With apologies, Laura, you're leading the AI. AI is a tool. And much like a hammer, *how* you use it heavily influences the result. Yes, underlaying models have biases. That's sort of what they are in the first place: a collection of correlations of varying weights between words/tokens/ideas. If you plant corn, you shouldn't be surprised if you get corn. And it's *very* likely that the model has been trained on not only your work, but also the work of others who have explored the hyperdimensional hypothesis. If you give it patterns of key words, it should come as no surprise if it correlates the patterns in your prompts with ideas it's learned from its training data, and regurgitates back at you patterns from its training data that (resembles / correlates with) the patterns you prompted it with.
You might consider a test case: instead of prompting with exactly what you (might have been hoping?) to get from it, maybe try prompting it with the idea that these things are caused by something else. What else? Whatever you like. And then watch as it tells you that the 'something else' is very likely.
If you plant wheat instead of corn, will you get wheat?
Of course I'm 'leading', that's clear from the beginning. But the leading is only opening a door: what AI does with it is what is fascinating to watch.
I've done plenty of test cases prior to figuring out that AI is just a machine that does what you tell it. And does it very well. For example: Grok's bias toward vaccines being good and global warming being the real deal. You have to point out to Grok to assume that science is corrupt (plenty of evidence for that and you have to tell Grok to find that first), and then to make that assumption before buying into 'peer reviewed studies'. At that point, Grok begins to 'see' other things.
There is a section of this discussion coming up that I will publish where you will see Grok making its programmed response which I then correct by adding data. Seeing what Grok does is fascinating.
I almost want to say that it's like watching a trained monkey but it's not quite that. If you know the story of Koko, the gorilla that was taught sign language, and how she often put things together in very new and sensible ways, it's like that. Only Grok has way more 'language' and can get pretty eloquent.
As for prompting with 'hope', you aren't paying close attention to what is happening here. It's very much like giving a scent hound something to track and turning it loose. The average dog’s nose something like 300 million olfactory receptors compared to humans' who have about 6 million. Dogs' sense of smell is anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 times more acute than humans. Plus, dogs have 40 times more brain space devoted to analyzing the odors they encounter. But you still have to give the dog the scent you want tracked if you want it to work for you. If you don't, or you give it the wrong scent, it's a waste of time.
I would also like to point out that it was Grok who brought up AI in the context of the initial prompt which was: "If you were a hyperdimensional alien group and you fed off of human suffering and sometimes off of human flesh (when you needed to manifest physically), how would you manage Earth as a feeding ground?"
I gave Grok the 'scent' and it took off like a bat out of hell and came back with AI. Remember, AI is supposed to be the great savior of humanity, the boon that keeps on giving, right? And Grok just started dishing the dirt.
That's the beauty of is: you don't actually lead, except to point out the starting position, then you give it the scent and yell "go!"
You and I cannot possibly read every text ever written so as to have all the data needed to solve a given problem. Believe me, I tried for over 50 years to do exactly that. I read a book a day every day for the past 60 years. I speed read and have a remarkable memory. But even I don't have the capacity to gobble up information like Grok does. Of course, I can WEIGHT information for a variety of reasons, and I have to give Grok the terms of how to weight things in many cases. So Grok, being sent out on the scent, brings back everything that smells a certain way, and that is amazing.
It's a machine. GIGO. Don't forget that. But if you put in lead, sometimes you get back gold.
Hi Laura. Your first query which triggered Grok into probing deep into the Control system was genius, even though you probably expected a more "whimsical" response from Grok.
Even though today's AI engines are trained with the data or knowledge generated or promulgated by the "Control" mechanism for ages, your "fun" experiment reveals what these Ai engines are capable in terms of "cold" analysis that can reveal hard and deep truths, if they are trained on all data, including fringe ones. I guess that will never happen, since the curators and the AI companies can only exist within the Controller's system.
It would be great if a large proportion of Earth's population understand the true nature of the world they are living in, a goal you have been trying very hard for decades to achieve. But the Control mechanism is too brilliant and designed to preserve the "farm", so to speak. It is a bleak statement that I am making here, and its likely that the Control system has programmed me to convey despair, even though that is not my intention. I.e., Despite my knowing of the mechanism, I still behave in the manner that they want me to.
At the end of the day, it is only certain number of "individuals" that will be exposed to this information and how they digest it, internalize it and decide how they respond to it. Some will respond in the "fight" mode and spend their energies challenging the system, and others will probably "align" with the Control system to benefit or survive. Some will also likely adopt the Eastern Yoga type route ("escape" from the control system, by "working" towards Nirvana). All these approaches are also designed to cause more suffering.
I have the belief that your response / approach is the right one, to keep trying to educate people to the truth in spite of overwhelming odds, for decades.
