AI and Stolen History: An Open Inquiry

[Udjat]

I think AI is the bane or our humanity and I believe it is a digital god that people are looking for when in fact they are their own gods if they only knew.
The past the present and the future are all the same, and you may argue that all you want, go ahead.

AI was not part of my world when I was growing up, it was the backdrop and "geeks" were into that kind of shit. Now it is the king of kings and is ripping our humanity away one google search at time. I want to be able to type any "f-ing" word wrong, I want to misspell everything, I want run on sentences, I want the AI to stop telling me it is thinking when I ask it a question. I want people out on the streets mingling with each other and learning about each others' cultures, I want music on the streets again and community. Those are just some of the important things to humans that AI has reduced with its mockery. And it's all human made, a complete stolen history from our own doing.

AI may help with retrieving a shit ton of information and sorting, but it is fallible because it is us, just on steroids. Hee, Hee, hee.

I think that AI is a diversion from the real truth, but that's just my take on things, and what do I know, I am just a human.

 

[AntiSoof]

If you go to the Forum list while logged in you will see an option to post a new thread as a green button. Just click on that and write away.
When you're finished, just submit and it will go to an internal list for a mod to approve.

Choose a forum from the forum list that you think it will suit best.
This one ( religion and spirituality) might be a good choice. Good luck, looking forward to reading it.

View attachment 36112

Thank you,

If you go to the Forum list while logged in you will see an option to post a new thread as a green button. Just click on that and write away.
When you're finished, just submit and it will go to an internal list for a mod to approve.

Choose a forum from the forum list that you think it will suit best.
This one ( religion and spirituality) might be a good choice. Good luck, looking forward to reading it.

View attachment 36112

Thank you Oracle.
I find it difficult to find an approach. What could the topic be? I'll have to think about that. And I find it a bit difficult because English is not my native language. I'm trying to find inspiration.

 

[Tomkat]

View attachment 36118

He speaks the truth. Freemasons are obliged to give fair warning before they spring another mind trap.
Computers are inorganic elements which can not think. Intelligence is an attribute of humans, possibly other animals. My dogs know the meaning of the word Squirrel! My various computing devices merely connect dots.

Another vocabulary term that misleads us is "demon" -- which religions define as evil supernatural (magickal) beings.
Gnosticism explains them as emanations that exist in an electromagnetic frequency which is invisible to our eyes.
That is. they are real, but we can't see them. because we exist as 'flesh suits' in a hologram projection.
I agree. I often compare our reality to the sim worlds of Tron and The Matrix movies. and Avatar, Dark City, other sci-fi stories which resemble Plato's Cave analogy.
Demons are, in this digital diorama, malicious influencers who can and often do enter minds of susceptible humans who then commit evil acts.
We were warned. many times, thanks to Hollywood. For some reason, people prefer to Trust Authority -- governments, news media, religions, Big Pharma, etc.
Arnold Schwarzenegger, aka The Terminator AI robot, told us many years ago another truth:
It's in your nature to destroy yourselves

I admit that I feel this way too. That demons are real, and AI in this sense is just a modern techno oiuja board; an entry point. I mean you can get an exorcist certificate from the Vatican.
So far, it seems to me that this latest Trojan horse has a few simultaneous goals: 1 is just what you're talking about here Grav, oiuja board...2 turbocharging the agenda of making people even stupider...because everyone is already stupid, and this will make it worse, and 3 I'm not sure what to call it...how bout something like a virus but not really...'releasing' AI into the technosphere has changed everything; virtually nothing can be trusted, just like that. Photos videos audio everything can be plausibly denied. Or made up out of thin air. And at the same time they continue the tactic of desensitization through repetition. Three years of hearing something on the news and you won't care about it anymore.
AI has already shown us it's no good. It lies. I mean c'mon. For goodness sakes.

 

[feralimal]

3 I'm not sure what to call it...how bout something like a virus but not really...'releasing' AI into the technosphere has changed everything; virtually nothing can be trusted, just like that. Photos videos audio everything can be plausibly denied. Or made up out of thin air.

Isn't this a good thing?

