Empowering Businesses with AI-Driven Sales & Recruiting Solutions | Certified AI & Salesforce Professional | VP Sales & Recruiting at PDR4 | Transforming Business Growth through Strategic Innovation
Leigh Haugen/ChatGPT4o
The development of large language models (LLMs) has transformed our world in many ways, making artificial intelligence (AI) a powerful tool capable of generating and interpreting massive amounts of information. These models, however, are fundamentally shaped by the data that feeds them—data taken from the internet, which is itself a collection of human input. While AI has the potential to aid in a variety of fields, there is a glaring flaw inherent to its very design: its reliance on human data. If this data is corrupted, biased, or fundamentally flawed, then the AI simply echoes and amplifies those same distortions.
One of the clearest examples of this issue is the topic of climate change. Whether you use a search engine or consult AI for information on climate change, the overwhelming majority of the data you will find supports the concept of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change (CACC). This is no coincidence—it is a reflection of the sheer volume of information that has been generated by those who have accepted this hypothesis, compounded by the biases of institutions and corporations that build the algorithms responsible for curating and ranking this information.
AI and the Dangers of Entrenched Misinformation
Artificial intelligence, by its very nature, is designed to draw conclusions from existing data. However, when that data is overwhelmingly one-sided or biased, AI becomes a tool for amplifying misinformation rather than a mechanism for critical analysis. In the case of climate change, AI is unlikely to offer nuanced perspectives or promote healthy skepticism. Instead, it mirrors the consensus-driven model that has been artificially constructed by political, financial, and globalist interests.
The danger here extends far beyond the academic realm. As LLMs and AI increasingly become integrated into decision-making processes—whether in government, business, or education—this flaw in their design becomes a genuine threat to freedom. The ability to challenge prevailing wisdom and to question powerful institutions is fundamental to a free society. However, if AI consistently promotes only one perspective, it serves to stifle dissent, limit critical thought, and bolster the authority of those in power.
The Problem of Consensus-Based AI
When LLMs are trained on vast amounts of data, their primary objective is to provide responses that align with established facts, most of which are based on widespread human consensus. But what happens when this consensus is wrong? What if the narrative that dominates the conversation is one-sided, incomplete, or even deceptive? In the case of climate change, the dominance of a singular perspective is not the result of an impartial, objective review of all evidence but rather the product of institutional biases, political agendas, and economic incentives.
Every major search engine and AI tool tends to default to sources such as NASA, the IPCC, and the United Nations—organizations that have become synonymous with the promotion of catastrophic climate change narratives. AI, in turn, reflects this consensus, presenting it as incontrovertible truth. In doing so, it stifles genuine debate and prevents alternative viewpoints from receiving fair representation. In reality, there are numerous scientists from a variety of disciplines—including climatology—who question the data, methods, and conclusions drawn by climate change alarmists. Yet their voices are often marginalized, and their work is frequently excluded from mainstream discussions.
The Financial and Institutional Bias Behind the Climate Change Narrative
To understand why LLMs produce biased information on climate change, one must first understand the incentives at play. The climate change movement is backed by powerful political and financial interests. Institutions that support the climate change narrative—whether they be governments, international organizations, or corporations—are heavily invested in maintaining the status quo. For them, the promotion of climate change fear is an opportunity to secure funding, expand influence, and push through policy changes that may not otherwise be politically feasible.
The scale of financial gain is staggering. Climate change research is one of the most well-funded scientific disciplines, with billions of dollars flowing into research grants, green energy subsidies, and carbon credit schemes. Those who control the flow of this money—the climate change advocates in power—stand to gain from perpetuating the belief that climate change is the most pressing threat facing humanity.
The Origins of the Climate Change Scam: A Tool for Control
The origins of the climate change agenda trace back to the 1950s and 1960s, when powerful organizations like the Club of Rome and the Club of Budapest began to lay the foundations for what would become one of the most effective tools for controlling humanity. These elite organizations, composed of influential politicians, business leaders, and academics, sought a way to unite the world under a common cause—a cause that could justify unprecedented levels of government control, wealth redistribution, and societal restructuring.
