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.