Artificial 'Intelligence' Predicts Accelerated Global Warming, Plus WEF Says AI Can Read Your Mind And Control Your Behaviour!
AI is all the rage nowadays. The WEF are wetting their knickers over the potential of machines to read human thoughts and emotions and control human behaviour, whilst climastrologists are turning to AI to make sense of the mess of global warming entrails and soggy tea leaves to tell them the most likely date when man-made Thermageddon (2C warming, or 1.5C, according to the ‘settled science’) becomes a terrifying reality.
First the mind-benders at the WEF. Igor Chudov takes us through the seminar here:
The seminar presenter says:
This is the future that has already arrived. Everything in that video that you just saw, is based on technology that is already used. Artificial intelligence has enabled advances in decoding brain activity that we never before thought possible.
You heard a lot about AI over the last few years, here at Davos it's been the talk of the hour. But I want to talk about it in a different way, which is the ability to decode brain wave activity. All that you think, you feel, is all just data. Data, that in large patterns, can be decoded using artificial intelligence.
Consider this: the average person thinks thousands of thoughts each day. As a thought takes form, (a math calculation, you are happy, you are tired, you are hungry), neurons are firing in your brain, in tiny electrical discharges. A particular thought takes hundreds of thousands of neurons firing in characteristic patterns that can be decoded with electroencephalography and AI powered devices.
Igor points out the obvious dangers of this technology:
The “cognitive liberty” mentioned above cannot exist if a non-transparent AI, operated by giant companies governed by a multitude of “Accountable Tech” committees, provides people with a virtual reality shaped to extract maximum revenue and exert maximum influence.
These AI engines will inevitably be programmed to influence our thinking in ways far beyond the mere commercial realm. If so, most people would likely follow the prompts and clever nudges of anonymous, unaccountable, and extremely powerful masters of human cognition.
The term “cognitive liberty” sounds attractive, but we need to recognize that everyone’s consciousness is shaped by the societies and environments in which we live. Thoughts and paradigms employed by a 14th-century peasant who never stepped outside her village are completely different from the thoughts of a modern globe-trotting scientist. We absorb our information and beliefs from the outside.
My personal opinion is that WEF are getting overly excited about the ‘mind-reading’ capabilities of AI. All that the machines can do is attempt to interpret electrical signals emanating from the brain. Based on the nature and location of those signals, AI can make a reasonable guess at your general state of mind. It cannot decipher your exact thoughts, and thus translate them into precise words or images. So we are not at the point of robots being able to read your mind - yet.
My question, is: can AI do a better job of guessing your state of mind (and possible intentions) than say, another perceptive human being? Millions of years of human evolution have resulted in a myriad of subtle biophysical/chemical markers which indicate the state of mind of an individual, thus allowing another individual to detect and interpret those markers for the purpose of non-verbal communication, even survival. That’s what we do. That’s what humans have done for millennia before flipping i-phones and Meta! Hell, that’s even what our dogs do! I ask you, is a machine better at reading my mind than my dogs? Knowing how accomplished in that respect my dogs are, I doubt it to be honest. I only have to make the slightest of movements or gestures and they know exactly what I am going to do! They also know when I’m down and when I’m happy, even when I’m giving out no obvious signals - and neither of us need to wear silly head gear for that to happen! Trained service dogs are even better at reading humans. They can tell when someone’s going to have an epileptic fit even before it happens. So who needs AI when you’ve got a furry companion?
As far as I know however, there are no trained service dogs which can forecast climate change. So maybe AI can be of use here (or not). The climastrologists think it can. You’ve heard of the UN IPCC COP (conference of the parties) meetings. The latest shindig was in Sharm-el-Sheikh where, in between snorkelling and washing down oysters with champagne, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres was able to tell us:
COP27 took place not far from Mount Sinai, a site that is central to many faiths and to the story of Moses, or Musa.
It’s fitting. Climate chaos is a crisis of biblical proportions.
The signs are everywhere. Instead of a burning bush, we face a burning planet.
The red line we must not cross is the line that takes our planet over the 1.5 degree temperature limit.
To have any hope of keeping to 1.5, we need to massively invest in renewables and end our addiction to fossil fuels.
