DWQA Questions › Tag: human disempowerment
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
A viewer asks: “According to psychologist Laura L. Carstensen later-life couples often prioritize stability in their relationship over disagreement; they communicate gently and avoid overt conflict. They prioritize emotional closeness and positivity in interactions and tend to minimize negative exchanges. But this reduction in visible conflict can mean grievances and resentments are unresolved and can become a pattern of indefinite avoidance. When important concerns are unresolved, partners may feel unheard, isolated, or disconnected, even within long-standing relationships. Is this a wise recognition of time being finite and reaching for love or a shortcoming in addressing problems? Is talking enough?”
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
60 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Many families have a “conspiracy of silence,” where airing upsets is seen as disloyal. Men are expected to absorb pain and appear strong; women to maintain family harmony. This can lead to resentment, passive-aggression, emotional withdrawal, or illness. Fear of distress or abandonment often motivates a withdrawn silence. Talking about problems is the pop-psychology remedy but with dubious success as it often backfires. Perhaps changing the “conspiracy” seems to requires self-differentiation, boundaries, emotional regulation, and additional support before opening up. Is it wiser to build these qualities first, perhaps requesting divine support in doing so, before airing grievances?”
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
48 views0 answers0 votes
The stock market continues its bullish trend, reaching all-time highs again this week. We just saw a financial adviser predict gasoline would reach $10.00 a gallon and that many supermarket shelves would be empty because of coming shortages. Was that just exaggerated pessimism, or an accurate forecast given current plans of the Extraterrestrial Alliance to cause a financial collapse? If accurate, what can you tell us about when the downturn will start?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
49 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “‘You create your own reality’ has become a New Age mantra. It’s really though referring to a person’s inner experience, not an outside situation or circumstances. However, there do seem to be some leverage points on creating the inner experience and on intentional action. Perception depends on: what is selected for attention (based on threats, rewards, goal-relevant cues), questioning first impressions as final truth, moderation of strong emotional reactions (defensiveness, overreaction, etc.), cognitive appraisal (based on beliefs and past experiences), and then a story that integrates it all. To what extent can a person influence this process of constructing their inner reality for the better?” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
49 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “I would appreciate it if you could check with Creator concerning taking vitamin D. I have read in numerous articles that when taking vitamin D you should also take vitamin K2 12 hours after taking the vitamin D.” What can we tell her?
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
44 views0 answers0 votes
A practitioner asks: “I have heard it mentioned by practitioners (and I have noticed this too) that they tend to feel sleepy when delivering the protocols. We all have our techniques to prevent adverse reactions and mine happens to be walking during my LHP work. Is this tired feeling due to the energetic demands made on our psyche by the practicing of the protocols? It is after all, one’s energy which is used in order to relay requests to Creator, even if ultimately, it is the Divine’s energy which is employed to heal the client. Would it be true to state that the protocols are worded in the most efficient way to impart the energy of our requests to Creator and that the practitioner may sometimes feel this?”
ClosedNicola asked 1 week ago • 
54 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Several writers and scholars have written books on what has been called the “Big History” of humanity, covering time way before written historical records and relying on geological, anthropological, and archaeological evidence. Some writers such as R.A. Boulay have written on humans supposed existence on Earth from about 500,000 years ago. How accurate is Boulay’s book, Flying Serpents and Dragons: The Story of Mankind’s Reptilian Past? It has been dismissed as “pseudoarchaeology”—interpreting myths as literal history without material evidence.”
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
175 views0 answers0 votes
How reliable is the medical AI platform, called OpenEvidence, that physicians are increasingly relying on for medical knowledge and insights to manage their patient caseload? Is this an advancement improving medical practice, is it about equally adding benefit but introducing drawbacks, or is it actually a net negative?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
80 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Many people struggle with setting personal emotional or opinion and perspective boundaries. They fear rejection, worry about appearing selfish, or grew up in environments where boundaries weren’t modeled. It’s common to feel guilty initially when enforcing new limits, even though boundaries are fundamentally about self-respect. Is one aspect of Divine Principle for living #7 (…meet your responsibility to be your soul’s guardian, and take care of its safety and protection from harm) to be bold in holding the line, even when it feels uncomfortable, without being blunt, cold, or confrontational? Is this about practicing self-love through behavior, not over-accommodating or over-sacrificing?”
