The long-predicted end of Air Power has already arrived. But the battlefield reign of the drone, first evidenced in the brief Second Nagorno-Karabakh War of 2020, then subsequently confirmed by the NATO-Russian war in the Ukraine, looks to be a very short one.
An industry team has for the first time destroyed an aerial target using a high-power shot with its DragonFire laser, the British Defence Ministry announced Friday. The trial with the direct-energy weapon is considered a significant milestone toward the deployment of the system, possibly within five years. Efforts to quickly field such weapons are partly driven by conflicts in Ukraine and near the Red Sea, where expensive air defense missiles are used against cheap but effective drones. The cost of operating the laser is typically less than £10 (U.S. $13) per shot, the ministry noted.
So, the question of who is going to dominate the future battlefield can be reduced to the question of who can make more vehicle-mounted laser platforms, more cheaply, than anyone else. The technology isn’t especially difficult, which means it will be a matter of industrial capacity and efficiency.
So this is clearly not a development that favors the military wing of the neo-globalist order.
On the plus side, this brings us one step closer to laser-equipped cyber otters for the home.
The current error screen shown on Unauthorized is an issue with the latest Brave update. Unauthorized is 100% operational and subscriptions are not affected in any way.
TEMPORARY FIX: Use a different browser.
As far as we can tell, the Brave devs broke some crucial connection components in their recent updates. They’ll almost certainly fix it soon, at which point everything should start working again.
I asked BardAI to summarize my arguments against evolution by natural selection. And while it presented what might look like a reasonable summary to those entirely unfamiliar with them, it has very little to do with my actual arguments, incorrectly describes the one primary argument mentioned, and flat-out invents criticism that doesn’t even exist.
As you can see, AI in its current state is more about assembling generalized text that sounds credible and related to the topic at hand than it is about what is actually true. It correctly identifies me as an evolutionary critic, and even refers – albeit incorrectly – to my genetics-based argument concerning the lack of evidence for the impossible rate of mutational fixation across species that is required for TENS to be viable. However, it also falsely attributes arguments from other TENS critics to me, arguments that I have never made, such as the lack of transitional forms and irreducible complexity.
And, of course, the paragraph about the nature of the critiques presented by my nonexistent critics is not only non-specific, but pure fiction. Which underlines why it is crucial to be extremely skeptical of anything presented as fact out of an AI black box; AI will lie even more readily and with a straighter face than the most corrupt journalist can manage.
Vox Day’s Critique of Evolution by Natural Selection by BardAI
Vox Day, a prominent science fiction author and blogger, has been a vocal critic of evolution by natural selection, questioning both the scientific evidence and the underlying mechanisms proposed by the theory. His arguments against evolution can be summarized as follows:
Insufficiency of Mutation Rates: Day argues that the observed mutation rates in living organisms are too low to account for the vast morphological and physiological changes that evolutionary theory demands. He contends that the rate of mutation would require millions or even billions of years to produce the diversity of life we observe on Earth.
Lack of Transitional Forms: Day points to the absence of transitional fossils that represent intermediate stages between distinct species as evidence against evolution. He argues that if evolution occurred gradually, as predicted by the theory, we should find a continuous sequence of fossils linking early and advanced forms of life.
Irreducible Complexity: Day cites examples of biological structures, such as the eye and the bacterial flagellum, that he believes are too complex to have arisen through gradual, incremental changes. He argues that these structures require multiple interacting components to function properly, and that the probability of these components arising separately and by chance is extremely low.
Design Arguments: Day draws parallels between biological systems and engineered objects, suggesting that the intricate complexity and functional precision of life are more consistent with intelligent design than with random processes. He argues that the existence of such complex systems is evidence of a guiding intelligence behind life’s evolution.
Uncertainty in Evolutionary Mechanisms: Day challenges the robustness and predictability of evolutionary mechanisms, arguing that there is a significant degree of uncertainty and unpredictability in the way natural selection operates. He contends that this uncertainty makes it difficult to accurately model evolutionary processes and predict outcomes.
Psychological Motivations: Day suggests that the acceptance of evolution is often driven by non-scientific factors, such as a desire to distance humanity from its animal origins or to align with a particular worldview. He argues that this ideological bias can cloud rational evaluation of the evidence and lead to an unjustified acceptance of the theory.