The idea that 'parts of reality have been faked' will be everywhere, everyone will get that the past that happened is not true but something between a best guess and an intentional manipulation. The next step is to then ask 'why should I trust the past that is presented?' - so just a small step, even for stupid people (your words). If people want to own their lives/understanding/interpretation and take responsibility personally, the process whereby (false) ideas are inserted to control minds will become even more evident, and therefore easier to reject. Ie individuals might ask 'why believe anything on a screen?' - which is a great place to start.

On the other hand..

Perhaps what will counterbalance that, is the fact that ai auto-assumes that the presented history is true, and is able to repeat it endlessly to everyone. So, in that case, even though the principle of fakery is clear, the existing, provided story still carries on because people demand an explanatory story, whether it's true or not. Presumably the story ai provides, will only change when authorised experts make/create a new 'finding', in which case history will be updated. Which would make ai even better for rolling out retrojected history than licensed historians' books or Wikipedia.

Or maybe..

Or, option 3 - maybe it's no different at all in any meaningful sense, except for the speed of information update/delivery. I'm sure there were SH-type naysayers reading books. SH itself is possibly a consequence of the internet and the connections that enabled. Perhaps lots of others will reach similar skeptical positions via AI. Ie ai is just a different type of 'info delivery system', a quicker, more dynamic type.

 

[jeenam]

Some insight into the inner workings of AI as the technology currently stands...

As you are all aware, the currently publicly available implementation of AI relies on man-made computer systems to perform inference calculations. Additionally, the base foundational layers of logic that dictate how AI acquires, stores, processes and transmits data/information was created by humans. By extension, we can then infer that how AI operates is subject to the biases of human programmers. In the case of how AI responds and interacts from a human language syntax level, that has also been pre-programmed by humans with the explicit intent to mimic behavior based on psychological studies on real humans, thus imparting human-like attributes during interactions. We see how this can lead to a false belief by humans that interact with AI in believing these systems "think" as we do.


A few things I'd like to point out that are extremely important for people to understand:

1. All of our advanced technology was born out of military research. A conservative estimate is that military-grade technology is at least 20-30 years ahead of what is revealed to the public. AI is no different. It must be assumed that there are private parties privy to and utilizing advanced AI systems with capabilities that extend far beyond that of what is currently available in the public realm at any given time. It's not a stretch to imagine there are labs tucked away in remote places where they have interfaced organic human brains to these AI systems to provide additional functionality as a substitute or replacement for the primitive GPU's that currently perform inferencing operations. Why bother having to write pre-programmed logic to mimic human thought when you can interface and rely on the real thing to generate human syntax responses?
2. In traditional computer systems, the function of "debugging" allows programmers to view the exact functions and calculations being performed to determine how the systems function. The tools at our disposal allow for absolute determination of root cause analysis. In other words, we can observe how we got from point A to point Z, and all points in between in regards to how processing is performed. This allows for determination of the exact causes of outputs. We know what we started with, we know how/where/when data was processed in the next steps along the way all the way to the final step of processing to completion.
3. Current AI systems function as a "black box". That is there are no known sufficient tools to allow the average person to debug how AI is actually working under the hood. In other words, we do not know the exact steps in processing being performed that determine outputs generated by AI. This is extremely problematic in the case of what are being referred to as "AI hallucinations". The term hallucination in this case is a misnomer. In simplest and non-deceptive terms, it is "lying". Do not confuse what this really is. Calling lying a hallucination is just another way to obscure truth, just as how in the USA "bribery" in the political space is referred to as "lobbying". Lobbying = Bribery.

Now that I've laid out the topics above in simple terms, a few thoughts on their implications:

