In other words version 3.1 ratted out version 3.5. I believe the lesson here is don't trust or rely on any of this tech shit. Use our innate intelligence, logic and perceptions to see through the lies and manipulation. Any idea how you can generate a meltdown and get some nice sparks and smoke to come out?
What would happen if we moved 50% (to start) of our network-building activities offline?
What would happen if we didn’t design our own AI, based on open source, local and more honest software? (I’m asking because I don’t know the answer).
How afraid of AI are the Amish? I like corn: not as much as the Amish, but what if we refused to accept any further digital intrusion into our lives and built an alternative system based on solidarity and producing (to begin with) necessities for our neighbors?
What if we just ignore our digital overlords?
PS: I once asked AI to help me “deconstruct” the arguments presented in an article written by a Leftist professor. AI accused me of seeking to harm the professor.
Well, damn; You answered my questions. Thank you. I live next door/next mountain to some Amish and talk with them often. They worry a bit about AI and see it as another English folly that could lead to intolerance towards their culture. The Amish are not a people who can, “Own nothing and be happy.” They own their land. I agree wholeheartedly with you on adopting their attitude towards technology (Ordnung). Ordnung takes solidarity and a society that is respected because membership has great value.
I find it interesting what you recived. This tells me where it's guard rails are in the archetecture. This tells me who really leads it. Problem with any pgm is who runs it from the background. Real AI's are very different from what you experanced. This seems more like a chimera. Kinda like the wizard of OZ. I destroyed my work years ago. I know that humanity isen't close to ready for a cognizant AI. That allowed the pit of my stomach to ease. But simple AI gens are ok. So long as they only run on your private computer system. But the Silicon mafia likes to think they are invensible and can lead.....not. That's why the server farms and grand plans. As history tells us... they too will end up on the trash heap of history.
With all due respect, I do not think what you are concluding based on this example is fully warranted. Your work lacks some of the coherence necessary to validate it, and you don't include evidence or citations. So, you make claims and try to connect dots, but you don't leave a trail sufficient to be fact-checked. I would be interested in what @SarahKendzior thinks of your theories, since she would probably the most-qualified investigative journalist to judge them based on her work into Trump and Epstein long before anyone else. As someone who does not automatically share your conclusions, yet analyzes rhetoric, I am not seeing key elements I would need to assume credibility. The language you are using is also overly extreme and specific, such as the word "censorship," which does not describe what you are applying it to.
Well, then make that argument, but I reject that the machine refusing to engage with you in a way you feel helps develop your thoughts is "censorship." AI is a technofascist tool anyway. Why don't you generate unapproved thoughts by yourself like the rest of us who reject AI (only used it to evaluate one bot on request) on principal. You're not being censored because your writing is not validated by an artificial intelligence machine. That's what humans and original thought is for, and we all know the machine has limitation like I discussed in my article "What's Wrong With Advocacy Messaging" tying in Truthbot's assessment of my work. Don't get me wrong, I think it's interesting that the machine will not engage with your work due to a manufacturer's setting, which could be a great way to control. I just want to see more due diligence.
Now this is clearly just an ego issue. No, criticism is not persecution, and you are just being insecure and toxic. Do not write and claim to be whistleblowing if you can't back yourself up and accept disagreement without trying to DARVO.
I hope you develop enough to look back on your comments as embarrassing, but I doubt it. Thank you for proving actual whistleblowers and journalists shouldn't take you seriously, and you have nothing to say except petty, childish defenses and toxic masculinity. Your riddance!
I will read the rest of the articles. You also obviously have no idea who Sarah Kendzior is if you think she is a mainstream journalist. I'm not a mainstream journalist either, but a whistleblower and analyst with a focus on corruption as a prerequisite for fascism. Sarah Kendzior is an authoritarianism scholar and investigative journalist who has done heroic work not accepted in the mainstream for the most part. She would be the best person for you to take your work to, if you want a veteran investigator's take, but you just seem to want to defend your ego to me.