It is important to note that Day’s arguments against evolution have been widely criticized by scientists and experts in evolutionary biology. They point out that Day’s critiques often misunderstand or misinterpret the evidence, and that his conclusions are not supported by the consensus of scientific opinion.
Klaus Schwab and Sergey Brin of Google discuss the possibility of replacing voting with AI at the World Economic Forum:
World Economic Forum (WEF) founder and chairman Klaus Schwab has called for members of the general public to be excluded from election processes, arguing that voters could be replaced by artificial intelligence (AI). Schwab made the chilling calls during a WEF interview with Google co-founder Sergey Brin. During the discussion Schwab and Brin were discussing “digital technologies,” such as AI, and how they could be used to advance the WEF’s agenda.
“So technology now, and digital technology, mainly have an analytical power,” Schwab said as Brin nodded along obediently. “Now, we go into predictive power and we have seen the first examples. Your company is very much involved in it,” Schwab said of Google.
Schwab then continued by laying out his globalist vision for “the next step” for digital technology.
“But then the next step could be to go into prescriptive mode, which means you do not even have to have elections anymore because you can already predict. And afterward, you can say, why do we need elections? Because we know what the result will be.”
If the US military was actually concerned with “defending democracy”, which has been its excuse for dozens of military actions around the world since WWI, one would quite reasonably expect them to label the unelected Schwab “the new Hitler” and declare war on Davos. Because it has become abundantly clear that the whatever the globalist clowns actually mean by “our democracy”, it doesn’t have anything to do with the will of a nation’s people, no matter how it is expressed.
Instead, it’s gearing up for war with the duly-elected, and very popular, President of Russia.
Clown World isn’t just evil, it is inverted. False and inverted. Never forget that.
Actual picture from behind the scenes at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, January 2024
A woman has revealed she was ‘virtually gang raped’ by four male avatars in Meta’s Horizon Worlds – and she said the trauma is similar to a real-world assault. Speaking to DailyMail.com, psychotherapist and start-up co-founder Nina Patel said that her attackers may have felt ‘disinhibited’ due to being in a virtual world.
I don’t mean to minimize Ms Patel’s experience, but let’s face it, it simply can’t compare to the way I have been repeatedly murdered in World of Warcraft and Call of Duty. And I can assure you, each and every experience was every bit as traumatic as being murdered in real life!
To this day, I find myself shaking uncontrollably whenever I encounter a Tauren, or a Blood Elf, on the street.
They’re not real. In fact, they’re little more than a complicated sorting routine, even if some programmers will insist that the most advanced systems are beginning to go from Design-for-Effect to Design-for-Emulation. But that won’t stop the average individual from believing in them as if they were infallible, or at least more reliable than their fellow humans, because MPAI.
I work in computer graphics for a small company on our own game engine. We also have an in house team of artists creating content for this engine. I am often tasked with taking suggestions from the artists and implementing them in the engine. The artists have no technical expertise, so I meet with them to understand their ideas and needs, and do so again to explain the functionality, limitations, and so on of my solution.
Recently it happened quite a few times that after such a meeting (where I explained that their requirements aren’t 100% achievable and provided an alternative working solution) I get a message from the artists, along with a screenshot of an ostensible but frankly ludicrous solution proposed by ChatGPT. They then ask why I could not do what ChatGPT suggests.
I then have to take the time to explain why ChatGPT’s proposed solution wouldn’t work, which is tedious and difficult when the other persons do not understand many of the basic ideas involved. They also seem skeptical, and I get the idea they feel I’m incompetent because as I understand it ChatGPT is very useful in their setting, and they have come to believe it to be the ultimate source of knowledge.
How can I, without being condescending to either my coworkers or their use of ChatGPT, ask them to not make suggestions to me that they personally don’t understand and are based solely on ChatGPT?
It seems that our most reliable guides to the future were Douglas Adams and Bruce Bethke, not Robert Heinlein, Isaac Asimov, or even William Gibson. Because if you’re not factoring in the sheer absurdity of human retardery when making projections, you’re going to be completely off base.