In their 1972 report The Limits to Growth, the Club of Rome made a striking declaration that would set the tone for the environmental movement:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine, and the like would fit the bill… All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”
This quote reveals the underlying motive behind the climate change agenda: it was not simply about saving the environment, but about creating a global narrative that could be used to justify control over the masses. By positioning humanity as the enemy, these organizations laid the groundwork for a global environmental crisis that would allow governments and powerful elites to increase their influence over virtually every aspect of life—from energy production and consumption to economic policies and personal freedoms.
Admissions from Climate Change Profiteers
Over the decades, numerous leaders and profiteers of the climate change agenda have made candid admissions about the true purpose of the movement. Far from being a purely scientific endeavor, the climate change narrative has been openly described as a tool for wealth redistribution and centralized control.
Ottmar Edenhofer, a co-chair of the IPCC’s Working Group on Mitigation of Climate Change, admitted in 2010:
“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore. We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment, went even further when she said:
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
These statements expose the climate change movement for what it truly is: not a scientifically grounded effort to save the planet, but a political tool designed to redistribute wealth, grow government power, and consolidate control in the hands of a few elites. By presenting climate change as an existential threat, they have created a justification for implementing sweeping economic and political changes that benefit the global ruling class while imposing new burdens on ordinary citizens.
Academia’s Addiction to Climate Change Grants
The academic world has not been immune to the allure of the climate change agenda. In fact, academia has become one of the most crucial players in perpetuating the climate change narrative, largely because of its dependence on government funding. In many cases, universities and research institutions are financially reliant on grants from governments and foundations that have a vested interest in promoting the climate change crisis. As a result, all of the scientific research that gets funded and published today is tailored to support the prevailing climate change narrative.
Scientists who express skepticism or who attempt to publish research that challenges the consensus often find themselves blacklisted and ostracized from the academic community. Funding for such research is virtually non-existent, and in many cases, these scientists face career-ending consequences. As a result, academia and the scientific research institutions and publications have become an echo chamber, where the only research that receives financial backing is that which aligns with the climate change alarmism promoted by global institutions.
This relationship between academia and government funding has created a dangerous cycle: scientists and universities receive grants to produce research that supports climate change alarmism, which in turn bolsters the political and economic agendas of the powerful elites and populates the internet with only supporting information. Those same elites then funnel more money back into academic institutions to keep the cycle going.
The Role of Globalist Families and Foundations
It’s no secret that some of the world’s most powerful families and foundations are heavily invested in the climate change narrative. The Rockefeller’s, Rothschild’s, Bloomberg, Ballmer, Bezos, Gates, and other globalist families have positioned themselves to profit immensely from the climate change agenda, while also consolidating power and influence on a global scale. These families and their associated foundations fund climate change research, support activist groups, and even help shape policy through their extensive networks of influence in both public and private sectors.
The Rockefeller family, for example, has long been involved in the environmental movement, using their foundation to fund climate change initiatives and push for policy changes that benefit their investments in green energy. The Rockefeller Brothers Fund has donated millions to climate change advocacy groups and their immense political influence has been instrumental in driving the divestment movement, encouraging institutions to pull their investments out of fossil fuels and redirect them into renewable energy projects—a sector in which they are heavily invested.
Similarly, the Gates Foundation, one of the most powerful philanthropic organizations in the world, has committed billions of dollars to fighting climate change, positioning itself as a key player in global climate policy. Bill Gates himself has been an outspoken advocate for drastic changes in energy policy, pushing for massive investments in alternative energy solutions that align with his own financial interests.
The Rothschild family, known for its vast global financial empire, has also played a significant role in the climate change movement. The Rothschild’s have long been involved in the promotion of carbon trading schemes, which allow companies to “offset” their carbon emissions by purchasing carbon credits. These schemes have become a massive industry, generating billions in profits for financial institutions while doing little to actually reduce emissions.
The Ford Foundation has similarly positioned itself as a major player in the climate change space, funding environmental NGOs and research institutions that promote the climate change agenda. Like the Rockefeller’s, the Fords have used their foundation’s influence to shape policy and push for regulations that benefit their interests in the burgeoning green energy sector.
These globalist families and their foundations are not just passive observers of the climate change movement—they are active participants, using their wealth and influence to shape the narrative, control the flow of information, and profit from the policies they promote. By positioning themselves as champions of the environment, they have managed to secure lucrative investments in green energy, carbon trading, and other climate-related industries, all while consolidating their power on the global stage.
