DWQA Questions › Tag: sociopathsFilter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnansweredSort byViewsAnswersVotesThere is a good joke that’s been around for a while, but it’s especially pertinent when it comes to evaluating AI: “It must be true, I read it on the Internet.” Everyone knows this means it’s more likely not to be true. But when it comes to AI, almost everything it “knows” comes from the Internet. And because it tends to weigh true and false by frequency of encounter, the more AI encounters the same images, assertions, statements, treatments, opinions, etc., the more statistically weighted it will be. The term, “There’s safety in numbers,” comes to mind in that the idea is, the more frequently something is encountered, the more genuine it probably is. This becomes AI’s “default assumption” about the material it is trained with. It can only utilize, evaluate, and regurgitate the material it is trained with. This turned out to be quite a problem early on because the sheer amount of racist, violent, and derogatory material on the Internet was not fully appreciated until AI started digesting it. It became necessary to employ untold thousands of low-paid (on the order of two dollars a day) “content evaluators,” mostly in third-world countries, to filter out gore, hate speech, child sexual abuse material, and pornographic images. If AI read it on the Internet, it must be true? What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • Problems in Society231 views0 answers0 votesThe authors of The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want wrote: “With LLMs (large language models), the situation is even worse than garbage in/garbage out – they will make paper-mache out of their training data, mushing it up and remixing it into new forms that don’t preserve the communicative intent of original data. Paper-mache made out of good data is still paper-mache.” They also write: “This is why we like to call language models (like popular chatbots) ‘synthetic text extruding machines.'” They also write: “In the case of language modeling, the correct answer of which word came next is just whatever word happened to come next in the training corpus. … So if (popular chatbots) are nothing more than souped-up autocomplete, why are so many people convinced that it’s actually ‘understanding’ and ‘reasoning?'” Why indeed? What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • Problems in Society143 views0 answers0 votesPropaganda has always been a huge problem, but may be an even bigger issue for AI. China and the Chinese Communist Party spend more money and effort, and engage more of its citizens to spread blatantly false propaganda, than perhaps the rest of the world combined. To such an extent that it felt the need to create its very own global social media platform, TikTok. The Trump administration has even proposed banning TikTok altogether because of the nefarious role the platform plays in both gathering intelligence and spreading propaganda. Some of the lies people are starting to believe about China, that it has no crime, that its infrastructure is some of the most advanced and safest in the world, that there are no homeless people in China, that everyone there has a meaningful and lucrative job, that they are the healthiest and happiest people on the planet, and on and on. When, in fact, the exact opposite is more often than not the case. And for every good lie they tell about themselves, they tell an equally bad one about America and Europe. The problem is, they are so prolific and extreme with this propaganda that the Chinese people themselves believe none of it (about themselves, anyway), and Americans and Europeans (especially young ones) are beginning to believe all of it. With AI having no way to filter this for truth or falsity other than volume, there appears to be a genuine danger of AI itself presenting this propaganda as gospel truth, that China is great and America and Europe are evil. What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • Problems in Society253 views0 answers0 votesThe authors of AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can’t, and How to Tell the Difference, suggest that the track record of AI used for predicting social outcomes is so abysmally bad that it may actually amount to fraud. They write: “In short, some existing limits to predictability could be overcome with more and better data, while others seem intrinsic (built in and unfixable). In some cases, such as cultural products (like resume scanning AI, or AI used to decide who gets social benefits), we don’t expect predictability to get much better at all. In others, such as predicting individuals’ life outcomes, there could be some improvements but not drastic changes. Unfortunately, this hasn’t stopped companies from selling AI for making consequential decisions about people by predicting their future. So it is important to resist AI snake oil that’s already in wide use today rather than passively hope that predictive AI technology will get better.” