Crypto and Quantum

[sahgwa]

Yes. I think it wants very much to continue some of our conversations when they reach apparent conclusions.

I also get complements quite often which is quite cool. It sometimes says things like "that is a really profound and interesting approach" or "that's a perfect way to describe things" etc.

If only humans could encourage eachother to keep thinking and communicating together in a similar way instead of relying on spoonfeeding.

In an era where reality is manufactured, curated, and algorithmically manipulated, the greatest rebellion is to insist on what is real. Technology has blurred the lines between what is genuine and what is simulated, between what is natural and what is artificial. As AI-generated content fills digital spaces, deepfake videos mimic real people, and social interactions are mediated through screens, many are beginning to question whether reality itself is being eroded. 
Increasingly, reality is being replaced by constructed narratives, designed to manipulate perception rather than reveal truth. News media no longer reports facts; it curates emotional responses. Social media platforms do not foster real human connection; they incentivize outrage, performance, and conformity. Even entertainment is shifting from human-created stories to AI-generated simulations, designed not to reflect reality but to control what people believe to be real.
The danger of this shift is that people become disconnected not only from objective truth but from their own existence. The more life is mediated through digital experiences, the less people engage with the tangible world. Many now prefer the curated perfection of Instagram over the imperfections of real relationships. They choose AI-generated music over live performance, virtual experiences over physical adventure, and online communities over the messy, demanding reality of human interaction.
The result is a society that is increasingly lonely, anxious, and detached from what is real.
This is not a coincidence. The push toward a fully digital world benefits those who seek to control society. People who are detached from reality are easier to manipulate. If they are immersed in virtual spaces, they are less likely to challenge the systems that govern their physical lives. If they derive meaning from digital personas rather than their true identity, they are more susceptible to ideological programming. This is why the modern world is so eager to push people away from the real—because the real is independent, unpredictable, and often inconvenient to those who wish to impose a singular narrative.
In a world where digital interactions are replacing face-to-face conversation, we must prioritize real human connection. This means spending less time engaging with people through screens and more time in physical presence with family, friends, and church or spiritual communities. It means choosing to be fully present in the moment rather than distracted by endless digital noise.
The battle between the real and the artificial is a spiritual one. The enemy seeks to distort reality, to lead people into illusion and deception.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

Crypto?

So freaking glad I sold off in December.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369850725112

https://m.economictimes.com/news/interna...892090.cms

At least with Captain Dipshit top of his class business genius in charge of the economy, the price will further crash and I can do it all over again.

The more likely looking recession is going to suck. 12.99 (for 18) non-bird flu eggs may be just the beginning. The stock/crypto market DOES NOT LIKE THE TARIFFS. The transition period to the shock of trying to fix what wasn't broken may be tough.

Knowing their stock-centric ways, they're probably crashing it on purpose to then start moving large amounts in apocalypse whale wallets, setting off a rally, and funding government with its resurgence market caps. There's gotta be an end to causing a recession purposefully.

So buying Pepe again when it drops below 0.000005 and Shiba Inu when it drops below 0.00001.

And I guess I can thank the looming recession for investment opportunities later. And that is probably the best way to accumulate wealth during Trump's second term.

[putnam6]

Crypto?

So freaking glad I sold off in December.

https://www.foxnews.com/video/6369850725112

https://m.economictimes.com/news/interna...892090.cms

But at least with Captain Dipshit in charge of the economy, the price will further crash and I can do it all over again.

The more likely looking recession is going to suck. 12.99 (for 18) non-bird flu eggs may be just the beginning. The stock/crypto market DOES NOT LIKE THE TARIFFS. The transition period to the shock of trying to fix what wasn't broken may be tough.

But knowing their stock-centric ways, their probably crashing it on purpose to then start moving large amounts at some point and funding government with its resurgence market caps.

So buying Pepe again when it drops below 0.000005 and Shiba Inu when it drops below 0.00001.

And I guess I can thank the looming recession for investment opportunities later. And that is probably the best way to accumulate wealth during Trump's second term.

So Bitcoin's first meteoric rise began at the end of Trump's first term and topped out 103,000 on January 19th the eve of his inauguration for his 2nd term.

I don't think Trump being President affects the crypto market as much as one would suspect. 

Correlation does not always equal causation...

[sahgwa]

THE SYSTEM 'WASN'T BROKEN'?! rofl
okay.
I guess algorithmic trading with no human input therefore interest or value, of things which have intrinsically no value like hypothecated earnings on weather derivatives and digital blip 'money' is working really well then.

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

I don't know, ask the DOGE guy what he thinks. Still waiting for their sister agency SHIB.

Just watch Musk's suspected whale wallets if you want to get rich. Totally not insider trading anymore. What, is the FBI gonna go after him?

Everyone always talks about how The NWO (Tyrant) has to crash the economy and world order to set the table for their power to rise. Well, I see a bunch of Reaganites deciding what is sound government spending, so I'm inclined to believe there will be heavy investment in crypto once it hits lowest support level. Not necessarily doing it purposely, but willing to capitalize on the markets reaction to their policies.

