Dear James, anonymity may not be important to presenting these ideas in general, but I prefer to stay pseudonymous in this case.
On 22.3.2023 at 4:16 PM, "James Foster via Pharo-users" <pharo-users@lists.pharo.org> wrote: > >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. ...
