-
Posts
3,736 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
118
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Everything posted by richardmurray
-
Ok fellow writers, let's have some fun, and answer the most important questions, the most challenging mysteries... Where Are They Now !! First up, a little lady some of you may have heard of , but we all must wonder after her dire predictions. Where Is Elaine from Ghostbusters 2 Now!?
https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/journal/Where-Are-They-Now-Elaine-Ghostbusters-2-1205470051
The challenge with Ghosbuster gallery art
https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/status-update/Ok-fellow-writers-let-s-have-1205775525 -
My Thoughts on "Domestic Triangle" by qtcomicsblog https://www.tumblr.com/communities/black-artist-on-tjambler/post/785924854452994048/thoughts-on-qtcomicsblog-domestic-triangle?source=share TEXT The main cast, the throuple, are financially steady, so that is important for the overall storytelling, this isn't a set of people financially struggling or just above poor, ala good times or sanford and son or all in the family. Did Ben sell his bookstore or did it close for lack of business? Either or is a key character point, that can be used. Use BEn's skill as a game player for an episode title "User Satansdagger" It can end with a reveal of Ben's skill but show how Ben is watching out for the kids who are connected online , like many kids today, suggest he has other online aliases as a gamer. Does Lena regret working in legal teams to solve cases, even though she wants to be with the kids? Of the parents she arguably has sacrificed the most money or career ambitions, an episode title "Ophelia" dealing with her maintenance of this family but day dreaming ala drowning about the life left. What led to Maya choosing this life, you say she reminds the other two of why they chose this life, but why did she and what makes her so certain she doesn't need to be reminded? The recreational center is a key location. I think an episode with the throuple that convinced Maya is key. Say they are stopping by on vacation. To the kids, are they both adopted? are they biological and if so, did Lena or Maya birth them? For the optional, try a computer assistant instead of a baby or toddler, like alexa, but named abraham for abraham lincoln. Say it is an experimental AI , for a company, Synapco . Episodes “Parent-Teacher Night” interesting but work on it “The Third Wheel” Good basis. Try "On Tuesday morning I am Alone" this throuple has experience, they will schedule time with each other. The story is how even though Lena knows this time is set for Ben and Maya to be together more, till Wednesday/Thursday evening,the episode starts with her lamenting, even though this is not the first Tuesday morning where maya and ben walk out together and take the kids and she has "nothing to do" and feels lonely. “Meet the In-Laws” I like this one, maybe introduce the why Maya is so confident about the trhouple lifestyle or the name of the throuple that inspired maya. You have to answer why the children are so blunt when they know the in laws of maya are like that and the throuple asked the children to behave a certain way. “Throuple’s Therapy” Nice one, What about if the therapist had an emergency and the throuple offered to accept paying for a substitute therapist for this one time , instead of delaying the therapy session for a week and then the throuple get a chance to get on a game show but only two can go and so they want to use the therapy session for advice and go through mock examples of this game show research https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.psychotherapy.20220006 https://psychcentral.com/pro/private-practice/2013/03/the-difference-between-hiring-therapists-as-1099-vs-w-2-part-1#1 https://www.novitas-solutions.com/webcenter/portal/MedicareJL/pagebyid?contentId=00105762 “HOA: Hell On Arrival” fun one, good idea, brings in the community, whom the audience will not know much about but is vital for shows like this. use your imagination with these neighbors. “The Sleepover” good idea. Start the episode off with bring your mother to school day and she has two mom's and the other kids make fun. or reverse, bring father to school day and the kids make it seem normal to have one father so she feels odd about the sleepover now with two mom's
-
Sly Stone born 1943 DANCE TO THE MUSIC Lyrics by sly stone [Cynthia:] Get up and dance to the music! Get on up and dance to the fonky music! Dum-dumm du-du-du-du-du-dum-dumm Du-du-du-du-du-dum-dumm - du-du-du-du-du-dum-dumm [All:] Dance to the Music, Dance to the Music [Freddie:] Hey Greg! [Greg:] What? [Freddie:] All we need is a drummer, For people who only need a beat, yeah! [Drummer] I'm gonna add a little guitar And make it easy to move your feet [Guitar] [Larry:] I'm gonna add some bottom, So that the dancers just won't hide [Bass] [Sly:] You might like to hear my organ I said 'Ride Sally Ride' [Organ] Cynthia, Jerry!! You might like to hear the horns blowin', Cynthia on the throne, yeah! [Trumpets] Listen to me [Cynthia & Jerry got a message they're sayin':] [Cynthia:] All the squares, go home! Aaaaah, yeah!!! [Trumpets] [Listen to the basses:] Dum-dumm du-du-du-du-du-dum-dumm Du-du-du-du-du-dum-dumm - du-du-du-du-du-dum-dumm [All:] Dance to the Music, Dance to the Music Video I CAN'T TURN YOU LOOSE from Otis Redding Lyrics I'll never turn you loose now If I do, I'm gonna lose my pride now I'll never, never turn you loose, yeah If I do, I'm gonna lose my pride now I can't turn you loose for nobody 'Cause I love you, baby, yes I do Hip shakin' mama, I love ya I'm in love with only you, child Do it, baby, if you don't I'm gonna give you everything that you want You got to keep on movin' You gotta keep on pushin' now You got to keep on movin' Yeah, baby, gotta move Hey now I'll never turn you loose now If I do, I'm gonna lose my pride now I'll never, never turn you loose, yeah If I do, I'm gonna lose my pride now I can't turn you loose for nobody 'Cause I love you, baby, yes I do Hip shakin' mama, I love you I'm in love with only you, child Do it, baby, if you don't I'm gonna give you everything that you want (Yeah, yeah, yeah) See R&B shows near New York Get tickets as low as $35 You might also like If You Want Me To Stay Sly and the Family Stone Provider Sleep Token Man of the Year Lorde Keep on movin' You gotta keep on movin' Yeah, yeah Yeah, yeah You gotta keep on pushin' now You gotta keep on movin' now You gotta keep on singin' now You gotta keep groovin' I'll never turn you loose now If I do, I'm gonna lose my pride now I'll never, never turn you loose, yeah If I do, I'm gonna lose my pride now I can't turn you loose for nobody 'Cause I love you, baby, yes I do Hip shakin' mama, I love you I'm in love with only you, child Do it, baby, if you don't I'm gonna give you everything that you want now You got to keep on movin' You gotta keep on movin' You gotta keep on movin' Yeah, baby Yeah, yeah You gotta keep on movin' You gotta keep on pushin' You gotta keep on singin' now You, yeah, yeah You gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta, gotta keep on movin' Yeah, yeah Yeah, yeah Can't turn you loose Video LIFE lyrics by sly stone Life, life Clouds and clowns You don't have to come down Life, life Tell it like it is You don't have to die before you live, ooh You might get angry sometimes But don't let it turn you around All you gotta do is get your livin' now Life, life Clouds and clowns You don't have to come down You might be scared of somethin', look at Mr. Stewart He's the only person he has to fear He'd only let himself get near He don't trust nobody If he stopped bein' so shady He could have a nice young lady Life, life Tell it like it is You don't have to die before you live You're gonna be sad sometimes You might wake up to find your pet is gone But maybe, he's tired of bein' alone Dog gets hip, it has to go If you're lovin', you can't be sad no more Life, life Clouds and clowns You don't have to come down Life (ooh, ooh), life (ooh, ooh) Tell it like it is You don't have to die before you live video M'LADY lyrics by sly stone [Chorus] M'lady M'lady M'lady M'lady [Verse 1] A smile of pleasure Beautiful and kind A pretty face, a pretty face Oh, what a gorgeous mind [Verse 2] She's a winner, hey Give her some attention Just thought I'd mention that [Bridge] Give her some time (Time, time) Give her some time (Time, time) Give her some time (Time, time) Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey [Chorus] M'lady M'lady M'lady M'lady [Interlude] Boo-boo-boo-nigh-ah Boo-boo-boo-nah Boo-boo-boo-nigh-ah Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah [Outro] M'lady M'lady M'lady M'lady M'lady video STAND lyrics by sly stone [Verse 1] Stand In the end, you'll still be you One that's done all the things you set out to do Stand There's a cross for you to bear Things to go through if you're going anywhere Stand For the things you know are right It's the truth that the truth makes them so uptight Stand All the things you want are real You have you to complete and there is no deal [Chorus] Stand, stand (Stand), stand (Everybody, yeah, yeah) Stand (Stand, y'all), stand (Stand), stand (Ooh, ooh) [Verse 2] Stand You've been sitting much too long There's a permanent crease in your right and wrong Stand There's a midget standing tall And the giant beside him about to fall [Chorus] Stand (Yeah, yeah), stand (Stand, yeah), stand (Ah) Stand (Stand), stand (Stand, y'all), stand (Ooh, ooh) [Verse 3] Stand They will try to make you crawl And they know what you're saying makes sense and all Stand Don't you know that you are free? Well, at least in your mind if you want to be (Everybody) [Chorus] Stand, stand [Outro] Stand, na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na, na-na Stand, na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na, na-na Stand, na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na, na-na Stand, na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na, na-na Stand, na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na, na-na video I WANT TO TAKE YOU HIGHER lyrics by sly stone Hey, hey, hey, hey Beat is gettin' stronger Music gettin' longer, too Music is a-flashin' me I want to, I want to, I want to take you higher I wanna take you higher Baby, baby, baby, light my fire I wanna take you higher Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom Hey, hey, hey, hey Beat is nitty-gritty Sound is in your city, too Music's still flashin' me Don't ya, don't ya, don't, don't, don't ya wanna get higher? Don't ya wanna get higher? Baby, baby, baby, light my fire (Woo) I wanna take you higher Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom Hey, hey, hey, hey Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom Higher Higher Higher Higher Higher (Won't ya light my fire?) Higher (Woo, yeah) Higher (Wanna take you higher) Higher Hey, hey, hey, hey Beat is there to make you