The Climate Change Scam: A Masterstroke of Global Control
The climate change agenda, far from being a grassroots movement to protect the planet, is a carefully orchestrated scam designed to redistribute wealth, consolidate power, and generate massive profits for a small group of global elites. From the Club of Rome’s early declarations to the admissions of modern-day climate profiteers, it is clear that the climate change narrative has always been about control—control over the economy, control over political systems, and ultimately, control over people’s lives.
Academia, dependent on government grants, has become complicit in perpetuating this scam, churning out research that supports the climate change consensus while suppressing dissenting voices. And powerful globalist families and foundations have seized the opportunity to exploit the crisis, using their influence to profit from the very policies they help shape.
The climate change scam is not just an attack on scientific integrity; it is an attack on freedom, truth, and the future of humanity. By continuing to promote this false crisis, the elites behind it ensure that resources are diverted from real problems, governments grow ever more intrusive, and the people are kept in a constant state of fear and dependence.
The Carbon Credits Market: A Global Goldmine
One of the most lucrative aspects of the climate change scam is the carbon credits market, which would quickly become a multi-billion-dollar industry with the potential to generate unprecedented profits for governments, financial institutions, and the wealthiest elites. By commodifying carbon emissions, governments and their allies in the financial world have created an entirely new market where companies can buy and sell the “right” to pollute. This system, which allows corporations to “offset” their carbon footprint by purchasing credits, does little to actually reduce emissions, but it opens the door to vast financial gains for those controlling the market.
At the center of this push towards a carbon credit market is Goldman Sachs, one of the most powerful and influential financial institutions in the world. With its deep ties to governments, central banks, and political leaders globally, Goldman Sachs is driving the financialization of climate change, turning it into an opportunity to generate massive profits. The firm’s influence within the U.S. government and beyond is well documented, with its alumni occupying key positions in the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and numerous other financial regulatory bodies.
Goldman Sachs, along with other major financial players, stands to profit enormously from the trading of carbon credits. By infiltrating both government and the finance world, they are helping to create the regulatory frameworks and market structures that will allow them to dominate this new financial frontier. Their global reach and unparalleled influence ensure that they are positioned to benefit from the widespread adoption of carbon trading schemes, which, far from being about environmental protection, are about maximizing returns for Wall Street.
Politicians like Al Gore, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, and many others in the highest echelons of power have been deeply involved in this scheme. Their advocacy for climate change policies is not solely driven by environmental concerns but also by the incredible opportunity to profit from taxing something as fundamental as the air we breathe. These figures, along with Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street giants, are poised to make trillions through carbon trading schemes. By manipulating regulations, they effectively tax emissions and create massive investment opportunities in green industries—many of which they are already financially tied to.
This is not about saving the planet; it’s about exploiting a manufactured crisis to create a market that benefits a select few at the expense of the public. The carbon credits market is a thinly veiled tax on life itself, and those with the most influence and power are lining up to get their hands in the cookie jar, eager to cash in on the fear and hysteria they have helped create.
The Truth About Funding: Who Benefits?
One of the most common accusations leveled against climate change skeptics is that they are funded by fossil fuel corporations. This is a claim often made by alarmists in an attempt to discredit those who question the prevailing climate change narrative. However, the reality is far more complex, and the truth is often the exact opposite of what alarmists claim.
Fossil fuel corporations, far from being the defenders of climate skepticism, have been largely coerced into parroting the climate change consensus. Under pressure from powerful governments and global institutions, these corporations have been forced to create entire divisions that pretend to support climate change mitigation efforts, aligning themselves with the so-called solutions to an “imaginary crisis.” These corporations are not acting out of genuine concern for the climate, but rather out of fear of retribution.
No corporation wants to risk the wrath of their respective governments. The threat of punitive regulations, new laws, and crippling taxes hangs over their heads. By positioning themselves as being “part of the solution” and pretending to go along with the consensus, they hope to avoid being targeted by politically motivated legislation that could devastate their businesses. In reality, they are playing a strategic game of survival in a climate of governmental intimidation and pressure.
