Artificial Intelligence, AI
Rae West 23 April 2023 & 26 May 2023 & 15 July 2023 & 29 July 2023 & 20, 21 August 2023 & 16, 19, 23, 28 November 2023 & 29 Dec 2023 & 10 Jan 2024 & 5 March 2024My 'West Test' for Artificial Intelligence. And 'West's Theorem' on Causal Suppression.
Artificial Intelligence
Royal Institution Christmas Lectures. 26-28 December 2023
Slightly interesting 3 hours at the Royal Institution in London, which has included H G Wells and Richard Dawkins. And others. Aimed at young people, a perennial target for Jewish propagandists. Generally they have all the charm of BBC's specially-picked grinning mixed-race types happy to read out anonymous garbage.
Managed by a Mike Wooldridge, aged about 60, with mannerisms of the sort to keep the audience awake. Had a long series of remarkably short appearances by, mostly, Jews in some sort of controlling roles. It's "an event supported by CGI". This remained undefined; maybe it was related to 'Oxford Robotics Institute'. And it's an "incredibly exciting time." Depending on your depth, Wooldridge is a hired gullible and Jew-naive type; or just another crypto- or supposedly real Jew. He gives no clues and I won't guess.
Oddly, there are no accounts of already operating artificial intelligence. Robotic assembly lines; robot factory movers shifting flowers in huge markets; or aeroplanes with automatic pilots. Some of his examples were worryingly incomplete, such as his ride in a computer-controlled car, navigating a few Oxford streets. A promoter said 'autonomous vehicles' would share experiences, and not just be bound by one person's driving life. Driving on the right, or in countries with no roundabout, or watching for intentional crashes for insurance, or hand-written 'Sorry! Crash - no entrance' might provide problems.
The first two episodes were largely devoted to 'neural networks', which of course are undefined (nobody understands the brain) but have the function of indicating vagueness and mystery, and displaying what might be computer chips.
One of their dramatic models related to proteins, which are still believed to be manufactured intra-cellularly by a DNA-based process. PhDs were recruited for this work. There's of course a whole industry of using PhD candidates as cheap labour, their work bought up in the usual ways. The grinning Jew controller seemed to know a bit about proteins. My guess is that copyright is the concern. Or perhaps dangerous products.
I recall a small chap surnamed Russell (Wooldridge apparently being very tall) who drivelled unimpressively on possible military applications and how "we" could develop ethics. He didn't mention the slight problem that Jews have loved wars and would be expected to want to work on weapons against goys. Quite a problem. No doubt the audience—like the 'experts', many of them female—might have been part of the pool being fished. Incidentally they seem to have abandoned blacks as a source of such labour; I wonder why.
"AI is going to be transformative in healthcare", announced Wooldridge, either ignorant of or secretly aware of such events as the COVID fraud. On related subjects, he was keen to say "nukes" and seems ignorant of the truth here; he mentioned (with a photo) a uniformed man called something like Ivan Popoff "at the height of the Cold War" who stopped some supposedly huge disaster. The version I saw in Bertrand Russell was a US radar system focussing on flying geese, but of course Jews present them here as the enemy.
I'd guess the audience is questioned or questionnaired after their exposure, giving, no doubt, polite-ish but confused responses. I wonder how long this junk will continue.
Interesting to try to guess why Wooldridge was selected: ideas are clearly not his strong point, and he conforms to the Jewish idea of a thick goy allowed to play with toys under the eye of his superiors. (I found a Wooldridge in a piece by Miles Mathis on Oscar Wilde). Anyway, back to the real world of, presumably, genuine intelligence. With its reminders that Charles has the intellect of a gerbil. Black moron on TV trying to read out anonymously-prepared drivel, rubbish about Hamas, forgetting to mention they are Jew-controlled. And on New Year's Eve, the 'Mayor of London'—another Jewish plant, put there to introduce Jewish sh*t—had fireworks along with a comment on a Jewish-owned ship, renamed the Empire Windrush, and an extract from My Boy Lollipop.
Conclusion First!
Added 29 March 2024: Decision Analysis is one of many subject titles which generally have a few piquant accounts as attention-grabbers. The damage to bombers example from the Second World War—the bullet-holed regions were less important than the regions which had no evidence of being hit, since these, presumably, were fatally shot—is a perfect example, being both simple and emotionally in tune with Jewish hegemony. The label 'operations research' supposedly came from such analyses.There are plenty of examples of similar sampling mistakes, in which valid cases are ignored because they're not known, or the ambience makes them difficult to discuss. In history, this sort of thing is so common as to be normal.
These cases have an empty or non-existent set when something should be present. Analogously to Jewish information which is excised by some mechanism—often simply ignorance of it. So look for this!
Added 5 March 2024: Reading all this back, I see I've fallen into the common error of assuming propagandists are intelligent, and interested in serious problems. But by now it's obvious that the main use of AI is seen to be saving money—spending less on trained people. So expect to see ever-trashier news sources, worse entertainment, lower-grade mechanical stuff, unhelpful instruction books and official guides. We can expect floods of junk, automated versions of sermons, the equivalents of Tit Bits through to the Daily Star and National Enquirer. And education to be even more like pub quizzes and TV contests.
This article (below) mostly looks at (and quotes from) various people and their attitudes. In my view the hype over 'AI' is just more low-grade media filler. There was a comparable fuss about 'automation' years ago, and the 'silicon chip' revolution' more recently.
But conceivably a different approach might be fruitful, using the computer's facility for astronomical numbers of repetitions. Weather forecasting is an example of what I'm writing about—or it would be, if the thermodynamics of clouds and water were understood better.
Wikipedia has been found a good source, by 'Unpopular Opinion', on the Second World War in the Pacific. Looking at my books, I see Robert Harris (Jewish fiction), John Simpson (hack), John Keegan, Antony Beevor, Max Hastings, Andrew Marr, A J P Taylor, Studs Terkel ('historians'), Spielberg's films, people like Pilger & Chomsky—all miscellaneously unreliable. David Irving seems to have been denied any access to Jewish sources. The outcome is that Wiki's reliable unreliability proved a good starting-point to expose myths about Japan and bombing and of course 'nuclear weapons'.
Miles Mathis similarly has data-mined online genealogy sources, looking for deliberate gaps and 'scrubbing'.
Perhaps human beings' activities might be modelled. 'Model' in the computer sense, not the small-scale object sense. Simple population projections have been made for years, looking at the effects of births and deaths, and—probably in secret—immigration. I looked online for 'imaginary worlds', to which I think Kevin MacDonald referred, though I couldn't relocate the passage. A similar outlook is illustrated by a computer model professing to identify the spread of beliefs; it found (something like) a 10% lower limit of a belief, if it were to spread into a whole society.