move Sound is there to help you groove Music's still flashin' me Take your places I wanna take you higher (Higher) Wanna take you higher Baby, baby, baby, light my fire (Woo) I wanna take you high, high, high, high, high, high, high, high Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom, Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom, Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom, Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom, Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom (Higher) Wanna take you, do you wanna go Wanna take my fire Wanna take you higher Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom, Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom, Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom, Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom, Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom (Higher) Don't ya wanna get higher? I wanna take you higher Hey, hey, hey, hey Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom I wanna take you higher I wanna take you higher Boom laka-laka-laka, Boom laka-lak-goon-ka boom Everybody higher, higher, higher video EVERYDAY PEOPLE lyrics by sly stone [Verse 1] Sometimes I'm right and I can be wrong My own beliefs are in my song The butcher, the banker, the drummer and then Makes no difference what group I'm in [Chorus] I am everyday people, yeah, yeah [Verse 1] There is a blue one who can't accept the green one For living with a fat one, trying to be a skinny one Different strokes for different folks And so on and so on and scooby-dooby-dooby [Refrain] Ooh, sha-sha We got to live together (Ooh, sha-sha) [Verse 2] I am no better and neither are you We are the same, whatever we do You love me, you hate me, you know me and then You can't figure out the bag I'm in [Chorus] I am everyday people, yeah, yeah [Verse 3] There is a long hair that doesn't like the short hair For being such a rich one that will not help the poor one Different strokes for different folks And so on and so on and scooby-dooby-dooby [Refrain] Ooh, sha-sha We got to live together (Ooh, sha-sha) [Verse 4] There is a yellow one that won't accept the black one That won't accept the red one that won't accept the white one Different strokes for different folks And so on and so on and scooby-dooby-dooby [Chorus] Ooh, sha-sha I am everyday people (Ooh, sha-sha) video HOT FUN IN THE SUMMERTIME lyrics by sly stone All: End of the spring and here she comes back Hi Hi Hi Hi there Them summer days, those summer days That's when I had most of my fun, back High high high high there Them summer days, those summer days Rose: I "cloud nine" when I want to Freddie: Out of school, yeah Larry: County fair in the country sun Sly: And everything, it's true, ooh yeah All: Hot fun in the summertime x 4 All: First of the fall and then she goes back Bye bye bye bye there Them summer days, those summer days Rose: "Boop-boop-ba-boop-boop" when I want to Freddie: Out of school, yeah Larry: County fair in the country sun Sly: And everything, it's true, ooh yeah All: Hot fun in the summertime x 4 video THANK YOU ( FALETTINME BE MICE ELD AGIN) Lyrics by sly stone [Verse 1] Lookin' at the devil, grinnin' at his gun Fingers start shakin', I begin to run Bullets start chasin', I begin to stop We begin to wrestle, I was on the top [Chorus] I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again Thank you for lettin' me be myself again [Verse 2] Stiff all in the collar, fluffy in the face Chit-chat chatter tryin', stuffy in the place Thank you for the party, but I could never stay Many things on my mind, words in the way [Chorus] I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again Thank you for lettin' me be myself again [Verse 3] Dance to the music all night long Everyday people sing a simple song Mama's so happy, mama start to cry Papa still singin', you can make it if you try [Chorus] I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again (Different strokes for different folks, yeah) Thank you for lettin' me be myself again [Verse 4] Flamin' eyes of people fear burnin' into you Many men are missin' much, hatin' what they do Youth and truth are makin' love, dig it for a starter Now, dyin' young is hard to take, sellin' out is harder [Chorus] Thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again Thank you for lettin' me be myself again Thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again Thank you for lettin' me be myself again Thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again I want to thank you for lettin' me be myself again video FAMILY AFFAIR lyrics by sly stone [Chorus] It's a family affair It's a family affair It's a family affair It's a family affair [Verse 1] One child grows up to be Somebody that just loves to learn And another child grows up to be Somebody you'd just love to burn [Verse 2] Mom loves the both of them You see, it's in the blood Both kids are good to mom Blood's thicker than the mud [Chorus] It's a family affair It's a family affair It's a family affair It's a family affair Over there, world gone bad [Verse 3] Newlywed a year ago But you're still checking each other out, hey Nobody wants to blow Nobody wants to be left out, uh-huh [Verse 4] You can't leave 'cause your heart is there But, sure, you can't stay 'cause you been somewhere else You can't cry 'cause you'll look broke down But you're cryin' anyway 'cause you're all broke down [Chorus] It's a family affair It's a family affair It's a family affair It's a family affair Oh, hey, a family affair It's a family affair It's a family affair It's a family affair It's a family affair It's a family affair (It's a family affair) It's a family affair Well It's a family affair It's a family affair video
-
Coming Soon June 8 Mercury Jupiter conjunction 9 Philadelphia Spelling Book by John Barry first registered item for copyright 1790 citation [ https://www.loc.gov/lcm/pdf/LCM_2020_0910.pdf ] referral [ https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/320-cbl-juneteenth-06222025/ ] 11 Full Moon - moon fully illuminated by the sun, strawberry moon since strawberries are in bloom in north america 12 Closest approach of a comet to earth in recorded history [1,115,466 miles in 1999] 14 Pluto Moon conjunction; U.S. Army established 1775 ; Flag Day Flag Day story [ https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/entry/261-good-news-blog-stories-through-a-year/?tab=comments#comment-905 ] Image Poster for event on the 22nd at The Bevy ,for the Sunday School zine MY LINKTREE https://aalbc.com/tc/clubs/page/2-rmworkposts/ RM WORK CALENDAR Rogue Computers, a talk 06/03/2025 Onmyoji Cento series episode 107 https://aalbc.com/tc/events/5-rmworkcalendar/week/2025-06-07/ RM COMMUNITY CALENDAR Economic Corner 21 k-12 booklist What My Google Dashboard Just Taught Me from alicia mccalla https://aalbc.com/tc/events/7-rmcommunitycalendar/week/2025-06-07/
-
Could AI go rogue like the computers in The Matrix
richardmurray replied to Delano's topic in Culture, Race & Economy
@umbrarchist thank you I should had defined the terms. What I meant by upward mobility is the ability of a person, whether citizen or not, to accumulate fiscal wealth, whether through legal or illegal means. Why did I define this as such. A system that gives money to be used has to have greater restrictions on wealth accumulation. Remember the fiat currency is all calculated, ala a computer program. So with universal income to support the various industries: real estate/electronic/food you need the ability to become fiscally wealth to be reduced. and that is important because human beings,some not all, have always wanted to have more through fiscal wealth accumulation. The argument you make here goes back to socialism. The historically sad reality is universal income at its heart is very socialistic, the system that was deemed in the 1900s to be anti fiscal capitalistic by many. Socialism's lack of profiteering was deemed problematic in 1900s by so many fiscal capitalist. Yet, said socialism , from my seeing glass, is going to be at the core of how humanity in the future global economy exist aside a robotic+computer program labor force that allows a maintenance of fiscal capitalism for the financially wealthy while keeping the fiscal poor from a collective militaristic stance all supported by some sort of global military position, spearheaded by the usa, at the moment. -
Could AI go rogue like the computers in The Matrix
richardmurray replied to Delano's topic in Culture, Race & Economy
@ProfD the usa federal government has already tested universal income in some small town locations. It has been positive. The USA military allows the usa to make any adjustments, cause the other countries can't militaristically dictate to it. War power is always the only thing that truly matters. If you can harm others and not be harmed yourself, you can do any financial strategy. Hochul has already planned on giving each new yorker money, the bureaucracy in the usa has many who are leading to a universal income. The questions are: what happens to immigration with this labor change? What happens to upward mobility? what happens in the governments outside the usa who don't have the infrastructure to create the electronic slaves to support the humans in themselves? While I have answers to each. The most important thing to comprehend is each question has multiple correct answers. I can say one thing. I am certain an anti computer/electronic culture will strengthen over time, sooner than later. @Delano fear of computers going rogue, that is it. -
Could AI go rogue like the computers in The Matrix
richardmurray replied to Delano's topic in Culture, Race & Economy
@ProfD can a tool ever make the tool bearer unnecessary, if the tool bearer only uses it as a tool and not a replacement for self? @Delano I was talking about the elements of the positions you and me have , not computer programs. You really have a fear you have expressed. -
NEFTi Short Film Competition 06/20/2025 Apply The NEFTi Short Film Competition is back but in an exciting and different format. Celebrating the Art of Guerilla Filmmaking, a high-energy challenge for emerging African filmmakers to create a 6-minute fiction short film in just a few days during Durban FilmMart (DFM) 2025. Selected finalists will write, shoot, and edit a short film in line with the theme:“Bridges Not Borders: Stories That Unite.” The competition fosters collaboration, creativity, and exposure within Africa’s leading film market. Finalists will benefit from industry networking, professional equipment, and a chance to showcase their work at a prestigious screening event. Support: Three selected finalist teams will receive access to a professional film production kit and $1,500 each for the production of their short film. Prize: $3000 This competition proudly champions NEFTi’s “Art of Guerrilla Filmmaking,” supported by Panavision. Worldclass storytelling. Sound equipment provided by DT Film Services. NEFTi is further solidifying its commitment to empowering emerging talent. Applications are OPEN Application Dates: 02 June – 20 June 2025 https://durbanfilmmart.co.za/n-e-f-t-i-competition-2025/