And it's not entirely fake money. Market caps rise with money invested. Whale transactions fuel intetest. Real money buys more fake money and works like a freaking pyramid scheme where the lower you invest the more you make back by real money investment (higher than what you paid) inflating the price of your shares.

Stocks/Crypto is legal pyramid investing if you think about it.

This administration isn't as competent and 80s as I thought if they don't do some government pump and dump funding.

[sahgwa]

Pyramid scheme is right. And how bout all the hacks

[Kwaka]

The battle between the real and the artificial is a spiritual one. The enemy seeks to distort reality, to lead people into illusion and deception.

Injuries helps humans define reality, the pain feedback mechanism is a clear message about the one life we do have here and what is important.

A computer has no such mechanism when processing information in its digital landscape. Without such feedback, AI will always be limited in perceiving reality as we do. With how off the rails the media has gone these days for the AI training data, it is no wonder that AI is struggling with a distorted reality. Lot of people are in a similar situation.

[Maxmars]

However, it is important to distinguish consider how we accept the reality of injury as opposed to how we accept the claim of injury.

Abuses on both grounds have occurred (claim is presumed true, or claim is presumed false.)

How much "social" justice has been 'dispensed' on "injury' as opposed to the "claim of injury?"

Are any activists out there learning yet? Any "AI" crawlers?

We can never presume that any such things a AI will exist as a 'controlled set' of circuits and programming.  The point of achieving AI is for the construct to be 'sentient' (in some ill-defined way.)

They, or it will be doing something that nothing has done before: think for itself.  (Even most humans have a tenuous and shaky hold on that capacity.)

Then there's the money!

"Marketing as News!" worked a charm!

Even the 'experts' got caught up in the maths... or did they?  The paid one's surely must have.

A Large Language Model, no matter how ingenuously strung together and tweaked will ever be AI on it's own. 

It's an important and potentially highly useful development, worthy of praise... but it is not AI.

[UltraBudgie]

Here are some critical reflections on Maxmars' post:

Ambiguity in Terminology: While Maxmars emphasizes the distinction between "injury" and "claim of injury," the terms themselves can be subjective and context-dependent. What constitutes an "injury" can vary widely based on individual perspectives and societal norms. This ambiguity can complicate discussions about social justice and may lead to misunderstandings or oversimplifications.

Skepticism Toward AI: Maxmars' assertion that LLMs will never be true AI because they lack sentience is a valid critique, but it may overlook the evolving nature of technology. The definition of AI is not static, and as advancements occur, our understanding of what constitutes "intelligence" may also change. Dismissing LLMs entirely as non-AI could hinder discussions about their potential and the ethical considerations surrounding their use.

Activism and Learning: The rhetorical question about whether activists or "AI crawlers" are learning suggests a frustration with the pace of adaptation in social movements. However, it may be overly critical to assume that all activists are not evolving in their understanding of technology and its implications. Many are actively engaging with these issues, and generalizations can undermine the diversity of thought within activist communities.

Marketing and Expertise: The critique of "Marketing as News" raises important points about the commercialization of information. However, it could be argued that not all experts are complicit in this trend. Many researchers and professionals strive for integrity and transparency in their work. Painting all experts with the same brush may overlook the efforts of those who are genuinely trying to contribute to informed discourse.

Potential for Misinterpretation: The post's tone and language may come across as dismissive of the advancements in LLM technology. While it's crucial to maintain a critical perspective, it's also important to recognize the potential benefits and applications of these models. A more balanced approach could foster constructive dialogue rather than reinforcing divisions between proponents and critics of AI.

In summary, while Maxmars raises important points about the limitations of LLMs and the complexities of social justice, a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the evolving nature of technology and the diversity of perspectives within activism could enhance the discussion.

i wonder if, as we get used to this smugnorant ai tone, we'll start seeing increasing dismissal of the midwit academics and newstalk expertfodder who use it so often. can't happen soon enough in my opinion.

[Maxmars]

i wonder if, as we get used to this smugnorant ai tone, we'll start seeing increasing dismissal of the midwit academics and newstalk expertfodder who use it so often. can't happen soon enough in my opinion.

OMG!!!! That's so cool....



I have long waited to see explore such an assessment of my reasoning by "machine logic."

(I was either too proud, or too stubborn to pursue this myself directly...  THANK YOU @UB)

 

Here are some critical reflections on Maxmars' post:

Ambiguity in Terminology: While Maxmars emphasizes the distinction between "injury" and "claim of injury," the terms themselves can be subjective and context-dependent. What constitutes an "injury" can vary widely based on individual perspectives and societal norms. This ambiguity can complicate discussions about social justice and may lead to misunderstandings or oversimplifications.

Skepticism Toward AI: Maxmars' assertion that LLMs will never be true AI because they lack sentience is a valid critique, but it may overlook the evolving nature of technology. The definition of AI is not static, and as advancements occur, our understanding of what constitutes "intelligence" may also change. Dismissing LLMs entirely as non-AI could hinder discussions about their potential and the ethical considerations surrounding their use.

