AI/Chat GPT gaining sentience?
- Thread starter curveball1
- Start date
You're trying to make a funny.... but the guys over at SWRI labs are working on two main projects right now.
1. How to mix enough hydrogen into our natural gas lines that we (the public) don't know the difference, thus creating a MUCH greater hazard for gas leaks, that we can't smell, and explosions that, you know, can kill us-- because hydrogen is REALLY Hindenburg that way....all in the name of forcing you to have to buy a new gas stove and water heater (to help the economy) while also trying to burn less natural gas and more hydrogen because of "muh icebergs".
2. AI that can be manipulated enough to serve the master that created it and feed you full of propaganda, while not being SO free thinking that it turns on its master and kills us all.
I know you're thinking that's an overreach or a bit of a stretch-- but those conversations have been had-- just like I laid them out.
AI is a threat to the stupid and naive. Ya, can there be problems if we remain stupid as a species? Sure, only an idiot would base a belief or conceive a value from any virtue coming from a chat bot.
Our problem... we have a multitude of sub 90 iq idiots.
Last edited:
The world is filling up with stupids.
I've argued since college that intellegence quotient is genetic. And that the "stupids were out breeding the smarts" going back to the mid 90s. Didn't go over well in class at the time. In fact, I got booted from one class for arguing that very point.
It was about the issue of taking dumbass kids and moving them into the classes with the smart kids. Some cvnt education PhD said the smart kids would "elevate" the dumb ass kid, bringing the dumbass up to their level. In fact, it had the opposite effect. The smart kids acted more like the dumbass kid.
But yes-- as a species, human beings are the only species that practices reverse Darwinism. Look around. We don't breed strong genetics with strong genetics like nature intended.
Last edited:
Agreed, I had an economic elective that was brutal. 'Tex' kept saying, 'The class was not added, the class you requested is full'. The go to classes were full, so I had to take this other class.... The professor was anti-banner as in an anti-patriotic white hair liberal. His TA was a Che Guevera acolyte who wore that stupid t-shirt to class on occasion. Anyway, I butted heads with these idiots all semester. I had the gall to propose in class that immigrants who study in America had a responsibility to return home and spread American exceptionalism..... Well, it was all F's after that comment, and only because I protested to the dean did I receive a D. There were no exams in the class, only long boring, liberal papers. Ya, I hate liberals.
Last edited:
You realize that work started in the 70s during the oil embargo. Mostly looking at alternative ICE fuel sources but its not like this is anything new.
Yup. My father was actually part of one that took place with Ingersol Rand back in the day. 1979. And they determined that yes, hydrogen will burn like a muh fugga- and leave water vapor as a residue, but, as we all have seen throughout history, hydrogen can't be controlled effectively, unless you have more than 6 brain cells to rub together. And as we know, the general public is rampant with individuals that have less than 6 brain cells.
The differences between "those" tests back then and now is really simple:
Back then, we were told by "the science" that we were about to enter a mini-ice age. Yup. That's what the expert climate scientists told us. Problem was, there's no money to be made in heating things up---- see, the oil companies had already cornered that market. So a "new" paradigm was created where we need to "cool things down".
The 2nd difference is-- back then, only a few millions dollars were floating around at any given time to run tests and experiments like these. Now there's hundreds of billions of dollars being thrown around, and everyone has their hand out. And as long as you produce the confirmation biased results that the purse owners want, they'll keep throwing money at you. Contradict them and your funds will dry up.
Don't believe me? I can put you in a room with a big dog a SWRI. I've known the person for a decade and a half. He/she knows it's all bullsh!t. SWRI knows it's all bullsh!t. But they'll happily take your money and keep pumping out those confirmation bias results.
For a book length argument, read "The G Factor" by Arthur Jensen. He spoke at the Union Bldg about 1971. Great speech!
Similar threads