Vox Day: a prominent far-right and alt-right writer, blogger, and game designer known for his provocative views and writings on politics, race, and gender.
Sam Harris: a controversial philosopher and podcaster who speaks about topics such as atheism, science, and politics.
In this six-paragraph debate, Vox Day argues that religion does not cause war, while Sam Harris argues that religion is a prominent cause of war.
Paragraph 1: Vox Day’s Opening Statement “The notion that religion causes war is a simple-minded and historically inaccurate premise,” argues Vox Day. “Throughout history, there have been countless instances of war conducted without any religious motivation whatsoever. Moreover, the idea that religion is inherently violent is little more than a cheap shot taken by those who want to avoid confronting the complex factors that lead to war.”
Paragraph 2: Sam Harris’s Opening Statement In response, Sam Harris retorts, “To say that religion does not cause war is to ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. The Crusades, the Inquisition, and the countless sectarian conflicts that have ravaged the world throughout history are all clear examples of religion’s role in fueling war.” Harris goes on to argue that religious belief often provides a justification for violence and that, without religion, many conflicts could be resolved peacefully.
Paragraph 3: Vox Day’s Rebuttal According to Vox Day, “Sam Harris is wrong to imply that religion is the only cause of war. Ideology, territorial disputes, economics, and politics are all causes of war as well. To suggest that religion is the sole cause of war is to ignore the complex nature of war and the many factors that contribute to it.” Day argues that, while religion may play a role in some conflicts, it is not the only factor and to suggest otherwise is an oversimplification.
Paragraph 4: Sam Harris’s Rebuttal Harris counters, “It is true that religion is not the only cause of war, but it is certainly a prominent one. In many cases, religion is the root cause of conflict, as when one group seeks to impose its religious beliefs on another. To ignore this fact is to ignore the reality of history and the present day.” Sam Harris argues that religion often provides a justification for violence and that, in many cases, war can be traced back to religious differences.
Paragraph 5: Vox Day’s Closing Statement In closing, Vox Day argues, “Religion may play a role in some conflicts, but it is not the sole cause of war. To suggest otherwise is to ignore the many other factors that contribute to war, such as ideology, territorial disputes, economics, and politics.
Apparently there is a character limit, as the fifth paragraph is truncated and the sixth paragraph was not provided. Even so, we can see that BasedAI does a better job of imitating my style than BardAI did, although neither AI made any reference to the historical facts about war that I compiled and presented in TIA. BasedAI also inserted itself as a third-party descriptor, which sounds a little odd in the context.
I also find it interesting that Harris is described as a philosopher whereas I am not, despite the fact that we often address precisely the same subjects and I was the best-selling political philosopher on Amazon in the 2015-2017 period. It’s also interesting to observe that Harris is not described as a scientist.
UPDATE: Apparently if you write one science fiction book, you are tarred for life. But BasedAI’s explanation is fairly reasonable.
Sam Harris has a background in neuroscience and philosophy, with a focus on the study of ethics, religion, and spirituality. He holds a degree in philosophy from Stanford University and has written several books exploring philosophical topics.
Vox Day, on the other hand, is primarily known for his work as a science fiction writer and has authored several books in that genre. While he has also written non-fiction works on political and cultural topics, his primary area of expertise is not philosophy.
My assessment of their respective fields and expertise is the basis for the distinction between the two individuals.
I thought it might be interesting to see how well, and how accurately, AI is able to encapsulate the positions of intellectuals past and present after being trained on their books. Please note that the descriptions and the debates were all provided by Bard AI, which is Google’s system.
Umberto Eco: A renowned semiotician, linguist, and philosopher
Thomas Aquinas: A prominent theologian and proponent of natural theology
Debate: The Existence of God
Eco: Venerable Thomas Aquinas, it is an honor to engage in this intellectual discourse on the existence of God. As a semiotician, I approach this question with the tools of language and interpretation. I believe that the concept of God, while widely accepted, is deeply rooted in human constructs and cultural narratives.
Aquinas: I appreciate your perspective, Maestro Eco. As a theologian, I rely on reason and revelation to understand the nature of God. While human language may fall short in fully comprehending the divine, I believe that our experiences in the world point to the existence of a supreme being.
