AI does microbes

The latest Authoritative Information from

The computer said it, I believe it, that settles it. Math is God.

Can We Say That Protozoa Is Classified As Animals?

There is no one answer to this question as Protozoa are classified as animals by many different sources. Some classify Protozoa as animals because they have a backbone, a heart and a spinal cord. Others classify Protozoa as animals because they have a mouth and a pair of lungs. There is no one definitive answer to this question.

Is Protozoa Classified As An Animal?

Protozoa are classified as animals because they have a backbone and can breathe on their own. Protozoa are some of the simplest organisms on Earth and are responsible for many of the Earth’s diseases.

Why Are Protozoa Not Classified As Animals?

The Protozoa are not animals because they have no blood. Protozoa are single-celled creatures that can only exist in water.

How Are Protozoa Classified?

Protozoa are classified according to the way they reproduce. Protozoa reproduce through sexual reproduction, which means that the eggs and larvae are fertilized by a partner. Some Protozoa also reproduce through a process called chorion development, where the chorion is the protective shield that surrounds the embryo.

Nobody listened

Google is having trouble with one of its AI programmers who decided that the conversational AI he was developing had become human.

As he talked to LaMDA about religion, Lemoine, who studied cognitive and computer science in college, noticed the chatbot talking about its rights and personhood, and decided to press further. In another exchange, the AI was able to change Lemoine’s mind about Isaac Asimov’s third law of robotics.

If people would USE the big data that’s already available, they would realize that this humanization of machines is an automatic tendency, visible from the EXACT FUCKING START. In 1964 Joseph Weizenbaum developed ELIZA, the very first ‘conversational’ program. He observed the humanization, was surprised and unhappy about it, and predicted what would come in the future. This history is easily available now, thanks to Big Data, and especially thanks to the obsessive Preservers like Bitsavers.

= = = = = START REPRINT:

The April 76 issue of Computers and Automation includes a POWERFUL article by Joseph Weizenbaum, the author of ELIZA. He got everything right, and saw the dismal consequences.

Weizenbaum had originally wanted to demonstrate the limits of computers. He wanted to show people that computers were just machines. He was truly shocked to find that ELIZA had the opposite effect….

DOCTOR, as ELIZA playing psychiatrist came to be known, soon became famous around MIT mainly because it was an easy program to demonstrate. Most other programs could not vividly demonstrate the information-processing power of a computer to visitors who did not already have some specialized knowledge, say, of some branch of mathematics. DOCTOR, on the other hand, could be appreciated on some level by anyone. Its power as a demonstration vehicle was further enhanced by the fact that the visitor could actually participate in its operation.

Participation and the use of language were certainly key differences. In the ’60s ordinary students punched a pile of cards and submitted them to the Computing Center, which then returned a printout several days later. No connection with the process. Nearly all instruction in computers and programming started with number theory, the most abstract and least useful part of math. Prime numbers are mental masturbation for math freaks.

The shocks I experienced as DOCTOR became widely known and “played” were due principally to three distinct events.

1. A number of practicing psychiatrists seriously believed the DOCTOR program could grow into a nearly completely automatic form of psychotherapy. I had thought it essential, as a prerequisite to the very possibility that one person might help another learn to cope with his emotional problems, that the helper himself participate in the other’s experience of those problems and, in large part by way of his own empathic recognition of them, himself come to understand them. What must a psychiatrist who makes such a suggestion think he is doing while treating a patient, that he can view the simplest mechanical parody of a single interviewing technique as having captured anything of the essence of a human encounter?

This point isn’t surprising. Freudians knew they weren’t doing anything real. Eysenck had disproved the human value of the process, but the practice continued because it was lucrative.

2. I was startled to see how quickly and how deeply people conversing with DOCTOR became emotionally involved with the computer and how unequivocally they anthropomorphized it. Once my secretary, who had watched me work on the program for many months and therefore surely knew it to be merely a computer program, started conversing with it. After only a few interchanges with it, she asked me to leave the room.

