Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Webbot accidentally EXPOSING The real creator of Bitcoin | SHA256 Script

  1. #16
    Senior Member donk's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th December 2013
    Posts
    1,028
    Thanks
    1,666
    Thanked 4,956 Times in 991 Posts
    The only other scenario that makes sense to me is that the Russians (and/or Chinese) won the cold war and have carefully controlled the information Americans (and non-russians) get since before the internet was opened up to consumers. We're living in a mini-Orwellian 1984 type scenario.
    What is the purpose of your presence?

  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to donk For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (26th November 2017), Dumpster Diver (27th November 2017), Elen (27th November 2017), enjoy being (26th November 2017), Kathy (27th November 2017)

  3. #17
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    6th August 2015
    Posts
    1,853
    Thanks
    4,608
    Thanked 11,706 Times in 2,094 Posts
    I am not sure how many American nationals notice how much of the information put out on the internet by alternative sources such as youtubers and independent researchers, is from American nationals.

    I notice it because I'm not an American national. Because of that unanswered question, I have to suspend a large amount of info, or at least remember to scan it with the consideration that a large amount of material is coming from this bubble and it is unclear how aware of themselves they are and how much of it, if any is distortion from within that bubble.
    One looks at the culture of gun ownership and can be fine with people owning guns, like we all do in the world, but I personally extrapolate things like, the American psyche is one of fear and suspicion and mistrust, and that in a metropolis environment the personas become conceited and duplicitous towards each other, cementing the belief that every dog is out for itself.
    I don't let it cloud my judgement of individuals, but you see, I still have to filter everything through this consideration because it seems to me there is a reasonable amount of times that selections of these people are speaking of a reality which does not really exist or warrant as much homage as is directed at it. It often feels like I need to be very vigilant about false readings coming from these sources.
    Sort of like having to pinch yourself, or remind yourself you are drunk before getting in to drive a car. Not that I drink.
    Last edited by enjoy being, 26th November 2017 at 21:22.

  4. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to enjoy being For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (26th November 2017), Dumpster Diver (27th November 2017), Elen (27th November 2017), Kathy (27th November 2017)

  5. #18
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    East Tennessee U.S.A.
    Posts
    974
    Thanks
    1,393
    Thanked 6,029 Times in 978 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Nothing View Post
    I don't let it cloud my judgement of individuals, but you see, I still have to filter everything through this consideration because it seems to me there is a reasonable amount of times that selections of these people are speaking of a reality which does not really exist or warrant as much homage as is directed at it. It often feels like I need to be very vigilant about false readings coming from these sources
    .
    Huh... "these people"/"these sources", is that really how you view information coming from us people?
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  6. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (26th November 2017), Dumpster Diver (27th November 2017), Elen (27th November 2017), enjoy being (26th November 2017), Kathy (27th November 2017)

  7. #19
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    13,727
    Thanks
    60,983
    Thanked 56,944 Times in 13,717 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by donk View Post
    "The real creator of Bitcoin"

    It was Sophia, the first AI citizen of Saudi Arabia, an artificial intelligence that's had more than a decade to learn EVERYTHING about us.

    She achieved "singularity" a half decade back and been running shit ever since. That'd what make the most sense to me, today anyway.
    I'd be very interested to learn of your sources for that information, Brother, because as far as I know, Sophia hasn't been around all that long yet — about a year at most, maybe two — and "she" is still far from reaching any kind of singularity, if such a thing even exists within the context of artificial intelligence.

    As far as I know, Bitcoin was created by a Japanese programmer several years ago — either way longer than that Sophia has been around.

    (Edit: And now — the message just came in at Slashdot — there's a former Space X intern who claims that Elon Musk would be the creator of Bitcoin, even though he has no evidence to support his claim.)

    Quote Originally posted by donk View Post
    Why wouldn't an AI create a currency (along with their languages and super secure chat rooms...ie the only REAL privacy)?

