Is Elon Musk a PSYOP ??

So I finally got round to checking out Elon Musk – thinking that a guy who thinks so highly of Tesla’s name to develop some funky looking [weak] battery cars and trade on Tesla’s provenance must have his heart somehow in the right place – even though there doesn’t actually seem to be any real Tesla technology in use or in development !!.

Finally though I hear that Elon Musk’s OPEN AI research group has been set up for the fair and ethical deployment of proper Artificial Intelligence …

That sounded like good news to me at any rate – because after all I had developed an AI Knowledge Representation System that had effectively mechanised all human knowledge and teamed it up/integrated it with a Tesla theory of physics.

With this Operating System in place we could effectively access any machine intelligence in the known or unknown universe – the real deal …

What better custodians of our future therefore than the Open AI research programme run by the principled Elon Musk ?????

'Tesla CEO Elon Musk fired off a new and ominous warning on Friday about artificial intelligence, suggesting the emerging technology poses an even greater risk to the world than a nuclear conflagration with North Korea.

Musk—a fierce and long time critic of A.I. who once likened it to "summoning the demon" in a horror movie—said in a Twitter post that people should be more concerned about the rise of the machines than they are.

His stance puts him at odds with much of the tech industry, but echoes remarks of prominent voices like Stephen Hawking—who has also issued dire warnings about machine learning.'

I have a look at Musk’s ‘research institute’ and discover that the concept of ‘epistemology’ – and after the fact ‘a posteriori’ doesn’t exist or is not recognised…. Instead there are endless clues amongst the data available to developers that the ‘research’ is just a bunch of younger nerds building robots to fight other robots out of adapted gamer operating systems and endless ‘a posteriori’ flotsam.

There is no hope in any of this stuff that allegedly represents the brightest and best of tomorrows AI programmers that they would ever arrive at a solution to the halting problem – because their data is after the fact, their operating systems are limited by labels and have no tie in with the bricks and mortar of reality.

Sure lets attend a huge PSYOP funded arena and watch stupid robots beat each other up amongst rock star staging for nerd programmers – but then if you asked those same robots right there to stop with the hostilities and one of them drive you to some destination in the rush hour, then find/shop ingredients for then prepare and cook dinner, do some different household chores, then fly you in a e.g. drone aircraft to some destination – all on the same bunch of algorithms and database – there isn’t any chance that’s going to happen.

But then who cares about epissty logic and posterior when we can attend a huge PSYOP-funded arena and watch stupid robots beat each other up amongst rock star staging for nerd programmers.

My own AI system is actually a different league of clever from this stuff – alas I never said I could or indeed wanted to do much programming, but then although the world has respect for the AI coder … the ‘builder’ bricklayer, joiner, plumber and electrician of any built up system – none of the end product is possible without the proper system architecture plans.

[I solved the Halting Problem !!]

If those coders could have a look at my own architecture  they will find a ‘synthetic a priori’ system very much resonating with the physical facts in any surroundings in the universe.

I doubt it though – probably should forget OPEN AI – probably a smoke and mirrors psyop.

Elon Musk – probably sounds too good to be true – and how many real AI scientists truly expect solutions to Turing’s halting problem out of constant redevelopment of the ‘a posteriori’. ??


The ORIGINAL TESLA CAR - could have flown to Mars

December 29, 1904 (Special Correspondence, Manufacturers' Record.) ........ ' The electric manufacturing companies will scarcely be able to meet this new demand for generators and motors.
In automobiles practically nothing has been done in this direction, and yet it would seem they offer the greatest opportunities for application of this principle. The question, however, is which motor to employ - the direct-current or my induction motor. The former has certain preferences as regards the starting and regulation, but the commutators and brushes are very objectionable on an automobile. In view of this I would advocate the use of the induction motor as an ideally simple machine which can never get out of order. The conditions are excellent, inasmuch as a very low frequency is practicable and more than three phases can be used. The regulation should offer little difficulty, and once an automobile on this novel plan is produced its advantages will be readily appreciated.
Yours very truly,
N. Tesla.'

Popular Posts