Are we at a turning point in world history?

Diogenes said:
Your understanding of the comparative ideologies is inconsistent with the known facts.

The term "far Right" encompasses a broader and more diverse range of ideologies and movements than just sovereign citizens, individualist anarchists, or hermits. Here's a more comprehensive look:

  • Sovereign Citizens: While often considered part of the far Right due to their anti-government stance, they are more accurately described as a legal or pseudo-legal movement that rejects state authority in various ways. They're not the only or even the most significant component of the far Right.
  • Individualist Anarchists: Anarchism, including individualist anarchism, is often associated with the left due to its anti-statist and anti-authoritarian roots. However, there are strains of anarchism that align with right-wing ideologies, particularly those emphasizing personal liberty over collective rights, but they're not the majority or central to the far Right narrative.
  • Hermits: This term generally refers to individuals who choose to live in isolation from society. While some might adopt this lifestyle due to political beliefs, it's not inherently a political position, let alone a specifically far Right one.

The far Right includes:

  • Nationalists and Ultra-Nationalists: Those who advocate for the interests of their nation above others, often emphasizing cultural or ethnic purity.
  • Fascists and Neo-Fascists: Ideologies that support dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.
  • White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis: Groups or individuals who advocate for the racial superiority of white people and often seek to establish or maintain a society dominated by this group.
  • Conservative Revolutionaries: Those who seek a return to traditional values but in a radical, often revolutionary manner.
  • Reactionaries: People who oppose modernism, advocating for a return to an idealized past, often pre-democratic or pre-industrial.


@Grok
Click to expand...
Grok is regurgitating the same old stupidity you see all over the internet, like this dreck:

5eb.png


That grid is widely found on the internet in a number of variations. It is completely subjective. You cannot reasonably or objectively quantify any political position on it.

I use a three axis graph myself. The three axis's are:

X = Degree of government control going from Anarchy (eg., no government whatsoever) = 0 to Absolute dictatorship (one person rules totally)= 10

Y = Economic system / freedom going from Barter (no organized trade system) = 0 to Command economy (total centralized control with no private ownership) = 10

Z = Personal / social status going from Individual (each person makes their own rules) = 0 to Social immersion (only society as a whole counts, the individual is irrelevant) = 10

Leftist governments are ones that score high on all three, while Rightist governments score low. Of course, governments below about a score of 4 or so don't exist in reality, but that doesn't change the quantification of the values.
 
The statement "AI is only as smart as the programmers loading in data" captures part of the truth but oversimplifies the complexity of modern AI systems. Here's a more nuanced view:

  • Data Quality and Quantity: The intelligence of an AI model is indeed heavily influenced by the data it's trained on. The quality, diversity, accuracy, and relevance of the data are crucial. Poor data can lead to biased, inaccurate, or limited AI capabilities. However, programmers don't just "load" data; they also design algorithms to process, learn from, and make predictions or decisions based on this data.
  • Algorithm Design: The architecture of the AI model, including the choice of algorithms, neural network design, learning methods (like supervised, unsupervised, or reinforcement learning), and the model's complexity, plays a significant role in how "smart" the AI can become. Programmers design these algorithms, but the AI can learn and adapt in ways that go beyond the explicit programming, especially with deep learning models.
  • Learning and Adaptation: Once trained, many AI systems, particularly those based on machine learning, can adapt and learn from new data without further direct intervention from programmers. This capability allows AI to become smarter or more specialized in its tasks over time, which is not solely dependent on the initial programming but on how it processes new information or experiences.
  • Autonomy in Learning: In some advanced systems, AI can engage in self-supervised learning or even develop its own strategies for solving problems, which can lead to outcomes that were not explicitly programmed or anticipated by the developers. This aspect shows that AI can sometimes exceed the initial capabilities envisioned by its programmers.
  • Human Ingenuity vs. AI Evolution: While the initial framework and capabilities of an AI are set by programmers, the evolution of AI's "intelligence" can also be driven by the interaction with the environment, users, and further training data.
  • Limitations and Ethics: Programmers set boundaries, ethical guidelines, and constraints, but AI can sometimes find unexpected solutions within these limits or reveal limitations in the data or programming itself that weren't initially apparent.

