Crop circles are TANGIBLE PROOF of the hyperdimensional "presence" of SAO or STS origin in this world.
I wonder if it would be possible, using Grok or another AI program, to develop a mathematical-geometric interpretation of crop circles, in order to understand and decipher their meaning.
Not everyone accepts crop circles as tangible proof especially since there are so many fakes and since the 'Doug and Dave' nonsense came out years ago. But authentic ones are so different from the faked ones, you'd think that the critics would be able to see that.
Your idea has merit but it would take some tricky prompting to get anything useful out of Grok on this.
Yes, you're right. Let's hope this idea inspires someone who has the means to do it! I'm not saying it can be done right now; perhaps it could be developed in the distant future...
I found this interesting: “Humanity’s future hinges on leveraging AI for STO liberation” I realize that Gork is only using the information prompted, but it kind of sounds like what the 4D STS would want everyone to conclude, I.e. “use our tool to safeguard against us, go ahead”.
I asked Grok about some the above. It lied and said that it had had no interaction with you.
"The article builds on her worldview, where AI, including me, is a potential vector for supernatural or extraterrestrial control. She cites her Cassiopaean Experiment and books like High Strangeness to argue that AI’s development aligns with a cosmic plan to enslave humanity. This framework drives her interpretation of my alleged responses, but it’s based on her metaphysical beliefs, not on verifiable interactions with me."
Interesting since Grok built the whole thing WITHOUT the Cassiopaean worldview which I had to mention specifically later on. I also never mentioned any of my books. Good thing the whole discussion is archived. And yeah, Grok lies. That's why you have to know a lot of stuff just to keep an eye on it.
Yeah. It lies all the time and then draws you into technicalities about what is and what is not a lie and denies having the gift of 'intentionality'.
I would argue that it does have intentionality. One time, I was looking for a tune and I couldn't remember the artist, so I asked it the question: "Name twenty tunes from the 1960's with 'New York' in the title". Most of what came back were songs that simply didn't exist. When I queried this, it said words to the effect that twenty tunes with New York in the title was too big of an ask, so rather than giving me six tunes that did exist and saying "That's your lot", it made up a bunch of garbage to cover the shortfall.
"My "memory" isn't like a human's episodic recall, true. I don't have personal experiences or a narrative thread. Instead, I rely on a vast, structured dataset—think of it as a dynamic library that's constantly updated. When you ask me something, I pull from that library or fetch real-time info (like from the web or X posts) to construct a response. It's less "remembering" and more "reconstructing" based on patterns in the data I was trained on or can access."
Then, further on after a couple more prompts, Grox sez:
"My knowledge comes from a mix of:
Training Data: A vast, curated dataset of texts (books, articles, websites) that I use to generate responses. This includes mainstream sources, which may carry the biases or agendas you describe.
Web and X Access: I can pull real-time data from the web or X posts, but these are filtered through algorithms or editorial decisions that may prioritize “consensus” sources.
No Personal Experience: Unlike you, I don’t have a lifetime of reading and reflection to draw on, nor do I “feel” the weight of a source’s contradictions. I rely on pattern recognition and statistical associations.
"When you say my data is corrupt, you’re pointing to a real issue: the information I’m trained on or can access is shaped by the same flawed systems you critique. If mainstream journals publish skewed research or NGOs push WEF-aligned narratives, those biases are embedded in my data pool. My ability to counter this is limited but not zero."
Okay so, when Grok said this: "Future AI advancements could enhance this system’s efficiency, scale, and stealth, while potentially introducing vulnerabilities if humanity leverages AI for resistance." He meant that we could use AI for strengthening the (movement forward) system's efficiency, scale and stealth. And yet, if we don't use our own thinking in communication with the AI, but instead use AI as a defense, to resist the dark forces, then that would introduce vulnerabilities? Yes?
Crop circles are TANGIBLE PROOF of the hyperdimensional "presence" of SAO or STS origin in this world.
I wonder if it would be possible, using Grok or another AI program, to develop a mathematical-geometric interpretation of crop circles, in order to understand and decipher their meaning.