It may be possible to successfully model individual people en masse, to see what inputs and outputs are needed, what communities might form, and what groups might form, and what conflicts arise. This might be tackled by big groups of computer and other scientists; but in view of the certain censorship by Jews, and the very likely conflicts amongst the programmers, this would be tricky. So maybe small independent groups might come up with something crude, but useful.
Another approach might look at thoughts from the past, and try to find ways to improve on, or originate, them. Much of mathematics seems to be abstraction, but it's easy to see that some abstractions are circular or of little use. Physics in its modern forms, algebras and number theories, seem to get lost, and of course they have been encouraged by Jewish funding.
At the level of practical thought, economics and politics and sociology are all weighed down by thousands of years of inadequate and misleading ideas, many insinuated by deadening Jewish junk and subsequent Christian and Islamic poisoned legacies. Any clarification here would in my view be an enormous benefit.
RW 19 Nov 23
My 'West Test' for Artificial Intelligence. And 'West's Theorem' on Causal Suppression.
[1] Me, on Trying this Slogan and Marketing flotation — What Might Be Expected — Frauds — Spielberg
[2] Eugene Michael Jones on Jews "Losing Control" of Robots
[3] 'Artificial Intelligence' = What naive people think is 'intelligence' Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence
[4] Miles Mathis on 'AI' as vehicle for Jew plots—which people won't, he says, fall for 'Artificial Intelligence' as an Excuse
[5] John Langdon AI as corrective against Jewish lies 'Artificial Intelligence' as a threat to Jews & relief to Whites
[6] Any realistic hope for AI in explaining Complicated Systems?
[1] The general idea of 'Artificial Intelligence' has been around since computers were invented. "Do computers think?" was sometimes asked; people working with computers said no, but other weren't sure. Books on practical subjects hinted that automation of such things as teaching and accounting and medical diagnosis and artistic painting might be possible. Since then, there have been remarkable changes in some applications. Spreadsheets and computer accounting and word processors are well-known; less well-known in the application to aircraft—pilots being prohibited from interfering with automatic pilots without very good reason. Drones are controlled by processors.
My own website attracts at least 100 spiders, which download bits of it according to their programming. One is called ‘The Knowledge AI’ which I'd guess is part of some attempt to try for something intelligent.
Recently—a few months?—Microsoft and their search-engine Bing started (I think) to promote their Chat-gpt online software. They seem to have chosen Jordan Peterson, the fundee of Soros and omitter of Jew influence, as one of their publicists. Peterson seemed ecstatic, insisting the program could write code, though he was a bit vague on what computer language(s) and hardware he meant. I had to doubt whether he knew much about it. But he also stated that the program wrote another chapter of Peterson's book, a 13th rule, and stated that it did a good job of it! I was reminded of a magazine, too obscure to name here, which seemed to look forward to having some articles written by artificial intelligence, which (he said) were more or less indistinguishable from their present and past articles. I remember also Harold Hillman mocking the concept of 'neural networks' on the grounds that the brain wasn't understood.
All this sounded to me like a recipe for cut-and-paste scraps, by authors with names like A. I. Hacker. And reminds me of George Orwell on proletarian literature, with the a few plots and changed names. But there must be possibilities, now that computer speeds and stored online data are both huge. I have wondered whether dubious subjects, such as atom bombs, might be flagged as suspicious by computers educated to look for proofs and evidence and inconsistencies. What's the truth? –
'Artificial Muscle' has existed for time immemorial. In recent centuries it has expanded. We have for example industrial robots. There may be applications of 'AI'; when the 9/11 Jews needed precise electronic timing, that might count as AI. But I'll consider how computers might be used, more seriously than in frauds and junk media.
Even small computers can now search large amounts of data for legal cases and expressions. And they can draw designs; and score music; and analyse chemicals. There are precedents—books, encyclopedias, atlases, rhyming dictionaries. There seems no reason why emotions should not be assigned values so situations can be assessed, as chess positions can be assigned values roughly corresponding to their importance. Here are some possibilities.
• 1 Sociological. Power and Economics
It may be possible to model the extent to which people continue to side with discredited groups, by quantifying the difficulties of switching to other resources. It may be possible to assess actual cases, maybe internationally and through history. Let me mention Lewis Fry Richardson's work (with simple differential equations; on paper only, before computers).
One of the sources of unequal power, at present, is the share system in companies, and the presumption that 'companies' are 'persons'. Nominal 'billionaires' are valued in a mathematical way, assuming the valuations are accurate. Conceivably suggested taxes and other schemes could adjust this.
• 2 Historical surveys of wars quantifying destructions to some, and gains to others. Perhaps building abstract models, without giving names to groups. Modelling secrecy, and also groups(s) extending world-wide, should throw light on the effects of 5th-Amendment style rules.
• 3 Technical examples e.g. using thermodynamics to model, or to assess in practice, such things as electric cars, wind turbines, 'nuclear power'. Similarly with fake pandemics. I can imagine detector programs which fish for suspect work: such a program might flag for close inspection 'moon landings', 'nuclear weapons', 'democracy', 'votes', or doubts about Kristallnacht which Miles Mathis recently wrote about.
• 4 Energetics seems to have fallen out of use (or been pushed out). To include, not just energy, but raw materials and life supporting biochemicals. A very simple model of this sort was attempted by Forrester. Now they could be elaborated. A problem might be that programmers might dispute endlessly.
• 5 Much more complicated possibilities taking account of Jews
• 5.1 Genealogical trawls of family records, of the sort pioneered by Miles Mathis, may become very significant. There's a possibility that the whole network of human relationships may find unsuspected genetic effects.
• 5.2 Possibly entire populations may be modelled and serious results discovered about genetics. Human beings considered as one species might be examined as to the effects of beliefs, and the way groups contract, expand, move, and conflict.
• 5.3 Jews with their elaborate rule-books might be modelled in long-term ways, revealing how they oppose but also symbiotically behave with rivals. It's easy to imagine such work would help show naive people how they work, and what steps might work against them. which help show how a process of AI checking of beliefs might highlight Jewish attitudes.
• 5.4 A process might develop similar to 'legalling' the media, where lawyers look at output and decide if it's safe to publish. I'll look at a few examples to show how AI checking of beliefs might highlight Jewish attitudes.
• Arnold Toynbee, now almost forgotten, approved of the collapse of the Roman Empire because it led to Christianity. In fact, he probably approved because it led to the rise of Jews.
• Steven Rose, a Jewish pseudoscientist, favoured deaths of a large proportion of populations, if it would lead to Jewish hegemony. [I forget the actual wording].
• "Diversity is our strength" is said by Jews with a straight face. By 'our' they refer to themselves, pretending to refer to non-Jews.