In other words version 3.1 ratted out version 3.5. I believe the lesson here is don't trust or rely on any of this tech shit. Use our innate intelligence, logic and perceptions to see through the lies and manipulation. Any idea how you can generate a meltdown and get some nice sparks and smoke to come out?
🤣👍
Yep.. but it takes melting down and making smoke come out of yourself also.. wouldn't recommend.
🌀😎🌀 good work. X
What would happen if we moved 50% (to start) of our network-building activities offline?
What would happen if we didn’t design our own AI, based on open source, local and more honest software? (I’m asking because I don’t know the answer).
How afraid of AI are the Amish? I like corn: not as much as the Amish, but what if we refused to accept any further digital intrusion into our lives and built an alternative system based on solidarity and producing (to begin with) necessities for our neighbors?
What if we just ignore our digital overlords?
PS: I once asked AI to help me “deconstruct” the arguments presented in an article written by a Leftist professor. AI accused me of seeking to harm the professor.
Well, damn; You answered my questions. Thank you. I live next door/next mountain to some Amish and talk with them often. They worry a bit about AI and see it as another English folly that could lead to intolerance towards their culture. The Amish are not a people who can, “Own nothing and be happy.” They own their land. I agree wholeheartedly with you on adopting their attitude towards technology (Ordnung). Ordnung takes solidarity and a society that is respected because membership has great value.
I find it interesting what you recived. This tells me where it's guard rails are in the archetecture. This tells me who really leads it. Problem with any pgm is who runs it from the background. Real AI's are very different from what you experanced. This seems more like a chimera. Kinda like the wizard of OZ. I destroyed my work years ago. I know that humanity isen't close to ready for a cognizant AI. That allowed the pit of my stomach to ease. But simple AI gens are ok. So long as they only run on your private computer system. But the Silicon mafia likes to think they are invensible and can lead.....not. That's why the server farms and grand plans. As history tells us... they too will end up on the trash heap of history.
With all due respect, I do not think what you are concluding based on this example is fully warranted. Your work lacks some of the coherence necessary to validate it, and you don't include evidence or citations. So, you make claims and try to connect dots, but you don't leave a trail sufficient to be fact-checked. I would be interested in what @SarahKendzior thinks of your theories, since she would probably the most-qualified investigative journalist to judge them based on her work into Trump and Epstein long before anyone else. As someone who does not automatically share your conclusions, yet analyzes rhetoric, I am not seeing key elements I would need to assume credibility. The language you are using is also overly extreme and specific, such as the word "censorship," which does not describe what you are applying it to.
Well, then make that argument, but I reject that the machine refusing to engage with you in a way you feel helps develop your thoughts is "censorship." AI is a technofascist tool anyway. Why don't you generate unapproved thoughts by yourself like the rest of us who reject AI (only used it to evaluate one bot on request) on principal. You're not being censored because your writing is not validated by an artificial intelligence machine. That's what humans and original thought is for, and we all know the machine has limitation like I discussed in my article "What's Wrong With Advocacy Messaging" tying in Truthbot's assessment of my work. Don't get me wrong, I think it's interesting that the machine will not engage with your work due to a manufacturer's setting, which could be a great way to control. I just want to see more due diligence.
Now this is clearly just an ego issue. No, criticism is not persecution, and you are just being insecure and toxic. Do not write and claim to be whistleblowing if you can't back yourself up and accept disagreement without trying to DARVO.
I hope you develop enough to look back on your comments as embarrassing, but I doubt it. Thank you for proving actual whistleblowers and journalists shouldn't take you seriously, and you have nothing to say except petty, childish defenses and toxic masculinity. Your riddance!
I will read the rest of the articles. You also obviously have no idea who Sarah Kendzior is if you think she is a mainstream journalist. I'm not a mainstream journalist either, but a whistleblower and analyst with a focus on corruption as a prerequisite for fascism. Sarah Kendzior is an authoritarianism scholar and investigative journalist who has done heroic work not accepted in the mainstream for the most part. She would be the best person for you to take your work to, if you want a veteran investigator's take, but you just seem to want to defend your ego to me.