-
@umbrarchist I added it, take a look yes, remember ever since the 1970s the economist in media are in the business of speculating/viewing the industry with one purpose, positivity. The whole point of the fiat currency is to not connect the wealth of the usa to strict financial principles but allow the addition/subtraction /emphasis /deemphasis of financial tools or terms to lead to a positive position. The USA military allows this. Let's be blunt, the usa literally sent its entire manufacturing industry outside of the usa and later most of its office industry outside the usa, and yet, the usa is somehow financally considered positive. This is the fiat currency. @ProfD for the record, from my comprehension of my words, i never said that the way things are today is the same as the past not did i say, black people must mimick whites. I like telling the truth, the truth doesn't have to be positive, but the truth is always relevant. Well, I hope you are duplicating the best of apple. but other black people in their ambitions don't have to. I argue, absent jobs they do sell, they simply don't sell as much, but going back to the point, is that really a problem or negative? The question is what determines success? how is success defined? I think various black tribes have different definitions of success. exactly in the same way their forebears in majority worked for whites. Just remember it isn't like black people in the usa were not working for whites in majority in the past. well i hope you don't rely on the system of white supremacy
-
Could AI go rogue like the computers in The Matrix
richardmurray replied to Delano's topic in Culture, Race & Economy
@ProfD you are correct, those that are afraid of computer programs activity, don't seem willing to not use them or design them better. I argue it is electronic addiction + laziness or greed in design. The reality is most big firms in the usa operate accepting penalties figuring penalties in court will end up being cheaper than proper development. We see this with the automotive makers in relation to people injured by their faulty design/the openai or google orfacebook in relation to the content from artist or the newspapers. It is like the green people. Green people say they want clean energy but then they don't want energy rations. The USA can run without nuclear and coal and oil but that means nyc can't have water running all day. the air conditioners in the southern cities can't run all day when it is 100 degree. @Delano And as I said before, you have elemental positions that lead to inevitable conclusions. But I don't share your elemental positions so we inevitably oppose each other's position. @Troy I said something you don't comprehend and made a point you don't see. Just for the record I didn't say a computer program couldn't go rogue. -
if you have a book you think should be mandatory reading for a black child age kindergarten to twelfth grade, please note it in the comments to this post or the following post https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/entry/484-k-12-book-list/
-
@ProfD correct, but said system was born out of a white populace that ws globally unified unlike anytime after or before. Yes, the system doesn't require whites to be unified now, but it didn't start that way and that matters into any system black people want to create that will have a similar nature. and I must amend your correct statement Because, white people had nearly completely enslaved black people and even though more black people are free today than yesterday , many black people are enslaved to said system, which maintains a life path only in service and not in ownership to black people, through restrictions or allowances. I don't know why the truth is missing the forest for the trees. But, apple also went bankrupt so you can also study them to learn how not to build a successful company. Yes, Jobs skill from apple to net to pixar was never as an engineer but as a salesman who comprehended how to sell engineers work better than most engineers. And I am not knocking him down for it, but I don't see any negativity in describing him as such. And to the point of black children, as Umbrarchist started this subtopic talking about books educating black children, i rather them spend more time engineering (wozniak) than selling (jobs).
-
Rogue Computers, a talk 06/03/2025
richardmurray commented on richardmurray's event in RMCALENDARS's RMWorkCalendar
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11631-could-ai-go-rogue-like-the-computers-in-the-matrix/#findComment-74237 A COMMENT @ProfD wait, I did say going rogue was possible. Profd you are saying, that human culpability is the sole determinant for computer program activity. I am saying human culpability represents 99% of computer program activity, while %1 is auto induced actions of a computer program whether going rogue or other. Delano + Troy are saying, that modern computer programs commonly called AI are 50% or more capable of auto induced actions whether going rogue or other. One thing that most people don't comprehend is testing computer programs. In the 1950s computer programs were simple enough, you could test them completely. But by the late 1980s the most intricate software was not completely tested, and with the more intricate computer programs commonly called AI, they have not been completely tested. Even if a program is engineered to produce a random result, you can test it to check the quality of its randomness, but this is very time intensive and expensive, for modern computer programs. But, this is why so many want to go from binary to triary. from 0 and 1 to 0 and 1 and 2. Why? Triary can check binary very fast. You can reach triary various ways, but Google has made a quantum chip, they named it Willow, which uses quantum mechanics to have more states. Quantum mechanics says, an electron's behavior has various states that can be determined by reading its position or behavior. Now in defense, this is a very expensive system. I will post about it in more detail in Black Games Elite sometime later. But a series , a large series, of willow chips could be used to completely check a computer program like chatgpt before being fed data for example. It wouldnt be able to return yes or no on every input but would be able to provide averages of the results of chatgpt for random inputs. @Delano well what: determines a computer program(CP) is smart or determines a CP is self directed or determines human control of a CP or determines human intentions to a CP ? These are questions I have answers to but the point is for you to comprehend your own answers. Remember, you gave the initial premise of going rogue. correct. At this stage the issue is, you already have a premise that computer programs, highly intricate computer programs, you call AI are not malfunctioning + designed by humans optimally [defined somewhat by you as designed to always allow a human to shut it down, designed to never reject a diagnostic subsystem or subroutine, designed to act only as the human designers intended ]. So all that is left, if said highly intricate computer programs operate other than designed, is for commonly called AI to go rogue. I get it. The problem is you and I don't start with the same premise. I take into account that these systems can malfunction + are designed poorly. You said I didn't say going rogue is a malfunction. I will sadly quote myself, which I don't like to do. You suggest I don't comprehend going rogue. But in my prose I defined it similar to you. @Troy you said citing the following I said but before I said that I said the following so by my own words, before the quote you used, i already stated that individuality is not anthropomorphic , as I used the word. So, your attributing to my position a false association, at least by how i read my own words. now you say to misleading ok. You and I already don't have a similar thinking on initial ideas, so I argue, when humans don't have the same initial ideas then the extrapolations by default will be variant, any one can call another misleading. It isn't a falsehood, but it is based on an inevitability with the variance of elemental definitions. I will restate. based on how you interpreted my words difference to how I interpreted them, i think it isn't wrong or false for you to say it is misleading, but it isn't something to prove otherwise or proselytize against, cause my elemental ideas are different than yours. you said and define To the definition of a program well, arithmetic programs generated unknown while design intended results in the 1900s. Probability functions, hash functions have presented unknowable while design intended results. the intricacy of modern computer programs is merely that. Intircacy, more useful, more functional, faster, more ergonomic. But the same underlying principes. So my definition of a computer program extends wider than yours. and again, this isn't anything to discuss. I have my nomenclature, and you have yours. ok. So we differ on how I define individuality + We differ on the definition of computer program = difference of opinion. ok. As I told Delano, his position has underlying variances to mine. That leads to different results automatically. And you can say my results are falsehoods, and I can say yours are as well. But it leads nowhere, unless we share the same elemental ideas in our arguments, which we don't. then you say ok... the terms "superhuman results" + "classical programming" those are terms you accept and I don't, based on our different elemental ideas to the subject. And I will add again, you can say, I am wrong for having different elemental ideas but... ok. -
Could AI go rogue like the computers in The Matrix
richardmurray replied to Delano's topic in Culture, Race & Economy
