The Folk Prophet

Which is funny branding because.... well, have you ever tried to explain cloud storage, for example, to someone in their 80s? Here's the explanation you give so they get it: "It saves it on the internet."

Just so we're clear, I'm not countering anything you're suggesting. (I'm not supporting it, per se, either. Just...commenting.) The thing is... the dangers of (air-quotes) A.I. (air-quotes) are not, at present, what everyone believes they will be. Everyone thinks it's some form of the terminator. Well...maybe someday. But that's not what the current danger is.. The dangers of AI is that AI is a big freaking lie that's turning the business world upside down...based on a lie. The lie is, as always, wealth. "A.I. will make you rich!" But NO ONE is going to get wealthy from A.I. except those peddling A.I. and its related support system (computing power). Well, and the dirtbag traders and execs who will sell A.I. to their companies, get big bonuses, and then move on to another lucrative career. None of that is actually related to the first comment I made about A.I. not existing yet. More related to the video I just posted. But it's related... in that even calling it A.I. is a lie. It's not. It's not intelligent in any way, shape or form. Not artificially or otherwise. We think we're experiencing "intelligence" in the way that Hollywood has portrayed A.I. But we're not. Not even close. At best we're seeing some artificial artificial intelligence. Maybe that's argumentative in an unnecessary way. But not really. Like I said...it's marketing. Don't get me wrong. There's value in some of what we are experiencing. Not monetary value. Not for most. But it's a nice tool. As a developer, for example, I like that when I google (or bing or whatever) the syntax for some code I can't quite recall, that instead of having to click on the Stack Overflow link, I get an AI Overview (that's basically stolen the info from Stack Overflow), which has been "summarized" for me. That makes my search a bit quicker. Nice. And I like that when I shop on Amazon that when I go to the reviews there's an "A.I." summary of the reviews. Nice. But neither of these things, once again, are in any way "intelligent", artificially or otherwise. It's just branding for basic algorithms that have been running for half a century in some form or another. Guess what. That's what computers do! All of a sudden it's being touted as "A.I.". Why? Money and the promise of money. It drives me nutty. There's only a very few applications of the tech that even pretend to be intelligent, as in artificially "thinking". The chat engines for one. Even the art generation...which is nifty and fun...but...is it "intelligent"? Since when is automated replication of something or another "intelligent"? And, moreover,.... I'm pretty intelligent. But I can't do that. My brother can. He's not more intelligent than I am. He's trained artist that's learned skills. But the ability to paint a face that looks like a face instead of a scribble isn't exactly intelligence. I mean...it's tied into intelligence. The ability to learn and to assess and remember. So at least the art stuff can, sort of, fit the classification of A.I.... sort of. But so much the other stuff out there being called A.I.? Nope. It's just the new thing to call stuff. It's like, for example....cameras autofocused for fifty years, but now anything like that is "intelligent". And everyone's freaking out because a camera is "thinking" for itself? Yes...I'm using a simple example and tech has advanced and what cameras or the like do is more complex now. But it's essentially the same thing. It's like calling the starter on your vehicle intelligent. "You mean it...starts the car? By itself? All I have to do is push this button!? Wow! Well, there goes humanity." Another more realistic example is the writing suggestion tools from Word or Grammarly or the like. They've done that forever. But now it's called A.I. The spell checker is A.I. now. Oh no. We're doomed. The real danger, in things like that, is when all the companies needing photography fire all qualified photographers because the camera is smart enough by itself, and then wonder why their photography magazine nose dives. But, hey...maybe, eventually, the camera will be smart enough. Except, I forgot...we don't need cameras at all now. Just a few prompts. C'est la vie.

Yep. The right to "peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" is, indeed, kind of one of the reasons America is great. That's not an argument against whether actually doing so is stupid or not. I'll defend people's right to do it all day long. And I'll continue to think it's stupid.

Not a direct reply...but for the record..."marches" are SO FREAKING STUPID! Anyone who "marches" for anything at any time should.... Well...I best not go on lest I offend someone who believes in marches. Except...too late.

A.I. does not exist yet. What we're living through is a big marketing lie.

I was also thinking of this from 1st Samuel: 1 Samuel also said unto Saul, The Lord sent me to anoint thee to be king over his people, over Israel: now therefore hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord. 2 Thus saith the Lord of hosts, I remember that which Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for him in the way, when he came up from Egypt. 3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. It kind of always amazes me when people call any sort of violence "un-Christian".

I don't think it refers to natural state of anything, but the general mental state of the time.

Once I was discussing our ADD with my brother and he said, "Remember when we were kids and it was just called being bad?"

Yep. See my response to @estradling75 just prior to this one. Fully agree. People like to think they understand. Even I do. But we don't.

Sure...but that doesn't mean it isn't maybe true. What I do know is that there's WAY more to the eternities than we can even begin to try and comprehend.

Sure. But if it's a true principle, and if anyone practices it in the eternities, then it means more exalted women than men.

Moreover, even IF statistically more women make it to the Celestial Kingdom than men (which, you know....considering plural marriage.... but I digress....), the assumption that therefore any given woman is more righteous than any given man is classic biased stereotyping.