News Media: The Fourth Estate, The Printing Press, The Display Screen ... > "Info. War" ? Centralized Control Of The Messages

Rigby5 said:
"Interesting in that even Fox could swing against Trump as Trump alienates even the Fox audience." R5 #40
Click to expand...
Some of Trump's political rhetoric may seem populist. BUT !
Trump is squarely w/ big bidness on A.I.,
suggesting taxpaying voters should want data centers in their neighborhood.

R5,
During presidential elections New York State shows up "blue", apparently because of the high concentration of Democrat voters in NYC. BUT !
by the acre New York State was rabid Trump country
until automotive fuel prices skyrocketed.

It's nearly comical.
In yards where Trump banners were pridefully displayed, these former indications of Trump stronghold have withered.

It's anyone's guess what the outcome will be here on election day.

Enjoy the equinox.
 
81% of Democrats say press freedom is highly important compared to 66% of Republicans.
source: Pew Research June 22-28, 2026 / PBSNH 26/09/21
 
1790076535326.png

THIS IS AMAZING: The Washington Post just announced it will not publish any photographs of today's presidential events at all, standing in direct solidarity with the outlets Trump banned.

The Post released a statement making its position unmistakable.

"The Washington Post will not publish any photographs of today's presidential events, including Trump's departure from the White House and his events at the United Nations in New York, until midnight Eastern Time, joining a collective effort with photographers in other newsrooms covering the White House in a show of support of the banned outlets," said Olivia Petersen, spokesperson for The Washington Post.

Read that again.

The Post has access it could use right now. Instead, it's choosing to sit that access out entirely, covering none of Trump's UN events all day, specifically in solidarity with CNN, MS NOW, and Politico.

This adds The Post to a growing list of major newsrooms refusing to carry on business as usual. Major television networks are also halting coverage of presidential events, according to a memo obtained by The Post itself, and the New York Times has similarly declined to publish White House photos.

This is what real solidarity in journalism looks like. Newsrooms with the most access are the ones voluntarily giving it up, choosing principle over convenience, and making clear that a free press stands together or it doesn't stand at all.

SOURCE with comments
 
sear said:
Some of Trump's political rhetoric may seem populist. BUT !
Trump is squarely w/ big bidness on A.I.,
suggesting taxpaying voters should want data centers in their neighborhood.

R5,
During presidential elections New York State shows up "blue", apparently because of the high concentration of Democrat voters in NYC. BUT !
by the acre New York State was rabid Trump country
until automotive fuel prices skyrocketed.

It's nearly comical.
In yards where Trump banners were pridefully displayed, these former indications of Trump stronghold have withered.

It's anyone's guess what the outcome will be here on election day.

Enjoy the equinox.
Click to expand...

Funny thing is that since I am a programmer who has done a lot of AI, I like and support it.
A lot of people do not realize how AI actually works.
AI actually has nothing remotely like intelligence.
All it can do is what the programmer wrote for it to do, which is mostly just a search engine that has good semantic rules.

While AI could use more electricity and water, those could be alleviated by them building local solar or wind farms, and retaining permanent coolant.

The only problem is public misconceptions, like falsely thinking AI could reduce the need for human experts.
 
Rigby5 said:
"Funny thing is that since I am a programmer who has done a lot of AI, I like and support it.
A lot of people do not realize how AI actually works.
AI actually has nothing remotely like intelligence." R5 #45
Click to expand...
I deduce your exposure was early in A.I. inception. Fine. You understand the basics.

If we read between the lines (they're not publishing the code for us to see for ourselves)
one of the important changes to A.I. which in turn results in a change to the threat profile is
A.I. can learn. Some sources call this "recursive", meaning it can experiment, observe the outcome of the experiment,
embrace what worked, and create an alternate for what did not work.

Skip several paragraphs, it might take the worlds top bio-engineers years to create an LD 100 pathogen, a genuine doomsday bio-weapon. BUT !
A.I. may be able to accomplish the same or better in a minuscule fraction of that amount of time.
That is an arms race that benefits the aggressor. CERTAINLY we might A.I. develop a vaccine for such pathogen. BUT ! By then it's too late.

For global conquest:
a) create that precise doomsday pathogen
b) create the vaccine against it
c) vaccinate the chosen surviving population (Aryans?)
d) unleash the pathogen at major seaports and airports around the globe.

