This is just the list of attendees though. The article talks about responses to survey questions as well which could give insight into how these elites really think.

But if the audio challenge is not for training and they know the right answer why are you able to pass it by typing something completely different but with some syllables in common? It seems to me either they only have a vague idea of what the right answer is or they are open to the AI being wrong and in future it will be adjusted by input they think is reliable because it’s sort of similar.

If you input text that doesn’t match the audio and they use this for training AIs, surely that will harm the training, no?

You can stick with Posteo and use email aliases for sites that don’t like it

Definitely. It would make life better in so many ways if everyone did this.

I heard Facebook was funding this in the US. Not sure if they’re responsible for it elsewhere too. It’s basically Five Eyes countries doing this, so you can bet it’s to do with their surveillance efforts. How do we stop it? First step is not to comply. Do not complete any age verification. If you are absolutely forced to, at least lodge complaints about it. If you are still required to, try to avoid giving any data, e.g. use a pre-recorded video of someone else or a videogame character to pass the age check. Second step is to use and support alternative platforms that avoid such measures.

Jeffrey Epstein is obviously one of the biggest (by “suicide”) along with the lone gunman assassinations of JFK (and his alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald, and his brother RFK senior), MLK and Abraham Lincoln.

Recent suspect suicides include former OpenAI employee and critic Suchir Balaji, Epstein victim Virginia Guiffre and Boeing whistleblowers Joshua Dean and John Barnett. There’s also a lot of wild speculation around Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

Lesser known older deaths ones include Terrance Yeakey’s “suicide” (police officer independently investigating the OKC bombing) and Huey Long’s assassination/body guard accident (potential opponent to FDR for president).

We don’t have a mathematical definition for intelligence or artificial like we do for a Turing machine, but most useful concepts don’t have precise definitions, like human, air, porn, drugs, medicine. I don’t see how there is anything disingenuous about calling computer programs artificially intelligent because that same term describes sci-fi computer programs which display intelligence. A lot of robots in sci-fi aren’t superintelligent and they usually have robotic voices and vocabulary choices and sometimes difficulty understanding words that aren’t in the dictionary or answering slightly vague questions, things which LLMs have no trouble with.

Saying the mount Rushmore carvings was formed by erosion is a simple explanation with few assumptions that is possible if you assume erosion happens sufficiently randomly, but it’s an absurd explanation nonetheless. Occam’s razor is just a rule of thumb to apply to competing explanations which are similarly reasonable and even then it’s not telling you which is more likely to be true but which is the simplest model to work with.

Normal computer programs only look intelligent in very narrow areas, like number crunching, which is why we don’t tend to call them intelligent. Their general intelligence is next to zero. Even if we were delusional enough to think life came from non-life and developed intelligence by random chance and natural selection, you have the same thing there where you get much more non-intelligent output than intelligent output. Monkeys on typewriters could also look intelligent some of the time, but looking at the totality of output they wouldn’t.

It’s just an expression of plain old human intelligence

All artificial things are expressions of human behaviors. That’s kind of the definition of artificial.

Intelligence is a description of capability, not the means by which the capability is achieved. So if the output looks intelligent then the process is intelligent regardless of how it works. The difference between natural and artificial intelligence is how the intelligence is achieved - what you’re describing doesn’t match any intelligence found in nature so if it produces intelligent output then it’s artificially intelligent.

Statistically likely to…what? I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.

Welcome to the resistance

Yes, we have had AutoGPT for 3 years now

Consciousness is separate from intelligence and I never brought it up.

10 years is not a long time.

No but it was a warning, just like 1984 or most sci-fi about AI

I’m not complaining about the lack of upvotes, just I don’t see why it’s getting promoted to your front page

That’s just denial of reality. AI comes up with new ways of “thinking” like in the math example I cited. If you call that remixing existing ideas then that could describe what all humans do and it’s questionable if any of us are creative.

Weird. You can see they don’t have that many upvotes. It wasn’t my intention to spam anyone’s feed.

LLM output is often indistinguishable from genuine creativity. You can give it an open ended prompt like “illustrate how the world is from the perspective of an LLM” and probably get something nobody has ever seen or thought of before. People use LLMs for generating ideas as well as coming up with novel solutions like I posted. Saying it’s not creative is mysticist cope.