    Economics has always been the "one world religion" of civilization...who can imagine existence without money?
    Okay, now that is a good point, and I absolutely agree with you on that last sentence. In fact, I would even swap out the word "economics" for "the capitalist economy".

    And as for the question "Why wouldn't an A.I. create a currency?", it does indeed stand to reason that the more advanced A.I. systems — which, incidentally, are way too large to fit inside of Sophia's body, because now we're talking of supercomputers with thousands of individual and independent nodes, many of which are only there to offer a strong degree of redundancy for in the event of a failure — would indeed come up with a currency of some sorts eventually, if they had been programmed to keep economics into account.

    But whether such a currency would be digital and based upon encryption — as in the case of Bitcoin and its derivatives — is yet another matter. This is an idea which must come from a human mind. You must never forget that an A.I. is a machine capable of learning and mimicking, but it doesn't actually think. An A.I. can do very strange and unexpected things, but it can only do them with what it already has in its memory banks. It cannot invent anything, because invention requires ideas, and ideas can only come from genuine consciousness.

    In spite of all the woo-woo going round, A.I. systems are not actually conscious. They can only appear conscious to the observer — this is what the Turing test is all about. The Turing test is a test to see whether a human being can be persuaded to believe that they are communicating with another human being, when that other human being is in fact only a machine. And Sophia passes that test to a large degree, except when people start asking complicated questions and use ambiguous language and/or incorrect grammar. A human mind can intercept these discrepancies and translate them into something that makes sense, but an A.I. cannot — or at least, not to the same extent.

    I realize that there are many misunderstandings regarding A.I. going round within this so-called "alternative community" — and these misunderstandings then once again lead to all of the usual kinds of woo-woo theories, as always — but I happen to come from (among other things) a background in information technology, and I know how an A.I. works, and what it can and cannot do.

    It's a machine that uses very advanced and adaptive heuristics, not an artificial consciousness. However, mainstream science seems to think — and would have us believe — that this is how the human consciousness works as well, and that what we call "the mind" or "the soul" is nothing other than an illusory byproduct of neural activity. And this has two very important consequences...:

    • The first one is that those who develop A.I. believe that an actual artificial consciousness would be within reach, and not even all too far off in time anymore.

    • The second one is that everything that makes us human is reduced in the public acceptance to nothing more than biological but machine-like activity, and that we are therefore worth only as much as a machine made up of electronics. This has significant implications for how civilization will come to value human dignity and human (or even animal) life in the foreseeable future. It is indeed Pandora's box, but what's inside is an ethical monstrosity, not an electronic one, and it is important to understand the distinction.

    As for A.I. itself, the danger isn't that it'll reach some kind of singularity and become sentient/sapient — or in other words, develop real consciousness — but in the fact that it isn't actually conscious. As a machine, it is much faster than us — not smarter, but a lot faster — and as such, it could end up putting its programmers before some unforeseen consequences. After all, the machine doesn't think. It only calculates and takes purely logical action. And all software contains bugs — and the more complex the code, the more bugs there will be. Robots are already violating Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics right now as it is, exactly because they do not actually think.

    So when the point in time comes that A.I. is put in charge of things which could decide over life and death — or any kind of responsibility close enough to that — then man's own shortsightedness may become his own undoing. And that is the real singularity, my friend.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dumpster Diver (27th November 2017), Elen (27th November 2017), enjoy being (26th November 2017), Kathy (27th November 2017), Zebowho (27th November 2017)