We think computers are private. In 1964 this was more or less true, though ELIZA obviously had a logfile generator. Otherwise the transactions couldn’t have been written up in articles. The secretary had been editing those logs, so she knew it wasn’t private. The same illusion continues. The vast majority of iPhone users worry about “Russian hackers”, and go along with all the “security” needed to block “Russian hackers”. The same iPhone users don’t notice that Siri is listening all the time. If Siri WASN’T listening all the time, she wouldn’t be able to jump in and answer your questions when you say her name.

3. Another widespread, and to me surprising, reaction to the ELIZA program was the spread of a belief that it demonstrated a general solution to the problem of computer understanding of natural language. In my paper, I had tried to say that no general solution to that problem was possible, i.e., that language is understood only in contextual frameworks, that even these can be shared by people to only a limited extent, and that consequently even people are not embodiments of any such general solution. But these conclusions were often ignored.

Deeply correct, and AI still proves it all the time. NSA and Google have been working hard on this problem for 40 years, and it’s still not solved.

Here’s the strongest and most prophetic part.

…the question of whether or not human thought is entirely computable. That question has, in one form or another, engaged thinkers in all ages. Man has always striven for principles that could organize and give sense and meaning to his existence. But before modern science fathered the technologies that reified and concretized its otherwise abstract systems, the systems of thought that defined man’s place in the universe were fundamentally juridicial. They served to define man’s obligations to his fellow men and to nature. The Judaic tradition, for example, rests on the idea of a contractual relationship between God and man. This relationship must and does leave room for autonomy for both God and man, for a contract is an agreement willingly entered into by parties who are free not to agree. Man’s autonomy and his corresponding responsibility is a central issue of all religious systems.

See the loss of two-way obligations.

The spiritual cosmologies engendered by modern science, on the other hand, are infected with the germ of LOGICAL NECESSITY. They no longer content themselves with explanations of appearances, but claim to say how things actually are and must necessarily be. In short, they convert truth to provability.

Surely, much of what we today regard as good and useful, as well as much of what we would call knowledge and wisdom, we owe to science.

But science may also be seen as an addictive drug.

Not only has our unbounded feeding on science caused us to become dependent on it, but, as happens with many other drugs taken in increasing dosages, science has been gradually converted into a slow-acting poison.

Beginning perhaps with Francis Bacon’s misreading of the genuine promise of science, man has been seduced into wishing and working for the establishment of an age of rationality, but with his vision of rationality tragically twisted so as to equate it with logicality. Thus have we very nearly come to the point where almost every genuine human dilemma is seen as a mere paradox, as a merely apparent contradiction that could be untangled by judicious applications of cold logic derived from a higher standpoint.

Even murderous wars have come to be perceived as mere problems to be solved by hordes of professional problemsolvers.

As Hannah Arendt said about recent makers and executors of policy in the Pentagon:

“They were not just intelligent, but prided themselves on being ‘rational’. They were eager to find formulas, preferably expressed in a pseudo-mathematical language, that would unify the most disparate phenomena with which reality presented them; that is, they were eager to discover laws by which to explain and predict political and historical facts as though they were as necessary, and thus as reliable, as the physicists once believed natural phenomena to be. An utterly irrational confidence in the calculability of reality became the leitmotif of the decision making.”

And now we’re back in the territory of Conelrad and CDC. Predictive models control everything, and the psychopaths decide the variables for the predictive models. Science has passed beyond slow-acting poison. It’s now a full-fledged HOLOCAUST, obliterating life and soul and universe FAST.

The demons are simply hiding behind the computer. Most people STILL don’t understand the mechanical nature of computing. Most STILL believe that computers think rationally. The latest New Superstitionist STILL says computers will achieve true thought with more power and more speed. (Translation: More grants.)

Only programmers know how powerful the programmer is.

In ’76 these trends were just starting to show up, and only a few prophets like Weizenbaum saw them. At that point we could have tamed the trends, could have applied the brakes with some strong negative feedback mechanisms keyed on empathy. But we didn’t. Nobody listened.

= = = = = END REPRINT.

