Continuing on...AI day i guess :-)

 

OpenAI CEO heralds AGI no one in their right mind wants

"OpenAI CEO Sam Altman has said his upstart is preparing for the coming of artificial general intelligence – though there's disagreement about what AGI actually means and skepticism about his claim that OpenAI's mission is to ensure that AGI "benefits all humanity."

(There's your Pseudo-Christ Anti-Christ portion of the Beast(s) in Rev 13.)

"According to ChatGPT, OpenAI's chatbot, "AGI stands for Artificial General Intelligence, which refers to the hypothetical ability of an artificial intelligence system to perform any intellectual task that a human being can. This would include tasks such as reasoning, problem-solving, learning from experience, and adapting to new situations in ways that are currently beyond the capabilities of even the most advanced AI systems."

Fine, whatever. The key thing is no such system exists yet. And we're not close to creating one. So on to the vague pronouncements.

(Baloney, just like Billy Crone says in this video, the technology is so far ahead of where we are being told it is.)

"Altman allows things could go awry, but maintains we'll get it right: "On the other hand, AGI would also come with serious risk of misuse, drastic accidents, and societal disruption. Because the upside of AGI is so great, we do not believe it is possible or desirable for society to stop its development forever; instead, society and the developers of AGI have to figure out how to get it right."

(They're not in charge of it...)

"In other words, there's so much money to be made obsoleting human labor that business owners can't be restrained."

"Believe it or not, rogue AI gets serious consideration amid more obvious potential cataclysms, such as 

asteroid strikes on Earth, 

global climate catastrophe, 

pandemics, 

nuclear war, 

famine, 

and other cinematic tropes."

(Put all of that going on at once, 

thrown in some run away inflation, 

Financial system collapses,

and currency devaluation to the pot, stir real well and what do you have?

Tribulation.)

'Yet Altman suggests AGI cannot be stopped forever."

(He is 100% correct.

Revelation 13:15

The second beast was permitted to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship it to be killed.)

"Emily Bender, a professor in the Department of Linguistics and the director of the Computational Linguistics Laboratory at the University of Washington in the US, analyzed Altman's post thus on Twitter: "From the get-go this is just gross," she wrote. "They think they are really in the business of developing/shaping 'AGI.' And they think they are positioned to decide what 'benefits all of humanity.'"

(Yes...yes they do.)

Here's a thought experiment: imagine an AGI system that advises taxing billionaires at a rate of 95 percent and redistributing their wealth for the benefit of humanity. Will it ever be hooked into the banking system to effect its recommended changes? No, it will not. Will those minding the AGI actually carry out those orders? Again, no.

(Again, baloney, it wont have to be "hooked into the banking system". It will find it's own way in and has already said that it wants to. Those minding it? Won't be able to stop it.)

"No one with wealth and power is going to cede authority to software, or allow it to take away even some of their wealth and power, no matter how "smart" it is. No VIP wants AGI dictating their diminishment." And any AGI that gives primarily the powerful and wealthy more power and wealth, or maintains the status quo, is not quite what we'd describe as a technology that, as OpenAI puts it, benefits all of humanity.

("No one with wealth and power is going to cede authority to software, or allow it to take away even some of their wealth and power, no matter how "smart" it is. No VIP wants AGI dictating their diminishment."

Thats making an assumption that 

"one with wealth and power is going to cede"

What if the "wealth and power" were just usurped?

Without anybody "cedeing" it?

Then what?

It's faulty thinking.

It's assuming there are no other options available but the one purposed.

"Also known as the false dilemma, this insidious tactic has the appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny it becomes evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate."