Are you willing to sign your name to this? Is anonymity important to presenting these ideas?
James Foster > On Mar 22, 2023, at 5:34 AM, in_pharo_users--- via Pharo-users > <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> wrote: > > Offray, and to all others, > > you are missing the issue. > > The problem we face is not to measure 'intelligence' of a system, but it's > ability to verbally act indistinguishable from a human. > > This ability is allready given as chatbots are accepted by millions of users, > f.i. as user interfaces. (measurement = 'true', right?) > > ChatGPT has the ability to follow a certain intention, f.i. to convince the > user to buy a certain product. For this purpose, chat bots are getting now > equipped with life like portrait pictures, speech input and output systems > with life like voices, phone numbers that they can use to make calls or being > called. They are fed with all available data on the user, and we know that > ALL information about every single internet user in available and is being > consolidared on necessity. The chat bots are able to use this information to > guide their conversational strategy, as the useful aspects of the users > mindset are extracted from his internet activity. > > These chat bots are now operated on social network platforms with life like > names, 'pretending' to be human. > > These bots act verbally indistinguishable from humans for most social media > users, as the most advanced psychotronic technology to manufacture consent. > > The first goal of such a propaganda will naturally be to manufacture consent > about humans accepting being manipulated by AI chat bots, right? > > How can this be achieved? > > Like allways in propaganda, the first attempt is to > - suppress awareness of the propaganda, then > - suppress the awareness of the problematic aspects of the propaganda > content, then > - reframe the propaganda content as acceptable, then as something to wish for, > - achive collaboration of the propaganda victim with the goals of the > propaganda content. > > Interestingly, this is exactly the schema that your post follows, Offray. > > This often takes the form of domain framing, like we see in our conversation: > the problem is shifted to the realm of academics - here informatics/computer > sciences - and thus delegated to experts exclusively. We saw this in the > 9/11 aftermath coverup. > > Then, Offray, you established yourself as an expert in color, discussing > aspects that have allready been introduced by others and including the groups > main focus 'Smalltalk', thus manufacturing consent and establishing yourself > as a reliable 'expert', and in reverse trying to hit at me, whom you have > identified as an adversary. > > Then you offered a solution in color to the problem at hand with 'traceable > AI' and thus tried to open the possibility of collaboration with AI > proponents for the once critical reader. > > I do not state, Offray, that you are knowingly an agent to promote the NWO AI > program. I think you just 'learned' / have been programmed to be a > successful academic software developer, because to be successful in > academics, it is neccessary to learn to argue just like that since the > downfall of academic science in the tradition of, let's say, Humboldt. So, I > grant that you may be a victim of propaganda yourself, instead of being a > secret service sposored agent. You took quite some time to formulate your > post, though. > > You acted to contain the discussion about AI in this vital and important > informatics community to technical detail, when it is neccessary that > academics and community members look beyond the narrow borders of their > certifications and shift their thinking to the point of view where they can > see what technology does in the real world. > > > > > > On 21.3.2023 at 7:21 PM, "Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas" > <offray.l...@mutabit.com> wrote: >> >> I agree with Richard. The Turing test is not a good one to test >> intelligence and we have now just over glorified Eliza chatbots >> that >> appear to think and to understand but do none of them. ...