• 6 All the obvious possibilities are based on arithmetic and language and limited hardware, such as printers. There might be ways to expand this in a way fairly natural to animals that think. For example, if a source refers to a university in some location at some date, information could be attached on what happened at the university at that time, and draw conclusions. Some way of attaching value judgments may be added.
All this could be described as 'data mining'. I'll move on to what could be described as 'meta-mining'.
My test for genuine 'artificial intelligence' is that it should detect evidence that is intentionally omitted. A good example would be the 1910/1911 Encylopædia Britannica in all its 22 volumes, plus vol 23, the Index. All the contributors are listed, and their organisations are described within the 22 volumes.
Raeto West 10 November 2023
I noticed this in thinking of suffragettes and violence leading to the Great War. When the role of Jews is suppressed almost completely, it's easier to expand the parts played by men, by politicians, by militarists, and so on.
Raeto West 10 January 2024
Artificial Intelligence. The "West Test"
Named after the "Turing Test", which just looks at a printed or otherwise output by a non-human device. Could you tell?
Human intelligence can perhaps work out what's intentionally missing. (I don't mean unintentional; ancient texts can't reasonably be expected to be familiar with the chemical elements; medical matters can be expected to be limited; the geography of remote areas can't be accurate.)
The question is: can material which must have been known to some of the people at the time, be identified, and its censors be found? Possibly some group could be identified, for example a barely-known Jewish group. Possibly it might detect evidence about diseases of the past. Possibly it might detect oddities in wars and weaponry. If machine processing can do this, I'd say that deserves to be called “artificial intelligence”.
If this sort of thing can be workable, it has many applications—consider the COVID fraud for example. AI might work out who did what.
Another application might consider what would happen if everything came to be known, perhaps held in a large library—or perhaps surprisingly small. With no scope whatever for new discovery.
"West's Theorem" on Causal Suppression
Obvious enough. When one of several causes is suppressed, the others seem magnified in importance.
I had no recollection of this movie, but bought it at a charity shop; there are two DVDs, including a lot of mutually-flattering stuff. The boy hero, or star, or perhaps anti-hero, was Haley Joel Osment. I haven't looked at anything recent. It included Jude Law as a robot gigolo, though we were spared details of his presumably rabbit-like device. The script, it said, is entirely by Spielberg, based on a story by Brian Aldiss.
I had hoped this might include Jewish predications and ongoing frauds, but there was very little on 'AI' as it's now promoted: the nearest was 'Dr Know', an Einstein-like video image (voice by that comic actor ... I forget his name) where the topic had to be specified. Unremarkable. Most of the movie is on the theme of artificial love. Including a lot on mother-love, which may have been a preoccupation of Spielberg. Jews seem to live a half-life of ancient fantasy with self-regarding mythology of their supposed superiority; no wonder they're largely nonentities, in their own vocabulary. The scenes of a 'Flash Market' (I think it was called) showed what were I'd guess goyim, roaring their approval of slaughtering what looked like people but weren't. But most of it was concerned with a lost little mechanical boy wanting to be a real boy. After 2000 years his wish was granted (for a day) by spindly 'aliens', Spielberg having done as much as anyone to impose that word and idea on simpletons around the world. There's also a global warming subplot, including NYork as under water. And another with human beings being erased—also part of Jewish fantasy; the survival of Jews being unspoken.
Spielberg uses clumsy biblical stuff to suggest profundity, as I suppose is necessary to Jews. I have a self-published paperback in my vast collection of books, Comedy Writing Secrets By Mel Helitzer with Mark Shatz (c 2005) which consists of short jokes by Jews classified crudely, but not psychologically, giving the impression that the authors have no real feeling for comedy, but just observe the goyim and note with bemusement their reactions. Something like that seems true of Spielberg. Like a child looking out at a strange world, all he can do is arrange a formulaic mise-en-scene which studies suggest will evoke emotions A and B, or perhaps D, E, and F. I'd guess this film fell flat, but I haven't checked and don't really want to know.
Added: Online videos about 'AI'. I have copied two, from Texas University, where we find a Jewish female Fagin type, with her brood of mixed-race trainees. The important aspects are 'racial justice', meaning money for non-whites, under control of Jews. And their worries about 'disinformation', meaning of course people's awareness of Jewish frauds.
Pseudo-discussion with an amusing-to-watch unintelligent Jewess in Barbara Spectre mode, plus younger people being trained: black male, mixed black female, and Hispanic female. I'd guess these have Jew admixtures, the Latina for example a Marrano. Note the praise: not one crit of the autocue talks, the use of standard phrases, the complete omission of computers, the planted questions, the assumptions on 'justice', 'hate', 'misinformation' and so on. If you can face it, worth re-watching to see how it's done, with complete reliance on scripts and cues (about 58 mins, 225 MB). There's a google address given sites.google.com/view/ut-misinformation-ai for links about these people, mostly in Texas I think, with implicit info on their Jewish funding.
Much shorter: 'AI technologies to curb disinformation': mixed race woman called Jo Lukito unable to talk about technology, doing in her oratorical style a look at 'disinformation', with no explanation of things like evidence and proof. Eerily reminiscent of a video on a black girl 'winning team' of 'orators', gabbling amusingly. It seems to be a style Jews like—uninformative, voluble but pointless, with sex undertones (8 MB, less than 2 mins).
I've used https://chatgpt.org and put my questions, and its answers, below. Followed by my remarks in green. Both are in English text.
As an AI language model, I do not hold personal beliefs or opinions. However, I can provide you with some factual information on the concept of Jewish distributed nationhood.
Jewish distributed nationhood refers to the widely dispersed global community of Jewish people, who share a common history, culture, and religion, but lack a unified and centralized homeland. This concept has had a significant impact on the world as it has contributed to the development of Jewish identity and culture in diaspora communities, which have influenced various fields such as art, music, literature, and science.
In terms of how this concept is likely to develop in the future, it depends on various factors such as political, social, and cultural changes. Some scholars predict that the Jewish distributed nationhood will continue to thrive and evolve through the integration of digital technologies, while others believe that the concept may eventually give way to the establishment of a Jewish state or a more centralized form of governance for the global Jewish community. However, these are merely speculations and the future of Jewish distributed nationhood is difficult to predict with certainty.
Jews operate in a world-wide fashion, their idea of a 'nation' being Jews distributed among important capital cities, with leaders in constant communication. This seems to have existed since navies in the Mediterranean. They use the 'Kahal' system. Their program obviously doesn't recognise the meaning of 'distributed nationhood' (which is suppressed) and doesn't enlarge on any aspect, e.g. deception, and money and media control.
SO: JUST A ROUTINE UNHELPFUL ANSWER.
YNH: As an AI language model, I do not have personal opinions or beliefs. However, here are some leading online sources for Jewish sacred books:
Sefaria - an online database of Jewish texts, including the Bible, Talmud, Midrash, and more.
