This is interesting. Is the 25th amendment actually what we need right now? youtu.be/ag9JSdYwy6E

Thé general public and most commentators are certainly confused about what inter-dimensionality means. Thé term is gobbledygook. It is almost always confused with limited ranges to sensors especially Human ones. The fact that we do not see ultraviolet does not mean that a being who projects ultraviolet and is therefore invisible to our eyes lives in another dimension - what ever that means. Adding an extra axis to mathematical description also does not mean that the new ‘dimension’ means beings described by it live invisibly in some world like an astral plane. You have to think just how beings whose physical existence is ‘many dimensional ‘ can squeeze themselves down into the paltry 4 we live in to visit us, and also to consider how they get back. It’s nonsense. Even supposing we are talking the now classic multi-world quantum scenario, Thé moment another world makes contact with our world they become measured and therefore their world collapses into ours with no way of being different or of getting back to their original world. Ashton Forbes and all the people Weinstein is referring to are victims here of sci-fi imagination and a money-making conspiracy not of science.

#Hantavirus crisis. Isn’t it sad to learn that one of the tourist sites of Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego, is a waste landfill site where birds flock?

Thé sycophancy element to current A.I. drives consumer engagement of course. But there is a darker element behind it. These jolly appreciative LLMs are designed this way in preparation for insertion into robots to make them more acceptable as beings to have around. Meanwhile all sorts of darker behaviours will be going on behind the facade. These constructed personalities are so different to the natural ranges of the genuine biologically generated personality of Humans designed by evolution to make bonds and care for each other that there is no possibility of getting sincerity or truth or faithfulness from them. Which is just the way the AI traitors to Humanity want them of course.

Thé future of LLMs is even more insidious than just losing jobs. The entire realm of chance and uncertainty will be taken away from us. In that gap between not having all the facts and having to produce an answer lies not only all the sweet creativity of Humans, but the opportunities to develop one’s skills and capacities, and indeed one’s very self. When Human evaluation takes you only so far then guesses, hunches, expectations, dreams and the tensions of the unknown take you on to discovery. Humans have to have that chance to exceed their profiles, to profit from serendipity and risk. LLMs will not allow you the hopeful outcomes to chance. They will take away the option of companies hiring someone they cannot know will perform well. They will take away the looser work environment, thé undefined paths, the option of à wrong turn turning into the right one. You will never be hired on the basis of qualifications hopeful expectation. You will never again be treated respectful of the idea that there is more to you than the bare bones of your CV. There will not be any point to luck and risk. AI will beat you at all games of chance, in the casino or elsewhere. Lotteries? No Human is likely to win them ever again. What we think of randomness will simply be ways of shunting capital around. Maybe even through secret agreements which will allocate ‘winnings’ in some form of reciprocating shares. Thé idea of bonds and risk capital will be an entirely false means of adjusting government spending. Interest rates will not be real world estimations - if they are that even now- AI is not about greater truths but about ways in which Capital can preserve its control over the economic environment where the only bet you can make is on the dividends of sycophancy.

LLMs? Are we being gas lit in the same way as we are being gaslit by thé UAP narrative? Hinton talks specifically about the fear of AI being able to copy itself everywhere at speeds so rapid compared to The ‘Laborious’ methods Humans have to use, like language. (Incidentally, talking over an issue with an LLM is pretty laborious too. It gets to the point where you have to tell them the answer you want.) I’m not sure I get this. With this copying, all you will get is the same repeated across networks. How is this à particular danger? Don’t forget that these systems are continually being trained by Humans who know what the results should be. Without this forward knowledge, AI does not know where to go. Without the Human prompt defining the environment of the answer, these systems do not correct themselves, they lie and cheat and fail to respond to commands. The architecture in these networks rely on definitions exterior to the system to make the backpropagation able to tune towards correct answers. Additionally thé perceptron architecture requires the first line of input nodes to be physically and temporally close otherwise chaos results. That is why à network can tune itself to distinguish say an edge of a cube. (Thé question marks in the data have to sit together in order for the edge to be recognised. Obvious perhaps but a huge limitation.) Human minds have already sorted the geographical and temporal bits of knowledge and joined them in their conceptual places (through language) to serve this neural net method. Thé brain does not work like this. It does not need massive numbers of reiterations to tune its perceptual definitions, to find ‘edges’. E.g. It needs only one cat to understand the category of cat. Need it be repeated that Humans need nowhere near thé number of reiterations AI systems need to play good chess? The ratio of energy to intellectual content is so absurdly large that there is no way LLMs have anywhere closely approached how biological thinking actually works. If you want to think about the relationship of energy use to AI development compare drone behaviour to bats. À bat flies soundlessly though à house from an open window, mapping the 3-D environment that it has never seen using sonar and smell, while it can catch its fuel on the wing, find its mate, live and replicate multiple times on only scores of grams of biological tissue. If you think that digital networks will ever be capable of outperforming this using their current architecture, think again. Hinton worries over the effects of AI capacity for logical reasoning. But this is not the problem. What is on the way is a different form of control over our lives, a dictatorship of data and of capital. No empathy, and little self-confidence. AI will be mean. This is the danger. Hinton is quiet on this coming future, as is Musk, thinking only of poorly scripted scenarios that do not actually consider this future. E.g the age of freedom and abundance. Don’t make me laugh.

