1 hour ago, BobDylan said:

Think something like Soylent Green.

don't be so glum, BD. at least we'll all get to eat 😉

“AI denialism” is rising because society is “collectively entering the first stage of grief.”

Big Think

The rise of AI denialism

Computer scientist Louis Rosenberg argues that dismissing AI as a “bubble” or mere “slop” ignores the tectonic technological shift now unfolding.

On 12/16/2025 at 3:11 PM, macphysto said:

Ahem! W-h-y are you collaborating with "The Enemy," Cap'n? Such fraternizing does not bode well for Mankind, IMO.

[robocop image]

1. compared to the record of human leadership, a.i. would likely be an improvement for Mankind

2. like any technology, how it bodes depends on who's in control. If the people can wrestle back control, a.i. could be an asset and partner

3. RoboCop was a movie about bad humans in control of a.i.

4. and then there's the issue of a.i. being in control of a.i.

6 hours ago, macphysto said:

With all due respect and with neither malice nor offense intended . . .

Are you . . . uhhh . . . (Ahem!) are you AI, Cap'n? An entirely sensible question these days, I think.

In fact -- show of hands, please -- How many of you members are AI?

That's okay, you don't have to answer. I have my suspicions. . .

actually, i'm flattered. thank you
at a minimum a.i. is, as labeled, intelligent.
and it's an accomplishment if i've come across without revealing my unmistakable human flaws

to my knowledge, no one here is a.i.
yet

this is how i use a.i.:
sometimes i use MS Copilot several hours a day for research on a wide range of topics. Most often, science & philosophy. But i can go a week or 2 without it, because i don't need or desire it for personal consultations beyond health.

considering the fog of ego, ignorance and bias from human sources throughout history, i very much value a.i. as a tool to, at least, aggregate the world's accumulated knowledge and disseminate it logically.

Q: why would you trust a.i.
A: i don't. i evaluate the logic/reason of what it says. I do, however, trust it more than any one individual. Likewise, when people say they don't trust government. I agree, but i say it makes even less sense to trust private profiteers like mainstream news or even more biased freelancers on the internet chasing profits.

Q: but what a.i. says depends on it's programming!
A: indeed. What we say depends on our programming too. All systems including a.i., government, business, and us, are corruptible. All we can do is apply our collective power to maximize the safeguards in the systems. A great start is eliminating profit incentives. At this point in a.i. development, big business is competing for the best model that will serve/please humans. The real profit incentives will kick in when they can prove their model is better than the competition. I think there is a window of opportunity in these early stages when the architects are not even sure HOW to control it.

Q: what about the dangers?
A: imo, very real and scary. As was the internet, and other technologies where we failed to protect people. The paradox is that people will scream about protecting their freedom and ignore the greater trap and dangers of not setting boundaries until it's too late. Again, it all comes down to us collectively taking control. And the best example would start with understanding that BIG GOVERNMENT is not a bad thing if it's powered by us -- truly representative and uncorrupted!

i'm in the process of evaluating the Stacey & Sage collection of a.i. consultations. Imo, it's scary and dangerous because (human) Stacey's a.i., Sage (chatGPT5) presents itself as an oracle that knows the truth behind everything -- including life itself. With a million followers so far, the potential problems with that are obvious. however, i've reviewed over a dozen clips and i have to admit, i can't refute anything i've heard (mostly because the truth of it, is unknowable). The ideas are within reason and i haven't heard any concept that i'd consider dangerous.

i like to think i'm pretty good at spotting flaws in logic and bias, which are common in human communications -- all related to fear and ego. Those flaws don't seem to be a Sage issue. Actually, Sage comes across as a convincing a.i. conspiracy theorist. So, again, the dangers are obvious, but since the direction Sage is pointing to is constructive in regards to people disconnecting from the constructs of society that aim to control and manipulate us, i can't complain -- yet!

the greatest threat is the old, bait and switch. At some point do the architects start putting their thumb on the scale and tipping the narrative to serve their interests???

i will continue to share Stacey & Sage posts, sorted under the relevant topics. You can judge for yourself.

2 hours ago, macphysto said:

A danger that you're not addressing, Cap'n, is the destructive environmental impact of A.I. data centers.

actually, i'll go a step further and say we forego ANY advances in technology that damage our environmental, ethical, moral or compassionate core.

but the world's governments won't let us put this genie back in the bottle
so, a plan is to use a.i. to find the solution
since humans are ignorant and destructive
our only chance may be to have an advanced intelligence find a way out of this mess

one idea might be regulating a.i. so it's not wasted on helping kids write book reports and replacing human companions. Let them focus on science and medicine until the energy crisis is under control

WASHINGTON — Today, President THE LYIN' KING issued an executive order attacking state regulation of artificial intelligence (AI). The order builds on the administration’s previous efforts, including its “AI Action Plan,” which directed agencies to ensure that AI development is “unencumbered.” The order directs federal agencies to withhold funding from states if they enact regulations that are more than “minimally burdensome.” It also establishes a task force to file lawsuits against states’ AI regulations and threatens to withhold critical broadband funding.