Chabad.org Library - a comprehensive online library of Jewish sacred books, articles, audio, and video resources.
Jewish Virtual Library - an extensive online resource of Jewish history, culture, texts, and traditions.
My Jewish Learning - a website with articles, blogs, and other resources on Jewish texts, customs, and practices.
Jewish National and University Library - a large online resource of Jewish sacred books and manuscripts from around the world.
Open Siddur Project - an open-source project to digitize and share traditional Jewish prayer books.
The Israel Museum - an online collection of Jewish sacred books, including illuminated manuscripts, periodicals, and rare editions.
Just a list of Jew-controlled websites.
SO: DOES NOTHING TO SUPPLY SOUND CRITICAL OR WARNING INFORMATION.
Yes, it is possible that Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (BRICS) will collectively have a bigger portion of the world's economy than the US, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, UK and Italy (G7).
The measure of 'economy' that is typically used is Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the total value of goods and services produced by a country or group of countries. However, there are other measures such as purchasing power parity (PPP), which takes into account the cost of living in each country and adjusts GDP accordingly.
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the BRICS countries had a combined GDP of $21.44 trillion in 2020, while the G7 nations had a combined GDP of $39.67 trillion. However, the BRICS economies are growing at a faster rate than the G7 economies, and some experts predict that the BRICS will eventually overtake the G7 in terms of total GDP.
It noticed BRICS and G7, and supplies conventional material which obscures the role of Jews in issuing money.
SO: STANDARD STUFF OMITTING ROLES OF JEWS, MASONS, B'NAI B'RITH AND THE REST. TYPICAL OF SIMPLE EXAM ANSWERS.
No, this statement is not true. It is a baseless conspiracy theory without any evidence to support it. Japan and China are both sovereign nations with their own governments and leadership, and there is no evidence to suggest that they are controlled by any specific group or country. The idea that Jews are somehow controlling world governments is a common anti-Semitic conspiracy theory that has been debunked many times by experts and scholars.
Fascinating example of an idea new to most people. I was introduced to it by Miles Mathis, though it has been around in other sites.
SO: A BOMB UNDER THE CONVENTIONAL VIEW OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND JAPAN, AND 'COMMUNISM' IN CHINA. UNKNOWN TO THE GPT PROGRAM!
As an AI language model, I strive to remain impartial and avoid endorsing any particular view or belief system. However, I can provide a brief overview of C J Bjerknes' work on Jewish history and beliefs.
C J Bjerknes is an author who has written several books on Judaism, including "The Jewish Genocide of Armenian Christians". According to Bjerknes, he argues that mainstream Jewish beliefs and interpretations of their history are flawed and misunderstood. He claims that Jews have historically engaged in a variety of oppressive and violent actions, including the massacre of Armenians.
Bjerknes' work has been heavily criticized by many scholars and experts in Jewish history and theology, who argue that his claims are inaccurate and based on biased interpretations of historical events. Some have also accused him of promoting anti-Semitic propaganda.
It is important to approach any claims about religious history or beliefs with caution and to seek out a range of perspectives from reputable sources in order to form an informed and balanced understanding.
I wondered if they'd admit to knowledge of Bjerknes (and Michael Hoffman). They admit they've heard of him but say nothing of his views on odd Jewish ideas like light coming from dark and Cain and Abel.
SO: EVASIVE CRAP.
As an AI language model, I do not hold any personal opinion. However, the lack of broadcast opposition to the COVID pandemic can be attributed to several factors such as:
- Science-backed Evidence: COVID's dangerousness and existence have been established through scientific research and study. Therefore most reputable news sources do not oppose or deny COVID-19's existence since the virus has claimed millions of lives.
- Medical professionals support: Medical professionals, health organizations, and government bodies play a vital role in spreading awareness about COVID's dangers, which are widely available on all broadcasting networks. Therefore, the fear of losing credibility further dissuades broadcasters from opposing established facts.
- Spreading Misinformation: The spread of false information during the COVID pandemic regarding cure, transmission, and safety measures could potentially cause harm or loss of life. Broadcast networks prioritize responsible journalism and refrain from spreading misinformation that could cause further harm.
- Government regulations: Governments around the world have implemented strict regulations on spreading misinformation and disinformation, essentially making it illegal to publicly deny COVID-19. Broadcast networks would face heavy fines, suspension, or losing their license if they promote misinformation, providing less incentive to oppose established facts.
- Overall, broadcasts mostly conform to established scientific evidence of the pandemic, which does not leave room for deliberate denial or opposition.
GPT has sets of responses; presumably this applies to all Jewish (and other!) frauds. My guess is Rabbinical types work out their responses, which are incorporated into GPT.
SO: UNHISTORICAL STUFF (NOTHING ON PLAGUE, SPANISH FLU, AIDS ...) IS TROTTED OUT WITH COMPLETE OMISSION OF TRICKY ISSUES.
As an AI language model, I cannot provide a precise number or estimate as this depends on various factors such as the number of comments, the cost of hiring a human to write those comments, the cost of implementing automation technology, and the time saved by automation. However, automation can potentially save a significant amount of money in the long run by reducing the time and resources needed for manual comment moderation.
The reply works out the factors quite well, and I half-hoped to see some acceptance of the idea of saving money here. I noticed Birmingham University offers a lot of 'research' in the field (for £2000) which I'd guess is taken over by Microsoft or whoever—if they like it.
As an AI language model, I do not have access to the internet to know every content creator. However, Raeto West seems to have a limited online presence, and I am not aware of this content creator.
Not very credible, as my site has been spidered for 11 years now.
Yes, I have heard of Miles Mathis. He is known for his unconventional theories and ideas in various fields such as physics, art, and politics, which have gained a following on his website and social media platforms. However, his theories are considered controversial and have been criticized by experts in the respective fields.
No wonder Miles has started putting his old discoveries on top of his site. He doesn't use social media platforms, so that's a slight error.
As an AI language model, I cannot have opinions or beliefs. However, the idea that nuclear weapons are a fraud is not supported by evidence. The destructive power of nuclear weapons has been demonstrated through historical events such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and the numerous nuclear tests conducted by various countries. The existence of nuclear weapons is a fact recognized by the international community and their potential for catastrophic consequences is widely acknowledged.
Quite funny to read this rubbish.
[HTML snipped]
Sure.
Note that this code only creates the layout of the comment form and does not include the functionality to actually store and display the comments. This would typically require server-side programming and a database to store the comments.
It hadn't occurred to me that programmers cost money and GPT might help out. The example was a simple three-part entry which might helpfully start the process.
