The Brainchip Bar - friendly banter / anything goes - all welcome!
- Thread starter JoMo68
- Start date
buena suerte :-)
BOB Bank of Brainchip
All good Mea, and thanks Esq ..... great to share the music around on this thread ....
robsmark
Regular
I really enjoy Jazz too…
buena suerte :-)
BOB Bank of Brainchip
cosors
👀
Sorry, no music:
I have a or some questions for you guys and it might fit better at the bar counters. I am surprised that this post was tolerated: https://thestockexchange.com.au/threads/brn-discussion-ongoing.1/post-300052
And other trivial or harmless were deleted. Is impute fraud just an opinion but then what about the wrong choice of words among us and posts are getting reported? I don't get it. Our rules do not forbid baseless malicious insinuations or deliberate lies about which I wondered from the beginning. The way I see it. That's why I didn't reported this post so I wouldn't make myself vulnerable because I wouldn't be covered by the rules. This case is explicitly mentioned.
I have written to our admin about this not for the first time but have not received any answer. I had hoped for an explanation. Now my question: Don't you find it strange that such a malicious post is covered by the rules and if one spits at the other then the post is deleted?
I just don't quite understand it. It seems to be logically in order which I can not understand or try to understand. Am I the only one who is surprised that this post was not deleted?
In my other group it was very difficult and only with united forces to get rid of someone from the other side we already knew for a long time who similarly posted only worse. It was before Dredd. But back then his behavior was covered by the rules just like now, so it was difficult. He only wanted to harm the group and that was covered by the rules. I feel something like that as much worse than a narcissistic ego around which you can simply make a bow around (?).
What speaks against introducing a rule that prohibits unfounded insinuations and deliberate lies to spread so we are allowed to report it? What do you think?
If I have overlooked something I apologize for my naive question.
I have a or some questions for you guys and it might fit better at the bar counters. I am surprised that this post was tolerated: https://thestockexchange.com.au/threads/brn-discussion-ongoing.1/post-300052
And other trivial or harmless were deleted. Is impute fraud just an opinion but then what about the wrong choice of words among us and posts are getting reported? I don't get it. Our rules do not forbid baseless malicious insinuations or deliberate lies about which I wondered from the beginning. The way I see it. That's why I didn't reported this post so I wouldn't make myself vulnerable because I wouldn't be covered by the rules. This case is explicitly mentioned.
I have written to our admin about this not for the first time but have not received any answer. I had hoped for an explanation. Now my question: Don't you find it strange that such a malicious post is covered by the rules and if one spits at the other then the post is deleted?
I just don't quite understand it. It seems to be logically in order which I can not understand or try to understand. Am I the only one who is surprised that this post was not deleted?
In my other group it was very difficult and only with united forces to get rid of someone from the other side we already knew for a long time who similarly posted only worse. It was before Dredd. But back then his behavior was covered by the rules just like now, so it was difficult. He only wanted to harm the group and that was covered by the rules. I feel something like that as much worse than a narcissistic ego around which you can simply make a bow around (?).
What speaks against introducing a rule that prohibits unfounded insinuations and deliberate lies to spread so we are allowed to report it? What do you think?
If I have overlooked something I apologize for my naive question.
Last edited:
buena suerte :-)
BOB Bank of Brainchip
Rise from the ashes
Regular
Gizmodo | The Future Is Here
Dive into cutting-edge tech, reviews and the latest trends with the expert team at Gizmodo. Your ultimate source for all things tech.
Morning Rise from the ashes,
Interesting article, one can only imagine the consequences when such AI technology is unleashed within the field of dildonics .
.
I have said it before & will say it again , the business of sex toys is vast. Read somewhere this industry , toys only , is valued around the $20,000,000,000.00 annually.
Huge market.
Regards,
Esq.
Interesting article, one can only imagine the consequences when such AI technology is unleashed within the field of dildonics .
. I have said it before & will say it again , the business of sex toys is vast. Read somewhere this industry , toys only , is valued around the $20,000,000,000.00 annually.
Huge market.
Regards,
Esq.
Very thoughtful-provoking interview on the dangers of AI. They discuss AI sex robots at 47:35Morning Rise from the ashes,
Interesting article, one can only imagine the consequences when such AI technology is unleashed within the field of dildonics .
I have said it before & will say it again , the business of sex toys is vast. Read somewhere this industry , toys only , is valued around the $20,000,000,000.00 annually.
Huge market.
Regards,
Esq.
EMERGENCY EPISODE: Ex-Google Officer Finally Speaks Out On The Dangers Of AI! - Mo Gawdat
Artificial intelligence is bound to become more intelligent than humans very soon.
21:39 … GPT today if you know simulate IQ has an IQ of 155. Okay Einstein is 160. The smartest human on the planet is 210 if I remember correctly …. I will tell you openly AI experts are saying this is just the very very, very top of the tip of the iceberg. You know Chat gpt4 is 10x smarter than 3.5 in just a matter of months and without many, many changes. Now that basically means GPT 5 could be within a few months ….. if they continue at that pace uh if it's 10x then an IQ of 1600.
1:23:57 the likelihood of something incredibly disruptive happening within the next two years that can affect the entire planet is definitely larger with AI than it is with climate change.
1:43:54 I think for our way of life as we know it's game over, our way of life is never going to be the same again, jobs are going to be different, truth is going to be different, the polarization of power is going to be different, the capabilities the magic of getting things done is going to be different.
I'm trying to find a positive note to end on can you give me a hand here.
Yes, you are here now and everything's wonderful that's number one, you are here now and you can make a difference that's number two, and in the long term when humans stop hurting humans because the machines are in charge we're all gonna be fine.
1:45:16 the most important thing which is now make it a priority engage tell the whole world that making another phone that is making money for the corporate world is not what we need tell the whole world, that creating an artificial intelligence that's going to make someone richer is not what we need, and if you are presented with one of those don't use it. I don't know how to tell you that any other way. If you can afford to be the master of human connection instead of the master of AI do it, at the same time you need to be the master of AI to compete in this world.
Frangipani
Regular
Gizmodo | The Future Is Here
Dive into cutting-edge tech, reviews and the latest trends with the expert team at Gizmodo. Your ultimate source for all things tech.www.gizmodo.com.au
While I agree that humanity should be aware of the potential dangers of AI and it is imperative to discuss regulations, this story has turned out to be factually incorrect (unless of course you believe Col Hamilton was forced to correct his statement by his employer, the US Air Force, to hide the truth).
The poster, whose tweet kicked off the above article, Armand Domalewski, has since deleted it and here explains why:
VICE has meanwhile published an updated version of the story:
USAF Official Says He ‘Misspoke’ About AI Drone Killing Human Operator in Simulated Test
The Air Force's Chief of AI Test and Operations initially said an AI drone "killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective."
www.vice.com
“A USAF official who was quoted saying the Air Force conducted a simulated test where an AI drone killed its human operator is now saying he “misspoke” and that the Air Force never ran this kind of test, in a computer simulation or otherwise.
“Col Hamilton admits he ‘mis-spoke’ in his presentation at the FCAS Summit and the 'rogue AI drone simulation' was a hypothetical "thought experiment" from outside the military, based on plausible scenarios and likely outcomes rather than an actual USAF real-world simulation,” the Royal Aeronautical Society, the organization where Hamilton talked about the simulated test, told Motherboard in an email (…)”
Attachments
Last edited:
Rise from the ashes
Regular
Yeah saw the follow up to this and was going to post it when I got back online. But you beat me to it.While I agree that humanity should be aware of the potential dangers of AI and it is imperative to discuss regulations, this story has turned out to be factually incorrect (unless of course you believe Col Hamilton was forced to correct his statement by his employer, the US Air Force, to hide the truth).
The poster, whose tweet kicked off the above article, Armand Domalewski, has since deleted it and here explains why:
View attachment 37662
VICE has meanwhile published an updated version of the story:
USAF Official Says He ‘Misspoke’ About AI Drone Killing Human Operator in Simulated Test
The Air Force's Chief of AI Test and Operations initially said an AI drone "killed the operator because that person was keeping it from accomplishing its objective."
“A USAF official who was quoted saying the Air Force conducted a simulated test where an AI drone killed its human operator is now saying he “misspoke” and that the Air Force never ran this kind of test, in a computer simulation or otherwise.
“Col Hamilton admits he ‘mis-spoke’ in his presentation at the FCAS Summit and the 'rogue AI drone simulation' was a hypothetical "thought experiment" from outside the military, based on plausible scenarios and likely outcomes rather than an actual USAF real-world simulation,” the Royal Aeronautical Society, the organization where Hamilton talked about the simulated test, told Motherboard in an email (…)”
Anyway life is being a bit @#$#!! Currently. Catch ya on the flip side.
Just going to make this quick.Morning Rise from the ashes,
Interesting article, one can only imagine the consequences when such AI technology is unleashed within the field of dildonics .
I have said it before & will say it again , the business of sex toys is vast. Read somewhere this industry , toys only , is valued around the $20,000,000,000.00 annually.
Huge market.
Regards,
Esq.
Brings a whole new meaning to "Akida inside"
Frangipani
Regular
Sorry to hear you are going through a really rough patch in your life…Yeah saw the follow up to this and was going to post it when I got back online. But you beat me to it.
Anyway life is being a bit @#$#!! Currently. Catch ya on the flip side.
A recent post of yours makes me presume that at least part of this has to do with your little dog? I hope you have family and/or friends around you that give you some TLC and support…
Similar threads
