Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.
Message icon:


shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Topic Summary

Posted by: guest78
« on: January 19, 2023, 11:43:01 pm »

Human artists may soon be obsolete:

Advances in artificial intelligence raise new ethics concerns
In recent months, new artificial intelligence tools have garnered attention, and concern, over their ability to produce original work. The creations range from college-level essays to computer code and works of art. As Stephanie Sy reports, this technology could change how we live and work in profound ways.

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 11, 2023, 10:51:25 pm »

Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 14, 2022, 08:12:22 pm »

How Westerners think:


NASA has promised that we will see US astronauts on the moon again soonish — maybe by 2025 at the earliest, in a program called Artemis, which will include the first women to ever touch the lunar surface.

Former NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, who ran the agency during the Trump administration, said it's not science or technology hurdles that have held the US back from doing this sooner.

"If it wasn't for the political risk, we would be on the moon right now," Bridenstine said on a phone call with reporters in 2018. "In fact, we would probably be on Mars."
Researchers and entrepreneurs have long pushed for the creation of a crewed base on the moon — a lunar space station.

"A permanent human research station on the moon is the next logical step. It's only three days away. We can afford to get it wrong and not kill everybody," Chris Hadfield, a former astronaut, previously told Business Insider. "And we have a whole bunch of stuff we have to invent and then test in order to learn before we can go deeper out."

A lunar base could evolve into a fuel depot for deep-space missions, lead to the creation of unprecedented space telescopes, make it easier to live on Mars, and solve longstanding scientific mysteries about Earth and the moon's creation. It could even spur a thriving off-world economy, perhaps one built around lunar space tourism.
Trump wanted to see Artemis land astronauts back on the moon in 2024.
"There is not a more environmentally unforgiving or harsher place to live than the moon," Thangavelu wrote. "And yet, since it is so close to the Earth, there is not a better place to learn how to live, away from planet Earth."

Only a Westerner could say something like this in a serious tone.


Another issue, astronauts say, is NASA's graying workforce. These days, more American kids polled say they dream about becoming YouTube stars, rather than astronauts.

Americans >>>>>>>> Westerners (Thank you Demographic Blueshift!)

"When Elon Musk lands a [rocket booster], his whole company is yelling and screaming and jumping up and down."

Musk is part of what astronaut Jeffrey Hoffman has called a "generation of billionaires who are space nuts," developing a new, private suite of moon-capable rockets.

Musk is a Westerner. Don't be like him!

"There's no question: If we're going to go farther, especially if we're going to go farther than the moon, we need new transportation," Hoffman added. "Right now we're still in the horse-and-buggy days of spaceflight."

Another line that only a Westerner could say in a serious tone.

Bezos has floated a plan to start building the first moon base using Blue Origin's upcoming New Glenn rocket system.

"We will move all heavy industry off of Earth, and Earth will be zoned residential and light industry," he said in April 2018.

Musk has also spoken at length about how SpaceX's forthcoming Starship launch system could pave the way for affordable, regular lunar visits. SpaceX might even visit the moon before NASA or Blue Origin.

"My dream would be that someday the moon would become part of the economic sphere of the Earth — just like geostationary orbit and low-Earth orbit," Hoffman said. "Space out as far as geostationary orbit is part of our everyday economy. Someday I think the moon will be, and that's something to work for."

Westerners having a Western conversation.

Astronauts don't doubt whether or not we'll get back to the moon and onto Mars. It's just a matter of when.

If Western civilization is not killed soon, I agree.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 12, 2022, 05:15:35 pm »

Our enemies celebrate:

The federal Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, which uses a process called inertial confinement fusion that involves bombarding a tiny pellet of hydrogen plasma with the world’s biggest laser, had achieved net energy gain in a fusion experiment in the past two weeks, the people said.

Although many scientists believe fusion power stations are still decades away, the technology’s potential is hard to ignore.

We do not need more energy. We need fewer people. In particular, we need fewer (ideally zero) of the type of people who think we need more energy, and who to this end will build fusion reactors and other machines.

a small cup of the hydrogen fuel could theoretically power a house for hundreds of years.

Imagine fusion reactors powering the machines covered in the previous post. That is the future awaiting us if we do not kill Western civilization soon.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: December 11, 2022, 11:46:42 pm »

Soon there will be no escape:

Can we destroy Western civilization before this becomes real?
Posted by: rp
« on: November 11, 2022, 06:00:25 pm »

Ah, I see. Forgot about the posts that came right before it.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 11, 2022, 05:38:46 pm »

It seemed to fit with the discussion about exclusive concern for ingroup people being run over.
Posted by: rp
« on: November 11, 2022, 05:20:00 pm »

Why was the previous post moved to this thread?
Posted by: rp
« on: November 11, 2022, 08:26:09 am »

Posted by: rp
« on: November 08, 2022, 11:40:01 pm »

Everyday when driving I see countless animals that have been killed on the road.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 08, 2022, 04:58:13 pm »

No one got run over back when no one used cars. Therefore, if the aim is to return to this condition, the correct solution is to end the use of cars. Of course Westerners do not think like this. The Western solution is always to add another machine to solve the problems caused by an existing machine.

