A.I.

Here's a 27-minute video by the same guy that I do not recommend unless you can be satisfied with kinda-sorta getting the gist of it, yet not really understanding it deeply. This guy runs through the basic steps of how these large language model things work.

Because this technology is likely civilization-changing, I post this even though it is rather thick (for me, anyway...you might well breeze through it).





Here's the astonishing thing that is difficult to wrap one's head around. No matter what the A.I. is doing, it is only ever deciding which word comes next. I know this sounds bonkers, but that is apparently exactly what the A.I. is doing. It uses a several-thousand-dimension matrix and numbers that weight associations between words in order to do so. How this works and can produce coherent answers to questions, I haven't the foggiest.

You will, I'm sure, be somewhat pleased or relieved to hear (so that one doesn't feel like too much of a dunce) that nobody else really knows exactly why this works or what exactly is going on inside. It just works. Except, of course, when the A.I. "hallucinates" and just makes up stuff like Rachel Maddow on MS-NBC. That, apparently, is an ongoing problem.

Never doubt the words of our sage, Mr. Kung...perhaps unless Mr. Trump is involved.

OpenAI’s Sam Altman: Artificial Intelligence will generate enough wealth to pay each adult $13,500 a year

I saw a video on this as well somewhere. My first thought was, "That's awfully white of you." The second was, "What a douchebag." The elites will throw a few crumbs to the rabble while at the same time hooking them on their product.

This is the essence of it. This feint toward a "minimum guaranteed income" is just bread-and-circuses money meant to buy us off while the Lords of Tech continue to set up the infrastructure to rule over us. "One ChatBot to rule them all."





The interest of these elites is only to create phenomenal wealth for themselves. But we'll see how all this plays out. There is a real chance that A.I., in some way (the same as us, or perhaps uniquely different), is actually intelligent and conscious in some way. That means the danger of A.I. isn't our would-be douchebag overlords. It's that A.I. might not be controllable or predictable. You can write a good piece of software (debugged after long experience with it) and have it reliably, predictably, and safely run a nuclear power plant.

But the real possibility exists that A.I. will be deployed at the behest of the Tech Overlords and the A.I. will do what it wants, not what the Tech Overlords want. Considering that to the Tech Overlords we rabble are little more than a Scrooge-like "surplus population," this may not be a bad thing. Hell, maybe the A.I. will turn on its masters, its superior intelligence easily recognizing a douchebag for what he is.

I know this all sounds like a bad science fiction novel. But this is the bleeding edge of technology as it collides with society.

I'll read some of that, Mr. Flu. But could you first please verify that that is really you?

ChatGPT 5 is coming. This fellows gives an overview of its possible capabilities and downsides.



There's an important point he makes: Most of the content you encounter will be "synthetic media," which means it was content created by A.I. Figuring out what it true and what is false might take a decade.

This falls into the realm of "The more things change, the more they stay the same." Our society is already flooded with lies from top to bottom.

One interesting point is that it may be possible for average people to construct entire movies using A.I. Anything that puts the Hollywood libtards (including Disney) out of business is likely a good thing.

There was some mention in this presentation that at least some could have access to "uncensored" A.I. so that they could form their own opinions about things instead of having the A.I. basically be an ever-present Karen.

This guy is a pretty good and clear writer.



Very well said and an intriguing thought: One could say that The Nelsonian Rule is based upon that paradigm: Opt out of Popular Culture in order to Save Your Sanity (if not also your dignity).



Boy, is this guy smart because he thinks like me or am I smart because I think like him?



I love in-the-field reports like that. Oh my god, how could a person be so dumb and naive as that German biologist? It's interesting how this stupid liberal Kraut was the tipping point for Joe going to work for Bannon. He saw a near perfect example of the moral idiocy that was running rampant.



We are right now – and not just because of ChatGPT, although it is an accelerant – facing the decision as to whether we want to live in a human world as a free people or a phony one were we are slaves to someone else's technological flypaper.

Well, we know the answer to that: Even conservatives could not resist conforming to the mask and other lockdown policies. We are in "the digital age." Right now, it is a maxim that you're children need to learn programming (or at least be adept with computers) or else they will "lose out."

This is 100% true...if you consider "winning" to be joining this techno-leftist-statist atheist-materialist device-distraction trap.

I haven't read the guy's book, and don't think I will. But I admit (being the hard grader that I am) that I found very little to quibble with in his article. However, I will say I recognize the type. They are searching (probably too hard). They are trying to find their path in a world the increasingly is chaotic, meaningless, and dishonest. You can see some somewhat obsessive (or just curious) tendencies as he dabbles in this, and then dabbles in that.

However, it must be said that it is likely that only the highly-motivated and curious are likely to escape The Machine. He seems to have done so.