The experts clamoring for GOVERNMENT control understand this and also understand, a U.S.-based A.I. organization can refuse to do that BUT !
their refusing to do so does not prevent China, or Russia, or xxx from doing so.

They have ALREADY sounded the alarm.
Idiots like Trump dismiss the warnings as a hoax.
 
sear said:
I deduce your exposure was early in A.I. inception. Fine. You understand the basics.

If we read between the lines (they're not publishing the code for us to see for ourselves)
one of the important changes to A.I. which in turn results in a change to the threat profile is
A.I. can learn. Some sources call this "recursive", meaning it can experiment, observe the outcome of the experiment,
embrace what worked, and create an alternate for what did not work.

Skip several paragraphs, it might take the worlds top bio-engineers years to create an LD 100 pathogen, a genuine doomsday bio-weapon. BUT !
A.I. may be able to accomplish the same or better in a minuscule fraction of that amount of time.
That is an arms race that benefits the aggressor. CERTAINLY we might A.I. develop a vaccine for such pathogen. BUT ! By then it's too late.

For global conquest:
a) create that precise doomsday pathogen
b) create the vaccine against it
c) vaccinate the chosen surviving population (Aryans?)
d) unleash the pathogen at major seaports and airports around the globe.

The experts clamoring for GOVERNMENT control understand this and also understand, a U.S.-based A.I. organization can refuse to do that BUT !
their refusing to do so does not prevent China, or Russia, or xxx from doing so.

They have ALREADY sounded the alarm.
Idiots like Trump dismiss the warnings as a hoax.
Click to expand...

Actually I do not believe computers can or ever will be able "to learn" anything.
Computers do not really know anything, and have no value system.
When they provide an answer to a question, it is not from figuring it out, but simply from doing enough searches so that it has a confidence achievement reached on an answer it extracted.
What AI actually is just is a simulation tool based on good semantic analysis of text.
When it successfully is able to give useful answers, it is because a human programmer with knowledge of the subject, wrote useful rules into his code.
 
Rigby5 said:
"Actually I do not believe computers can or ever will be able "to learn" anything." R5 #47
Click to expand...
There may be more humans more learned than Ken Jennings, but Jennings may be among the best publicized.
Jennings has demonstrated what he has learned not only by demonstrating his knowledge superior to other Jeopardy quiz show competitors,
but also replacing Alex Trebek, a Canadian eh.

BUT !

IBM's Watson, a computer beat Jennings.

Shiftless2 said:
"What is the human brain except an incredibly complex organic computer that we haven't figured out how to duplicate yet?" S2 #48
Click to expand...
"Duplicate"? Other than banging hot chicks, perhaps not. BUT !
We are early in the technology of simulating thought, learning.

And we have ALREADY demonstrated a "computer" (sometimes called a "calculator") that fits in a shirt pocket
is better at math than most humans.

Again, we are very early in this progressive process. But one needn't be a pocket sturgeon to extrapolate the trend.
 
Shiftless2 said:
"So you're saying that computers will (likely) be able to learn in the future?" S2 #50
Click to expand...
I've acknowledged they've demonstrated knowledge in the past.
One might (feebly) argue a dictionary "knows" the definition of words. BUT !
Basically a dictionary requires a human to know how to operate the dictionary. The human dictionary operator must know:
- how to spell the word in question
- understand the language, etc

A dictionary may be close, but not quite.

What set IBM's Watson Silicon Jeopardy competitor apart is that it participated real-time.
I imagine Watson responded to human speech, rather than having an off-camera human assistant frantically typing the spoken clue into the computer.

We're not quite ready to nominate Watson 2028 presidential candidate. But Watson is not collecting dust in an Armonk, NY warehouse.
Since Jeopardy Watson has been practicing medicine, helping to diagnose cancer, etc.

Shiftless2 said:
"So you're saying that computers will (likely) be able to learn in the future?" S2 #50
Click to expand...
It's not just Watson.
Due to the mind-numbing slowness of the speed of light it's not practical to have NASA's Mars rovers explore the reddish planet under terrestrial remote control.
So our rovers there explore autonomously, making their own decisions about how to execute their orders to explore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top