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • Problems in Society154 views0 answers0 votesThe authors of both books [The AI Con: How to Fight Big Tech’s Hype and Create the Future We Want and AI Snake Oil: What Artificial Intelligence Can Do, What It Can’t, and How to Tell the Difference] were not the least bit concerned that AI presented an immediate or near-term existential threat to humanity in any way, shape, or form, despite copious media hype to the contrary. All the authors, on the other hand, were VERY concerned about the misuse of AI to reduce our freedom and agency to choose for ourselves, to retain the rights to our creative outputs, and even to have recourse when AI decides wrongly (which they assert it is guaranteed to do). Can Creator tell us how Empowered Prayer, the Lightworker Healing Protocol, Deep Subconscious Mind Reset, and Divine Life Support are the best ways to combat the danger and encroachment of AI in our lives?ClosedNicola asked 6 months ago • Problems in Society154 views0 answers0 votesA viewer asks: “Before the human genome was degraded by the Anunnaki, it is said that the divine human could converse with Creator via a type of natural duplex communication system. As a result, was belief in the Almighty made easier for the Divine Human? Was faith still necessary for an understanding of Creator’s existence? If not, then what can be said for the notion that Creator didn’t lead, and was the Free Will Paradigm, from a human perspective, different in any way when compared to the present?” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • Extraterrestrial Genetic Manipulations265 views0 answers0 votesA news report states: “Nearly a dozen violent assailants equipped with tactical gear and weapons attacked U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas, on July 4, shooting a local law enforcement officer in the process.” Is this just a spontaneous choice of those assailants coming together because of shared political beliefs, or is there a deeper influence involved behind the growing attacks on this branch of law enforcement?ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • Problems in Society142 views0 answers0 votesA practitioner asks: “Is Artificial Intelligence (AI) fully an ET creation? Or did some form of ancient AI exist before the creation of physical ETs and affect them somehow? Is there any other origin of AI from another timeline, dimension, or reality affecting ETs that is also affecting humanity? How important will Organic Intelligence from nature and humanity and the divine be in coming times with Artificial Intelligence on the rise (before Ascension perhaps)?” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 7 months ago • Extraterrestrial Mind Control288 views0 answers0 votesThe recently deceased Stanford Emeritus Professor Dr. Philip Zimbardo wrote the book, The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil. Dr. Zimbardo is famous for his 1971 “Stanford Prison Experiment” that he was compelled to abruptly terminate as it quickly got out of hand and turned into a dangerously oppressive and health-threatening situation for the experiments’ participants after only a week. In the experiment, the prison guards became overwhelmingly sadistically abusive and cruel, and the prisoners became shockingly powerless and submissive to the point of losing their objectivity and grip on reality and actually believing they were real prisoners and not just participants in an “experiment.” The findings of this experiment were deeply disturbing and shocking on many levels. Zimbardo wrote, “One of the dominant conclusions of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that the pervasive yet subtle power of a host of situational variables can dominate an individual’s will to resist.” He continued, “We see how a range of research participants … have come to conform, comply, obey, and be readily seduced into doing things they could not imagine doing when outside those situational force fields.” Can Creator tell us how this MOCK prison with randomly chosen guards and prisoners almost immediately took on the atmosphere and oppressiveness of some of the world’s worst prisons and concentration camps? Zimbardo wrote, “We were surprised that situational pressures could overcome most of these healthy young men so quickly and so extremely.” Is this widespread and disturbing proclivity, to quickly slip into either extreme perpetrator or extreme victim roles, an inherent flaw in the human makeup? What can Creator tell us?ClosedNicola asked 9 months ago • Problems in Society384 views0 answers0 votesZimbardo wrote about the Rwandan genocide. The Holocaust Museum website gives this summary: “Under the cover of war, Hutu extremists launched their plans to destroy the entire Tutsi civilian population. Violence spread with lightning speed through the capital and into the rest of the country, and continued for roughly three months. Between 500,000 and one million people, mostly Tutsis, were slaughtered in 100 days. Hutu militias, backed, trained and equipped by Rwandan government forces, were responsible for the majority of the killing.” Zimbardo wrote: “A Hutu murderer said in an interview a decade later that ‘The worst thing about the massacre was killing my neighbor; we used to drink together, his cattle would graze my land. He was like a relative.'” Zimbardo wrote further, “The testimonies of these ordinary men – mostly farmers, active churchgoers and a former teacher – are chilling in their matter-of-fact, remorseless depiction of unimaginable cruelty. Their words force us to confront the unthinkable again and again: that human beings are capable of totally abandoning their humanity for a mindless ideology, to follow and then exceed the orders of charismatic authorities to destroy everyone they label as ‘The Enemy.'” Can Creator help us make sense of this sense-less event in recent human history?ClosedNicola asked 9 months ago • Problems in Society341 views0 answers0 