Furthermore, the overwhelming majority of victims of being run over are non-humans:

Very large numbers of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates are killed on the world's roads every day.[9] The number of animals killed in the United States has been estimated at a million per day.[10][11]
About 350,000 to 27 million birds are estimated to be killed on European roads each year.[12]
Merritt Clifton (editor of Animal People Newspaper) estimated that the following animals are being killed by motor vehicles in the United States annually: 41 million squirrels, 26 million cats, 22 million rats, 19 million opossums, 15 million raccoons, 6 million dogs, and 350,000 deer.[15]
In 2011, Dutch biologist Arnold van Vliet coordinated a similar study of insect deaths on car license plates. He found two insects killed on the license-plate area for every 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) driven. This implies about 1.6 trillion insect deaths by cars per year in the Netherlands, and about 32.5 trillion deaths in the United States if the figures are extrapolated there.[19]

Are all of them going to be given smartphones too? Of course not. Whereas ending use of cars helps all victims, the Western solution cares about helping only ingroup victims. Which is exactly what we would expect.
Posted by: bondburger
« on: November 08, 2022, 06:28:57 am »

Future cyclists and pedestrians will be expected to carry smart-phones everywhere to avoid being ran over.
Posted by: rp
« on: November 06, 2022, 05:02:22 pm »

Jews Lex Fridman and Ray Kurzweil discuss singularity and immortality:
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 03, 2022, 05:10:41 pm »

If Western civilization had never existed, AI would never have existed:

The people who develop AI are increasingly having problems explaining how it works and determining why it has the outputs it has.
These types of AI systems notoriously have issues because the data they are trained on are often inherently biased, mimicking the racial and gender biases that exist within our society. The haphazard deployment of them leads to situations where, to use just one example, Black people are disproportionately misidentified by facial recognition technology. It becomes difficult to fix these systems in part because their developers often cannot fully explain how they work, which makes accountability difficult.
“Additionally, if we grow accustomed to accepting AI’s answers without an explanation, essentially treating it as an Oracle system, we would not be able to tell if it begins providing wrong or manipulative answers.”

So how is AI developed?

Black box models can be extremely powerful, which is how many scientists and companies justify sacrificing explainability for accuracy. AI systems have been used for autonomous cars, customer service chatbots, and diagnosing disease, and have the power to perform some tasks better than humans can. For example, a machine that is capable of remembering one trillion items, such as digits, letters, and words, versus humans, who on average remember seven in their short-term memory would be able to process and compute information at a much faster and improved rate than humans. Among the different deep learning models include generative adversarial networks (GANs), which are most often used to train generative AI models, such as text-to-image generator MidJourney AI. GANs essentially pit AI models against each other to do a specific task; the "winner" of each interaction is then pitted against another model, allowing the model to iterate itself until it becomes very good at doing that task. The issue is that this creates models that their developers simply can't explain.

Imitate natural selection! What could possibly go wrong?

When we put our trust in a system simply because it gives us answers that fit what we are looking for, we fail to ask key questions: Are these responses reliable, or do they just tell us what we want to hear? Whom do the results ultimately benefit? And who is responsible if it causes harm?

They tell you what you want to hear. Western civilization. Western civilization.

“The risks are that the system may be making decisions using values we disagree with, such as biased (e.g. racist or sexist) decisions. Another risk is that the system may be making a very bad decision, but we cannot intervene because we do not understand its reasoning,”

So why develop AI at all?

AI systems are already deeply entrenched with bias and are constantly reproducing such bias in their output without developers understanding how. In a groundbreaking 2018 study called “Gender Shades,” researchers Joy Buolamwini and Timnit Gebru found that popular facial recognition systems most accurately detected males with lighter skin and had the highest errors detecting females with darker skin. Facial recognition systems, which are skewed against people of color and have been used for everything from housing to policing, deepen pre-existing racial biases by determining who is more likely to get a house or be identified as a criminal, for example.

AI is a Western invention! What else would we expect?

At the same time, some experts argue that simply shifting to open and interpretable AI models—while allowing greater visibility of these processes—would result in systems that are less effective.

“There are many tasks right now where black box approaches are far and away better than interpretable models,” Clune said. “The gap can be large enough that black box models are the only option, assuming that an application is not feasible unless the capabilities of the model are good enough. Even in cases where the interpretable models are more competitive, there is usually a tradeoff between capability and interpretability. People are working on closing that gap, but I suspect it will remain for the foreseeable future, and potentially will always exist.”

I agree. Which is why AI should never have begun to exist in the first place.

The issue with explainability has to do with the fact that because AI systems have become so complex, blanket explanations only increase the power differential between AI systems and their creators, and AI developers and their users.

It's a Western feature.

“Maybe the answer is to abandon the illusion of explanation, and instead focus on more rigorously testing the reliability, biases, and performance of models, as we try to do with humans,” Clune said.

Maybe the answer is to end Western civilization altogether?

if you build explainable AI with a one-size-fits-all design process, “you end up with something where it has explanations that only make sense to one group of people who are involved in the system in practice,”

Guess which group that is?

“If we orient knowledge and AI around big data, then we're always going to bias towards those who have the resources to spin up a thousand servers, or those who have the resources to, you know, get a billion images and train them,”
“The question first is, what are the conditions under which AI is developed? Who gets to decide when it's deployed? And with what reasoning? Because if we can't answer that, then all good intentions in the world around how do we live with that [AI] are all screwed,” they added. “If we're not participating in those conversations, then it's a losing game. All you can do is have something that works for people with power, and silences the people who don't.

Homework: under which civilization did those with power today acquire the power they currently have?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: August 27, 2022, 12:13:47 am »

Anyone interested in becoming a vampire slayer? Let us know here:

By the way, mainstream journalism is picking up on the terminology we started using first:

Jared Kushner was born in 1981, which is on the cusp of Generation X and millennials — so it’s unclear with which he identifies. But maybe we should say he’s part of Generation Vampire because he recently shared that he thinks he is part of the “first generation to live forever.”