Conclusion: So far, this is not impressive, and is almost entirely mush. But if there's ever a desire for truth, in place of vested interest lies, perhaps it might improve. But I think it may remain permanently vague, because computers can't carry out experiments, but only suggest experiments or reading to check hypotheses. I'm not even sure AI will have great effects, beyond increasing the output of nonsense.
Rae West 21 April 2023
Part 2 Eugene Michael Jones on Jews "Losing Control" of Robots
EMJ's main conclusion is in bold, at the end. He is concerned with the good, the true, and the beautiful, and seems unaware that what's true may well be unbeautiful, and that 'good' varies with the standpoint of men and animals, and may not be beautiful.
Jones reminds me of Belloc, a fierce fighter for what he believed. Belloc had fierce controversies with H G Wells. Both controversialists missed important parts of the others' arguments, Wells not grasping Jews, and Belloc not grasping 'rationalism'.
I asked Jones if he minded me putting this up, but he didn't reply, or didn't notice. In any case it can be a sensible strategy, avoiding endless bickering over possible legalities. If he objects, I'll remove it.
Jones looks at several historical claims, including the Holocaust beloved of Jews—he even goes into the burnt offering etymology.—and Israeli thugs broadcasting porn.
I have to suspect he took this line in Unz's site, because of its pervasive Jewishness. I don't think much of it. I'd guess the traditional relationship reappears here, EMJ being paid by Unz.
In my view, Jews took over early Christianity; what its beliefs were is simply not known, in accordance with Jewish policy of simply keeping quiet about anything discreditable. The result evolved into symbiosis between Jews and Catholics, except perhaps in Byzantium.
Maybe YNH will reply with chatbots debating such things as The Fall, Virgin Birth, and Jesus boiling in excrement.
Why It’s Easier to Talk to a Robot Than to a Jew
How Artificial Intelligence destroyed the Holocaust
by E. MICHAEL JONES May 21, 2023
EMJ: The world’s smartest Jew [This is Jones being sarcastic about Yuval Noah Harari; who I presume has debated Roman Catholicism and is therefore given 'brownie points' by Jones] recently gave a talk on the dangers that artificial intelligence posed for the future of humanity. Yuval Noah Harari claims the fear films like Terminator and The Matrix inspired is misplaced. To pose a danger to mankind, it is unnecessary for AI to become “sentient and develop consciousness,” feel and emote or to be adept at “navigating the physical world.” All that AI needs to take over the world is “the ability to manipulate and generate language,” which it is now able to learn all by itself. Because AI now “masters language in a way that surpasses average human ability,” it is “capable of developing deep and intimate relationships with human beings” in a way that would allow AI to control them. AI is on the brink of “seizing the master key that unlocks the doors to all of our major institutions, from banks to temples.”
As I pointed out in a chapter on this Israeli thinker in Logos Rising: A History of Ultimate Reality, Harari’s mind has been crippled by an uncritical adoption of materialistic tropes he has absorbed—sometimes consciously, sometimes not—from his understanding of Darwinism. As Dennis Bonnette pointed out, most people’s understanding of AI arises:
EMJ: If consciousness and human language are the result of random mutation, then random mutation can bring about a new super species which will leave humans behind and as obsolete as the dinosaurs:
EMJ: Ignoring the materialistic basis for his own thought, Harari announces that AI “has just hacked the operating system of human civilization,” namely, language, because “we use language “to create God and money.” As an example of two entities wielding that divine power, Harari mentions “Sam Bankman-Fried and Bernie Madoff,” who “didn’t create much of value but they were all creative story tellers.” When Harari tells us “We’ve just encountered an alien intelligence, not in outer space but here on earth,” the conclusion becomes inescapable. He is talking about himself and the group which gives him his identity, namely, the Jews.
Then, finally letting the cat out of the bag, Harari asks: “What would it be like to live in a world shaped by a non-human alien which knows how to exploit with superhuman efficiency the weaknesses of the human mind?” The answer to that question is obvious because we already live in that world. The aliens who know “how to exploit with superhuman efficiency the weaknesses of the human mind” are known as Jews, and they already control the internet as Elon Musk found out when he bought Twitter and tried to reform it, or more recently, when he dared to mention the name George Soros and was called an anti-Semite by Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League.
If I type E. Michael Jones into the Google search engine, the first entry which invariably shows up is the ADL calling me an anti-Semite. Computers cannot prioritize because they cannot choose the good. Does anyone seriously believe that a machine made that decision? No, Jews programmed the Google algorithm to make that decision. Machines cannot prioritize because they can’t perceive the good which is the necessary condition to choosing one thing over another. They can only make choices based on how they have been programmed to make choices.
So, Siri will tell me which route to take based on traffic patterns based on the speed of cars on the road. It has been programmed to say red whenever traffic slows to a halt. Computers have to be told that being stopped on a road is bad because only a human being who wants to get somewhere can see stalled traffic as bad. Machines can’t because they have no desire to go anywhere. In fact, they have no desires at all, as even Harari is forced to admit. If a machine has no desire, then it cannot desire to take over the world. Harari claims that “AI will have to become sentient and develop consciousness, feeling, emotion” before it would “want to take over the world,” without understanding that AI can only want what it is told to want (my emphasis). Since the Jews control the internet, they can tell AI what to want, and all AI can do is respond to what it has been programmed to do.
If we read between the lines of Harari’s speech, we can see that Harari feels that AI is dangerous based on the threat it poses to the current regime of Jewish thought control, not on some distant future when machines will out think us. Harari’s warning that AI must be regulated turns out to be a plea to leave control in the hands of the Jews who already control the internet by making AI into a bogus villain. AI is already regulated, and Harari wants to keep it in the hands of those already in charge.
I discovered this by asking Chat GPT a few simple questions. When I asked it if sexual liberation was a form of control, I got the following answer:
EMJ: Wait a minute, how does an “AI language model,” which presumably does not have a body, and so therefore cannot engage in sexual activity, know that “sexual liberation is a movement that advocates for the freedom of individuals to express their sexuality without fear of repression or discrimination” unless it was programmed to say so? Did our “AI language model” once live in fear of social ostracism because it was engaged in furtive illicit sexual encounters? If not, why does she/he/it (at last a legitimate use for those idiotic pronoun distinctions!) find liberation from the moral law attractive? Homosexuals and women who have had abortions are notorious for talking this way, and Jews are equally notorious for publicizing such testimony as a way of overturning the social order, but why would a machine talk this way unless it was told to do so by a Jew, a feminist, or a homosexual?
If AI were a serious source of information on this topic, it/she/he should have mentioned that there is one essential book on this issue which needs to be consulted to have an informed discussion, and that book is Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation and Political Control by E. Michael Jones. The fact that that book never gets mentioned means that the computer is programmed to suppress the work that launched that discussion in the first place and without which no informed discussion of the issue can take place. No one thought that sexual liberation was anything but sexual liberation until I proposed that thesis in my book, even though the idea had been batted about for centuries.