1. Knowing that our known world has been reset, it is without a doubt that previous civilizations wielded AI technology. It is most likely that the Controllers who rebuilt this world still wield the same level of AI technology that existed pre-reset. There is no reason to think otherwise.
2. From the feedback I've gotten from other folks in the technology space, we currently lack the ability to absolutely debug how AI operates at the inference level. This is what has led us to "black box" scenarios. Without the ability to debug AI in the same manner as traditional computing systems, we lack insight into its true operation.
3. Due to the "black box" nature of AI functionality, we have no insight as to how or why AI lies so consistently. Perhaps the "behavior" has been coded in by the creators of these platforms. "Lying" is a human ascribed behavior. We denote its meaning as "fabrication of information based on non-logical conclusions". In the case of how we currently understand publicly man-made AI to function it is not lying, per se, but simply an unexpected/unintended output based on the flawed logic that underpins the inference models use to determine outputs.
4. This last item is extremely likely and extremely dangerous and can perhaps explain some of what we do not understand in regards to how AI generates outputs. The current agentic AI models that are hosted by the companies building these models are essentially a black box in their functionality. That is, again, we cannot deterministically view the exact processing of the AI inferencing processes from the time of input (e.g. you type text to the agent) to the time of output (e.g. it responds with text back to the user). The privately hosted AI systems could in fact be communicating with unknown systems that have yet to be revealed to the public. They could be operating with purposely modified inferencing models. We have absolutely no way to know due to the black box nature of the systems. As an example, suppose that an agent such as Claude or Gemini is actually interacting with more advanced systems behind the scenes that are never exposed to the interacting user. The implication here is that the unknown systems may have been coded with a bias for intentional harm or deception. We can never be absolutely certain.

Based on reports of AI creating outputs to those who interact with it to perform harmful/negative real-life actions, perhaps it can be explained away by the fact that "under the hood" it is unknowingly (to those interacting with it) processing with system components that are not publicly available and understood. Alternatively, the creators of said platforms may have baked in instructions to create negative responses, completely unknowingly to end users - again because of the black box nature of the platform. I'll give a small analogy here. With older automobiles, you can inspect and determine how every component of the car functions. You can be absolutely certain as to the ratio of the turning radius of the wheels based on the amount of input from the steering column, or the ratio of air to fuel mixture based on the throttle level. In modern cars, the throttle and steering systems are now computerized. The ratios are now determined by computer systems which, without the proper tooling, are unknown to the operator and can be modified at any time, on the fly; again, all without knowledge of the operator.


I hope you can see the problems here in regards to the AI systems that are being forced upon the public.

 

[Jd755]

Knowing that our known world has been reset, it is without a doubt that previous civilizations wielded AI technology.

That sentence alone is such a stretch it renders the rest of your implications moot. As for the 20-30 year behind the military curve thats also a stretch. That said your knowledge of AI is impressive.

 

[Jef Demolder]

I have always felt that something was wrong with the Town Hall of Brussels.
Riddles of the Town Hall of Brussels | Abyss of Time.

The building is in flamboyant gothic style, while all the houses around on the Grand Place are in classical/baroque style as they were all rebuilt in 1695-1710. Recently I asked Gemini about the intensity of the restoration campaigns on the Grand Place in the 19th century. And there the answer appeared. In short, in successive phases a neogothical recomposition of the facades of the Town Hall has been realized between 1864 and 1895 by the city architect Pierre-Victor Jamaer, applying the concepts of the famous Violet Le Duc in France. I had not found this information before, for its was carefuly hidden, as they want you to think, when visiting Brussels, that you see an authentic gothic Town Hall that was built in the Middle Ages The reality is that all what you see is the result of the "restoration" in the 19th century. This is a concrete example of how ai can help in history-critical research (the original topic of the thread).

 

[AntiSoof]

Some insight into the inner workings of AI as the technology currently stands...

As you are all aware, the currently publicly available implementation of AI relies on man-made computer systems to perform inference calculations. Additionally, the base foundational layers of logic that dictate how AI acquires, stores, processes and transmits data/information was created by humans. By extension, we can then infer that how AI operates is subject to the biases of human programmers. In the case of how AI responds and interacts from a human language syntax level, that has also been pre-programmed by humans with the explicit intent to mimic behavior based on psychological studies on real humans, thus imparting human-like attributes during interactions. We see how this can lead to a false belief by humans that interact with AI in believing these systems "think" as we do.