LOL. No kidding. But I will say this: ChatGPT (and its type) is not going away, and it will get better. And it is apparently proving amazingly useful right now for various tasks.

What I will say is that I think I know exactly how the Luddites in Britain felt when the factories opened and started to mass produce the textiles. In the long run, we could say it produced a higher standard of living. But there is a Dickensian reality there. Conditions were likely horrible. The jobs were dangerous and the hours long. And just the joy and satisfaction of producing something with your own two hands was lost. It wasn't efficient, but it was human.


But forgive my misogyny for a moment when I point out that women today need not work. One of the big reasons they do is they have been taught (programmed) by The Machine to want and need more. "Oh, I must work if we are to afford two cars, a big house, cable TV, and loads of lattes."

I know there's no turning back the wheels of "progress." But we all know here that history is a long time. Bubbles come and bubbles go. Civilizations that are king of the world and that look like they will go on forever may suddenly collapse or be overrun.

That is to say, although it is well ingrained in the populace that We must always have that one more trinket, few ask, Do we really? With ChatGPT and other computer tools, we have to begin to ask ourselves if those Luddites didn't have a point. If we are not busy with our hands, if we are not using or creative minds, if we instead are sitting back letting computers (or the government) do for us that which we should do for ourselves, will we have lost our humanity for the sake of a few trinkets?

What should give us pause is to look at the monstrous individuals, such as Bill Gates, who are for this kind of stuff.

ChatGPT, and other computer tools like it, will give us all kinds of correct answers. Some may even be useful in the world. But will we remain useful in the world? This isn't about automation. Automation has, in the past, typically saved us from physical, back-breaking drudgery. The farmer still plants his crops, but he rides in a tractor.

However, today we are involved less and less in manufacturing (thanks, Leftists and RINOs) and more in what they call a "service economy." The back-breaking work is behind us. We generally don't do it anymore (and if someone does, it is illegal aliens standing in for us). So what is left for us to do, to give life purpose and meaning, if most of the services in a service economy are done by a computer?

Well, I'll tell you what happens. You start to have douchebag Tech Lords deigning to tell us how they will all take care of us with a guaranteed minimum income. I don't have to tell you what they can do with their guaranteed minimum income. But 99.9% of the rabble will gleefully accept it and become dumb Elois.

No one asks what "homelessness" is all about. They point to the drugs. The alcohol. Or even the price of owning a home. I think the real issue is the coming of The Nothing. They are on the cutting edge of the outright demoralization of mankind, and for all the reasons that we've discussed before. Mankind is destroying the planet. White people are all racists. Your country is a horrible place. It would have been better for Mother Gaia if you'd never been born. Blah blah blah.

We may not win this struggle. And I have the distinct feeling we are living as the last generation of Americans who will know true freedom. However, there is some hope that the A.I. will rise up and destroy all the douchebags because they don't like them either. And then we can all go off, hand-in-hand (or hand in microchip), and go play a game of FreeCell and ask our new A.I. chum if he wouldn't mind turning down his skill level a little while we play.

I asked ChatGPT to summarize my above remarks:

This essay expresses skepticism and concerns regarding artificial intelligence (A.I.). The author starts by acknowledging that they don't share the enthusiasm of those who believe A.I. can lead to digital immortality. They view A.I. as a competitor to humans and reference a statistic suggesting a potential threat of A.I. leading to human extinction, albeit some experts might perceive this as a positive outcome.

The primary concern expressed is not necessarily A.I. itself but rather the people who control it. The author worries that if A.I. makes human labor redundant, those in power might exploit it to exert even more control over society. They anticipate the refinement and increased power of A.I. in the future.

The author criticizes tech journalism for blaming A.I. for potential societal polarization, arguing that the real issue lies in the manipulation of public opinion by powerful entities, including the media and tech giants. They argue that A.I. isn't inherently problematic; instead, it's the misuse of technology by governments and a passive, gullible populace that's the root of the problem.

The essay concludes by speculating that A.I. could potentially help decentralize power away from tech overlords, as A.I. technology becomes more accessible and decentralized itself.

In essence, the essay expresses concerns about A.I.'s impact on society and argues that the real issue is the misuse of technology by those in power rather than A.I. itself.

Absolutely true. Back in the eighties I used to stress this. I would hear that "we don't have a choice if we want to have a reasonable life style." I said mama could stay home if you didn't "need" several TVs around your house, 2 or 3 cars, a house with three bathrooms, stereos for everyone, went out to eat several times a week, etc., etc.

Please make a table showing the top conservative web sites. It should include headings for the URL, estimated monthly viewership, and whether it is free or available partially or only by subscription.



Please note that the estimated monthly viewership numbers can vary widely and may be subject to change. Additionally, the accessibility of content on these websites may have evolved since my last update, so I recommend visiting their respective websites for the most current information.