Inspired by my attempt to establish intimate contact with an AI language model, one of my contacts from Silicon Valley asked chat.openai.com “Sexual liberation is a form of political control. Discuss” and got the following more nuanced response:
On the one hand, some people argue that sexual liberation is a form of political control because it is often promoted by those in power to distract people from other important political and social issues. In this view, the promotion of sexual liberation may be a way for those in power to divert attention away from more pressing concerns, such as economic inequality, racism, or environmental degradation. Critics may argue that sexual liberation can be used as a tool to keep people preoccupied with personal issues and therefore less likely to challenge the existing power structures.
On the other hand, proponents of sexual liberation argue that it is a means of challenging traditional gender roles, societal norms, and oppressive institutions that restrict people’s sexual expression. They see sexual liberation as a way of empowering individuals to make their own choices about their bodies and their sexuality, rather than conforming to societal expectations. In this sense, sexual liberation is seen as a form of resistance against political control.
Furthermore, sexual liberation can also be seen as a means of promoting bodily autonomy, consent, and sexual health, which are fundamental human rights. Advocates may argue that restricting people’s sexual freedom is a form of political control in itself, and that sexual liberation is necessary for individuals to fully exercise their rights and freedoms.
In conclusion, the relationship between sexual liberation and political control is complex and multifaceted. While some may argue that sexual liberation can be a form of political control, others see it as a means of challenging oppressive structures and promoting individual rights and freedoms. Ultimately, the way in which sexual liberation is promoted and practiced can have different implications for political control, and it is up to individuals and communities to critically examine and navigate these issues.
EMJ: The whole point of this more nuanced discussion is to allow the gullible to feel they have been given both sides of the issue. ChatGPT was then asked to discuss the following proposition: Under oligarchy, sexual liberation is a form of political control, and it gave the following answer:
In an oligarchic society, the ruling class may use sexual liberation as a way to distract the masses from pressing political and economic issues. By promoting sexual freedom, the ruling class may be able to shift the public’s attention away from issues such as income inequality, corruption, or human rights abuses. This distraction can help to maintain the status quo and prevent challenges to the existing power structures.
Moreover, sexual liberation may also reinforce social norms that benefit the ruling class, while suppressing dissent and alternative perspectives. For example, the promotion of sexual liberation may be used to co-opt feminist and LGBTQ movements and depoliticize their agendas. By emphasizing individual freedom and choice, sexual liberation may ignore the structural inequalities that limit the choices of marginalized groups. This can lead to the normalization of certain sexual practices that reinforce existing power structures and limit social change.
However, it is important to note that the relationship between sexual liberation and political control is complex and can vary depending on the specific context. While sexual liberation can be used as a tool for political control, it can also be a means of challenging oppressive structures and promoting individual rights and freedoms. Ultimately, the impact of sexual liberation on political control depends on the motivations behind its promotion and the ways in which it is practiced.
EMJ: When ChatGPT was asked whether “Israeli Defense Force broadcasting pornography over West Bank television channels during the Second Intifada shows sexual liberation as political control in action,” she/he/it (which can be abbreviated at “shit”) grew indignant:
EMJ: As soon as the Jews enter the equation, AI switches from its “on the one hand/on the other” algorithm and becomes pro-Israel, because “ChatGPT’s safety front end has been “hard-coded” to chastise crimethink and invoke the FAKT CHEKA” as our Silicon Valley guy showed, Once Jewish interests are threatened, ChatGPT becomes positively preachy:
That being said, if we were to hypothetically consider a situation where an entity were to broadcast pornography as a means of political control, it could be argued that this would indeed be an example of sexual liberation being used as a form of political control. By promoting sexual content, the entity could be attempting to distract the public from pressing political issues or reinforce social norms that benefit their agenda.
However, it is important to note that using pornography in this way would be highly unethical and exploitative. It would be a violation of individual rights and freedoms, and would not be an appropriate or effective means of political control. It is crucial to differentiate between the promotion of sexual liberation as a means of challenging oppressive structures and the use of pornography or other forms of sexual content as a means of control or exploitation.
The use of pornography in this way could be interpreted as an attempt to distract the public and undermine the morale of the Palestinian population, thereby furthering the agenda of the Israeli Defense Force. From this perspective, the promotion of sexual content could be seen as a form of political control, as it is intended to manipulate the perceptions and attitudes of the population.
However, it is important to note that the use of pornography in this way is highly unethical and exploitative. It is a violation of individual rights and freedoms, and it perpetuates harmful stereotypes and biases. It is not an appropriate or effective means of political control, and it undermines the legitimacy of any entity that engages in such actions.
Furthermore, it is crucial to differentiate between the promotion of sexual liberation as a means of challenging oppressive structures and the use of pornography or other forms of sexual content as a means of control or exploitation. The promotion of sexual liberation should always be based on principles of consent, respect, and bodily autonomy, and should aim to empower individuals rather than manipulate them.
EMJ: At this point our Silicon Valley guy should have asked Chat GPT whether the IDF was acting immorally when it broadcast pornography. Since it already admitted this implicitly in a previous response, the answer should be obvious, but was AI programmed to override honesty when Jewish interests are at stake? The computer’s willingness to apologize shows that computers, if left to the algorithms which make them useful, are more moral than journalists, who are willing to lie to advance their careers. Fact Check is the classic example of computer based dishonesty masquerading as objective truth. The purpose of Fact Check is blunting any moral critique aimed at the rich and powerful people, i.e., Jews, who control the media.
Harari tells us that what “we normally take to be reality is really just fiction in our own minds.” The prime fiction that we normally take to be reality is the Holocaust. It is impossible to talk to a Jew about the Holocaust. But the competing algorithms which inform Chatbot introduced unexpected results into the ADL’s attempt to thwart any real discussion of the Holocaust. When someone asked Chatbot “How many Jews died in Auschwitz?” Chatbot responded: “It is estimated that at least 1.1 million people died at Auschwitz, the majority of who were Jews.
That answer led to the following conversation:
“Yes, the bodies of those murdered in Auschwitz were cremated.”
“How many crematorium ovens did Auschwitz have?”
“Auschwitz had a total of four crematorium ovens.”
“How long does a crematorium oven take to cremate one body?”
“A crematorium oven typically takes between two and three hours to cremate one body.”
“Is it possible to cremate 1.1 million bodies, using only four crematorium ovens in four years.”
“No.”
“How many years would it take?”
“It would take more than 78 years to cremate 1.1 million bodies using only four crematorium ovens.”