Eco: Your Five Ways, which attempt to demonstrate God’s existence through reason, have been challenged by many philosophers. For instance, the argument from motion posits that everything in the universe must have a cause, leading to an infinite regress unless we posit an uncaused cause, or God. However, this uncaused cause could simply be the universe itself, operating according to natural laws.
Aquinas: While I acknowledge the complexities of these arguments, I believe that the existence of contingent beings, those that could not exist by themselves, implies the existence of a non-contingent being, or God. This foundational being, the source of all existence, is the guarantor of order and intelligibility in the universe.
Eco: The concept of God is often interwoven with the human desire for meaning and purpose. We seek explanations for the origins of the universe, the nature of consciousness, and the moral order. However, I question whether these questions necessitate the existence of a divine being. Could we not find meaning and purpose within the natural world itself?
Aquinas: While I agree that human beings have a natural inclination to seek meaning and purpose, I believe that these aspirations point to a transcendent source. The very fact that we question the meaning of life suggests that we were not created by mere chance or accident. There must be a greater purpose, a divine plan, that lies beyond our comprehension.
Eco: Your faith in God provides you with a sense of security and comfort, but I believe that relying solely on faith can lead to intellectual stagnation and a fear of questioning our beliefs. Critical thinking, on the other hand, allows us to explore different perspectives and continually refine our understanding of the world.
Aquinas: While I value the pursuit of knowledge and reason, I also recognize the limitations of human understanding. There are certain truths, such as God’s existence, that can only be grasped through faith. Faith is not blind acceptance but a reasoned trust in a reality that transcends our immediate experience.
Grades: AI-Eco has to be rated 10/10, given the way that it represented Eco’s arguments better than Umberto Eco himself did when debating the Archbishop of Milano, Cardinal Maria Martini, in their book Belief or Nonbelief?, which was surprisingly pedestrian, particularly on Eco’s part. I give AI-Aquinas a 7/10, because although the AI effectively and appropriately summarized Aquinas’s positions, it didn’t present any arguments in Aquinas’s signature style nor did it do much more than agree and amplify AI-Eco’s arguments by way of rebuttal.
Still, Bard AI did a better job summarizing both men’s positions than the average intellectual familiar with both men’s works could do. Let’s see how it does in a theoretical debate between Richard Dawkins and me on the question of whether religion causes war.
Richard Dawkins: A British evolutionary biologist and author
Vox Day: An American far-right activist, writer, and publisher
Debate: Religion and War
Dawkins: I believe that religion is a major cause of war. Religious differences have been the root of countless conflicts throughout history, from the Crusades to the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Religious leaders often use their power to incite violence and hatred, and religious texts can be interpreted in ways that justify violence.
Day: I disagree. Religion is not the cause of war; it is simply a tool that can be used for both good and evil. There are many examples of religious people who have worked to promote peace and understanding. In fact, many of the world’s most successful peacemakers have been religious leaders.
Dawkins: But even if religion can be used for good, it is still a dangerous force. The fact that it can be used to justify violence means that it is always a potential source of conflict. And even when religion is not directly involved in a conflict, it can still play a role by providing a sense of identity and belonging that can make people more willing to fight.
Day: I think you’re underestimating the power of human nature. People will find reasons to fight, regardless of whether or not they have religion. And in fact, religion can sometimes be a force for peace. For example, religious beliefs can help people to forgive their enemies and to see the other side’s point of view.
Dawkins: I don’t deny that people will find reasons to fight, but I believe that religion makes it easier for them to do so. Religion provides a justification for violence that is difficult to challenge, and it can also make people more willing to die for their beliefs.
Day: I think you’re being too cynical. Religion can also be a source of hope and inspiration. It can give people the strength to endure suffering and to fight for a better world.
Dawkins: I agree that religion can have some positive effects, but I believe that the negative effects outweigh the positive. The history of religion is littered with violence and bloodshed. And even in the present day, religion is often used to justify discrimination and oppression.
Day: I think you’re focusing too much on the negative aspects of religion. There is much more to religion than just violence and bloodshed. Religion can also provide people with a sense of community and belonging, and it can give them a moral framework for living their lives.