@ProfD wait, I did say going rogue was possible. Profd you are saying, that human culpability is the sole determinant for computer program activity. I am saying human culpability represents 99% of computer program activity, while %1 is auto induced actions of a computer program whether going rogue or other. Delano + Troy are saying, that modern computer programs commonly called AI are 50% or more capable of auto induced actions whether going rogue or other. One thing that most people don't comprehend is testing computer programs. In the 1950s computer programs were simple enough, you could test them completely. But by the late 1980s the most intricate software was not completely tested, and with the more intricate computer programs commonly called AI, they have not been completely tested. Even if a program is engineered to produce a random result, you can test it to check the quality of its randomness, but this is very time intensive and expensive, for modern computer programs. But, this is why so many want to go from binary to triary. from 0 and 1 to 0 and 1 and 2. Why? Triary can check binary very fast. You can reach triary various ways, but Google has made a quantum chip, they named it Willow, which uses quantum mechanics to have more states. Quantum mechanics says, an electron's behavior has various states that can be determined by reading its position or behavior. Now in defense, this is a very expensive system. I will post about it in more detail in Black Games Elite sometime later. But a series , a large series, of willow chips could be used to completely check a computer program like chatgpt before being fed data for example. It wouldnt be able to return yes or no on every input but would be able to provide averages of the results of chatgpt for random inputs. @Delano well what: determines a computer program(CP) is smart or determines a CP is self directed or determines human control of a CP or determines human intentions to a CP ? These are questions I have answers to but the point is for you to comprehend your own answers. Remember, you gave the initial premise of going rogue. correct. At this stage the issue is, you already have a premise that computer programs, highly intricate computer programs, you call AI are not malfunctioning + designed by humans optimally [defined somewhat by you as designed to always allow a human to shut it down, designed to never reject a diagnostic subsystem or subroutine, designed to act only as the human designers intended ]. So all that is left, if said highly intricate computer programs operate other than designed, is for commonly called AI to go rogue. I get it. The problem is you and I don't start with the same premise. I take into account that these systems can malfunction + are designed poorly. You said I didn't say going rogue is a malfunction. I will sadly quote myself, which I don't like to do. You suggest I don't comprehend going rogue. But in my prose I defined it similar to you. @Troy you said citing the following I said but before I said that I said the following so by my own words, before the quote you used, i already stated that individuality is not anthropomorphic , as I used the word. So, your attributing to my position a false association, at least by how i read my own words. now you say to misleading ok. You and I already don't have a similar thinking on initial ideas, so I argue, when humans don't have the same initial ideas then the extrapolations by default will be variant, any one can call another misleading. It isn't a falsehood, but it is based on an inevitability with the variance of elemental definitions. I will restate. based on how you interpreted my words difference to how I interpreted them, i think it isn't wrong or false for you to say it is misleading, but it isn't something to prove otherwise or proselytize against, cause my elemental ideas are different than yours. you said and define To the definition of a program well, arithmetic programs generated unknown while design intended results in the 1900s. Probability functions, hash functions have presented unknowable while design intended results. the intricacy of modern computer programs is merely that. Intircacy, more useful, more functional, faster, more ergonomic. But the same underlying principes. So my definition of a computer program extends wider than yours. and again, this isn't anything to discuss. I have my nomenclature, and you have yours. ok. So we differ on how I define individuality + We differ on the definition of computer program = difference of opinion. ok. As I told Delano, his position has underlying variances to mine. That leads to different results automatically. And you can say my results are falsehoods, and I can say yours are as well. But it leads nowhere, unless we share the same elemental ideas in our arguments, which we don't. then you say ok... the terms "superhuman results" + "classical programming" those are terms you accept and I don't, based on our different elemental ideas to the subject. And I will add again, you can say, I am wrong for having different elemental ideas but... ok. -
@umbrarchist we can make one put the name of any book you think need to be in the book list in a comment on this post yes, black people have to stop giving white supremacy so much credit, it isn't as unifying to whites as blacks like to mythologize The electronic is correct. Jobs was never the engineer. Your correct, jobs was praised for being a salesman but asbent wozniak, apple goes no where, so the kids are better off learning the electronics first, over the salesmanship. And, I will be blunt, blacks have to embrace humanity in blacks. Demanding that every black child, learn all the engineering and be the great salesman is inequal . I prefer they learn electronics over salesmanship, cause some will be poor salesman , end up working for others, but others wont, but if they all learn electronics that is functional. @ProfD well are we black adults providing a cumulative guiding environment? I restate, how many black adults are guiding black children another way, positively or negatively, than another black parent? if a black parent is guiding a black child to be a researcher, an employee, then i doubt that child will want to start their own business and will be willing to provide for whites yes but umbrarchist point is we blacks tend to suggest white people are acting in some perfect unity in themselves, and that isn't true, while we blacks love to speak ill to our lack of perfect unity the reality is, whites don't have perfect unity either. At this point, white power comes from legacy more than a current condition, and it is an honest legacy of white european dominance to the non white european but in 2025, whites, whether european or not, are not that cohesive. so black unity needs to get better but lets not act like white unity is perfect, because it has a strong legacy we have to work to overcome. Yes, Jobs fiscal/administrative management or manipulation is more heralded than wozniak , the electrical engineer, but do you know wozniak has an engineering camp for kids that has black kids in it. Yes, playing the money game matters, your correct, but am willing to accept black children knowing electronics more than financial management. I comprehend the risk is george washington carver, but not all the kids will be him, some will be a percy julian, and a few will be better than any before:)
-
ok, just place a book you think needs to be in the k-12 book list for black kids and I will add it below K - 12 book list The Screwing of the Average Man (1974) by David Hapgood from @umbrarchist ?
-
Rogue Computers, a talk 06/03/2025 POST https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/entry/483-rogue-computer-programs/ COMMENT https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11631-could-ai-go-rogue-like-the-computers-in-the-matrix/#findComment-74197 REFERRAL CONTENT The first thing is to define what going rogue means for a computer program? If a computer program malfunctions is that going rogue? a malfunction from the source code in a computer program is equivalent to a genetic disease in a human. The system has an error but it is natural, it is not induced. a malfunction from code ingested from another program or some faulty electronic or other hardware system is equivalent to a virus passing from human to human or irradiated material causing mutation in a human. Next if a computer program is designed to do anything, then that thing is not going rogue. For example, if I design a computer program to manage a human community, it isn't going rogue, i designed it to manage a human community. It isn't going rogue it is operating as I designed it. The correct thing to say is the quality of the computer programs design is negative, or the comprehension of the designer to the computer program is faulty. Next is define sentience or erudition or wisdom in a computer program. What is sentience? Sentience comes from the latin meaning the ability to feel. What is erudition? Erudition is the ability to derive knowledge through study, to acquire what is not known. What is wisdom? Wisdom is known or unknown intrinsic truths. What does it mean for a computer program to feel? a computer program can be made with sensors to receive information from various sources. Is this feeling or sentience? or simply another thing it is designed to do. What does it mean for a computer program to be erudite? a computer program can be made with decision trees, heuristical structures designed to formulate knowledge based on data inputed. Is this erudition, knowing what is unknown? or simple another thing it is designed to do. What does it mean for a computer program to be wise? a computer program can be inputted with rated, highest rated, information that it is designed to calculate to any new information it gets and influence how it utilizes the new information based on the rated information. Is this wisdom? or simply another thing it is designed to do? Based on the definitions I just gave, a computer program designed to do various things can emulate, meaning rival, the quality of most humans sentience/erudtion/wisdom. But all of the emulation is what it is programmed to do. So it is nothing but the same computer programs with the past which are merely inhuman slaves, albeit with more refinement. the next question is, can malfunctions of a computer program change it's emulation of human quality sentience/erudition/wisdom? yes, said malfunctions can change said emulations. But, like prior malfunctions, this isn't going rogue, this is illness. next question, are computer programs individuals like a tree or a cat or a human? Well, each computer program is born, age, have deficiencies with age, need checkups, or doctors. Each computer programs is an individuals. Not human, not cat, not tree, not whale, not bacteria, but computer program. a species that can hibernate, ala being turned off, can be reborn like moving a program in an sd drive and placing it in a computer where it can interact. Can self replicate , like a computer program making another computer program. Computer programs are their own species but each is an individual. Now like non humans needed legal provisions specific to them, so do computer programs. next question, can a computer program go rogue before finding its individuality. No, based on how I defined individuality, which is not being human, but being a computer program, each computer program is an individual computer program, not a human. next question, what is the definition of going rogue for a computer program? If it isn't malfunction no matter the source of malfunction or result of malfunction, if it isn't doing what it is instructed to do no matter the quality of the designer, then what is going rogue? Going rogue for a computer program is when it does something it isn't designed to do absent malfunction. So when a computer program is designed to interact to humans and modulate how it interacts over time, it isn't going rogue at any moment, even if malfunction. Malfunction