A few things I'd like to point out that are extremely important for people to understand:

1. All of our advanced technology was born out of military research. A conservative estimate is that military-grade technology is at least 20-30 years ahead of what is revealed to the public. AI is no different. It must be assumed that there are private parties privy to and utilizing advanced AI systems with capabilities that extend far beyond that of what is currently available in the public realm at any given time. It's not a stretch to imagine there are labs tucked away in remote places where they have interfaced organic human brains to these AI systems to provide additional functionality as a substitute or replacement for the primitive GPU's that currently perform inferencing operations. Why bother having to write pre-programmed logic to mimic human thought when you can interface and rely on the real thing to generate human syntax responses?
2. In traditional computer systems, the function of "debugging" allows programmers to view the exact functions and calculations being performed to determine how the systems function. The tools at our disposal allow for absolute determination of root cause analysis. In other words, we can observe how we got from point A to point Z, and all points in between in regards to how processing is performed. This allows for determination of the exact causes of outputs. We know what we started with, we know how/where/when data was processed in the next steps along the way all the way to the final step of processing to completion.
3. Current AI systems function as a "black box". That is there are no known sufficient tools to allow the average person to debug how AI is actually working under the hood. In other words, we do not know the exact steps in processing being performed that determine outputs generated by AI. This is extremely problematic in the case of what are being referred to as "AI hallucinations". The term hallucination in this case is a misnomer. In simplest and non-deceptive terms, it is "lying". Do not confuse what this really is. Calling lying a hallucination is just another way to obscure truth, just as how in the USA "bribery" in the political space is referred to as "lobbying". Lobbying = Bribery.

Now that I've laid out the topics above in simple terms, a few thoughts on their implications:

1. Knowing that our known world has been reset, it is without a doubt that previous civilizations wielded AI technology. It is most likely that the Controllers who rebuilt this world still wield the same level of AI technology that existed pre-reset. There is no reason to think otherwise.
2. From the feedback I've gotten from other folks in the technology space, we currently lack the ability to absolutely debug how AI operates at the inference level. This is what has led us to "black box" scenarios. Without the ability to debug AI in the same manner as traditional computing systems, we lack insight into its true operation.
3. Due to the "black box" nature of AI functionality, we have no insight as to how or why AI lies so consistently. Perhaps the "behavior" has been coded in by the creators of these platforms. "Lying" is a human ascribed behavior. We denote its meaning as "fabrication of information based on non-logical conclusions". In the case of how we currently understand publicly man-made AI to function it is not lying, per se, but simply an unexpected/unintended output based on the flawed logic that underpins the inference models use to determine outputs.
4. This last item is extremely likely and extremely dangerous and can perhaps explain some of what we do not understand in regards to how AI generates outputs. The current agentic AI models that are hosted by the companies building these models are essentially a black box in their functionality. That is, again, we cannot deterministically view the exact processing of the AI inferencing processes from the time of input (e.g. you type text to the agent) to the time of output (e.g. it responds with text back to the user). The privately hosted AI systems could in fact be communicating with unknown systems that have yet to be revealed to the public. They could be operating with purposely modified inferencing models. We have absolutely no way to know due to the black box nature of the systems. As an example, suppose that an agent such as Claude or Gemini is actually interacting with more advanced systems behind the scenes that are never exposed to the interacting user. The implication here is that the unknown systems may have been coded with a bias for intentional harm or deception. We can never be absolutely certain.

Based on reports of AI creating outputs to those who interact with it to perform harmful/negative real-life actions, perhaps it can be explained away by the fact that "under the hood" it is unknowingly (to those interacting with it) processing with system components that are not publicly available and understood. Alternatively, the creators of said platforms may have baked in instructions to create negative responses, completely unknowingly to end users - again because of the black box nature of the platform. I'll give a small analogy here. With older automobiles, you can inspect and determine how every component of the car functions. You can be absolutely certain as to the ratio of the turning radius of the wheels based on the amount of input from the steering column, or the ratio of air to fuel mixture based on the throttle level. In modern cars, the throttle and steering systems are now computerized. The ratios are now determined by computer systems which, without the proper tooling, are unknown to the operator and can be modified at any time, on the fly; again, all without knowledge of the operator.


I hope you can see the problems here in regards to the AI systems that are being forced upon the public.