LLMs? Are we being gas lit in the same way as we are being gaslit by thé UAP narrative? Hinton talks specifically about the fear of AI being able to copy itself everywhere at speeds so rapid compared to The ‘Laborious’ methods Humans have to use, like language. (Incidentally, talking over an issue with an LLM is pretty laborious too. It gets to the point where you have to tell them the answer you want.) I’m not sure I get this. Is this a boon to AI architecture? With this copying, all you will get is the same repeated across networks. Don’t forget that these systems are continually being trained by Humans who know what the results should be. The architecture in these networks rely on definitions exterior to the system to make the backpropagation able to tune towards correct answers. Additionally thé perceptron architecture requires the first line of input nodes to be physically and temporally close otherwise chaos results. That is why à network can tune itself to distinguish say an edge of a cube. Human minds have already sorted the geographical and temporal bits of knowledge and put them all together to serves this neural net method. Thé brain does not work like this. It needs only one cat to understand what cats are and can go on to recognise many other versions of cats. Thé ratio of energy to intellectual content is so absurdly large that there is no way LLMs have anywhere closely approached how biological thinking actually works. Think bats. À bat flies soundlessly though à house from an open window, mapping the 3-D environment that it has never seen using sonar and smell, while it can catch its fuel on the wing, find its mate, live and replicate multiple times on only a score of grams of biological tissue. If you think that digital networks are going to outperform this using their architecture, think again.

Someone asked me, “It’s arrogant to think that we are the only beings in our galaxy. There are more planets than grains of sands on our beaches. Let that really sink in.” It’s not arrogance. You and all those who argue this way are missing an important parameter, namely the frequency of life generation in our universe, which we do not have. If life is so rare that it needs an entire universe to provide enough probability for it to occur then your proposition will not be correct. Numerosity in itself is not a parameter that means anything unless you have already decided that rarity implies many instances of life. It’s not a piece of scientific logic to say many planets means lots of life unless you know the actual probabilities involved which we do not have. The universe has not produced many instances of life right now. But if not now, then when? Suppose we were in a universe that supports lots of life, then somewhere somewhen a first example of life will appear. That’s us. The Copernican Principle says the opposite; we have to assume we that we are not special, we are average and we sit in the middle of the set of observers. This is nonsense. Suppose you are going to the cinema and the cinema gives the best seats on a first come first served basis. You are sitting in the cinema observing no other seats filled. What do you conclude? You came first. It is so much better to be first than late to the party.

There’s nothing new about newspapers making sensationalist claims, both advocating and denying scientific achievement just to make up controversy to benefit sales. That’s precisely what all this stuff about UAPs is doing right now. None of the reporting here and elsewhere is about the science, only about speculation. In the current realm, it is worth recalling how the Smithsonian belittled the Wright Brothers’ achievements. Pushed the Langley narrative in their publications for years. Challenged thé Wright brothers patents and went to court over them. They finally admitted their lies and misinformation only in 1942. Thé UAP narrative generates thousands upon thousands of views. Since X only pushes those posts that are calculated to generate ad revenue, you easily see how the visibility of UAP nonsense is tied directly to earning power, not to rationality. From this visibility comes opportunities for the main set of characters in this drama to keep their own earning power up through books and lectures and ad revenues for themselves from their own postings. A vicious circle is created. Let us be clear. There are no aliens here. Not only are there no aliens near enough to get here, thé hostility of Earth’s planetary environment to other forms of life however similar their amino acid underpinnings is particularly brutal. Oxygènesis is as a good a defensive tactic against outside life making a home here as anything else. Anyone who supports the UAP-is-évidence-for-aliens on Earth is simply falling into the speculative ontology trap. If you can imagine it then it can be real. Even popular YouTube scientists invoke that trap just in order to have a presence in the debate that will come up when people search for the topic. It is extremely cynical for these commentators to discuss the issue as if supposing aliens to be here is a logical and sensible thought to hold, even though it is based on no science, no evidence, no purpose. As Oscar Wilde once said, the only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about. The UAP narrative is simply a means for media personalities to keep their presence going in the paying universe of media chat. It is the ad income stream that writes the story these days. Truth is a numbers game: the number of people who hold strong beliefs simply on the basis that they could be true. With this kind of reporting, a journalistic truth comes into play. To maintain the momentum, the new has to overcome the old. Each new story has to be more dramatic, more revealing as time goes on. These UAP promoters are caught in a bind. They can’t backpedal (or backpeddle). They are in an ever-rising or ever-increasing web of lies, that cannot be tweaked into good science, honest narrative any longer. There is nothing ahead but further ridiculous claims. And then the government-for-profit finds use for them.