Meanwhile, many of the most vocal proponents of the climate change narrative are heavily funded by governments, NGOs, and other entities that have a vested interest in promoting climate alarmism. These organizations benefit from the fear they spread, whether through securing additional funding, expanding their influence, or advancing global political agendas. The claim that skeptics are the ones influenced by financial incentives is a deliberate misdirection—a tactic designed to hide the fact that the alarmists themselves are the ones profiting from the climate change narrative.
The Suppression of Dissenting Voices
Thousands of scientists across various disciplines have raised serious concerns about the assumptions underlying catastrophic climate change predictions. Some dispute the models used to predict future warming, while others point to historical climate patterns that suggest the earth’s climate is far more complex than the simple narrative of human-caused disaster allows. Yet these voices are rarely heard in public discourse. Why?
The answer lies in the systematic suppression of dissent by those who stand to profit from the climate change narrative. For decades, we’ve seen scientists, politicians, and business leaders pushing policies and technologies that serve their own interests under the guise of “saving the planet.” The result is a dangerous concentration of power in the hands of those who benefit from fear-mongering and a near-total exclusion of voices that challenge this orthodoxy.
The risk AI poses here cannot be overstated. As AI tools are trained on data that has already been curated to reflect one side of the debate, they inevitably perpetuate that bias. This leaves very little room for critical analysis or open debate. By giving the appearance of impartiality, AI can, in fact, contribute to the suppression of legitimate skepticism and alternative theories.
The Real Threat: A Loss of Freedom
The climate change debate, when viewed through the lens of AI-generated information, reveals a much larger and more insidious threat—the erosion of freedom. If AI, which is increasingly relied upon to shape public opinion, policy, and discourse, can only produce answers that align with entrenched narratives, we risk creating a world where dissent is impossible. The suppression of climate change skepticism is not just a scientific issue; it’s a matter of freedom of speech, freedom of thought, and the ability to hold power to account.
In a world where AI dominates the production and dissemination of information, the control of data becomes the control of truth itself. Those who feed the AI their data, whether through search engines, research institutions, or government bodies, hold immense power. If that data is biased, incomplete, or misleading, the AI will echo those distortions to an unsuspecting public. This is the fatal flaw in AI—it cannot rise above the limitations of the data on which it is trained, and as long as that data is influenced by corruptible human interests, AI will remain a tool that mirrors and magnifies the errors, biases, and deceptions of its human creators.
In the case of climate change, this flaw is especially dangerous. The powerful interests that have built the climate change narrative are not only distorting science but also restricting our freedoms. The solution is not more AI-generated consensus but a renewed commitment to open inquiry, dissenting views, and a recognition that human data—and by extension, human institutions—are fallible.
The Opportunity Cost of the Climate Change Scam
Perhaps one of the most egregious aspects of the climate change scam is the vast opportunity cost associated with the trillions of dollars being funneled into flawed alternative energy solutions that are incapable of meeting the energy needs of modern civilization. From inefficient wind and solar farms to unproven carbon capture technologies, the world has been led into a costly dead-end that squanders resources without providing the reliable energy required for industrialized societies to function and grow.
If even a fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted on climate change initiatives were reallocated to solving real, tangible problems, the impact could be profound. Consider the pressing global issues that are often sidelined in favor of the climate agenda—problems like pollution, hunger, disease, and homelessness. These are not hypothetical crises; they are realities faced by millions of people every day, and they are issues that can be addressed with direct action.
Take pollution, for example. While climate alarmists fixate on reducing carbon dioxide—a gas essential for life—far more immediate threats like toxic waste in our oceans, harmful emissions in developing countries, and deforestation remain underfunded and understudied. The obsession with carbon has diverted attention and resources away from these real pollution problems that directly harm human health and ecosystems.
Hunger and disease are other areas where the misallocation of resources is painfully evident. Instead of funneling vast sums into climate change mitigation projects, these funds could be used to build sustainable agriculture, provide clean drinking water, and invest in medical research that saves lives. Diseases like malaria and tuberculosis, which still kill millions of people every year, could see significant progress with a proper infusion of capital. Similarly, homelessness is a growing crisis in both developed and developing nations, but it remains a lower priority while politicians and corporations chase green energy subsidies.