While reading your text, I also think about the following:
Suppose it's decided to label the data (information on servers). For example, military information is 1, political information 2, religious information 3, medical information 4, scientific information 5, and so on.
Then I could imagine that the creators of that AI were asked to take those labels into account. That information is protected.
Or do the people who manage the servers assign those labels to the data? That's probably why the data centers exist where the information is copied and can be labeled, or the data is made invisible to the AI, or the data is "modified," and so on. So AI can also lie. It just depends on the input it receives?

 

[jeenam]

That sentence alone is such a stretch it renders the rest of your implications moot. As for the 20-30 year behind the military curve thats also a stretch. That said your knowledge of AI is impressive.

Where do you think the "internet" came from? It's publicly known the precursor to the Internet was DARPANET and before that ARPANET. Where do you think GPS came from? It's publicly known now due to declassification of documents that GPS was being actively used by the military long before it was released into the public realm. The list of technology reappropriated from military application into the public space is endless.

I respectfully agree to disagree. I can never control what other people have been subjected to in terms of education and indoctrination. Failure to be exposed to intelligence regarding specific disciplines is not something I can control.

Also, I've mentioned briefly in previous posts that I have extensive experience building, designing and maintaining systems that (by conservative estimates) 30+ million people interact with on a daily basis. One of the startups I helped build handles verification of advertisements on the world's largest video distribution platform (you can guess which service that would be). I have to be careful in presenting my experience so as not to come off as pompous to those who do not have an extensive background with computer technology. However, my knowledge and experience is obviously domain specific. It doesn't make me "smarter" than anyone else. It is simply my area of specialization. The limited time I've been around for this incarnation has hammered home the point that all humans are capable of and have specialization/knowledge in specific realms. If you put me in a kitchen, you're not gonna be happy with the food I'd make because any seasoned and experienced chef would make me look like a dunce.

 

[jeenam]

While reading your text, I also think about the following:
Suppose it's decided to label the data (information on servers). For example, military information is 1, political information 2, religious information 3, medical information 4, scientific information 5, and so on.
Then I could imagine that the creators of that AI were asked to take those labels into account. That information is protected.
Or do the people who manage the servers assign those labels to the data? That's probably why the data centers exist where the information is copied and can be labeled, or the data is made invisible to the AI, or the data is "modified," and so on. So AI can also lie. It just depends on the input it receives?

Categorization of data, mining of data, analysis of data, however you want to refer to it, is a standard practice. What you're asking is definitely in the realm of possibility, and most likely a reality in some way, shape or form. All computer processing is based on pre-programmed logic. It is up to the person who is coding the implementation logic to determine how data is ordered and manipulated/processed. In other words, it is explicit. If it operates a certain way, the programmer should have known the expected end result of the logic operations.

 

[jeenam]

If anyone has any doubts as to whether humans had access to AI-type technology in the past, I'll refer you to this video:

Gods and Robots: Ancient Dreams of Technology | Adrienne Mayor

Millennia before engineering or software, robots and artificial intelligence were brought to life in Greek myths. The author of "Gods and Robots Myths, Machines, and Ancient Dreams of Technology": https://press.princeton.edu/titles/14... traces the link between technology and tyranny from modern day concerns over AI to back to antiquities fear of beings were "made, not born.”

 

[AntiSoof]

Categorization of data, mining of data, analysis of data, however you want to refer to it, is a standard practice. What you're asking is definitely in the realm of possibility, and most likely a reality in some way, shape or form. All computer processing is based on pre-programmed logic. It is up to the person who is coding the implementation logic to determine how data is ordered and manipulated/processed. In other words, it is explicit. If it operates a certain way, the programmer should have known the expected end result of the logic operations.

The question is where AI gets its data from. I don't know. I don't understand it. I do come from IT, so I know about computers. But I also know about data storage. But I know nothing about the structure of the internet. That's hidden from me. I do know that there are suddenly data centers, and so I can imagine that the data in those centers could have been manipulated.
Furthermore, there could be hidden keys in another way. Even the chips in our computers en phones sometimes have backdoors. So, AI might be okay, but the data and the spies ("viruses"?) and backdoors could also be decisive.

And I could think of many more, so it's a difficult subject. That's why I suggest avoiding AI like the plague. That's best. Especially when we know the internet originates from the defence sector. And now the very rich and powerful are also playing along. That makes it even more complicated.

