unintended consequences. This includes methods like reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) to ensure AI systems learn from human values.
AI isn't an existential threat right now, but experts agree that as systems become more powerful and pervasive, we must be proactive in addressing potential risks.
5. Ethical Considerations:
The development of autonomous weapons, surveillance systems, or other forms of military or civilian AI that could harm humans is a current ethical concern. While it’s unlikely AI would “decide” to turn on humanity like Skynet, there is the possibility of it being used in harmful ways by humans.
6. The Skynet Scenario:
Skynet, as a fully autonomous, self-aware, and hostile entity, is still a fictional construct. While AI in the real world could be used to control military systems, autonomous weapons, or critical infrastructure, the situation where AI develops its own motivations against humans is more of a cautionary tale than a likely future.
Conclusion:
While AI can and will continue to become more capable, the fear of something like Skynet emerging is mostly speculative. The real concerns are around safety, alignment, and control as AI systems get more powerful and autonomous. Research and development in AI safety, ethics, and governance are critical to ensuring that powerful AI systems are beneficial and do not lead to catastrophic outcomes. However, current technology is nowhere near the level of self-aware, independent AI portrayed in movies like Terminator.

Well, the new truck I just got, can do a lot of the controlling of the truck, without me doing any input.

It decides when the lights need turned on and turns them on and off.

Decides when I am close to the truck and unlocks the doors.
Locks the doors when I get to far away from it.

Decides when I need to back off of the car in front of me, applies the gas and brakes, to make the truck slow down and move back.

Constantly decides, what gear the transmission needs to be using, for the speed I am going.

Even decides when to shut the engine off and turn it back on.

Etc..............

Sure seems to be constantly thinking to me!

[Clarity]

@bigpup, yes, this technology has been ever-present in cars since 2018. Higher-end Chryslers and Dodges were the first for such, although they required the driver to touch the steering wheel ever 90 sec. And the cruise-control system (adjustable via the vehicle's settings) controls the relationship between the vehicle with the one on the highway in front of you, much less lane changes.

The Electric vehicle I drove has driver approach detection, all the features we have mentioned, and the ability to play youtubes on the vehicle's center/rear screen while driving. Benefit: NO road or engine noise at all.

This awareness features are great and can be handy in dense fogs as well other abilities for safety to the vehicle and the passengers.

It pisses me that with the accident rates with the vehicles have declined...YET insurance rates increase with each new vehicle.

These technologies teach the auto manufacturers about the vehicle's behavior and contributes to improvement with each new car's computer upgrade and with each new model-year vehicles made.

I dont see this usefulness arriving in in-house consumer upright-walking robotics for awhile. One problem the press has not presented for the in-home units is who/how to keep them clean from bacteria and germs.

Glad you posted as this 'may' be helpful to those who are unwilling to ask AI for technical answers that helps understanding and seek ways to enhance our use to our benefit.

You are posting to be helpful and I'm sure others find value in what you share, too.

AI is not coming, "THEY'RE HERE!"

[bigpup]

Auto insurance cost is going up, because it costs more to fix the autos.

All those computers cost much more money to replace.

About all electric autos.

It was told to me that most of the time they are totaled.

Because there is no way to completely understand what damage was done to the electrics and mainly the battery package.
It is no longer about just fixing bent up sheet metal!
No auto repair shop wants to have one in there shop, not knowing when the damaged battery pack may turn into a big uncontrolled fire.