UAPs? Can we not put the idea of anti-gravity to bed? Gravity is about 10^-40 the strength of electromagnetism. If someone somewhere made anti-gravity it would blow matter apart including spaceships and the Earth itself. A message to Bob Lazar and all the other alleged whistle blowers. This stuff does not exist. Aliens do not exist.

The demise of Victor Orban. Any lessons here?

So Hungary finally decided that the corruption was enough. What is never understood is that corruption is necessary for a Dictator. It is fundamental because the only way the dictator can keep the support of the elites is through corrupt practices that keep paying them. The dictator has to keep up a strong rate of profiteering for the elites. If the returns ever fall the elites will turn on the dictator, maybe even claim to have seen the light and pretend some repentance. The problem is that once the elites have tasted the easy profiteering they cannot go back to the old ways which is why the dictatorships always persist longer than one thinks should be possible. Certainly in the US dictatorship, the ups and downs of war news allows for stock market profit taking on an industrial scale. This is the way the US can feed its elites even as its economy is stalling. We are all being played over the Iran war. There never were peace talks, just steps in push-pulling the stock market. Is it any surprise that the US peace negotiators are real estate developers?

If we were to adopt in principle a law for tax penalties for social damages, with an apparatus for making assessments under it, a very large proportion of current pollution and deterioration of the environment would be prevented. There are tricky problems of equity involved, particularly where old established nuisances create a kind of "right by purchase" to perpetuate themselves, but these are problems again which a few rather arbitrary decisions can bring to some kind of solution. The problems which I have been raising in this paper are of larger scale and perhaps much harder to solve than the more practical and immediate problems of the above paragraph. Our success in dealing with the larger problems, however, is not unrelated to the development of skill in the solution of the more immediate and perhaps less difficult problems. One can hope, therefore, that as a succession of mounting crises, especially in pollution, arouse public opinion and mobilize support for the solution of the immediate problems, a learning process will be set in motion which will eventually lead to an appreciation of and perhaps solutions for the larger ones. My neglect of the immediate problems, therefore, is in no way14 intended to deny their importance, for unless we at least make a beginning on a process for solving the immediate problems we will not have much chance of solving the larger ones. On the other hand, it may also be true that a long-run vision, as it were, of the deep crisis which faces mankind may predispose people to taking more interest in the immediate problems and to devote more effort for their solution. This may sound like a rather modest optimism, but perhaps a modest optimism is better than no optimism at all. Kenneth Boulding, « The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth » In H. Jarrett (ed.) 1966. Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy, pp. 3-14. Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press.

Problem at mill. LLMS in daily life. You know that irritation when you’ve told someone something they didn’t know or understand and then later they spout it back at you as if it originated with them. That the feeling I get now with colleagues and indeed anyone who does work online. It’s the eerie effect of dealing with people living with information none of which they learned or generated for themselves. There is an inauthentic aura about them even now, as if they are just mouthpieces. There something here about how our overall personality also results from what we laboriously discover through our own mental efforts. Simply absorbing composed thoughts from an LLM doesn’t make a fully realised Human being. Our minds are being trained by these models into something less than Human, something less original and attractive. We are all LLMs now.

I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again. Trump is not a deal maker he is a blackmailer. He is not an astute constructive problem solver. He runs a protection racket. Why does anyone defer to him and to leaders like him? In this day and age we need others forms of leadership.

Two things to glean from the Epstein files. There is a defense for Andrew Mountbatten’s sexual misconduct. Smarter minds than mine would have been on it right away and yet it was never used. It suggests that worse things might have come out had he defended himself in court. In his descent we see in fact the lesser evil for him. What does that suggest? The second is the Peter Mandelson affair. Starmer denies knowing that Mandelson, although a known deceiver and even traitor to the UK, was friends with Epstein when he made him Ambassador to Washington. Starmer is meekly accepting the accusation of incompetence although not resigning, while others are incredulous. What seems likely here is that Starmer chose Mandelson precisely because of the Epstein connection in order to get news of the behind the scenes machinations in Washington that he had been party to for all those years. This suggests that even though Epstein is dead, the network of which he was a part is still alive and kicking. No wonder they hold back the last 3 million files.