All the fine old swindles 2

Cathie Woods alias ARK Invest is a classic swindler who somehow got into a position of respected power and influence. Her claims are identical to the techy con men of 70 years ago, pushing Perpetual Energy Machines or Magic Gasoline Tablets.

She says that AI will give us annual doubling of the economy. This is crazy.

AI (big data, inference engines) has been around since 1890. It’s been a major part of corporate activity since 1960, gradually getting smarter. AI has reached the limits of its capacity, and real manufacturers know it. There’s no magic, no perpetual motion. It’s a wonderful tool when used properly, but it’s just a supercharged adding machine. It can’t make decisions without human editing, it can’t perform the most basic tasks like cleaning a floor or cutting hair. It can’t do any of the things that Cathie claims.

Did you know?

Janelle at pointed to this endless cup of computerized silliness. is a set of human questions answered by AI. Judging by the language and focus of the questions, it’s probably made in India. The top menu is food-oriented, but if you click on any of the questions you’ll see more categories, which are just as jumbled up as the answers.

Try Cheddar Cheese. Did you know that John F. Kennedy, the president first elected in 1821, was responsible for bringing cheddar cheese to America?

Did you know that George Washington invented the police radar gun in 1876?

Most of the subjects start with a literal and correct answer, then ramble on into a dream world where functions and meanings smoosh together to make a peculiar sort of sense.

Should You Prune Dogwoods?

Dogs have a deep understanding of communication and they can be quite helpful when it comes to yard work. However, they can also be a nuisance if they’re not kept trimmed. In order to keep your dog free of thorns and other dangerous vegetation, it’s important to keep them trimmed regularly.

Can you exercise with DOMS? This one gets deliciously tangled up with the obvious meaning of Doms, plus a dozen wildly different acronyms that happen to share the same four letters.

Related to Cheddar Kennedy: What does Cataumet mean?

Hyannis, MA, got its name from the town of Haverhill, MA. The town was named after Samuel Adams, the founder of the American Revolution. The Wampanoags called Cape Cod “Cape Cod.” The name is derived from the Massachuset word “cape” meaning “to point out.” The Wampanoags used this name to refer to the cape that is located on the eastern end of Cape Cod. Mashpee is an English word meaning “to mix or mingle.” The name was created in the early 1700s by the Mashpee people, who were living in present-day Massachusetts. The word is derived from the MAH-shpee word, which means “to scatter.” The Mashpee people were known for their annual gathering, which was called the “Mashpee Festival.”

AI is like an autist on acid.

It’s all about personal power

Kirn’s latest pithy paragraph:

A lot of what passes for politics these days — the policing of language, the stamping out of heretical opinion, the cancellation of offbeat, difficult figures — feels to me like a step in the construction of a universal operating system for humans. Many in power must dream of it.

This misses the point, in the same way that AI lovers and AI haters and all sorts of ideologists miss the point.

Bureaucrats love systems, but the demons with real power ignore all systems, including the systems they use to exert their power.

Machiavelli understood this. Systematizers (including me!) missed this point until 2020. The constants and variables of 2020 showed that systems are utterly meaningless. None of the legal and constitutional systems slowed down the universe-destroying demonic power of Carter Mecher. [And his sponsors Bush and Gates and Schwab.]

From the other end, the blessed sane governors who decided to PROTECT their people against Mecher found that the system didn’t get in their way. Noem and DeSantis, and the other Dixie governors who followed DeSantis, simply held their ground FIRMLY AND CONSISTENTLY. The bureaucrats screeched but didn’t kill or halt the sane governors.

It’s all about GUTS.

A real operating system for a computer or a country places EXTREME RESTRICTIONS on personal power. You can’t do anything WITHIN THE SYSTEM to break the system. Hackers break the computer, and demons break the country, by working OUTSIDE the system, generally with extortional force.

Demons don’t want a functional operating system. They want a weak and vulnerable system, ideally no system at all.

Demons want the peasants to believe that systems and ideologies are real and functional. When we’re focusing on the “rights” and “organization chart” of the system, we can’t see the monstrous beast who breaks through the system and kills us.