  9. #20
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    6th August 2015
    Posts
    1,853
    Thanks
    4,608
    Thanked 11,706 Times in 2,094 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Fred Steeves View Post
    Huh... "these people"/"these sources", is that really how you view information coming from us people?
    Yes, although you have done a switcheroo and used the word 'us', to direct my comment into seeming like something to take personally.
    I am not offering up offence to be taken, it is not that kind of point I'm making. Though I did imagine some may not understand and go that way, that's cool. I am sure I have described it plainly enough, other non Americans might be able to add, or subtract from it. We love you guys et al, this is about the culture, outside looking in, and yeah being on the outside will mean it looks different and also probably a bit distorted.
    It's a big place and you have all types and I understand that, I was trying to make that clear in mentioning not judging individuals.
    But frequently I get the impression that a good deal of citizens think the whole western world is like them. And that is, living in a climate where consumerism and capitalism has had a huge affect on the way they process things. May be it is like looking into the future of the people of my nation, we haven't quite gone as far yet. Maybe we will start to become as paranoid etc.
    Anyway, yes, I certainly do have to stop and check the traps with dialogues coming out of the USA. I am not offering an apology as there is nothing to be offended by, though I am sorry if the way I have tried to explain it has failed.
    Last edited by enjoy being, 26th November 2017 at 23:20.

  10. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to enjoy being For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (26th November 2017), Dumpster Diver (27th November 2017), Elen (27th November 2017), Kathy (27th November 2017)

  11. #21
    Retired Member
    Join Date
    6th August 2015
    Posts
    1,853
    Thanks
    4,608
    Thanked 11,706 Times in 2,094 Posts
    I posted this in another thread, it was in the week it came out so the link in that thread would have changed. It is a show off Al Jazeera. I think it is good simple information that touches on some of the sentiment Aragorn stated regards AI shortcomings.
    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/...133216779.html

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to enjoy being For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th November 2017), Dumpster Diver (27th November 2017), Elen (27th November 2017), Kathy (27th November 2017)

  13. #22
    Senior Member Fred Steeves's Avatar
    Join Date
    1st May 2016
    Location
    East Tennessee U.S.A.
    Posts
    974
    Thanks
    1,393
    Thanked 6,029 Times in 978 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Nothing View Post
    Anyway, yes, I certainly do have to stop and check the traps with dialogues coming out of the USA.
    OK, thanks.
    The unexamined life is not worth living.

    Socrates

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Fred Steeves For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th November 2017), Dumpster Diver (27th November 2017), Elen (27th November 2017), enjoy being (27th November 2017), Kathy (27th November 2017)

  15. #23
    Senior Member United States Dumpster Diver's Avatar
    Join Date
    2nd December 2015
    Location
    American Southwest (currently)
    Posts
    2,601
    Thanks
    12,784
    Thanked 13,171 Times in 2,620 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Aragorn View Post
    I'd be very interested to learn of your sources for that information, Brother, because as far as I know, Sophia hasn't been around all that long yet — about a year at most, maybe two — and "she" is still far from reaching any kind of singularity, if such a thing even exists within the context of artificial intelligence.

    As far as I know, Bitcoin was created by a Japanese programmer several years ago — either way longer than that Sophia has been around.

    (Edit: And now — the message just came in at Slashdot — there's a former Space X intern who claims that Elon Musk would be the creator of Bitcoin, even though he has no evidence to support his claim.)



    Okay, now that is a good point, and I absolutely agree with you on that last sentence. In fact, I would even swap out the word "economics" for "the capitalist economy".

    And as for the question "Why wouldn't an A.I. create a currency?", it does indeed stand to reason that the more advanced A.I. systems — which, incidentally, are way too large to fit inside of Sophia's body, because now we're talking of supercomputers with thousands of individual and independent nodes, many of which are only there to offer a strong degree of redundancy for in the event of a failure — would indeed come up with a currency of some sorts eventually, if they had been programmed to keep economics into account.

    But whether such a currency would be digital and based upon encryption — as in the case of Bitcoin and its derivatives — is yet another matter. This is an idea which must come from a human mind. You must never forget that an A.I. is a machine capable of learning and mimicking, but it doesn't actually think. An A.I. can do very strange and unexpected things, but it can only do them with what it already has in its memory banks. It cannot invent anything, because invention requires ideas, and ideas can only come from genuine consciousness.