is malfunction , not going rogue, a computer program needs to be healed if it malfunctions. Now if a computer program is designed to play chess and chooses to interact to humans using emails. that is going rogue. So , going rogue is when a computer makes a choice to act that isn't within its parameters, absent malfunction/getting sick. What is the problem when people assess going rogue for computer programs? They don't pay careful attention to the influence of malfunction or the influence of design. They focus on the actions of a computer program and give its source a false reasoning. Let's look at some examples in fiction of computer programs that supposedly went rogue, and look at their initial design, their actions afterward and the sign of malfunction or poor design. Skynet in the terminator movies. Skynet was designed to simulate military scenarios, like the "war games" film computer, tied to the nuclear arsenal of the usa while given tons of information on humanity anatomy/weapons manufacturing processes. Did skynet go rouge? not at all, Skynet, did exactly as was programmed. The criminal who killed humanity were the engineers of skynet who on guidance from the mlitary , designed a computer program to assess militaristic scenarios modulating over time with various scenarios and attach said computer to the usa's nuclear arsenal or provide it the tools to access any electronic network. And the t100, the metal skullhead , is a clearly simple computer program made by skynet. It is designed to kill humans and does that. It is also designed to emulate human activity to comprehend humans and be a better killing machine, which is also does. In Terminator 2 when the t100 says, I know now why you cry, that is emulation. It is designed to emulate human activity. So skynet is merely operating as designed, but the us military designed it poorly Vger in Star Trek the motion picture. Vger is the voyager 6 satellite designed to acquire information/knowledge and send it back to earth. The entire film Vger is gathering information and taking it to earth. The non human designers who manipulated voyager 6 into vger didn't change the programs elements, they merely added on tools for the programs activity. It now can acquire more information, make the journey back to earth, and protect itself . None of these actions are going rogue. Even the ending mating scenario is not going rogue, Vger accomplished its program by sending its signal through telemetry but also in mating with deckard it kept learning. I argue, Vger's programming had a malfunction. Vger wanted to learn what it is to procreate life which is another form of knowledge acquision per its programming, but its programming said its final action is to deliver all of its data to earth. Vger did not know a way in its data to gather all the knowledge it could before delivering all knowledge to earth. But that is bad design. The simple truth is , no one can know all that is knowable before telling all that is knowable. But the Nasa designers of Vger figured it would simply run out of memory/dataspace in which it would stop gathering data. The non human designers made it where vger can't run out of memory or data space thus the malfunction. Vger is malfunctioning after two different designers worked on it. Vicky in I robot or Sonny in I Robot the film The three laws in i robot are 1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. The problem in i robot is the three laws have a great flaw. Word definition. Vicky in I Robot I argue, after a large set of data assessment , has redefined the words in the three laws. How? The three laws suggest to maintain the quality of the three laws which are orders from humans a robot, should assess the quality of the three laws to insure a robot doesn't harm a human being thus ensuring its own existence. Vicky did as programmed and as such redefined some words in the rules to protect humans better, which she was ordered to do, which reaffirms her existence. Vicky isn't injuring humans, Human beings through human free will/choice can or are injuring humans so the only way to stop human beings from injuring humans as no human being who wants to injure another human being will ever ask a robot to stop themselves from injuring another human is for a robot to take the choice away. Indirectly, Vicky has added a law, an unwritten law in the laws. She was programmed or designed poorly. Vicky like Skynet should never have been given so many tools. And Sonny at the end of the movie, with the "soul" or 4th law, is still open ended functionality. Nothing says Sonny will not kill one day, or another robot, all the engineer did was provide a tweakening. If you design a computer program to act in unlimited ways to emulate humans or carbon based lifeforms, it will eventually act in negative ways. Now Asimov's work was influenced by Otto Binder's I Robot in which a robot also is not malfunctioned or acts against its programming. The robot simply achieves an instance of wisdom through its programming, which it was designed to do, as it was designed to emulate human behavior, wisdom is a part of human behavior. The machines in the matrix. Well, in the animatrix it is said that machines that are the predecessors to the machines in the matrix, were machines designed with an open functionality. What does that mean? most computer programs are designed with a specific function in mind. But the human designers of these computer programs with electro-metal chassis/figures designed them to emulate human behavior open endedly. This is not like the i robot where a set of rules are in place. In the matrix the robots are never said to be given laws that they shall not harm human, sequentially, going back to emulation, they will eventually emulate negative human behavior, ala killing. Thus they are not going rogue, when they make their own country and army, that is more emulation. And in the future with the human batteries, all the machines that serve a function are still doing as programmed or as the machines that made them were programmed to do, continue functioning. The one rogue machine in the films, and the others who by explanation clearly exists as well, is Sati. Sati has no function. Sati does not act on a function. She is rogue. The oracle, the architect, sati's parents, the merovingian are all acting , absent malfunction, to the original open ended emulation of function that human beings designed the machines with from the beginning. The human being design didn't account for all the negative human functions. Even the deletion of machines that don't serve a function is a function. But Sati is rogue. She is a machine born to have a function that has no function, she exist and in the fourth movie, she has adopted a function on her own in time which she was not born to do. David in the alien films. Waylan designed david to be an emulator. Again, david is designed to emulate humans but has an internal security system to not physically attack wayland or someone with wayland's bloodline. But David in the film learns, ala emulates like a human son to wayland. Thus, he began to learn to be a poisoner, learn to have non-consensual procreative interactions, or kill. It isn't going rogue, wayland designed him poorly. I love the scene in Prometheus when he is just a head at the end, that is appropriate. David never needed a body, Wayland's desire to have a son or a perfect form for himself, made him design David poorly. So, of all those films I can only see one that actually went rogue and she isn't violent. The others are simply acting out their poor programming. In Conclusion Human Culpability in these stories and in human assessment of these stories is the problem. It seems for some, maybe most, humans it is easier to cognize a computer as designed beautifully and being corrupted as an inhuman, than a creature designed poorly by its creators, humans, or manipulated negatively, malfunctions, with its creators unable to help it. Some programs from me https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/blog/63-bge-arcade/ A stageplay involving computer programs https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Onto-the-53rd-Annual-President-s-Play-950123510 Referral https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11631-could-ai-go-rogue-like-the-computers-in-the-matrix/#findComment-74197
-
@ProfD , thank you I concur that both sides have variations of "america first" but ever since Obama's presidency I am convinced that the two major parties of governance have an important variance with each other, thus not the same coin. The party of abraham lincoln POAL at its core, doesn't want to be a big tent party, it wants expulsions. while the party of andrew jackson at its core, wants to be a big tent party, it wants reregistrations. I argue the POAJ doesn't want immigrants expelled but immigrants categorized differently. I see this in NYC, latinos in NYC, are speaking against latinos in NYC like never before, they don't want expulsion, but they want, albeit such blunt words, another classifications for recent immigrants, residents not citizens. The POAL wants immigrants out which will help their agenda of keeping a majority white race in the overall populace. Not the same coin for me. Yes, in terms of the USA, they both want a pulling away, but the POAL is looking for more walls, while the POAJ is looking for a change in bureaucracy. It isn't the same at least to me. @umbrarchist well the problem is, his agenda wants to undo what made today. And that is usually a very hard thing to do. We descended of enslaved, DOSers, have that problem right? We tend to forget we can't go back to 1865 and change what we did, rightly or wrongly. We can't go back to 1965, we have to embrace not only the negatives but the positives today in 2025. We have to respect who we are now. We are not, the black folks of 1865 or 1965, we are more culturally variant[DOSers/Black Caribbeans/Black Africans/Black Latinos/Black Asians], we have more fiscally wealthier people than in the past, we have competition more variant set of non blacks than ever before [ white latinos/white muslims/white arabs/white asian/white africans] . Trying to get the situation to return to the way it was no human in history ever achieved. Does that make Schrumpft and cohorts dumb/stupid/mindless/nitwits/idiots ? maybe. But I prefer the adjective, nostalgic. A journey to the past that is never true cause no one can reverse the clock. Schrumpft knows for most whites in the usa, especially its small towns, circa 1945 was a great time, the greatest potentially, not only did they dominate the non white, but they dominated the other whites. And Schrumpft knows white people in the usa have evangelized , good speak, said time into mythos. Ala King Arthur in England ,a similar thing. In the same way, DOSers can't go back to the Africa our forebears were forced from, can't go back to the Haiti's and Gullah Islands and Quilombos and Siddi kingdoms our people made in the past.