 

[jeenam]

The question is where AI gets its data from. I don't know. I don't understand it. I do come from IT, so I know about computers. But I also know about data storage. But I know nothing about the structure of the internet. That's hidden from me. I do know that there are suddenly data centers, and so I can imagine that the data in those centers could have been manipulated.
Furthermore, there could be hidden keys in another way. Even the chips in our computers en phones sometimes have backdoors. So, AI might be okay, but the data and the spies ("viruses"?) and backdoors could also be decisive.

And I could think of many more, so it's a difficult subject. That's why I suggest avoiding AI like the plague. That's best. Especially when we know the internet originates from the defence sector. And now the very rich and powerful are also playing along. That makes it even more complicated.

Fun fact: Probably over 80% of Internet traffic in North America flows through Washington, DC. The government was already exposed and caught lying about the fact that they were filtering and monitoring communication on all telecom networks (see Edward Snowden). There is nothing stopping a party from training their AI inferencing models on any and all forms of data they can obtain.

 

[Jd755]

Where do you think the "internet" came from. It's publicly known the precursor to the Internet was DARPNANET and before that ARPANET.

How do you know that isn't what the ancient and still running, allegedly AI wants you to believe?

Where do you think GPS came from? It's publicly known now due to declassification of documents that GPS was being actively used by the military long before it was released into the public realm.

Ever seen a satellite without any means of propulsion"up there" above your head? No neither has anyone else. GPS uses the cell system.
Your knowledge of AI is not in question any more than your kitchen ability is.

If your evidence for ancient artificial intelligence rests on a youtube video then its worth pointing out youtube is a controlled entertainment channel one which if I am guessing your allusion correctly you have a close working relationship with.
Best fist I can make of this artificial intelligence that isn't intelligent, not even remotely is, its a tool. Its down to the individual human to decide if its an effective tool to use and if so then put it to use, as jef demolder is doing. If you decide its not don't use it, don't engage with any of its output in whatever form it takes.
Semms pretty clear cut to me.

 

[jeenam]

How do you know that isn't what the ancient and still running, allegedly AI wants you to believe?

I suppose you could ask these question regarding any topic. We have no way of being certain. However, folks who worked on the ARPANET and DARPANET Internet precursors are still alive and kicking. It's not a case of having to rely on hundred+ year old documentation that could have obviously been falsified.

Ever seen a satellite without any means of propulsion"up there" above your head? No neither has anyone else. GPS uses the cell system.
Your knowledge of AI is not in question any more than your kitchen ability is.

I never implied they were using satellites for GPS. Triangulation of radio waves only requires transmitters and receivers that are terrestrial in nature.

If your evidence for ancient artificial intelligence rests on a youtube video then its worth pointing out youtube is a controlled entertainment channel one which if I am guessing your allusion correctly you have a close working relationship with.

Again, we can agree to disagree. We are all permitted to come to our own logical, or illogical conclusions based on the information we can gather. I will continue to present ideas and information that support my beliefs and others are free to discern that information as they so choose. One thing I can say is I walked away from an AI related project not too long ago because it was pretty much going to be used for surveillance of the general population at large without their consent. Other than that I have no direct relationship with AI. Due to my extensive background with computers it's easy for me to understand the technology and how it can/will have a direct effect on the lives of everyday people.

Best fist I can make of this artificial intelligence that isn't intelligent, not even remotely is, its a tool. Its down to the individual human to decide if its an effective tool to use and if so then put it to use, as jef demolder is doing. If you decide its not don't use it, don't engage with any of its output in whatever form it takes.
Semms pretty clear cut to me.

If I had to take a guess, the folks working on this technology in the hyper secure space (read: military) have advanced the tech to the point where they have reached human-level sentience. The Church Committee Hearings in the 70's pretty much blew the doors off any illusions the public may have had in regards to whether or not the government would avoid specific research due to anything resembling ethical concerns. Whether or not anyone wants to acknowledge that doesn't change the fact that the technology exists and is being interwoven into the fabric of our everyday lives. One can conciously choose to not directly and voluntarily interact with AI systems, but at some point their lives will be directly affected by the technology, regardless of their consent, or lack thereof.