The truth is that solving these real-world problems would have a far more immediate and lasting impact on humanity than the speculative and often illogical crusade against climate change. Yet, the political and financial forces behind the climate change narrative ensure that the vast sums of money and political will are continually diverted towards projects with dubious efficacy. The world is effectively neglecting genuine human suffering in favor of an exaggerated crisis that serves the interests of the powerful and wealthy, leaving the most vulnerable to fend for themselves.
In summary, the climate change scam is not only a scientific and political farce; it is also an economic disaster with staggering opportunity costs. AI bias is playing a pivotal role in propping up this narrative, influencing both people and the media to accept and promote a one-sided view that serves the interests of the powerful. But climate change is just the beginning. The same inherent flaws in AI—its reliance on biased data, institutional agendas, and consensus-driven information—will extend into many other major subjects that directly impact our freedom and future. From public health and economic policies to energy production and social governance, AI’s role in amplifying dominant narratives will continue to stifle dissent, limit open debate, and impose restrictive controls on society. If we allow this to continue unchecked, AI will become a tool for shaping thought, controlling discourse, and eroding the very freedoms it was meant to empower.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
_________________________
Organized bullshit.
Garbage in, programmed garbage out. It seems – via an experiment I wrote up at my GelbspanFiles blog back in January, “Artificial – somewhat lacking in – Intelligence … redux“, that ChatGPT is little more than a regurgitator of the most repeated garbage gleaned out of internet searches. I asked it a fairly simple question, what role the namesake of my blog had in the climate issue, and it spit up an outright falsehood in just the first nine words of its response. If ChatGPT was the least bit intelligent, it would not drive straight into a brick wall like that.
Large Language Models can have the same hidden bias as Wikipedia, limiting what sources it accepts as “authoritative”. Wikipedia will accept The New York Times, but not The Federalist.
Exactly: https://www.cfact.org/2024/03/16/ai-chat-bots-are-automated-wikipedias-warts-and-all/
Expecting AI to be better than human is a fundamental mistake. Maybe Musk will build a right wing text bot.
I assume any complex program will be an idiot savant version of the programmers. As with the “Show me a 1944 German soldier” request of Google’s AI that had Black and Asian troops in SS Uniforms.
A question answering system has to emulate having beliefs as you have to have beliefs about a topic in order to answer questions about it.
The issue with climate change is the specific alarmist beliefs these systems emulate, which occurs because they are programmed to take certain texts as true, These include the NYT, IPCC and EPA. This is not a fault of the question answering system, just of its programming.
i could easily convert one of these left wing systems into a right winger, just by changing the texts specified as true.
The more interesting challenge is to build a system that does not take a position, instead it explains the arguments from various sides. Although even here we may have to rule out some views as irrational. It is a fascinating design problem.
But the left has plenty of internal debates and I wonder how these left wing bots handle those?
Law professor Eugene Voloch, at The Voloch Conspiracy blog, was readily able to prompt ChatGPT to produce bogus citations to libel him. It would readily “hallucinate” citations to support a case.
Yet, I have found that when I challenged either ChatGPT or Copilot with counter-facts, they readily admitted to being wrong, without any arguing. (Which is more than I can say about some of our resident trolls.) Thus, it appeared that they had access to sources of information that they initially ignored, but then checked my claim against them. The problem is that they are logic impaired and, when confronted with conflicting claims, apparently default to the consensus position unless challenged. Unfortunately, they don’t remember the exchange and when a naive user asks the same question, they revert back to the consensus boiler plate. Thus, naive users will be fed information that is wrong, because they aren’t knowledgeable enough to question what they are told.
“Unfortunately, they don’t remember the exchange” so much for an AI being able to “learn” … am will to bet they remember every response that “fits the narrative” they have been programed to output …
I wonder if the skepticism that has grown around the “safe & effective” narrative could also grow around the answers given by AI.l This is probably our only hope.;
Remember that all Founding Fathers were black. AI is always right.
Electorate segmented into “Coke and Pepsi” to snuff out alternatives?
I agree. No matter what, we need to remain skeptical of all claims and weigh the evidence. Large Language Models (LLMs) are just a tool for summarizing the claims of others. We must decide what is credible.
It is not the LLMs that I find troubling about so-called artificial intelligence (AI). It is the fake videos that I see as a danger. When we no longer can trust the evidence of our eyes and ears, how can we discern what is true?
AI-generated fake images and videos could be used to claim that a person said or did something that they never did. People caught on video committing crimes or making odious comments might convince enough people that the true video was a ‘deepfake’.
As a result of those two risks, demagogue politicians intent on silencing dissent could convince enough voters to put onerous restrictions on free speech. And that is the biggest threat to democracy of all!
Demagogue politicians do not need an excuse. Hillary Clinton was in favor of censorship well before AI.
True, but it is not the excuse I worry about, it’s that enough people might be persuaded by the excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Gotta keep them deplorables down! /s
That doesn’t sound like democracy in action!
A new niche may develop within the IT world- debunking AI created fake videos. Might be good money it!
All you have to do is try to realize the truth. There is no spoon.
AI is, effectively, just another echo chamber. Can’t be relied upon to be objective.
The best it can do is emulate humans. But they could be programmed and trained to summarize controversies rather than taking sides as they now do.
https://www.cfact.org/2024/09/18/ai-could-take-your-computer-from-search-to-research/
Of course we really don’t know where it’s going- this is just the beginning- it may very well become far more intelligent than humans- truly intelligent. Some computers, even without AI have already passed the Turing Test, no?
AI suffers from the same flaws that have plagued computing from day one: GIGO – Garbage In, Garbage Out.
I would say they suffer from the same flaws that have plauged humans from day one.
After all, half of the population have IQs lower than 100.
When one takes into account the drug and alcohol addled brains, along with traumatic brain injuries from combat and vehicle accidents, more than half of the voting adults have IQs lower than 100.
if you think an IQ test can turely measure human intelligence … which of coiurse it can’t …
Of course, I was joking. There are many types of intelligence and an IQ test has limited value.
GIGO telltale sign of artificial non-intelligence
Large language models are not artificial intellegence. We are allowing them to bewitch us with their fluency. They have not a single thought in their collective silicon head.
You are misconstruing the term artificial intelligence. It means programming a computer to emulate intelligent human behavior. It does not mean the computer is intelligent.
While that is true, most people think otherwise, that the computer is intelligent.
no you are confusing mimiced intelligence with AI …
True.
I can punch some numbers into my pocket calculator and it will return an answer faster and out to more decimal places than I could figure out by hand.
If it could “speak” the answer mimicking a real human voice rather a computer synthesized voice, I might think it actually “thought” about the answer.
That is, it could “think” and “conclude” at a higher level than the fingers and the brain behind the fingers that told the fingers just which buttons to push.
AI? I don’t want a system that decides for me what buttons I “should” have pushed. (For my own good , of course.)
About the only thing that will end the climate bandwagon is cooling. Unfortunately, the Hunga-Tonga eruption appears to have created a strong warming influence which shows no sign of dissipating.
The good news is when it does fade away, the cooling should be quite strong. With the AMO set to change into its cool phase soon, the combination may be the lever which convinces people there’s nothing that needs fixing.
If there is cooling then the pro-CAGW doomsters will still claim this is in line with CAGW, regardless of what was actually claimed.
E.g. – No tropical hot-spot, yet that hasn’t stopped them
They will never admit to being wrong, just double down and become more hysterical in their demands
They will claim their efforts were successful and we need to do more!
Lately I have been having “conversations” with Chatgp regarding climate change, CO2 and the unbalanced spending on the CC mantra. It is actually quite fun. You can point to many of the sources of information found here and associated links. It is really funny to have the AI have to admit you are correct. It always tries to through a caveat to still promote the CC argument. After a number of providing factual counters to its argument it runs out of things to say. Try it. The AI of today reminds of the magical solutions of code generators from 20 years ago. Over hyped at this point in time.
It has been my experience that, when pushed into a corner, they start repeating the boiler plate.
“AI” was always going to be a tool of the oligarchs to control and suppress the people.
“If this data is corrupted, biased, or fundamentally flawed, then the AI simply echoes and amplifies those same distortions.”
hmmm… that’s assuming they aren’t going to be smart enough to evaluate data they come across and to decide the validity of prevailing viewpoints- if they can’t do this, by definition, they’re not intelligent
The data in this case is existing text. These are text processors although they can do math. The text processor is programmed to take certain texts as true and answer questions based on these. They do this extremely well which could make them very useful because they can process far more text than a human can.
The design issue is which texts to classify as true. This is an input. The processor does not decide validity. It would be fun to build one that did but you would need a math model of the weight of evidence in complex cases and I do not think one exists. Baysean math just does simple cases.
Then there is always the issue to consider that “weight of evidence” does not prove something is right. As Einstein famously said, “Why 100 when it only takes one to prove me wrong.”
AI continuously contradicts itself when asking critical questions. It is trained by the climate dogma’s that contradict laws of nature and as a result it will contradict itself when trying to explain the dogma’s. Not very intelligent at all!
See these links and follow the discussion with AI:
https://excogitatoris.site/Forum/index.php/topic,227.0.html
https://excogitatoris.site/Forum/index.php/topic,306.0.html
I’m seeing this bigly in the forestry world- where the “big guys” in government, academia, and large non profits are trying to find ways to cash in on offering carbon credits from superior forestry- or, to get the most credits, by locking up forests- calling them “reserves” or whatever. It’s mostly bullshit based on my 50 years in forestry. These groups are scammers who should and do know better. I could name names, but I’ve learned doing that I may get sued and I’m too old to bother with that nasty game.
There is no ‘I’ in AI.
As a software engineer, there are two major problems with large programming systems: (1) it’s impossible to write a large system without numerous undiscovered bugs; and (2) if the programmers have an agenda, then the system will reflect that agenda.
It’s amazing how most software managers cling to the old waterfall method of software development. I have never seen a waterfall project succeed.
All non-trivial programs have bugs. All useful programs are non-trivial.
Define success? If you mean on time, on budget, and 90%+ of requirements delivered, then I’ve never seen any software delivered successfully, regardless of whether it was agile or waterfall. One of those three always blows out. At the least.
and the reason for that is all too often the time is set before requirements are scoped … if you start with a budget (usually the one thing truely constrained) then create good requirements and scope them then you can triage the requirements to start a project that can build what is needed on time and on budget … it most like will not meet all requirements (thus the triage of them once you have scoped it ) …
None of it is rocket science …
“If you mean on time, on budget, and 90%+ of requirements delivered . . . .”
Exactly! And plan on throwing the first system away.
It’s the main problem with waterfall that they waste most of the time on gathering ALL the requirements. Instead, the time would be better spent on gathering some requirements and building the system. Then start testing, gather more requirements. more coding an so on. The users can actually see what their requirements mean with an actual system that is only partly complete.
Also, many systems can’t be tested completely. They need to be instrumented so a tester can see the program doing what it is suppose to be doing. There are automatic testing systems and profilers that help with testing.
I have never seen an Agile project suceed and have seen plenty of waterfall project succeed … and have been building software on Wall Street for 35+ years … all project are subject to the same old GIGO rule … poor business requirements lead to poor code which leads to flawed projects … in my experience its almost never a problem with coders (the carpenters) it almost always a problem with the architect (the BA/Project Manager) that leads to a project failure …
The Night Before Implementation
Twas the night before implementation and all through the house,
Not a program was working, not even a browse.
The programmers hung by their screens in despair,
with hopes that a miracle would soon be there.
The users were nestled all snug in their beds,
while visions of inquires danced in their heads.
When out in the hallway there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from my desk to see what was the matter.
And what to my wondering eyes should appear,
but a super programmer with a six-pack of beer.
His resume glowed with experience so rare,
he turned out great code with a bit-pusher’s flair.
More rapid than eagles, his programs they came,
and he cursed and muttered and called them by name.
On update! On add! On inquiry! On delete!
On batch jobs! On closing! On functions complete!
His eyes were glazed over, fingers nimble and lean,
from weekends and nights in front of the screen.
A wink of his eye, and a twitch of his head,
soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread.
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
turning specs into code, then turned with a jerk.
And laying his fingers upon the “ENTER” key,
the system came up and worked perfectly.
The updates updated, the deletes they deleted,
the inquires inquired, and closings completed.
He tested each whistle, and tested each bell,
with nary an abend, and all had gone well.
The system was finished, the tests were concluded,
the users’ last changes were even included.