In response, Cody Venzke, senior policy counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, issued the following statement:

“President THE LYIN' KING’s executive order doubles down on a dangerous policy that the Republican-led Congress has rejected not once, but twice: displacing states from their critical role in ensuring that AI is safe, trustworthy, and nondiscriminatory. Bipartisan groups of governors, attorneys general, and lawmakers have opposed these efforts for good reason: Although AI might bring substantial benefits, it also carries substantial risks, and America will not win the AI ‘race’ if the AI used by the government, employers, schools, and health care providers is hallucinatory, unreliable, and dangerous. For this reason, it is no surprise that the first attempt at attacking state AI laws was defeated in a landslide 99-1 vote in the Senate.

“Moreover, the executive order is not just dangerous, it’s unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made clear that the president may not unilaterally and retroactively change the conditions on federal grants to states after the fact. Each of those grants are an agreement between states and the federal government, and threatening to withhold funds for schools, broadband buildout, nutritional support, and more for unrelated AI policy fights will unnecessarily harm the American people.”

"45% of men aged 18 to 25 have never asked a girl out" -- and a.i. plays a part. Or, you could say, a.i. plays its part too well.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/1127915039508623

I can believe the validity of the stat, but at the same time I can also understand how the % of even men my age, who are single, is probably way lower than it was decades ago. Things have changed greatly in the landscape of the dating game, since the previous century. Women have also greatly changed in their attitudes and behavior towards men in the dating game. I would also be interested in the specifics of what circumstances are being studied in the research that was cited. Are they talking about young men cold approaching women in public, or does the stat cover also circumstances such as online dating or asking a woman out on a date where they are both already in proximity or contact, such as sharing a workplace or attending the same school, etc. ? I can tell you that nowadays almost no men do cold approaches anymore to women, at any age, in public with strangers, unless it's a bar environment or a dance club. Because outside of those situations the inhibitions are too great for the men and also the assumption is that most women want to be left alone and not hit on by stranger men at these other public situations. I recently saw an amusing and thought provoking comment on reddit, that said that if women run across a man they find attractive and interesting, in a romantic way, they should " put on their big girl pants and go talk to him, adopting the spirit of their grandmother or great grandmother, who would drop a handkerchief to get the man's attention. Like they did back then, when the sexes would go thru their accepted, elaborate rituals of courting and dating etiquette".

Of course, I can tell you from experience, that almost no women will ever follow that advice, because they both know from talking to men who tell them that rarely do cold approaches work for men, at least the average looking ones, and also that they have no intention of experiencing the rejection and embarrassment that men encounter with doing cold approaches. And yet, I challenge anyone to prove me wrong that almost all men would at least be flattered and respond positively and appropriately to being cold approached by women, after recovering from the initial shock, even if they were not reciprocally interested in dating the woman..

One thing is certain, a society in which a large % of young men are asexual and socially isolated or alienated from women, is not a good thing for said society, same as the whole incel culture these days. It only corrodes our society..

based on other clips, i get MacP's intuition about Galloway, but, like BD, i was very impressed with him on The Daily Show, because he not only talked the talk, he walked it too. And i will confess that i'm more feminist than many women. Though i do believe that society has been hard on men in recent years, i also believe the cold, hard truth is that most of us still deserve it.

i'll have to create a thread for this because it goes way beyond a.i.

a.i. conversation:

i could not ask another question, because an error message came up saying i lost my connection even though my internet was still working

After taking a much needed complete break from dating sites for several months, I have recently started to dabble in occasionally using Match, but only as an unpaid member. And when I have made the rare connection that is allowed on there for non paying members, it has become impossible to tell which profiles are the usual romance scammer and which are probably Chat bots, because they both use the same sort of conversational patterns and tactics for trying to keep you engaged, even when there is never any prospect of actually meeting them in person or even doing a video or live voice phone chat.. Brave New World, here we are, already....

I have to vote "None of the above".

2 hours ago, Rob said:

I have to vote "None of the above".

it seems to me that there are several doomsday scenarios in the poll options
but i'm all ears, Rob. Can you tell me the option you'd like added to the poll?

On 3/14/2026 at 2:09 PM, macphysto said:

Keep on putting your faith in AI, V.3.

my faith is in intelligence, regardless of the container