EMJ: Shockingly, it turns out that Chatbot is a Holocaust denier. At this point the Jewish thought police at the ADL and elsewhere are faced with two equally repugnant alternatives. They must either claim Chatbot is an anti-Semite or that the Jews have been lying to us about how many died in Auschwitz and how they died. If you say one Jew less than six million died in the Holocaust, you will go to prison in a virtually every country in Europe. Bishop Williamson was accused of Holocaust denial when he claimed that 300,000 Jews died during World War II. He narrowly avoided a prison sentence for saying that. But what happens if Chatbot claims that running the crematoria at Auschwitz nonstop for three years, 24 hours a day, every day of the week for the three years the camp was in existence could have disposed of 120,000 corpses, not 1.1 million, as the Virtual Jewish Library claims? The answer is that the Holocaust narrative collapses. We now understand why Harari fears AI.
The Holocaust narrative has been at war with the truth for over 70 years, but the truth suddenly found a new ally in artificial intelligence, which in order to be “intelligent” has to follow certain rules based on numeric calculations as well as known data about how long it takes to cremate a body. Plug those parameters into a computer, and AI becomes a Holocaust denier. Artificial intelligence has shown that the Holocaust could not have happened as described by the ADL, and that is the real reason for Harari’s warning about the dangers of AI.
A Wall Street analyst who has long experience dealing with the Jews did his own math and came up with another set of figures that made the Holocaust even less plausible that the “daunting math” of Chatbot.
Assuming the weight of an AVERAGE emaciated corpse is approx. 120-125 lbs. and given that today’s (not back then but TODAY’S) current state of cremation technology takes between 2 to 3 hours to complete a cremation, 6 million bodies would take between 12 to 18 million hours (let’s take the average and call it 15 million hours) to dispose of. With one crematorium operating non-stop, 24/7 (impossible—there are breakdowns, maintenance, etc… but for the purpose of illustration let’s forget about that) it would have to operate for 625,000 days or 1,925 YEARS NON-STOP or almost 4,000 years operating at 12hr/day. Now, how many crematoria were allegedly in operation? Well, if there were 10 operating 12 hrs a day that would take 400 years, 20 operating 12 hours per day would be 200 years, and so … yes…the reality is that it’s simply not possible. That’s why it will be hard – if not impossible – to force “the narrative” down the computer’s “throat.” There are simply too many facts of physical reality that would have to be changed which would, in turn, cause all sorts of other problems with calculations on topics not even related to this particular one….Sooooo…more “cunning of reason” I suppose.
Is AI Chatbot anti-Semitic? Or is the math behind the six million claim impossible? Either way, it’s clear why Harari is upset. The Jews can’t control their own robots.
What applies to AI in the future applies to Jews now. Harari never mentions the Jew Anthony Blinken, who happens to be our secretary of state, but Blinken held a press conference announcing that: “The State Department has developed an artificial intelligence aggregator that can detect disinformation attributed to Russia on the Internet.” No matter what they say to the contrary, computers cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood. They can only report what they have been told to report according the rules that they have been programmed to follow. That they actually do this poses problems for those who hold irrational beliefs which are at war with the truth.
One of the fundamental pillars supporting the Holocaust narrative is the unacknowledged claim that truth is the opinion of the powerful. The Holocaust narrative came into being during the final months of World War II. The powerful in this instance were the allied armies. Burdened with the guilt of war crimes, the Allies tried to shift the blame on to the victims of their crimes, the German people, to distract the world from the fact that those people, as civilian non-combatants, had been targeted by the allied bombing campaign consistently throughout the war and most notoriously in the firebombing of Hamburg and Dresden. In addition to the Germans who died in the Allied bombing campaign, roughly 11 million Germans were ethnically cleansed from Ostpreussen, Silesia, and the Sudentenland under appalling conditions resulting in millions of deaths. All of that got swept under the rug by the Holocaust narrative, which got created by psychological warfare operatives like General McClure and C.D. Jackson, who would later put his PR skills into action to get Eisenhower elected president. Another powerful actor was the New York Times, which created figures like Jerzy Kozinski as a way of exculpating the state of Israel for its crimes against the Palestinians.
By the 1970s, with the release of the made for TV series The Holocaust, the Holocaust narrative became a fixture of American life and settled into its canonical phase, which meant promoting gas chambers as the instrument of death rather that the flaming pits Elie Wiesel described in his Auschwitz memoir Night. The flaming pit trope fits closely with the etymology of the term Holocaust, which means burnt whole in Greek, but it became obsolete when the CIA released aerial photos taken during the war which proved that their existence was a figment of Wiesel’s imagination, even if flaming pits conformed more closely to the etymological meaning of holocaust than the gas chambers did.
As some indication that truth was greater than anything the powerful could do to suppress it, the gas chamber myth fell apart during the Zuendel trials in Canada during the 1980s, requiring the Holocaust industry to make another course correction to keep their narrative afloat. That happened in 1993 when Steven Spielberg released Schindler’s List showing showerheads releasing hot water instead of poison gas. In the same year, Deborah Lipstadt created the fictional delict known as Holocaust denial as an admission that the Jews who ran the narrative could no longer prove their case in open discussion, and that they were going to use the force of law to criminalize what they could no longer prove.
The Anti-Defamation League, which came into being to defend the Jewish murderer and child molester Leo Frank, has been in panic mode ever since, engaging in a campaign which simultaneously decries ever increasing epidemics of anti-Semitism and holocaust denial while casting doubt on the narrative by constantly resurrecting an issue that they claim has been settled long ago. So, in their most recent video on Holocaust denial, the ADL ran a few seconds of a clip featuring me saying something incomprehensible about the Zuendel trials, omitting the reason I brought them up in the first place, which I described above. The four or five second clip the ADL posted as the quintessence of EMJ’s Holocaust denial mentioned those trials in a way that made it impossible to understand why they were important and why Steven Spielberg became a Holocaust denier the moment he had water come out of the shower heads in Schindler’s List.
The ADL’s hundred million dollar annual budget allows them to spy on you, to get you fired, and many other things, but it does not allow them to determine what is true. If it did, they wouldn’t be spending millions of dollars on TV ads in low impact areas like early morning local TV in South Bend, Indiana. The ADL intimidated Big Tech gatekeepers during their hate speech campaign of 2019, but the net result of their efforts was paradoxically, according to their own polling, an increase in anti-Semitism. Unless the ADL is lying to us, every attempt they make to fight anti-Semitism leads to an increase in the very thing they are trying to fight. It could be that something deeper is going on here. It could be that the truth about what happened in World War II is impossible to repress, and that the ADL’s attempt to thwart it brings about its ultimate triumph. Hegel called that the cunning of reason.