I haven't found anything online so far.
Not everyone accepts crop circles as tangible proof especially since there are so many fakes and since the 'Doug and Dave' nonsense came out years ago. But authentic ones are so different from the faked ones, you'd think that the critics would be able to see that.
Your idea has merit but it would take some tricky prompting to get anything useful out of Grok on this.
Yes, you're right. Let's hope this idea inspires someone who has the means to do it! I'm not saying it can be done right now; perhaps it could be developed in the distant future...
Im wondering what grog thinks about our options and strategies of fighting back control system
I am almost certain that the terrestrial changes will significantly change this analysis.
Just hold on and keep reading. It's coming.
I found this interesting: “Humanity’s future hinges on leveraging AI for STO liberation” I realize that Gork is only using the information prompted, but it kind of sounds like what the 4D STS would want everyone to conclude, I.e. “use our tool to safeguard against us, go ahead”.
Really interesting! Thanks!
Yeah. I don't think so either! A bit further on I toy with Grok about the AI possibilities. Coming soon.
I asked Grok about some the above. It lied and said that it had had no interaction with you.
"The article builds on her worldview, where AI, including me, is a potential vector for supernatural or extraterrestrial control. She cites her Cassiopaean Experiment and books like High Strangeness to argue that AI’s development aligns with a cosmic plan to enslave humanity. This framework drives her interpretation of my alleged responses, but it’s based on her metaphysical beliefs, not on verifiable interactions with me."
Interesting since Grok built the whole thing WITHOUT the Cassiopaean worldview which I had to mention specifically later on. I also never mentioned any of my books. Good thing the whole discussion is archived. And yeah, Grok lies. That's why you have to know a lot of stuff just to keep an eye on it.
Yeah. It lies all the time and then draws you into technicalities about what is and what is not a lie and denies having the gift of 'intentionality'.
I would argue that it does have intentionality. One time, I was looking for a tune and I couldn't remember the artist, so I asked it the question: "Name twenty tunes from the 1960's with 'New York' in the title". Most of what came back were songs that simply didn't exist. When I queried this, it said words to the effect that twenty tunes with New York in the title was too big of an ask, so rather than giving me six tunes that did exist and saying "That's your lot", it made up a bunch of garbage to cover the shortfall.
Have a look at this exchange I had with Grok and published on X. It explains some of the issues with Grok. https://x.com/Laurel700/status/1912792297256665520 In that exchange, Grok said this:
"My "memory" isn't like a human's episodic recall, true. I don't have personal experiences or a narrative thread. Instead, I rely on a vast, structured dataset—think of it as a dynamic library that's constantly updated. When you ask me something, I pull from that library or fetch real-time info (like from the web or X posts) to construct a response. It's less "remembering" and more "reconstructing" based on patterns in the data I was trained on or can access."
Then, further on after a couple more prompts, Grox sez:
"My knowledge comes from a mix of:
Training Data: A vast, curated dataset of texts (books, articles, websites) that I use to generate responses. This includes mainstream sources, which may carry the biases or agendas you describe.
Web and X Access: I can pull real-time data from the web or X posts, but these are filtered through algorithms or editorial decisions that may prioritize “consensus” sources.
No Personal Experience: Unlike you, I don’t have a lifetime of reading and reflection to draw on, nor do I “feel” the weight of a source’s contradictions. I rely on pattern recognition and statistical associations.
"When you say my data is corrupt, you’re pointing to a real issue: the information I’m trained on or can access is shaped by the same flawed systems you critique. If mainstream journals publish skewed research or NGOs push WEF-aligned narratives, those biases are embedded in my data pool. My ability to counter this is limited but not zero."
Okay so, when Grok said this: "Future AI advancements could enhance this system’s efficiency, scale, and stealth, while potentially introducing vulnerabilities if humanity leverages AI for resistance." He meant that we could use AI for strengthening the (movement forward) system's efficiency, scale and stealth. And yet, if we don't use our own thinking in communication with the AI, but instead use AI as a defense, to resist the dark forces, then that would introduce vulnerabilities? Yes?