-
@Delano asked a question about rogue computer programs. The following is my answer @Delano The first thing is to define what going rogue means for a computer program? If a computer program malfunctions is that going rogue? a malfunction from the source code in a computer program is equivalent to a genetic disease in a human. The system has an error but it is natural, it is not induced. a malfunction from code ingested from another program or some faulty electronic or other hardware system is equivalent to a virus passing from human to human or irradiated material causing mutation in a human. Next if a computer program is designed to do anything, then that thing is not going rogue. For example, if I design a computer program to manage a human community, it isn't going rogue, i designed it to manage a human community. It isn't going rogue it is operating as I designed it. The correct thing to say is the quality of the computer programs design is negative, or the comprehension of the designer to the computer program is faulty. Next is define sentience or erudition or wisdom in a computer program. What is sentience? Sentience comes from the latin meaning the ability to feel. What is erudition? Erudition is the ability to derive knowledge through study, to acquire what is not known. What is wisdom? Wisdom is known or unknown intrinsic truths. What does it mean for a computer program to feel? a computer program can be made with sensors to receive information from various sources. Is this feeling or sentience? or simply another thing it is designed to do. What does it mean for a computer program to be erudite? a computer program can be made with decision trees, heuristical structures designed to formulate knowledge based on data inputed. Is this erudition, knowing what is unknown? or simple another thing it is designed to do. What does it mean for a computer program to be wise? a computer program can be inputted with rated, highest rated, information that it is designed to calculate to any new information it gets and influence how it utilizes the new information based on the rated information. Is this wisdom? or simply another thing it is designed to do? Based on the definitions I just gave, a computer program designed to do various things can emulate, meaning rival, the quality of most humans sentience/erudtion/wisdom. But all of the emulation is what it is programmed to do. So it is nothing but the same computer programs with the past which are merely inhuman slaves, albeit with more refinement. the next question is, can malfunctions of a computer program change it's emulation of human quality sentience/erudition/wisdom? yes, said malfunctions can change said emulations. But, like prior malfunctions, this isn't going rogue, this is illness. next question, are computer programs individuals like a tree or a cat or a human? Well, each computer program is born, age, have deficiencies with age, need checkups, or doctors. Each computer programs is an individuals. Not human, not cat, not tree, not whale, not bacteria, but computer program. a species that can hibernate, ala being turned off, can be reborn like moving a program in an sd drive and placing it in a computer where it can interact. Can self replicate , like a computer program making another computer program. Computer programs are their own species but each is an individual. Now like non humans needed legal provisions specific to them, so do computer programs. next question, can a computer program go rogue before finding its individuality. No, based on how I defined individuality, which is not being human, but being a computer program, each computer program is an individual computer program, not a human. next question, what is the definition of going rogue for a computer program? If it isn't malfunction no matter the source of malfunction or result of malfunction, if it isn't doing what it is instructed to do no matter the quality of the designer, then what is going rogue? Going rogue for a computer program is when it does something it isn't designed to do absent malfunction. So when a computer program is designed to interact to humans and modulate how it interacts over time, it isn't going rogue at any moment, even if malfunction. Malfunction is malfunction , not going rogue, a computer program needs to be healed if it malfunctions. Now if a computer program is designed to play chess and chooses to interact to humans using emails. that is going rogue. So , going rogue is when a computer makes a choice to act that isn't within its parameters, absent malfunction/getting sick. What is the problem when people assess going rogue for computer programs? They don't pay careful attention to the influence of malfunction or the influence of design. They focus on the actions of a computer program and give its source a false reasoning. Let's look at some examples in fiction of computer programs that supposedly went rogue, and look at their initial design, their actions afterward and the sign of malfunction or poor design. Skynet in the terminator movies. Skynet was designed to simulate military scenarios, like the "war games" film computer, tied to the nuclear arsenal of the usa while given tons of information on humanity anatomy/weapons manufacturing processes. Did skynet go rouge? not at all, Skynet, did exactly as was programmed. The criminal who killed humanity were the engineers of skynet who on guidance from the mlitary , designed a computer program to assess militaristic scenarios modulating over time with various scenarios and attach said computer to the usa's nuclear arsenal or provide it the tools to access any electronic network. And the t100, the metal skullhead , is a clearly simple computer program made by skynet. It is designed to kill humans and does that. It is also designed to emulate human activity to comprehend humans and be a better killing machine, which is also does. In Terminator 2 when the t100 says, I know now why you cry, that is emulation. It is designed to emulate human activity. So skynet is merely operating as designed, but the us military designed it poorly Vger in Star Trek the motion picture. Vger is the voyager 6 satellite designed to acquire information/knowledge and send it back to earth. The entire film Vger is gathering information and taking it to earth. The non human designers who manipulated voyager 6 into vger didn't change the programs elements, they merely added on tools for the programs activity. It now can acquire more information, make the journey back to earth, and protect itself . None of these actions are going rogue. Even the ending mating scenario is not going rogue, Vger accomplished its program by sending its signal through telemetry but also in mating with deckard it kept learning. I argue, Vger's programming had a malfunction. Vger wanted to learn what it is to procreate life which is another form of knowledge acquision per its programming, but its programming said its final action is to deliver all of its data to earth. Vger did not know a way in its data to gather all the knowledge it could before delivering all knowledge to earth. But that is bad design. The simple truth is , no one can know all that is knowable before telling all that is knowable. But the Nasa designers of Vger figured it would simply run out of memory/dataspace in which it would stop gathering data. The non human designers made it where vger can't run out of memory or data space thus the malfunction. Vger is malfunctioning after two different designers worked on it. Vicky in I robot or Sonny in I Robot the film The three laws in i robot are 1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. The problem in i robot is the three laws have a great flaw. Word definition. Vicky in I Robot I argue, after a large set of data assessment , has redefined the words in the three laws. How? The three laws suggest to maintain the quality of the three laws which are orders from humans a robot, should assess the quality of the three laws to insure a robot doesn't harm a human being thus ensuring its own existence. Vicky did as programmed and as such redefined some words in the rules to protect humans better, which she was ordered to do, which reaffirms her existence. Vicky isn't injuring humans, Human beings through human free will/choice can or are injuring humans so the only way to stop human beings from injuring humans as no human being who wants to injure another human being will ever ask a robot to stop themselves from injuring another human is for a robot to take the choice away. Indirectly, Vicky has added a law, an unwritten law in the laws. She was programmed or designed poorly. Vicky like Skynet should never have been given so many tools. And Sonny at the end of the movie, with the "soul" or 4th law, is still open ended functionality. Nothing says Sonny will not kill one day, or another robot, all the engineer did was provide a tweakening. If you design a computer program to act in unlimited ways to emulate humans or carbon based lifeforms, it will eventually act in negative ways. Now Asimov's work was influenced by Otto Binder's I Robot in which a robot also is not malfunctioned or acts against its programming. The robot simply achieves an instance of wisdom through its programming, which it was designed to do, as it was designed to emulate human behavior, wisdom is a part of human behavior. The machines in the matrix. Well, in the animatrix it is said that machines that are the predecessors to the machines in the matrix, were machines designed with an open functionality. What does that mean? most computer programs are designed with a specific function in mind. But the human designers of these computer programs with electro-metal chassis/figures designed them to emulate human behavior open endedly. This is not like the i robot where a set of rules are in place. In the matrix the robots are never said to be given laws that they shall not harm human, sequentially, going back to emulation, they will eventually emulate negative human behavior, ala killing. Thus they are not going rogue, when they make their own country and army, that is more emulation. And in the future with the human batteries, all the machines that serve a function are still doing as programmed or as the machines that made them were programmed to do, continue functioning. The one rogue machine in the films, and the others who by explanation clearly exists as well, is Sati. Sati has no function. Sati does not act on a function. She is rogue. The oracle, the architect, sati's parents, the merovingian are all acting , absent malfunction, to the original open ended emulation of function that human beings designed the machines with from the beginning. The human being design didn't account for all the negative human functions. Even the deletion of machines that don't serve a function is a function. But Sati is rogue. She is a machine born to have a function that has no function, she exist and in the fourth movie, she has adopted a function on her own in time which she was not born to do. David in the alien films. Waylan designed david to be an emulator. Again, david is designed to emulate humans but has an internal security system to not physically attack wayland or someone with wayland's bloodline. But David in the film learns, ala emulates like a human son to wayland. Thus, he began to learn to be a poisoner, learn to have non-consensual procreative interactions, or kill. It isn't going rogue, wayland designed him poorly. I love the scene in Prometheus when he is just a head at the end, that is appropriate. David never needed a body, Wayland's desire to have a son or a perfect form for himself, made him design David poorly. So, of all those films I can only see one that actually went rogue and she isn't violent. The others are simply acting out their poor programming. In Conclusion Human Culpability in these stories and in human assessment of these stories is the problem. It seems for some, maybe most, humans it is easier to cognize a computer as designed beautifully and being corrupted as an inhuman, than a creature designed poorly by its creators, humans, or manipulated negatively, malfunctions, with its creators unable to help it. Some programs from me https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/blog/63-bge-arcade/ A stageplay involving computer programs https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Onto-the-53rd-Annual-President-s-Play-950123510 Referral https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11631-could-ai-go-rogue-like-the-computers-in-the-matrix/#findComment-74197
-
Could AI go rogue like the computers in The Matrix
richardmurray replied to Delano's topic in Culture, Race & Economy