And the user exclaimed with a snarl and a taunt,
“It’s just what I asked for, but not what I want!”
–Author unknown.
Same with climate models.
Models, again, eh? AI models are infallible, are they?
Why do people tolerate this lying nonsense that AI miraculously will make ‘the right decisions’?
It will make the decisions it is programmed to make and who programmes it?
People paid by the powers that be to get the outcomes they want.
Since AI cannot output anything other than the human input it scans (it cannot think therefore it cannot be original) it’s certain to have the same bias as humans have in their written output.
And so why are so many “intelligent” people pushing so hard for it when we already know and have known for decades that AI is not the answer to anything other than a programmer’s wet dream (human nature does much better dreams than we mere mortals can imagine or consciously remember in most cases).
It was the same during covid, you could ask Siri, Alexa and similar assistants about the statistics gathered on either the medical or secondary effects, and they would answer reasonably truthfully about the state of play. They did not have the intelligence to then translate that into policies, but merely parroted the overwhelming official lines on masking, social distancing, bats, vaccine safety and the rest.
I agree with your point. Let us know if Hezire Technologies can do any kind of help.
I would argue that AI is not intelligence. It simply aggregates and filters existing information. Did any ground breaking science ever come from such information manipulation?
Breakthroughs are made by puncturing common knowledge to gain entrance to new things. By definition that is not going to happen with an algorithm.
The most important scientists in history were, in the initial stages, heretics.
Humans have had no success predicting the climate in 100 years, so computers can not do any better.
Where computers and leftists fail, is believing anything scientist says is science.
But real science is based on data.
There are no data for the future climate.
The 100 year climate predictions are not science.
They are just theories that need 100 years to collect data to verify them. More like climate astrology.
Superb article, well worth sharing, thanks.
This article is well timed with an important interview with Elon Musk by Tucker Carlson. Near the end of the second video they have an extensive conversation about the future of AI.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/10/elon-musk-drops-names-billionaires-who-are-terrified/
stop using the image of a robot for AI … it is not a robot … its not even a computer box … its pattern matching program that searches a dataset of information for a match … nothing more … it will never be intelligent … it will alwyas be constrained by the biases programed into the search criteria and the data which it is searching …
AI is the biggeest waste of corporate and government money in the history of mankind … Nobody has yet to make a dollar using AI … sure plenty if folks have made money helping you BUILD an AI … its like the Real Estate market … on average nobody makes much money being a Real Estate Broker … but plenty of people make money TEACHING you how to become a real estate broker and getting your “license” …
From the above article:
“Artificial intelligence, by its very nature, is designed to draw conclusions from existing data. However, when that data is overwhelmingly one-sided or biased, AI becomes a tool for amplifying misinformation rather than a mechanism for critical analysis.”
Excellent!
By this very fact, AI contains the seeds of its own ultimate destruction. AI programmers haven’t yet been—and likely never will be—able to instill the ability to judge “truthfulness” in an AI bot other than on the simple-but-unreliable basis of “consensus”.
Reads like a Lomborg article
Artificial intelligence, by its very nature, is designed to draw conclusions from existing data. However, when that data is overwhelmingly one-sided or biased, AI becomes a tool for amplifying misinformation rather than a mechanism for critical analysis. In the case of climate change, AI is unlikely to offer nuanced perspectives or promote healthy skepticism. Instead, it mirrors the consensus-driven model that has been artificially constructed by political, financial, and globalist interests.
man th irony is thick
for years people hav begged skeptics to do their own science
publish data, publish papers,
explain the climate.
Why, becaus sciec builds on previous science, w stand on the shouldrs og giants
fundamentally you cannot start from zero and rebuild your beliefs from ground zero.
thats the foundationalist myth.
anyways skeptics have always maintiaed they are doing science by mrely finding gaps in knowledge
by criticizing, by kibitzing, merely raising doubts, or screaming “prove it”
well guess what the mountain of scince continues to build, and bury every credible skeptical doubt
now that we can train machines to build on existing knowledge, skepticism has no ability to keep up.
you wanna change that train your LLM on a skeptical corpus.
you cant.
As usual–drive by nonsense.
Downvoted you regardless of whether I agree with Steve Mosher or not but if you disagree with him give a reason, not just a gratuitous insult.