My prediction for 2026 is that "AI" will continue to subvert self-identified Christians (as well as everybody else); in particular that:
"AI" outputs will increasingly be cited as authority, evidence, or proof.
This has, of course, already begun; but I am predicting that "AI" outputs will become put forward as publicly "official"; as the bottom-line reason why we should (or should not) believe, think, or obey X...
This is the latest step in a long-term trend by which all forms of public knowledge - including Christian knowledge - have been:
1. First (a long time ago) made a matter of consensus (of some kind) - a "majority vote" kind of discernment.
Then:
2. Consensus-formation was absorbed into bureaucracy.
And up-coming:
3. Bureaucratic procedures will be (or at least this will be claimed) made objective and computerized - by the post-2022 version of globalist-generated "AI".
This is why Christians are failing the "AI" Litmus Tests; because most Christians have externalized their acknowledged source and nature of authority (e.g. in a church, or in a scripture, or in a theology); and all forms of external authority have been, are being, will increasingly be... sucked-into the consensus, bureaucratic, "AI" System.
This means that mainstream church-orientated/ scripture-faithful Christians; will (step by step, but swiftly) soon find themselves believing one or another "AI"-Christianity.
And "AI"-Christianity will be destructive to the possibility of that individual person actually following the real Jesus Christ...
Because "AI" is - by design and implementation, overall and overwhelmingly - an instrument of damnation.
A sub- but related-prediction is that there will be a greater use of attempted, threatened, and actual physical-coercion in implementing public policy (including the "decisions" of "AI").
This will be "necessary" because the ruling class agenda is ever more obviously destructive and evil; and the propaganda/ education mechanisms for ensuring adequate brain-washed compliance of the masses, are breaking-down rapidly.
Also because the "Agents of Chaos" party among the Western rulers wants there to be more violence, everywhere - so physical coercion and human suffering are, for Them, self-justifying.
8 comments:
Timely post. I see that VD is publishing a book next month on the scientific impossibility of the theory of evolution, which I will almost certainly purchase, but he's also publishing a companion volume; "HARDCODED: AI and the End of the Scientific Consensus"
@MC - By my understanding, I don't think that VD understands the theory of evolution by natural selection (something I spent about 20 years actively thinking and writing about); and I am not interested by what he is doing (or thinks he is doing) in that line.
When applied to adaptation ("within species") natural selection it is observably valid as a scientific explanation, in some instances.
When used as an explanation of "the origin of species" - i.e. to explain the variety of biological entities - NS is a metaphysical assumption, not a scientific theory.
But the whole of NS can't be reduced to numbers and either proved or disproved by mathematics - doing that is just taking a sliver of the theory, and regarding a very minority set of assumptions as if it was the whole theory.
Thanks for clarifying - I certainly don't want to open a can of worms here but it always appeared to me that there was a 'sleight of hand' between 'micro-evolution' (or intra-species evolution/adaptation) and 'macro-evolution' ( inter-species adaptation leading to a new, separate species with new characteristics)...
I can certainly accept the first premise, but I don't see how that necessarily leads to the second.
Is it correct to assume the materialist goal for AI takeover is to try and keep society functioning despite the massive burden of dysfunction, fraud, and promotion of incompetence to all positions (e.g. medical doctors, engineers, etc.)
@MC - " a 'sleight of hand' " - Well, it was put forward as a proposed mechanism (that many quantitative changes would lead to qualitative differences) - but after 150 years things are essentially no further forward; new kinds of organism have never been achieved experimentally (by artificial selection) or observed happening in nature.
@A - No, I would not regard that as correct.
I think Vox is wrong both about natural selection and AI.
His "mathematical proof" seems to me just some sort of nitpicking, while I think that the problems of the theory of evolution by random mutations are greater than that. I'm not a biologist, and so perhaps I am saying something silly, but I do not think that natural selection works by random genetic mutations. I think that creatures already have more information in their DNA that they need, or that it can change without the need of mutations caused by sexual selection. I remember reading about some alligators that changed colour in just one generation due to living in a cave or something like that. Clearly it was not the result of a random mutation passed on by "natural selection" along thousands of years. Either the possibility was already in their DNA, or was developed by another mechanism in the offspring. And of course, new species have never been observed to be created ex novo by sexual selection or random mutations.
Regarding AI, it surprises me that someone as smart as Vox would really believe that AI can have an actual insight or thought of its own. It's basically just a recombination of previous information. You can see that clearly in "AI art", which is obviously a (bad) mishmash of a lot of previous (human) work.
@Z - Having spectacularly failed the "AI" Litmus Test - to the point of becoming an "AI"-activist and propagandist - the convergence of VD with several aspects of The System is very apparent. e.g. in trying to work with and via The System (while making a good living from it); also joining in Project Divide and Rule via grossly reductionist (and non-biological) writings on sex and sexuality.
I stopped active thinking and work on biology and natural selection nearly a decade ago - the last thing I contributed was this:
https://essopenarchive.org/users/607826/articles/636894-reconceptualizing-the-metaphysical-basis-of-biology-a-new-definition-based-on-deistic-teleology-and-an-hierarchy-of-organizing-entities
Post a Comment