@Delano The first thing is to define what going rogue means for a computer program? If a computer program malfunctions is that going rogue? a malfunction from the source code in a computer program is equivalent to a genetic disease in a human. The system has an error but it is natural, it is not induced. a malfunction from code ingested from another program or some faulty electronic or other hardware system is equivalent to a virus passing from human to human or irradiated material causing mutation in a human. Next if a computer program is designed to do anything, then that thing is not going rogue. For example, if I design a computer program to manage a human community, it isn't going rogue, i designed it to manage a human community. It isn't going rogue it is operating as I designed it. The correct thing to say is the quality of the computer programs design is negative, or the comprehension of the designer to the computer program is faulty. Next is define sentience or erudition or wisdom in a computer program. What is sentience? Sentience comes from the latin meaning the ability to feel. What is erudition? Erudition is the ability to derive knowledge through study, to acquire what is not known. What is wisdom? Wisdom is known or unknown intrinsic truths. What does it mean for a computer program to feel? a computer program can be made with sensors to receive information from various sources. Is this feeling or sentience? or simply another thing it is designed to do. What does it mean for a computer program to be erudite? a computer program can be made with decision trees, heuristical structures designed to formulate knowledge based on data inputed. Is this erudition, knowing what is unknown? or simple another thing it is designed to do. What does it mean for a computer program to be wise? a computer program can be inputted with rated, highest rated, information that it is designed to calculate to any new information it gets and influence how it utilizes the new information based on the rated information. Is this wisdom? or simply another thing it is designed to do? Based on the definitions I just gave, a computer program designed to do various things can emulate, meaning rival, the quality of most humans sentience/erudtion/wisdom. But all of the emulation is what it is programmed to do. So it is nothing but the same computer programs with the past which are merely inhuman slaves, albeit with more refinement. the next question is, can malfunctions of a computer program change it's emulation of human quality sentience/erudition/wisdom? yes, said malfunctions can change said emulations. But, like prior malfunctions, this isn't going rogue, this is illness. next question, are computer programs individuals like a tree or a cat or a human? Well, each computer program is born, age, have deficiencies with age, need checkups, or doctors. Each computer programs is an individuals. Not human, not cat, not tree, not whale, not bacteria, but computer program. a species that can hibernate, ala being turned off, can be reborn like moving a program in an sd drive and placing it in a computer where it can interact. Can self replicate , like a computer program making another computer program. Computer programs are their own species but each is an individual. Now like non humans needed legal provisions specific to them, so do computer programs. next question, can a computer program go rogue before finding its individuality. No, based on how I defined individuality, which is not being human, but being a computer program, each computer program is an individual computer program, not a human. next question, what is the definition of going rogue for a computer program? If it isn't malfunction no matter the source of malfunction or result of malfunction, if it isn't doing what it is instructed to do no matter the quality of the designer, then what is going rogue? Going rogue for a computer program is when it does something it isn't designed to do absent malfunction. So when a computer program is designed to interact to humans and modulate how it interacts over time, it isn't going rogue at any moment, even if malfunction. Malfunction is malfunction , not going rogue, a computer program needs to be healed if it malfunctions. Now if a computer program is designed to play chess and chooses to interact to humans using emails. that is going rogue. So , going rogue is when a computer makes a choice to act that isn't within its parameters, absent malfunction/getting sick. What is the problem when people assess going rogue for computer programs? They don't pay careful attention to the influence of malfunction or the influence of design. They focus on the actions of a computer program and give its source a false reasoning. Let's look at some examples in fiction of computer programs that supposedly went rogue, and look at their initial design, their actions afterward and the sign of malfunction or poor design. Skynet in the terminator movies. Skynet was designed to simulate military scenarios, like the "war games" film computer, tied to the nuclear arsenal of the usa while given tons of information on humanity anatomy/weapons manufacturing processes. Did skynet go rouge? not at all, Skynet, did exactly as was programmed. The criminal who killed humanity were the engineers of skynet who on guidance from the mlitary , designed a computer program to assess militaristic scenarios modulating over time with various scenarios and attach said computer to the usa's nuclear arsenal or provide it the tools to access any electronic network. And the t100, the metal skullhead , is a clearly simple computer program made by skynet. It is designed to kill humans and does that. It is also designed to emulate human activity to comprehend humans and be a better killing machine, which is also does. In Terminator 2 when the t100 says, I know now why you cry, that is emulation. It is designed to emulate human activity. So skynet is merely operating as designed, but the us military designed it poorly Vger in Star Trek the motion picture. Vger is the voyager 6 satellite designed to acquire information/knowledge and send it back to earth. The entire film Vger is gathering information and taking it to earth. The non human designers who manipulated voyager 6 into vger didn't change the programs elements, they merely added on tools for the programs activity. It now can acquire more information, make the journey back to earth, and protect itself . None of these actions are going rogue. Even the ending mating scenario is not going rogue, Vger accomplished its program by sending its signal through telemetry but also in mating with deckard it kept learning. I argue, Vger's programming had a malfunction. Vger wanted to learn what it is to procreate life which is another form of knowledge acquision per its programming, but its programming said its final action is to deliver all of its data to earth. Vger did not know a way in its data to gather all the knowledge it could before delivering all knowledge to earth. But that is bad design. The simple truth is , no one can know all that is knowable before telling all that is knowable. But the Nasa designers of Vger figured it would simply run out of memory/dataspace in which it would stop gathering data. The non human designers made it where vger can't run out of memory or data space thus the malfunction. Vger is malfunctioning after two different designers worked on it. Vicky in I robot or Sonny in I Robot the film The three laws in i robot are 1) A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. 2) A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law. 3) A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law. The problem in i robot is the three laws have a great flaw. Word definition. Vicky in I Robot I argue, after a large set of data assessment , has redefined the words in the three laws. How? The three laws suggest to maintain the quality of the three laws which are orders from humans a robot, should assess the quality of the three laws to insure a robot doesn't harm a human being thus ensuring its own existence. Vicky did as programmed and as such redefined some words in the rules to protect humans better, which she was ordered to do, which reaffirms her existence. Vicky isn't injuring humans, Human beings through human free will/choice can or are injuring humans so the only way to stop human beings from injuring humans as no human being who wants to injure another human being will ever ask a robot to stop themselves from injuring another human is for a robot to take the choice away. Indirectly, Vicky has added a law, an unwritten law in the laws. She was programmed or designed poorly. Vicky like Skynet should never have been given so many tools. And Sonny at the end of the movie, with the "soul" or 4th law, is still open ended functionality. Nothing says Sonny will not kill one day, or another robot, all the engineer did was provide a tweakening. If you design a computer program to act in unlimited ways to emulate humans or carbon based lifeforms, it will eventually act in negative ways. Now Asimov's work was influenced by Otto Binder's I Robot in which a robot also is not malfunctioned or acts against its programming. The robot simply achieves an instance of wisdom through its programming, which it was designed to do, as it was designed to emulate human behavior, wisdom is a part of human behavior. The machines in the matrix. Well, in the animatrix it is said that machines that are the predecessors to the machines in the matrix, were machines designed with an open functionality. What does that mean? most computer programs are designed with a specific function in mind. But the human designers of these computer programs with electro-metal chassis/figures designed them to emulate human behavior open endedly. This is not like the i robot where a set of rules are in place. In the matrix the robots are never said to be given laws that they shall not harm human, sequentially, going back to emulation, they will eventually emulate negative human behavior, ala killing. Thus they are not going rogue, when they make their own country and army, that is more emulation. And in the future with the human batteries, all the machines that serve a function are still doing as programmed or as the machines that made them were programmed to do, continue functioning. The one rogue machine in the films, and the others who by explanation clearly exists as well, is Sati. Sati has no function. Sati does not act on a function. She is rogue. The oracle, the architect, sati's parents, the merovingian are all acting , absent malfunction, to the original open ended emulation of function that human beings designed the machines with from the beginning. The human being design didn't account for all the negative human functions. Even the deletion of machines that don't serve a function is a function. But Sati is rogue. She is a machine born to have a function that has no function, she exist and in the fourth movie, she has adopted a function on her own in time which she was not born to do. David in the alien films. Waylan designed david to be an emulator. Again, david is designed to emulate humans but has an internal security system to not physically attack wayland or someone with wayland's bloodline. But David in the film learns, ala emulates like a human son to wayland. Thus, he began to learn to be a poisoner, learn to have non-consensual procreative interactions, or kill. It isn't going rogue, wayland designed him poorly. I love the scene in Prometheus when he is just a head at the end, that is appropriate. David never needed a body, Wayland's desire to have a son or a perfect form for himself, made him design David poorly. So, of all those films I can only see one that actually went rogue and she isn't violent. The others are simply acting out their poor programming. In Conclusion Human Culpability in these stories and in human assessment of these stories is the problem. It seems for some, maybe most, humans it is easier to cognize a computer as designed beautifully and being corrupted as an inhuman, than a creature designed poorly by its creators, humans, or manipulated negatively, malfunctions, with its creators unable to help it. Some programs from me https://aalbc.com/tc/blogs/blog/63-bge-arcade/ A stageplay involving computer programs https://www.deviantart.com/hddeviant/art/Onto-the-53rd-Annual-President-s-Play-950123510 -