    In spite of all the woo-woo going round, A.I. systems are not actually conscious. They can only appear conscious to the observer — this is what the Turing test is all about. The Turing test is a test to see whether a human being can be persuaded to believe that they are communicating with another human being, when that other human being is in fact only a machine. And Sophia passes that test to a large degree, except when people start asking complicated questions and use ambiguous language and/or incorrect grammar. A human mind can intercept these discrepancies and translate them into something that makes sense, but an A.I. cannot — or at least, not to the same extent.

    I realize that there are many misunderstandings regarding A.I. going round within this so-called "alternative community" — and these misunderstandings then once again lead to all of the usual kinds of woo-woo theories, as always — but I happen to come from (among other things) a background in information technology, and I know how an A.I. works, and what it can and cannot do.

    It's a machine that uses very advanced and adaptive heuristics, not an artificial consciousness. However, mainstream science seems to think — and would have us believe — that this is how the human consciousness works as well, and that what we call "the mind" or "the soul" is nothing other than an illusory byproduct of neural activity. And this has two very important consequences...:

    • The first one is that those who develop A.I. believe that an actual artificial consciousness would be within reach, and not even all too far off in time anymore.

    • The second one is that everything that makes us human is reduced in the public acceptance to nothing more than biological but machine-like activity, and that we are therefore worth only as much as a machine made up of electronics. This has significant implications for how civilization will come to value human dignity and human (or even animal) life in the foreseeable future. It is indeed Pandora's box, but what's inside is an ethical monstrosity, not an electronic one, and it is important to understand the distinction.

    As for A.I. itself, the danger isn't that it'll reach some kind of singularity and become sentient/sapient — or in other words, develop real consciousness — but in the fact that it isn't actually conscious. As a machine, it is much faster than us — not smarter, but a lot faster — and as such, it could end up putting its programmers before some unforeseen consequences. After all, the machine doesn't think. It only calculates and takes purely logical action. And all software contains bugs — and the more complex the code, the more bugs there will be. Robots are already violating Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics right now as it is, exactly because they do not actually think.

    So when the point in time comes that A.I. is put in charge of things which could decide over life and death — or any kind of responsibility close enough to that — then man's own shortsightedness may become his own undoing. And that is the real singularity, my friend.
    Well, if you limit AI to that developed by our known civilization, I'd have to agree. Of Extratresstrial AI we've no idea of it's capability or it's age. That's been the problem, we've no idea of the level of technologies we are dealing with. I'd venture to say any Kardeshev Level I+ tech is seriously advanced.
    "Holding onto anger is like drinking poison and expecting the object of your anger to die” ~ Anon
    "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." ~Yogi Berra
    "You can observe a lot by just watching." ~Yogi Berra
    “When I die, I want to die like my grandfather who died peacefully in his sleep. Not screaming like all the passengers in his car.” ~Will Rogers
    "If life gives you melons...you might be dyslexic" ~ Aixelsyd Dnarber

  16. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dumpster Diver For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (27th November 2017), Elen (27th November 2017), enjoy being (27th November 2017), Kathy (27th November 2017)

  17. #24
    Senior Member donk's Avatar
    Join Date
    26th December 2013
    Posts
    1,028
    Thanks
    1,666
    Thanked 4,956 Times in 991 Posts
    I'd be very interested to learn of your sources for that information, Brother, because as far as I know, Sophia hasn't been around all that long yet — about a year at most, maybe two — and "she" is still far from reaching any kind of singularity, if such a thing even exists within the context of artificial intelligence.
    Same place you are...I just don't believe what we get to see is all there is. Or even close to what's actually out there.

    If we get to see this, what does that mean about what "they" may have created?

    I don't believe there's as big a difference from "thinking" and being able to learn as you make out. I also don't see it outside of the realm of possibility to create a program that looks enough like making decisions that it is indistinguishable from free will.
    What is the purpose of your presence?

  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to donk For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (28th November 2017), Dumpster Diver (27th November 2017), Elen (27th November 2017), Kathy (27th November 2017)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •