It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sentient World Simulation Glitch?

page: 2
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 07:49 AM
link   


The post suggested that the hardware issues were intentional, which I believe they are, and were being used for spying by the NSA and usual suspects.


Intentional yes but not the way you think. Intel more than likely knew about this defect but choose to ignore for profits. Word on the street is that the fixes are absolute murder in the server market. So far, the only fix is further isolate that kernel page file and it's going to hurt performance when your going to increase the number of read/writes.




posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 08:26 AM
link   
i see just the same boring illuminaty stuff we have been seeing for years with no proof
also how does a bunch of puny humans own the world simulation?
they own us! and they are pissed!



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: dashen

I'll mark this for further reading along with Kevs Cryptomnesia and Zeitgeist links.
If you wanted to operate a successful casino you would need some run theory math to formulate a fair house advantage.
Real world modeling wasn't much past the level of "Run Lola Run" just a few years ago.

This paper guilded within the Argonne National Laboratory think tank.
The Argonne National Laboratory "Chicago" was formed in 1942 and directed the Manhattan project.
My first alien abduction experiences were near the Argonne-west site and they used different math.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 10:42 AM
link   
A good summary, then, is this: The AI that was developed to be all knowing with perfect predictive capacity, is not. It screwed up. Not only did Hillary not win, Spectre was discovered. Although like an embedded brain tumor it will be extraordinarily difficult to eradicate, it's still possible; and the fact is, it has little effect on most all processors in the world. Servers are the biggest problem; your laptop is not, where Spectre is of little practical value. So while still conceding this total matrix-like control mechanism, the fact is, it's flawed. Assuming they can put the genie back in the bottle is, I think, naive. Meanwhile tie marches on and servers get replaced on their normal five-year schedule.

The basic problem is that the creators of this thing have not fully understood the nature of reality they are working with. They think they are quite smart, of course, and that they have covered their bases, but they can only cover what they know or know they don't know. They cannot cover what they don't know they don't know--by definition. They are being way too scientific, and science, by and large, has ignored a large art of reality because it considers the implications too fraught with emotion and the paranormal. I'm using that term in a very general sense, not specifically, but I suggest to you that the larger parts of reality, where a lot of stuff really happens and many, if not most important decisions are made, reside in this area. So unless this AI has grown cognizant of the larger reality, it cannot hope to actually predict. It's a major systemic flaw in the system, much worse than Soectre is for Intel. And we have already seen the results.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Do you think it's possible they are designing tech using this Simulation? That is they test the tech in a model to see it's viability? If so, then the tech is designing tech not humans.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: schuyler

Do you think it's possible they are designing tech using this Simulation? That is they test the tech in a model to see it's viability? If so, then the tech is designing tech not humans.



Why wouldn’t they, that’s what Facebook does on the regular



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: schuyler

Do you think it's possible they are designing tech using this Simulation? That is they test the tech in a model to see it's viability? If so, then the tech is designing tech not humans.


That is demonstrably true. Computers are already better at designing future computers than humans are. This is done at a very low level and has been for years. Just as one example, Steve Wozniak invented a very clever way to use the cycles if a chip to both refresh the monitor screen and refresh the memory using the same chip's natural cycle.. It is still considered a brilliant move on his part which shows a fundamental understanding of chip design. The Apple ][ has something like 130 IC's in its design, made possible by Woz using this technique. When the Apple ][ was redesigned as the Apple ][e (for enhanced) a computer program redesigned Woz's idea into one chip: the IWM or "Integrated Woz Machine." This allowed the ][e to be made with 30 ICs instead of 130, by any measure a tremendous engineering feat, all done by artificial intelligence, not humans.

So using AI to build AI is really old news. That begs the question of how thoroughly the tech, i.e.: the AI, understands reality. We have no way of knowing the depth of its understanding, of course. We can only observe the apparent results, which are demonstrably flawed. This leads me to the conclusion that the AI is imperfect, and that it is limited in its understanding to the data which has been fed to it, which is itself an imperfect representation of reality.
edit on 1/22/2018 by schuyler because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 11:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: schuyler

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: schuyler

Do you think it's possible they are designing tech using this Simulation? That is they test the tech in a model to see it's viability? If so, then the tech is designing tech not humans.


That is demonstrably true. Computers are already better at designing future computers than humans are. This is done at a very low level and has been for years. Just as one example, Steve Wozniak invented a very clever way to use the cycles if a chip to both refresh the monitor screen and refresh the memory using the same chip's natural cycle.. It is still considered a brilliant move on his part which shows a fundamental understanding of chip design. The Apple ][ has something like 130 IC's in its design, made possible by Woz using this technique. When the Apple ][ was redesigned as the Apple ][e (for enhanced) a computer program redesigned Woz's idea into one chip: the IWM or "Integrated Woz Machine." This allowed the ][e to be made with 30 ICs instead of 130, by any measure a tremendous engineering feat, all done by artificial intelligence, not humans.

So using AI to build AI is really old news. That begs the question of how thoroughly the tech, i.e.: the AI, understands reality. We have no way of knowing the depth of its understanding, of course. We can only observe the apparent results, which are demonstrably flawed. This leads me to the conclusion that the AI is imperfect, and that it is limited in its understanding to the data which has been fed to it, which is itself an imperfect representation of reality.


