First of all I like to say. Ai is a nefarious term, as it implies “intelligence” from a machine.
One.
There is no such a thing as an intelligent machine. The only form of intelligence is the one provided by a free mind, everything else cannot be considered intelligent as in both cases, mind or machine, thinking or computing, will always be limited by its indoctrination or programming.
To assume a machine to be intelligent because it can trash anyone in a game of chess, is akin to subdue oneself to the machine.
Two A machine programed and maintained by someone with nefarious intent, “see the psychopath eugenists which call themselves “philanthropists”, is one which can only serve its programmers and master in its eugenist plan.
3 every machine can be hacked, there is no safety in the digital world and, there will never be one which can be considered safe.
4, even super computers have glitches, so relaying on one for something as important as dealing with human emotion which a machine can never feel and understand, is akin of putting a child in the care of a toaster. “Or worst”
Using this type of technology for non nefarious means, it would imply first a change of name for it, for instance D.A. as in “digital assistance”.
Children should never be exploited and controlled or manipulated by machines, and they must be thought that it is they, who must develop their intelligence and skills, and not believing in the one of machines as the ultimate one.
I hope this feed back is going to be helpful to understand what people which think outside of the box think about this scam which the castrated minds of technocrats and eugenists would like the world to bow too.
Thank you so much for this helpful article. I imagine you are well aware of Vanessa Andreotti's work with "training" a ChatGPT in a relational world view. I have had several interactions with ACT that have been quite fruitful. I've also recently learned of Nipun Mehta and his work with ServiceSpace GPT, though I've not had a chance to explore it yet.
Also, THANK YOU for your reminders, that we DO have agency, in different ways....
And, re the question of "how to change a system that is not likely to get regulated?" it was very inspiring for me to learn about the work of the Internet Engineering Task Force through Kaliya Young and Day Waterbury https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUNhWqMbNAk. Apparently this highly-functioning group has no "official" mandate and what it creates are NOT "regulations" yet they are widely adopted anyway... maybe there is something of use there, for you?
Last but not least, given that democratic innovations in public participation is an area very close to my heart, am super glad to hear you are working on public engagement on the subject of AI and human relationships!
Here some feed back.
First of all I like to say. Ai is a nefarious term, as it implies “intelligence” from a machine.
One.
There is no such a thing as an intelligent machine. The only form of intelligence is the one provided by a free mind, everything else cannot be considered intelligent as in both cases, mind or machine, thinking or computing, will always be limited by its indoctrination or programming.
To assume a machine to be intelligent because it can trash anyone in a game of chess, is akin to subdue oneself to the machine.
Two A machine programed and maintained by someone with nefarious intent, “see the psychopath eugenists which call themselves “philanthropists”, is one which can only serve its programmers and master in its eugenist plan.
3 every machine can be hacked, there is no safety in the digital world and, there will never be one which can be considered safe.
4, even super computers have glitches, so relaying on one for something as important as dealing with human emotion which a machine can never feel and understand, is akin of putting a child in the care of a toaster. “Or worst”
Using this type of technology for non nefarious means, it would imply first a change of name for it, for instance D.A. as in “digital assistance”.
Children should never be exploited and controlled or manipulated by machines, and they must be thought that it is they, who must develop their intelligence and skills, and not believing in the one of machines as the ultimate one.
I hope this feed back is going to be helpful to understand what people which think outside of the box think about this scam which the castrated minds of technocrats and eugenists would like the world to bow too.
Thank you so much for this helpful article. I imagine you are well aware of Vanessa Andreotti's work with "training" a ChatGPT in a relational world view. I have had several interactions with ACT that have been quite fruitful. I've also recently learned of Nipun Mehta and his work with ServiceSpace GPT, though I've not had a chance to explore it yet.
Also, THANK YOU for your reminders, that we DO have agency, in different ways....
And, re the question of "how to change a system that is not likely to get regulated?" it was very inspiring for me to learn about the work of the Internet Engineering Task Force through Kaliya Young and Day Waterbury https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUNhWqMbNAk. Apparently this highly-functioning group has no "official" mandate and what it creates are NOT "regulations" yet they are widely adopted anyway... maybe there is something of use there, for you?
Last but not least, given that democratic innovations in public participation is an area very close to my heart, am super glad to hear you are working on public engagement on the subject of AI and human relationships!