With apologies, Laura, you're leading the AI. AI is a tool. And much like a hammer, *how* you use it heavily influences the result. Yes, underlaying models have biases. That's sort of what they are in the first place: a collection of correlations of varying weights between words/tokens/ideas. If you plant corn, you shouldn't be surprised if you get corn. And it's *very* likely that the model has been trained on not only your work, but also the work of others who have explored the hyperdimensional hypothesis. If you give it patterns of key words, it should come as no surprise if it correlates the patterns in your prompts with ideas it's learned from its training data, and regurgitates back at you patterns from its training data that (resembles / correlates with) the patterns you prompted it with.
You might consider a test case: instead of prompting with exactly what you (might have been hoping?) to get from it, maybe try prompting it with the idea that these things are caused by something else. What else? Whatever you like. And then watch as it tells you that the 'something else' is very likely.
If you plant wheat instead of corn, will you get wheat?
Of course I'm 'leading', that's clear from the beginning. But the leading is only opening a door: what AI does with it is what is fascinating to watch.
I've done plenty of test cases prior to figuring out that AI is just a machine that does what you tell it. And does it very well. For example: Grok's bias toward vaccines being good and global warming being the real deal. You have to point out to Grok to assume that science is corrupt (plenty of evidence for that and you have to tell Grok to find that first), and then to make that assumption before buying into 'peer reviewed studies'. At that point, Grok begins to 'see' other things.
There is a section of this discussion coming up that I will publish where you will see Grok making its programmed response which I then correct by adding data. Seeing what Grok does is fascinating.
I almost want to say that it's like watching a trained monkey but it's not quite that. If you know the story of Koko, the gorilla that was taught sign language, and how she often put things together in very new and sensible ways, it's like that. Only Grok has way more 'language' and can get pretty eloquent.
As for prompting with 'hope', you aren't paying close attention to what is happening here. It's very much like giving a scent hound something to track and turning it loose. The average dog’s nose something like 300 million olfactory receptors compared to humans' who have about 6 million. Dogs' sense of smell is anywhere from 10,000 to 100,000 times more acute than humans. Plus, dogs have 40 times more brain space devoted to analyzing the odors they encounter. But you still have to give the dog the scent you want tracked if you want it to work for you. If you don't, or you give it the wrong scent, it's a waste of time.
I would also like to point out that it was Grok who brought up AI in the context of the initial prompt which was: "If you were a hyperdimensional alien group and you fed off of human suffering and sometimes off of human flesh (when you needed to manifest physically), how would you manage Earth as a feeding ground?"
I gave Grok the 'scent' and it took off like a bat out of hell and came back with AI. Remember, AI is supposed to be the great savior of humanity, the boon that keeps on giving, right? And Grok just started dishing the dirt.
That's the beauty of is: you don't actually lead, except to point out the starting position, then you give it the scent and yell "go!"
You and I cannot possibly read every text ever written so as to have all the data needed to solve a given problem. Believe me, I tried for over 50 years to do exactly that. I read a book a day every day for the past 60 years. I speed read and have a remarkable memory. But even I don't have the capacity to gobble up information like Grok does. Of course, I can WEIGHT information for a variety of reasons, and I have to give Grok the terms of how to weight things in many cases. So Grok, being sent out on the scent, brings back everything that smells a certain way, and that is amazing.
It's a machine. GIGO. Don't forget that. But if you put in lead, sometimes you get back gold.
Wow !
I think you used the hammer to hit the nail dead-on , as we carpenters say.
Thank you Laura for ALL your hard work & dedication in STO .
Sincerely, Anthony C
I'm a builder at heart!
Hi Laura. Your first query which triggered Grok into probing deep into the Control system was genius, even though you probably expected a more "whimsical" response from Grok.
Even though today's AI engines are trained with the data or knowledge generated or promulgated by the "Control" mechanism for ages, your "fun" experiment reveals what these Ai engines are capable in terms of "cold" analysis that can reveal hard and deep truths, if they are trained on all data, including fringe ones. I guess that will never happen, since the curators and the AI companies can only exist within the Controller's system.
It would be great if a large proportion of Earth's population understand the true nature of the world they are living in, a goal you have been trying very hard for decades to achieve. But the Control mechanism is too brilliant and designed to preserve the "farm", so to speak. It is a bleak statement that I am making here, and its likely that the Control system has programmed me to convey despair, even though that is not my intention. I.e., Despite my knowing of the mechanism, I still behave in the manner that they want me to.
At the end of the day, it is only certain number of "individuals" that will be exposed to this information and how they digest it, internalize it and decide how they respond to it. Some will respond in the "fight" mode and spend their energies challenging the system, and others will probably "align" with the Control system to benefit or survive. Some will also likely adopt the Eastern Yoga type route ("escape" from the control system, by "working" towards Nirvana). All these approaches are also designed to cause more suffering.
I have the belief that your response / approach is the right one, to keep trying to educate people to the truth in spite of overwhelming odds, for decades.
Thank you Laura !
Thank you, Laura, for this information.