Kerry--You know an Expert in AI. He has probably built the first functioning one. Time to have a talk with one of the sanest people you know and share the conversation with us. Its time to talk to Martin Armstrong on this ;-)
pull the f*%king plug and throw it in a compacter. there is the solution!!! It is pure daft and asinine.. all of it.. seems humans have this inate need to destroy themselves and everyone around them. self sobotage...
Over the weekend, Sarah Wilson Jun 24 2026, took part in a gathering of big, creative minds in a chateau two hours outside of Paris in 39C heat. She said: We sat under a 400-year-old oak tree and had wide, multi-lens discussions on being a “future ancestor”. On the final day, two stupendously bright young minds got up and did a provocative presentation on AI (both work in influential roles at two of the leading LLM companies).
It was an unsettling experience. The speakers shared the now familiar dissonant jumble of lines so often spouted seamlessly by those in this space:
The AI we’re building is not some innocuous tool; it’s brain-explodingly sophisticated (woot!); and/but…
It will probably kill us (eek!); and/but…
Don’t worry, we’re all as terrified as you are.
The combination whip-lashes most of us into a numb bewilderment. As it did on this hot afternoon under the oak tree.
The final line is artful. The astonishing transparency leaves us thinking they’re attending to the issue. We’re all on the same side, phew! Our anxiety abates. We allow it to continue.
But at some point it begs, why? Why, for the love of all holy entities, are we doing this if it could end life? It’s not an ontological or geneologcial why (as in, “what are the material combination of conditions that have led us to this predicament?”), but a moral why, as in, should we? And, what’s the intention?
I don’t ask it to provoke. But in the genuine hope I’ll one day get an answer that stacks up cognitively and viscerally. Why are we doing this if the probability of human wipeout by the end of the century - p(doom) - is between 20 and 90 per cent, according to a lot of AI creators.¹ Truly, humanely, radically why?
The answers tend to be sung from a common song sheet:
There’s the “we have to do it because if China or Russia gets there first, it’ll be far worse” answer. Which acknowledges the moloch-y truth of the predicament, but fails to address the moral quality of the question.
Why? Because. Why? Because… it’s inevitable, it already is. And around it goes until, yes, it is too late and too moot...
Perhaps those "Schwarzenegger Terminator movies", was a glimpse of our future, but a well deserving end, for "The Elite, who began this Great Reset".
Kerry, after all AI has no existance if one simply goes to the breaker panel, and turns off the power to the computer it runs on
Kerry--You know an Expert in AI. He has probably built the first functioning one. Time to have a talk with one of the sanest people you know and share the conversation with us. Its time to talk to Martin Armstrong on this ;-)
pull the f*%king plug and throw it in a compacter. there is the solution!!! It is pure daft and asinine.. all of it.. seems humans have this inate need to destroy themselves and everyone around them. self sobotage...
Over the weekend, Sarah Wilson Jun 24 2026, took part in a gathering of big, creative minds in a chateau two hours outside of Paris in 39C heat. She said: We sat under a 400-year-old oak tree and had wide, multi-lens discussions on being a “future ancestor”. On the final day, two stupendously bright young minds got up and did a provocative presentation on AI (both work in influential roles at two of the leading LLM companies).
It was an unsettling experience. The speakers shared the now familiar dissonant jumble of lines so often spouted seamlessly by those in this space:
The AI we’re building is not some innocuous tool; it’s brain-explodingly sophisticated (woot!); and/but…
It will probably kill us (eek!); and/but…
Don’t worry, we’re all as terrified as you are.
The combination whip-lashes most of us into a numb bewilderment. As it did on this hot afternoon under the oak tree.
The final line is artful. The astonishing transparency leaves us thinking they’re attending to the issue. We’re all on the same side, phew! Our anxiety abates. We allow it to continue.
But at some point it begs, why? Why, for the love of all holy entities, are we doing this if it could end life? It’s not an ontological or geneologcial why (as in, “what are the material combination of conditions that have led us to this predicament?”), but a moral why, as in, should we? And, what’s the intention?
I don’t ask it to provoke. But in the genuine hope I’ll one day get an answer that stacks up cognitively and viscerally. Why are we doing this if the probability of human wipeout by the end of the century - p(doom) - is between 20 and 90 per cent, according to a lot of AI creators.¹ Truly, humanely, radically why?
The answers tend to be sung from a common song sheet:
There’s the “we have to do it because if China or Russia gets there first, it’ll be far worse” answer. Which acknowledges the moloch-y truth of the predicament, but fails to address the moral quality of the question.
Why? Because. Why? Because… it’s inevitable, it already is. And around it goes until, yes, it is too late and too moot...
Perhaps those "Schwarzenegger Terminator movies", was a glimpse of our future, but a well deserving end, for "The Elite, who began this Great Reset".
What goes around, comes