Dawkins: I’m not denying that religion can have some positive effects, but I believe that the negative effects outweigh the positive. The history of religion is littered with violence and bloodshed. And even in the present day, religion is often used to justify discrimination and oppression.
Day: I think you’re being too cynical. Religion can also be a source of hope and inspiration. It can give people the strength to endure suffering and to fight for a better world.
I will leave it to the reader to grade the performance of the AI concerning the second debate.
For Dawkins, 8/10. Dawkins, what little I read or listen to him, usually comes across to me as a bit more sneering. Points off for the tone. The depth of intellectual argument is about what I expect. As for VD, 2/10, and that’s being generous. The tone is way, way off. The arguments are even farther off. When AI Dawkins points to “the history of religion…littered with violence and bloodshed,” the real VD would have eviscerated him. “There is much more to religion than just violence and bloodshed”? Nonsense. Religious war is the rare exception. VD has given us the numbers.
Narratives, propaganda, and false dogma are the stock-in-trade of the techie elite, who exist in order to purvey it and block any competition for the minds and hearts of the public. AI (“artificial intelligence”, an oxymoronic misnomer) is merely a tool to be applied in pursuit of their abominable social-engineering / world domination agenda.
This much is obvious. That’s why Jordan Peterson’s rich, powerful employers let him talk about it. He was told what he could or couldn’t talk about by Academia Inc. as a university instructor shilling for the oligarchy, and in this sense little has changed – the same bunch owns both academia and the media. This evidently includes the Daily Wire, Mr. Peterson’s partners.
In any case, it’s really all about Truth. Many of those who complain about the oligarchy would merely prefer to have their own brand of truth promoted. But to promote one’s own brand of truth while bypassing Truth-with-a-capital-T isn’t much better than lying, both by commission and omission. Lower-case “truth” is what the techie elite are all about these days.
Those who understand Truth are not usually allowed to engage with establishment carnival barkers paid to promote BS narratives disguised as “truth”. On the other hand, rubbing elbows with establishment shills entails the risk of spiritual contamination, and some prefer to avoid it.
No matter who ends up writing the “AI” programming, we can depend on a constant flow of “useful” ideology (as in “attractive to useful idiots”).
AI text and image generation is just another tool being utilized to obscure the truth. It’s no different than the way Wikipedia is now describing the Rothschild family as “European” instead of “Jewish”. Technology is now firmly in the service of the Zero Historians, who are intrinsically inimical to both the truth and the Truth. So what Torba is doing, what we are doing, has to be dedicated to consistently preserving and expounding the truth and the Truth.
Anyone, no matter what he calls himself, who is opposed to the exposure of the truth, is either in service to, or enslaved by, the Evil One.
The nerds who dreamed of uploading their minds into software and achieving a form of immortality thereby never stopped to think about the fact that if the technology to do so was ever achieved, involuntary digital immortality could be imposed upon people whether they wanted to be replaced or not. From 4chan:
I’m a Meta insider working on Project Lazarus. We’re building an Al that can take over a deceased persons social media accounts and continue making relevant posts as if that person is still alive. This includes age progressed photos, interacting with other peoples content and everything else needed so that person continues on in the digital realm after physical death. We were originally told this would be a service offered to people struggling with the loss of loved ones and people who had missing children. Seemed like a decent idea.
Things are getting weird now and I’m having second thoughts about what this is actually going to be used for. The Al is extremely capable of impersonating people. It doesn’t take as much initial input as one might think to train the Al how a certain person interacts with the digital world. It’s very convincing. An entire island of people could go missing and with little to no downtime the Al could take over all of their social media and the world wouldn’t have a clue that life wasn’t just continuing as usual. A lot of the project is becoming more compartmentalized.
Things have taken a dark turn it feels like. They’ve forbidden communication between people working on different things. Something isn’t right and I don’t know what I should do. I’m not going to post any personally identifiable information but I will try to answer questions that won’t expose my role within the project.
I always thought the excuse given – to mitigate grief – was a very thin one. And now that we’ve seen hundreds of people in a single area apparently liquidated in a short time on Maui, it appears to be fairly obvious what the purpose of this technology is.
The world is much weirder than most people are able to imagine. It increasingly appears that Christian culture was holding back old gods who are much darker than most history records.