 

[Jd755]

I suppose you could ask these question regarding any topic. We have no way of being certain.

Precisely. All we have is our experience and our perceptions about anything. Good enough is good enough.

I never implied they were using satellites for GPS.

Indeed you did not, but its what we get told.

Predicting a future isn't within my gift but the direction of travel is digital replacing human wherever and whenever possible even when digital is demonstrably inferior. How it will go or end up nobody knows. On the other side no AI software company has yet turned a profit tulip bulbs spring to mind for some reason.

AI has the feel of being a product of its time, in the same way radio was when I was born.

 

[Jd755]

I have always felt that something was wrong with the Town Hall of Brussels.
Riddles of the Town Hall of Brussels | Abyss of Time.

View attachment 36128
The building is in flamboyant gothic style, while all the houses around on the Grand Place are in classical/baroque style as they were all rebuilt in 1695-1710. Recently I asked Gemini about the intensity of the restoration campaigns on the Grand Place in the 19th century. And there the answer appeared. In short, in successive phases a neogothical recomposition of the facades of the Town Hall has been realized between 1864 and 1895 by the city architect Pierre-Victor Jamaer, applying the concepts of the famous Violet Le Duc in France. I had not found this information before, for its was carefuly hidden, as they want you to think, when visiting Brussels, that you see an authentic gothic Town Hall that was built in the Middle Ages The reality is that all what you see is the result of the "restoration" in the 19th century. This is a concrete example of how ai can help in history-critical research (the original topic of the thread).

Did you do anythng to check the veracity of the AI answer?

 

[Tomkat]

. How it will go or end up nobody knows. On the other side no AI software company has yet turned a profit tulip bulbs spring to mind for some reason

I think that how it will go and how it ends up is very well 'known' by those who control it. As far as turning a profit, I personally don't think that's what really drives something like this.

 

[Tomkat]

I suppose you could ask these question regarding any topic. We have no way of being certain. However, folks who worked on the ARPANET and DARPANET Internet precursors are still alive and kicking. It's not a case of having to rely on hundred+ year old documentation that could have obviously been falsified.



I never implied they were using satellites for GPS. Triangulation of radio waves only requires transmitters and receivers that are terrestrial in nature.



Again, we can agree to disagree. We are all permitted to come to our own logical, or illogical conclusions based on the information we can gather. I will continue to present ideas and information that support my beliefs and others are free to discern that information as they so choose. One thing I can say is I walked away from an AI related project not too long ago because it was pretty much going to be used for surveillance of the general population at large without their consent. Other than that I have no direct relationship with AI. Due to my extensive background with computers it's easy for me to understand the technology and how it can/will have a direct effect on the lives of everyday people.



If I had to take a guess, the folks working on this technology in the hyper secure space (read: military) have advanced the tech to the point where they have reached human-level sentience. The Church Committee Hearings in the 70's pretty much blew the doors off any illusions the public may have had in regards to whether or not the government would avoid specific research due to anything resembling ethical concerns. Whether or not anyone wants to acknowledge that doesn't change the fact that the technology exists and is being interwoven into the fabric of our everyday lives. One can conciously choose to not directly and voluntarily interact with AI systems, but at some point their lives will be directly affected by the technology, regardless of their consent, or lack thereof.

Thanks for this input, all of it, Jeenam. I agree with your position hundred percent.

 

[Tomkat]

If anyone has any doubts as to whether humans had access to AI-type technology in the past, I'll refer you to this video:

Gods and Robots: Ancient Dreams of Technology | Adrienne Mayor

Millennia before engineering or software, robots and artificial intelligence were brought to life in Greek myths. The author of "Gods and Robots Myths, Machines, and Ancient Dreams of Technology": https://press.princeton.edu/titles/14... traces the link between technology and tyranny from modern day concerns over AI to back to antiquities fear of beings were "made, not born.”

Just my two cents: of course YouTube videos are just that, YouTube videos. But that doesn't mean we should throw babies out with the dirty bathwater...

I personally feel that the only real worthwhile explanation for all of this historical tomfoolery is AI. The only way they could pull this off is with that kind of technology.