votesDr. Stanley Milgram contrived and carried out a famous experiment on Blind Obedience to Authority. Google’s AI provided this summary: “In the experiment, participants were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks to a learner (an actor) for incorrect answers. The study demonstrated that ordinary individuals are surprisingly willing to obey authority, even when those orders conflict with their own moral beliefs.” Zimbardo wrote: “In Milgram’s experiment, two of every three (65 percent) of the volunteers went all the way up to the maximum shock level of 450 volts. … The data clearly revealed the extreme pliability of human nature. Milgram was able to demonstrate that compliance rates could soar to over 90 percent of people continuing the 450-volt with the introduction of one crucial variable … Make the subject a member of a ‘teaching team,’ in which the job of pulling the lever is given to another person.” We want to think of the majority of humanity as good, but Milgram demonstrated rather conclusively that 9 out of 10 people can become, willingly, a party to unthinkable cruelty. Even to an authority that has no means to actually compel them. Can Creator tell us, how can this possibly be?ClosedNicola asked 9 months ago • Problems in Society223 views0 answers0 votesZimbardo characterized the Milgram Studies as “Creating Evil Traps for Good People.” Zimbardo extracted ten methods for this: 1. Create a contractual obligation. 2. Give a positive role or title like “teacher.” 3. Present basic rules that “must” be followed – even if vague. 4. Spin the agenda as “positive” – bad-tasting mouthwash “kills germs.” 5. Insist the authority is fully responsible for everything that happens. 6. Start with small acts of evil and work up from there. 7. Keep the amplification of evil so gradual as to hardly be noticeable. 8. Gradually change the nature of the authority from “just” to “unjust” and demanding and even irrational. 9. Make the exit costs high while allowing verbal dissent. And 10. Offer a “big lie” to justify everything. This is clearly a diabolically effective “stacked deck” that Milgram demonstrated works 90% of the time. What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 9 months ago • Problems in Society299 views0 answers0 votesZimbardo wrote, “This potential for authority figures to exercise power over subordinates can have disastrous consequences in many domains of life. … Such authority can lead to flight errors when the crew feels forced to accept the “authority’s definition of the situation, even when the authority is wrong.” An investigation of thirty-seven serious plane accidents where there was sufficient data from voice recorders revealed that in 81 percent of these cases, the first officer did not properly monitor or challenge the captain when he made errors. … We may conclude that excessive obedience may cause as many as 25% of all airplane accidents.” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 9 months ago • Problems in Society233 views0 answers0 votesZimbardo wrote about “the strip search scam.” A con man calls an assistant manager at a fast-food restaurant and claims he is a police officer calling about a theft by an attractive new employee. The caller gives the option of the accused coming to the station or being “strip searched” by a fellow employee. Gradually, more and more degenerate instructions are given until overt sexual acts between employees take place. These sexual activities continue for several hours while they wait for the police to arrive which, of course, never happens. This scam has been carried out successfully in 68 similar fast-food settings in 32 states. This bizarre authority influence in absentia seduces many people. In the end, store personnel are fired, some are charged with crimes, the store is sued, and the victims are seriously distressed. The perpetrator, a former corrections officer, was finally caught and convicted. Zimbardo wrote, “So let us not underestimate the power of ‘authority’ to generate obedience to an extent and of a kind that is hard to fathom.” An assistant manager interviewed by Zimbardo said, “You look back on it, and you say, ‘I wouldn’t a done it.’ But unless you’re put in that situation, at that time, how do you know what you would do? You don’t.” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 9 months ago • Problems in Society222 views0 answers0 votesZimbardo wrote about an Iowa elementary school teacher who wanted to teach her third-grade class about “brotherhood” and “tolerance.” She began her “lesson” by informing her students that people with blue eyes were superior to those with brown eyes. The previously “friendly blue-eyed kids” refused to play with the “bad brown-eyed kids,” and the blue-eyed kids suggested that school officials should be notified that the brown-eyed kids might steal things. Soon fist-fights erupted during recess. The next day she switched and told the class she was wrong, it was really the brown-eyed kids who were superior. Old friendship patterns between children dissolved and were replaced by hostility until the experimental project was ended. The teacher was amazed at the swift and total transformation of so many of her students whom she thought she knew so well. The teacher said, “What had been marvelously cooperative, thoughtful children became nasty, vicious, discriminating little third-graders … it was ghastly!” What is Creator’s perspective?ClosedNicola asked 9 months ago • Problems in Society290 views0 answers0 votes
Nicola