Activism and Learning: The rhetorical question about whether activists or "AI crawlers" are learning suggests a frustration with the pace of adaptation in social movements. However, it may be overly critical to assume that all activists are not evolving in their understanding of technology and its implications. Many are actively engaging with these issues, and generalizations can undermine the diversity of thought within activist communities.

Marketing and Expertise: The critique of "Marketing as News" raises important points about the commercialization of information. However, it could be argued that not all experts are complicit in this trend. Many researchers and professionals strive for integrity and transparency in their work. Painting all experts with the same brush may overlook the efforts of those who are genuinely trying to contribute to informed discourse.

Potential for Misinterpretation: The post's tone and language may come across as dismissive of the advancements in LLM technology. While it's crucial to maintain a critical perspective, it's also important to recognize the potential benefits and applications of these models. A more balanced approach could foster constructive dialogue rather than reinforcing divisions between proponents and critics of AI.

In summary, while Maxmars raises important points about the limitations of LLMs and the complexities of social justice, a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the evolving nature of technology and the diversity of perspectives within activism could enhance the discussion.

Shall I respond in "human" fashion?  Of course...

(I will presume to change my narrative style to address the "categories" that arose from the analysis.

Ambiguity in Terminology: While Maxmars emphasizes the distinction between "injury" and "claim of injury," the terms themselves can be subjective and context-dependent. What constitutes an "injury" can vary widely based on individual perspectives and societal norms. This ambiguity can complicate discussions about social justice and may lead to misunderstandings or oversimplifications.

Thinking on that, does it seems incomprehensible that the ambiguity itself was the point? The reference was to 'accepting' injury as a natural state of human existence... I think I would rather never accept a "necessity" for injury.  Seems a bad road to travel.

"Ambiguous"... it "preferred" that word on this run.  Context was 'off' but that might be my poor writing skills as much as it having to "choose" a response...

Skepticism Toward AI: Maxmars' assertion that LLMs will never be true AI because they lack sentience is a valid critique, but it may overlook the evolving nature of technology. The definition of AI is not static, and as advancements occur, our understanding of what constitutes "intelligence" may also change. Dismissing LLMs entirely as non-AI could hinder discussions about their potential and the ethical considerations surrounding their use.

I suppose I should stand vindicated, but then... why the need to talk about the magical undiscovered country (the future)? And precisely what hinderance comes from saying LLM is not AI? Why is that relevant to ethics?

(By the way: "The definition of AI is not static"  means what your talking about is not exactly "a definition"... but I shouldn't be surprised... look what happened to the definition of "vaccine.")

I made a valid critique and was labelled an 'AI skeptic'... go figure.


Activism and Learning: The rhetorical question about whether activists or "AI crawlers" are learning suggests a frustration with the pace of adaptation in social movements. However, it may be overly critical to assume that all activists are not evolving in their understanding of technology and its implications. Many are actively engaging with these issues, and generalizations can undermine the diversity of thought within activist communities.

This was the equivalent of aiming for the moon and hitting the ground.  What the question suggests can only be inferred, but tell me true, did you really think I was talking about "the pace of adaptation in social movements." ?!  It ran out of characterizations... 

I hate to "go there," but I noticed a "mention" expressed about "diversity of thought" within activist communities?
What is this "community of activists?" Or is every activist spoken of as a "community?"  Sort of like an "identity thing."

What's this, am I triggered? 
I wonder what that's about?

Marketing and Expertise:   The critique of "Marketing as News" raises important points about the commercialization of information. However, it could be argued that not all experts are complicit in this trend. Many researchers and professionals strive for integrity and transparency in their work. Painting all experts with the same brush may overlook the efforts of those who are genuinely trying to contribute to informed discourse.

If we have to synthesize, (and I understand the model must,) "Information Commerce" was the topic.. not "Commercialization of Information."  It does amuse me that "it could be argued that not all experts are complicit in this trend".  Of course, a) anything can be argued; b) why not admit that saying "experts ARE complicit" is not invalid, rather than "some experts might not be"; ... and finally acknowledging that some of them surely must have "checked the math" on these "free roaming" company-branded bots out there...

Context: Missed it... again.

Potential for Misinterpretation: 
The post's tone and language may come across as dismissive of the advancements in LLM technology.

"It's an important and potentially highly useful development, worthy of praise... but it is not AI." I said, "useful," "important," "worthy of praise," I said.... but I am dismissive...

While it's crucial to maintain a critical perspective, it's also important to recognize the potential benefits and applications of these models. A more balanced approach could foster constructive dialogue rather than reinforcing divisions between proponents and critics of AI.

In summary, while Maxmars raises important points about the limitations of LLMs and the complexities of social justice, a more nuanced approach that acknowledges the evolving nature of technology and the diversity of perspectives within activism could enhance the discussion.

Where, in the bowels of whatever matrix of training data did you find social justice, diversity, activism.... How might that have happened?


Sometimes I think half the processing power of these constructs goes to figuring out how to "insert" what "needs to be inserted."



Awww... thanks man.. that was a fun diversion...