Well now we don’t need Antonio’s ‘signs’, because we’ve got RoboCOP to read the entrails and tell us how hot it’s going to get, by how much and when. And RoboCOP is telling us we’ve only got a few years before we cross the 1.5C ‘red line’ and maybe just two or three decades before we all burn in Hell at 2C, even if we do go all out for net zero.
The planet could cross critical global warming thresholds sooner than previous models have predicted, even with concerted global climate action, according to a new study that used machine learning.
The study estimates that the planet could reach 1.5 degrees Celsius of warming above pre-industrial levels in a decade, and found a "substantial possibility" of global temperature rises crossing the 2 degrees threshold by mid-century, even with significant global efforts to bring down planet-warming pollution.
But guess what? These scientists trained RoboCOP using the climate models! Duh.
The study used artificial neural networks — a type of machine learning or artificial intelligence — which scientists trained on climate models and then used historical observations of temperature around the world "as independent input from which the AI makes a prediction," said Noah Diffenbaugh, a professor at Stanford University and a co-author on the study.
Diffenbaugh and his co-author Elizabeth Barnes, a professor at Colorado State University, assessed three different scenarios: low, medium and high "forcing" climate pathways, which refer to the intensity of the heating caused by greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
In all three scenarios, the scientists estimated that the world would hit 1.5 degrees of warming between 2033 and 2035, even if planet-warming pollution is substantially reduced.
So basically, our AI neural network is just a glorified amalgamation of the climate models, which the authors themselves confirm:
The study's prediction is in line with previous models. In a major report published in 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated that the world could cross the 1.5 degrees threshold "in the early 2030s".
But, when it comes to 2C warming, RoboCOP predicts it will happen faster. It’s important to note however that the models are only projecting less warming now because the climastrologists have been forced to sideline those very ‘hot’ models in light of the obvious lack of actual global warming in the 21st century. I wrote about this here:
RoboCOP doesn’t know about the current situation; RoboCOP knows only about the climate models (which are inherently biased in favour of greenhouse gas forced radiative forcing of climate and do not simulate natural climate variability at all well) and historic temperatures. So RoboCOP might have an IQ of a zillion but if he doesn’t know the basic facts then he’s as dumb as the rest of us, but probably not as dumb as Michael ‘Hockeystick’ Mann who was responsible for editing this report.
Where the study departs from many current projections is in its estimates of when the world will cross the 2 degrees threshold.
While the IPCC projects that in a low emissions scenario, global temperature rises are unlikely to hit 2 degrees by the end of the century, the study returned more concerning results.
The AI predicted a probability of around 80 per cent that 2 degrees warming will be reached before 2065, even if, over the next half century, the world reaches net-zero — where it removes at least as much planet-warming pollution from the atmosphere as it emits.
If emissions stay high, Diffenbaugh said, the AI predicted a 50 per cent probability that 2 degrees will be reached before 2050.
I’m going to stick my neck out here and predict that AI is never going to be much good at reading people’s minds and modifying their behaviour or predicting the future temperature of the planet.
If AI predicts global warming, then its been programmed to predict it.
Tell me, how much sunspot and ice core data did they feed it? None I bet money on it.
Models are very often better reflections of the modeler than they are of that which is modeled.
‘AI’ isn’t going to predict the climate -- non-linear, chaotic systems are more sensitive to initial conditions than current technology is capable of measuring those initial conditions.
Current ‘climate models’ are to a greater or lesser degree, nothing more than a technique for adding a patina of legitimacy to the policy preferences (or purchased conclusions) of the modelers. There’s nothing about ‘AI’ that improves on that in any qualitative fashion. It’s still garbage in, garbage out.
The understanding of the functioning of the brain in relation to the mind is even more crude and childlike than the understanding of antibodies and immunity.
I think ‘AI’ is probably valuable research because it will help develop new statistical techniques, and may help automate some mundane tasks, but if the state of the art is reflected in the Musk robot, which had to be carried onto the stage and which had zero interaction with its surroundings, or in my robot vacuum cleaner, which is confused by the rug being at slight angle to the wall, then ‘AI’ is vastly oversold.