Okay so now perhaps this topic is better suited for a general AI inquiry/thread but, I just read this off wiki for the definition of the 'scientific method':


The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[2] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning
en.wikipedia.org...

I realize wiki isn't the best source, but for this particular issue it seems adequate. My question then is based on the idea of empirical or measurable evidence. If they use this simulation to design things based upon evidence or results of models how does it equate to observable or empirical evidence in our physical reality?

It seems like it's putting the cart before the horse.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 11:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Hewhowaits
a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Yeah this kind of tech reminds me of modern farming, where cows are chipped and their habits/patterns are recorded, then plotted to "maximize efficiency ".
Right before the weigh in and kill floor....


*This has some graphic material, so beware*

edit on 1/22/2018 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: jonnywhite

Good god man! That is wrong on so many levels..
Gross.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism

I realize wiki isn't the best source, but for this particular issue it seems adequate. My question then is based on the idea of empirical or measurable evidence. If they use this simulation to design things based upon evidence or results of models how does it equate to observable or empirical evidence in our physical reality?

It seems like it's putting the cart before the horse.


An absolutely perfect example. You, the person, will accept nothing other than "observable or empirical evidence in our physical reality." You teach your AI the exact same thing--and it fails. Quite obviously, there is something wrong. What could that be? Either your observable empirical evidence which you rely so heavily upon is flawed, or that's not all there is to reality. You have transferred your unknown unknowns to your AI. An empiricist will tell you that the way we know the scientific method works is because it can make accurate predictions, therefore there is no need to 'look elsewhere' for an explanation. It simply is not necessary. The Universe works by known mechanical laws, and once you figure out the angles, just like in a game of billiards, you can win.

But your alleged AI here (We haven't actually proven it exists.) isn't making proper predictions. So much for the perfect simulation of the world. That calls into question the very idea, which is the lynch pin of this particular conspiracy. You're asking us to believe an AI has been developed by the Bad Guys(tm) to completely predict our actions in various scenarios by constructing an artificial simulation of every human being on Earth.

But it didn't work.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

Just because it didn't work doesn't mean they stop using it.

Edit: it seems like some sort of iterative process and we suffer the collateral damage.
edit on 22-1-2018 by SkeptiSchism because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: SkeptiSchism
a reply to: schuyler

Just because it didn't work doesn't mean they stop using it.

Edit: it seems like some sort of iterative process and we suffer the collateral damage.


There's no proof of either. And why would they use it if it does not work? The old saying, "Garbage In, garbage out" comes to mind. My major point, that I have apparently failed to articulate adequately several times now, is that an AI dependent on "empirical data" is doomed to fail. The reason is that just using empirical data is insufficient to explain human behavior. Even if an AI is capable of programming itself, it does so using logic provided by its human creators. If that logic is faulty, so is the AI. The basic premise of this entire thread from the very beginning pointed out that the AI failed to predict the future. Since that is allegedly its entire reason for existing, the logical conclusion is that it failed to do what it as designed to do. I have provided an explanation of why I believe it to have failed. You have failed to pick up on this. The reason that is true is because you are stuck in the same rut as the AI, which is the same rut as the AI's creators. In any case, I see no reason to continue banging my head against the wall here.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: AdKiller

That was a movie.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: schuyler

I believe that is a very good point. I would think at this point AI still has a lot of human roots.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Wasn't there an algorithm that scoured the web and made social predictions based on the collected data? I can't remember the name.
I think it was trying predict The Singularity or something.
edit on 22-1-2018 by Chickensalad because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Wasn't there an algorithm that scoured the web and made social predictions based on the collected data? I can't remember the name.


I remember that. Can't remember the name though. It didn't seem to work well, as I recall.

edit:


Web Bot is an internet bot computer program whose developers claim is able to predict future events by tracking keywords entered on the internet. It was developed in 1997, originally to predict stock market trends

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 1/22/2018 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
Or just lie all the time so your words and actions dont match

I am not typing a response to this.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 06:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel

originally posted by: Chickensalad
Wasn't there an algorithm that scoured the web and made social predictions based on the collected data? I can't remember the name.


I remember that. Can't remember the name though. It didn't seem to work well, as I recall.

edit:


Web Bot is an internet bot computer program whose developers claim is able to predict future events by tracking keywords entered on the internet. It was developed in 1997, originally to predict stock market trends

en.wikipedia.org...

That may be it.
I was thinking Web Bot or TimeWave Zero.



posted on Jan, 22 2018 @ 07:04 PM
link   
NYT Article

"The public faces the unsatisfying question: Is it better to suffer an engineer’s neglect or an engineer’s concern?

Since Facebook’s earliest days, Mr. Zuckerberg has been fascinated by the power to understand and manipulate users by applying algorithms to the data it collects. In 2005, speaking at Stanford, he described how he and a friend were “seeing if we could use the information that we had to compute who we thought were going to be in relationships. So, we tested this about a week later, and we realized that we had over a third chance of predicting whether two people were going to be in a relationship a week from now.” Through this deep knowledge of its users, Mr. Zuckerberg explained, Facebook could determine “what actually matters to each person on a more granular level.”"




top topics



 
32
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join