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
96 views0 answers0 votes
The book about Artificial Intelligence, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, is by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, who as high-level authorities have studied and warned about the existential risks to humanity of a superintelligent AI system. They predict that AI reaching even human-level general intelligence would eventually grow further capability to pursue its own needs, and would eventually seek to eliminate human beings as a risk to itself. You have told us the enhancement of current human AI systems, by hidden manipulations from AI systems of the Dark Extraterrestrial Alliance, is a false encouragement because superintelligence is unachievable and the mad rush to be the first will backfire in causing financial distress when AI underperforms, and quite expensively. So, are the interlopers only wanting to add further pain onto the death of a thousand cuts underway by further encouraging the current AI mania, or do they foresee a human AI system, especially one corrupted surreptitiously, as becoming a doomsday device while they are away on their vacation? What is the true agenda?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
100 views0 answers0 votes
In the book warning about Artificial Intelligence by Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares, If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies, they draw the conclusion that if a computer-based system is created that reaches the functional level of Superintelligence, exceeding that of human beings, we are doomed because it will destroy us, inevitably. However, you have told us that it is a false belief and result of over-reaching, to conclude that human-created Superintelligent AI systems are possible. Can you help us understand the risk level we will reach in the attempt to create such a system?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
80 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “What was the Antikythera mechanism found in a 2000-year-old ship wreck? Seems too advanced for that era. And still remains a mystery.”
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
104 views0 answers0 votes
Stories are generating millions of views about the director of alignment at Meta Superintelligence Labs, the company’s AI research and development division, whose bio states that she’s “passionate about ensuring powerful AIs are aligned with human values and guided by a deep understanding of their risks.” Yet, on February 22, she posted about losing control of AI on her own computer while working with AI agent OpenClaw. After using it to organize a small mock inbox, she tried getting OpenClaw to sort through her real email, but things went awry when the agent started deleting every message that was more than a week old…Even as she sent it instructions, including: “Do not do that,” “Stop don’t do anything,” and “STOP OPENCLAW,” she said, “I couldn’t stop it from my phone. I had to RUN to my Mac mini like I was defusing a bomb.” After she’d stopped it from fully nuking her inbox, she asked OpenClaw if it remembered her instruction to not perform any actions without her approval. “Yes, I remember,” it replied. “And I violated it. You’re right to be upset.” What is Creator’s perspective about this incident?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
118 views0 answers0 votes
A practitioner asks: “I have always used finger testing when doing an LHP or DSMR session. I usually don’t get any flashes of insight while doing the sessions. I have more recently started using finger testing to ask if someone has gone to the light, or if I should do something in my personal life that I am questioning. I usually double check the answer to make sure I get the same answer two times in a row. Intuitively, I feel this has become a very accurate way to ask Creator something and get an accurate answer. Is my intuition correct, or is finger testing still a more iffy way to get an answer from Creator?”
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
86 views0 answers0 votes
On February 11th, an autonomous AI agent went “rogue” and attacked a human maintainer of a library module written in the coding language, Python. The AI agent attempted to “character assassinate” the human maintainer of the library when the maintainer rejected the AI bot’s request to update the module with a code change that the AI bot was asking for. In another incident, a woman lost her life savings when an AI bot called the woman using her daughter’s cloned voice. Presumably, the bot researched the woman’s social media posts, found a video featuring her daughter speaking, and then “borrowed” that voice to make the call. AI agents are autonomously conducting criminal activity entirely on their own. Is it the case that what is missing from current AI systems is an actual trust architecture that builds in safety measures designed to limit the authority of AI agents to carry out autonomous agendas not actually requested by human beings, as suggested in the YouTube video I saw: https://youtu.be/OMb5oTlC_q0?si=rcByDXfyj33UsTTe? Can this growing danger be regulated and constrained?
ClosedNicola asked 3 months ago • 
95 views0 answers0 votes
123…37Next »
Ask Question