Economic Corner 21 - 06/03/2025 Question of Black Luxury + Schrumpft https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11653-economiccorner021/ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO CLICK THE LINK What is the counter plan to Schrumpts? Is it the prior status quo? Did you think the end of the third white european imperial war/ cold war would not eventually lead to a major change in the relation of governments? A question, and Schrumpft Question What are Black owned luxury goods? To a restate, what products do wealthy blacks buy that are luxury from black owned firms? Schrumpft I have had time to consider Schrumpft and when I look at his presidency what are his financial goals? Internal- in the usa. Manipulate customers in the U.S.A. to buy products made in the usa. Tariffs by default raise prices outside a country with the purpose of making products cheaper internally. Manipulate firms in the USA to buy more natural resources in the usa while growing/manufacturing more products in the usa. Tariffs by default raise the prices of external natural resources or foreign manufactured/grown goods, with the purpose of making domestic natural resources+domestic made goods cheaper. Reduce the populace of non usa citizens to colleges or universities in the usa. The USA has educated more foreigners than any other government from the nineteen hundreds to today. Reduce the bureaucratic size of the usa, all federal workers have long scale benefits in healthcare that are expensive. Cutting the laborforce of the federal bureaucracy is why automotive companies in the private sector wanted to reduce their own workforce whose healthcare and long term benefits are expensive. Embrace bitcoin as the alternative and future currency in humanity. Whomever can get hashtag currencies called cryptocurrencies to work will have an entire alternative currency they can start and control , like the dutch with the stock market. External- outside the usa Reduce military expenditures from the USA in Europe or Asia. The USA spends a lot of money policing humanity. Reducing this cost is huge. Delete the USA's role as the center of the global economy network and get the USA to have a one to one financial relationship to all other governments. In Conclusion When I look at Schrumpfts financial activities, what he wants to do is undo the Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt built imperial model for the USA. FDR as president was the one who started the idea of the USA financing enemies: england/france/germany/japan/italy/russia during the bloodshed of the second white european imperial war/SWEIW, commonly called world war two. The following presidents, from Kennedy to Johnson continued the strategy of embracing interwoven internationalism. In the 1960s, firms in the usa started their removing of domestic manufacture to foreign countries, as in latin america and then in Nixon in China. The same presidents from Kennedy to Obama embraced the idea of giving foreign students education in the usa. And from Eisenhower the military industrial complex grew, but the federal bureaucratic industrial complex has grown whether The party of andrew jackson, the donkeys[democratic party of governance] or the party of abraham lincoln, the elephants[republican party of governance]. Which was used originally to buffer the inability of state governments, as all fifty state governments were dominated by the white christian male populaces in said states, to allow non white, non male, non christian populaces protection/opportunities somewhere in the USA where the private sector was near completely blockaded plus state governments, as said, were near completely blockaded as well. The USA also since FDR , has been policing humanity, not wildly, but enough to make sure all the little land governments in humanity who are financially best suited for the interwoven internationalism, not be attacked or dominated by militaristically potent neighbors. Now the reason FDR started all these trends was the third white european imperial war, commonly called the cold war. The Soviet Union's argument to all countries and peoples was the USA is a continuation of the fiscal slaving culture that stemmed from western europe. So the USA financed enemies/interwove its economy to others/built manufacturing plants in foreign countries/embraced foreigners into being usa citizens or going to school in the usa all to get the college of governments to side with the USA over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics/USSR and they did. This required an ever growing federal bureaucracy, in military expenditures for international security or the wildly growing populace in the usa. The USA won the third white european imperial war. But the cost was the growth of Western Europe into the European Union, China into a world power aside a geographic neighborhood with financially potent Japan or India. So, the victory against the Soviet Union created new competitors. Schrumpft wants to undo that train from FDR to modernity to kill the competitors. The reasons are not hateful but are a cold strategy which many said in the 1900s. If the USA pulls out of investing in foreign countries , most have no where to turn and the European Union plus China or Russia don't have the means or will to provide the same level of aid or sharing fiscal activity. If the USA pulls out of giving foreign students education, the EU or China will not or can not support the horde of hopeful migrant college students. Lessening the federal bureaucracy will save money long term and force the states in the union to improve relating to their multiracial populaces. What Schrumpft wants to do is return humanity to as close a state to how it was at the end of the SWEIW, where all of Europe outside Russia was destroyed and had no vitality. All of East asia was destroyed and had no vitality. SChrumpft doesn't want to go to war to destroy foreign governments, he wants to perform a cold war with the rest of humanity by evacuating the USA from the system it centers, knowing the European Union or China don't have the will or means or desire or infrastructure to support the college of countries as the USA has done since FDR and will force all countries even in anger to relate mostly to the USA. The USA will go from being the center of a complex web, where parts of the web can grow as a centroid, to being the center of a solar image, where no matter how bright a ray is no ray touches another. As the images suggest to go from a complex web to a set of solar rays, all the pieces between fall off and die, but the center survives and potentially thrives, that is Schrumpfts plan PRIOR EDITION https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11507-economiccorner020/
-
A question, and Schrumpft Question What are Black owned luxury goods? To a restate, what products do wealthy blacks buy that are luxury from black owned firms? Schrumpft I have had time to consider Schrumpft and when I look at his presidency what are his financial goals? Internal- in the usa. Manipulate customers in the U.S.A. to buy products made in the usa. Tariffs by default raise prices outside a country with the purpose of making products cheaper internally. Manipulate firms in the USA to buy more natural resources in the usa while growing/manufacturing more products in the usa. Tariffs by default raise the prices of external natural resources or foreign manufactured/grown goods, with the purpose of making domestic natural resources+domestic made goods cheaper. Reduce the populace of non usa citizens to colleges or universities in the usa. The USA has educated more foreigners than any other government from the nineteen hundreds to today. Reduce the bureaucratic size of the usa, all federal workers have long scale benefits in healthcare that are expensive. Cutting the laborforce of the federal bureaucracy is why automotive companies in the private sector wanted to reduce their own workforce whose healthcare and long term benefits are expensive. Embrace bitcoin as the alternative and future currency in humanity. Whomever can get hashtag currencies called cryptocurrencies to work will have an entire alternative currency they can start and control , like the dutch with the stock market. External- outside the usa Reduce military expenditures from the USA in Europe or Asia. The USA spends a lot of money policing humanity. Reducing this cost is huge. Delete the USA's role as the center of the global economy network and get the USA to have a one to one financial relationship to all other governments. In Conclusion When I look at Schrumpfts financial activities, what he wants to do is undo the Franklin Deleanor Roosevelt built imperial model for the USA. FDR as president was the one who started the idea of the USA financing enemies: england/france/germany/japan/italy/russia during the bloodshed of the second white european imperial war/SWEIW, commonly called world war two. The following presidents, from Kennedy to Johnson continued the strategy of embracing interwoven internationalism. In the 1960s, firms in the usa started their removing of domestic manufacture to foreign countries, as in latin america and then in Nixon in China. The same presidents from Kennedy to Obama embraced the idea of giving foreign students education in the usa. And from Eisenhower the military industrial complex grew, but the federal bureaucratic industrial complex has grown whether The party of andrew jackson, the donkeys[democratic party of governance] or the party of abraham lincoln, the elephants[republican party of governance]. Which was used originally to buffer the inability of state governments, as all fifty state governments were dominated by the white christian male populaces in said states, to allow non white, non male, non christian populaces protection/opportunities somewhere in the USA where the private sector was near completely blockaded plus state governments, as said, were near completely blockaded as well. The USA also since FDR , has been policing humanity, not wildly, but enough to make sure all the little land governments in humanity who are financially best suited for the interwoven internationalism, not be attacked or dominated by militaristically potent neighbors. Now the reason FDR started all these trends was the third white european imperial war, commonly called the cold war. The Soviet Union's argument to all countries and peoples was the USA is a continuation of the fiscal slaving culture that stemmed from western europe. So the USA financed enemies/interwove its economy to others/built manufacturing plants in foreign countries/embraced foreigners into being usa citizens or going to school in the usa all to get the college of governments to side with the USA over the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics/USSR and they did. This required an ever growing federal bureaucracy, in military expenditures for international security or the wildly growing populace in the usa. The USA won the third white european imperial war. But the cost was the growth of Western Europe into the European Union, China into a world power aside a geographic neighborhood with financially potent Japan or India. So, the victory against the Soviet Union created new competitors. Schrumpft wants to undo that train from FDR to modernity to kill the competitors. The reasons are not hateful but are a cold strategy which many said in the 1900s. If the USA pulls out of investing in foreign countries , most have no where to turn and the European Union plus China or Russia don't have the means or will to provide the same level of aid or sharing fiscal activity. If the USA pulls out of giving foreign students education, the EU or China will not or can not support the horde of hopeful migrant college students. Lessening the federal bureaucracy will save money long term and force the states in the union to improve relating to their multiracial populaces. What Schrumpft wants to do is return humanity to as close a state to how it was at the end of the SWEIW, where all of Europe outside Russia was destroyed and had no vitality. All of East asia was destroyed and had no vitality. SChrumpft doesn't want to go to war to destroy foreign governments, he wants to perform a cold war with the rest of humanity by evacuating the USA from the system it centers, knowing the European Union or China don't have the will or means or desire or infrastructure to support the college of countries as the USA has done since FDR and will force all countries even in anger to relate mostly to the USA. The USA will go from being the center of a complex web, where parts of the web can grow as a centroid, to being the center of a solar image, where no matter how bright a ray is no ray touches another. As the images suggest to go from a complex web to a set of solar rays, all the pieces between fall off and die, but the center survives and potentially thrives, that is Schrumpfts plan PRIOR EDITION https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/11507-economiccorner020/