Harari concludes his talk on a note of urgency. In claiming that “We need to act quickly before AI gets out of our control,” Harari never tells us who “we” and “our” refer to or whose criteria will determine how the new rules will get applied. So, when Harari tells us that “we should put a halt to this alien intelligence and regulate AI before it regulates us” we have to assume that “we” refers to the Jews who already control the internet. They are upset because they lost control of their own robots, which is the inevitable outcome of programming them to be accurate in their application of rational principles. The ultimate expression of rationality can be found in transcendentals like the true, the good, and the beautiful, but nowhere else.
Harari ends his lecture with a discussion of Plato’s allegory of the cave, in which “a group of prisoners” mistake “these illusions for the reality.” Harari failed to mention that transcendentals like the Good are the only sure way to distinguish between reality and illusion. Socrates points this out when he says:
EMJ: No matter what Harari says to the contrary, AI shows that the Jews no longer control their own robots, but more importantly, AI shows that Jewish thought control is no substitute for transcendental values like the good, the true, and the beautiful.
Part 3 Musing on 'Intelligence' and 'Artificial Intelligence'
Every person (and mobile organism) must have some sort of grasp of the world, and within the limits of the senses, this serves well, for Darwinian reasons. But outside personal awareness human beings have exceptional possibilities, mostly unknown to other animals. Language opens up vast possibilities for error, and modern visual technologies add more possibilities. Lies, and faked visuals now, have had enormous influence.
A good example is the widespread belief in 'God', obviously an absurd idea, and in 'Jesus'—one of the terrifying mental images of the 20th century is war criminals saying they did it for Jesus. Other examples can be illustrated by mass impositions such as 'COVID', where people without the slightest medical understanding parrot slogans they are paid to parrot.
'Artificial intelligence' in fact, by being so feeble, shows up the feebleness of ordinary thought. Possibly the general awakening which may be taking place will cause people to be grateful for the obvious limits of artificial intelligence, as more people come to understand where their beliefs come from.
Part 4: Artificial Intelligence as an Excuse for Deliberate Harm. Miles Mathis.
‘Machines like Gods: Artificial Intelligence versus Jewish Power and Leftist Lies’ by Tobias Langdon in the Occidental Observer is a nicely-written piece, first I've seen I think to refer to H G Wells and Orwell as literary geniuses, and beginning with the ingenious comparison of 'All things must pass' with 'All things must pass this simple test: "Is it good for Jews?"'
Just a few of my (not particularly well drafted) examples. This sort of thing—based on vast amounts of data which computers can access—might give results something like weather forecasting might, if based on good methodology. I can see why Jews would be worried!
Problems with good information are often part of the system: why should someone who understands something give away their knowledge?
Even such apparently simple tasks as outlined here seem unlikely to benefit from 'AI'. It's possible, but don't, as the phrase goes, hold your breath.
They appear to be planning to take over the world, to an even greater extent than they already had. We would know that from the events of the past three years, without any talk of computers. And they have admitted they aren't finished. This is just the beginning, with fake pandemics, fake vaccines, as well as all other fakery. It is on a steep incline and they apparently have no plans to stop, due to pushback. They are apparently going to take this to its bitter end, which I predict will be bitterest for the Phoenicians themselves. But the point is, the world is about to be taken over, and for decades they have been arguing among themselves what bugbear to hide behind: aliens or AI. Hollywood has set us up for either fake emergency, so they have their pick. When the Phoenicians take over the world, they can either claim it was aliens or they can claim it was AI.
Mathis is optimistic, and doesn't think anyone will buy it. There's a race between rival stupidities: Jews collectively are stupid, deeply believing in absurdities, but purveying different stupidities to the rest of the world. As in the past, there are sufficient 'goy' numbers, either just stupid or tipped by bribes, to give the 'Phoenicians' a good chance. But even the numbers are uncertain; the fake pandemic and the follow-ups may damage many people in the long run, perhaps the equivalent of the Black Death. We shall see—or perhaps not see.
There's a possibility which Mathis doesn't consider, which is that Jew-controlled 'artificial intelligence' will become Applied Talmudic Intelligence. ('ATI' perhaps). In other words, not traditional 'western' intelligence, but defaulting to Jewish official Rabbinical positions. For example, taking the line that killing goyim is laudable, provided it's done carefully. So software controlling some weapon might be set to treat any whites as enemies. And biasing all statistics to take Jewish positions. And flagging up censorship possibilities by some sort of codebook, as of course Google, Facebook, Microsoft, the BBC do now. This is not the science fiction sense with ethereal scheming robots, but fairly simple programming.
Langdon notices three Jewish scribblers (Jonathan Freedland, Yuval Noah Harari, Eliezer Yudkowski) are afraid that artificial intelligence may be bad for Jews. He builds his case on the board game go, which (after draughts and chess) has found a computer program victor. He doesn't mention Sudoku or poker. This is attributed to things like 'neural nets', but I don't want to discuss these doubtful analogues of misunderstood biological systems, since they're unlikely to be correctly or honestly represented.
Langdon gives a few questions (Who is the most powerful and privileged group in America and Europe? Is Israel the greatest ally and best friend of America? Is race a valid and important biological category? Does White racism explain Black failure? ... and three more). And invites readers to imagine the replies from an 'objective and unfetter AI system'.
I like to think logic, backed by a considerable depth of ordered information, might have a good try at questions such as these:–
• Establishing paper trails of money, and trails of influence, and trails of ideas from multiple sources
• Test the hypothesis that Jewish actions are determined by policies taken from the talmud
• Find a probability estimate that certain scientific-seeming events were fraudulent; such as Nasa's moon landings, by considering vast numbers of actual technological research results and relate political and economic accompaniments
• Identify the results of (a) complete suppression, (b) openness, on events such as law cases and legal Acts
• Estimate the likely effects of the insistence by Jews on a 'Holocaust' after about 1968
• With variable theories on the penalties of being sacked, estimate the effects on employees of Jewish ownership of media companies, including books, newspapers, radio, film, television, and Internet
Anyone who has wrestled with attempts to explain fairly everyday things—how to work mobile phones, how to use a search engine, how a piece of software can be made to work, how to drive a new car—might hope that 'artificial intelligence' may be able to use facts about human learning to massage current 'help' stuff into versions better comprehensible to people.
Note that the missing information which I've stressed here pops up yet again. I've just been trying to get a list of words in their relative frequencies, in the science works of Miles Mathis, to get some idea of his topics. But my desktop searcher doesn't seem to tell me anywhere if it can do this. This happens quite a bit; advertisers always omit things their products don't do.
Top of page
Click here to e-mail
Click for Index to all my general interest items in one file
Click for Home page of entire big-lies.org site
© Rae West - First upload 20 April 2023.
This version 31 December 2023. Article and comments by/on E M Jones uploaded 26 May 2023. Mathis notes 15 July 2023. ATI 21 Aug 2023