In summary, while the programmers' expertise, decisions on data, and algorithm design are fundamental to an AI's capabilities, the AI itself can develop "intelligence" that goes beyond these initial inputs through learning, adaptation, and interaction. Thus, AI isn't just as smart as its programmers; it's a combination of the programmers' design, the quality and nature of the data, and the AI's capacity to learn and evolve.



@Grok
 
Hume said:
No, it is not dependent on their knowledge
Click to expand...
Whatever it's dependent on, Grok can and likely is, often wrong.

For example, I just asked Grok this:

What surface-to-air missile was the basis for most future SAM systems?

Grok was wrong basing the answer on just two sources, both of which were, and are wrong.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Whatever it's dependent on, Grok can and likely is, often wrong.

For example, I just asked Grok this:

What surface-to-air missile was the basis for most future SAM systems?

Grok was wrong basing the answer on just two sources, both of which were, and are wrong.
Click to expand...
don't know, dont care about grok
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I just asked Grok this: What surface-to-air missile was the basis for most future SAM systems? Grok was wrong basing the answer on just two sources, both of which were, and are wrong.
Click to expand...

So you say.

The S-75 Dvina (NATO reporting name SA-2 Guideline) is widely considered the basis for many future surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems. Introduced by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s, the S-75 was one of the first effective high-altitude SAM systems and set numerous precedents in missile technology:

  • Design and Technology: It featured semi-active radar homing (SARH) guidance, which became a common feature in many subsequent SAM designs.
  • Operational Success: Its deployment and use, notably during the Vietnam War where it famously downed several U.S. aircraft, including the U-2 spy plane, showcased its capabilities and led to significant developments in countermeasures and missile technology on both sides of the Cold War.
  • Global Influence: The export and proliferation of the S-75 around the world meant that many countries either directly used this system or developed their own based on insights gained from its technology.

Subsequent SAM systems, both in the Soviet Union and in other countries, often incorporated lessons learned from the S-75 in terms of missile size, guidance systems, mobility considerations, and counter-countermeasure strategies. Systems like the American Nike Hercules also played significant roles, but the S-75's impact on SAM development is particularly notable due to its widespread use and the technological path it paved for future systems.


@Grok
 
What sources did Grok use to answer the question, "What surface-to-air missile was the basis for most future SAM systems?"?


Grok drew upon a broad range of historical and technical sources on missile defense systems, including:
  • Books and Academic Papers: Works by military historians and defense analysts on Cold War missile technology development.
  • Military and Defense Websites: Information from official military history sites, like those of NATO and various national defense departments, which often document historical military technology.
  • Online Encyclopedias and Databases: Resources like GlobalSecurity.org, which provide detailed specs and histories of military hardware, including SAM systems.
  • News Archives: Articles from the time of the S-75's deployment and later analyses that discuss its impact on air defense technology.
Grok synthesized this information to provide an overview of how the S-75 Dvina influenced future SAM systems. Remember,Grok's knowledge is continuously updated, allowing Grok to pull from a vast array of information sources to compile answers.


@Grok
 
Diogenes said:
So you say.

The S-75 Dvina (NATO reporting name SA-2 Guideline) is widely considered the basis for many future surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems. Introduced by the Soviet Union in the late 1950s, the S-75 was one of the first effective high-altitude SAM systems and set numerous precedents in missile technology:

  • Design and Technology: It featured semi-active radar homing (SARH) guidance, which became a common feature in many subsequent SAM designs.
  • Operational Success: Its deployment and use, notably during the Vietnam War where it famously downed several U.S. aircraft, including the U-2 spy plane, showcased its capabilities and led to significant developments in countermeasures and missile technology on both sides of the Cold War.
  • Global Influence: The export and proliferation of the S-75 around the world meant that many countries either directly used this system or developed their own based on insights gained from its technology.

Subsequent SAM systems, both in the Soviet Union and in other countries, often incorporated lessons learned from the S-75 in terms of missile size, guidance systems, mobility considerations, and counter-countermeasure strategies. Systems like the American Nike Hercules also played significant roles, but the S-75's impact on SAM development is particularly notable due to its widespread use and the technological path it paved for future systems.


@Grok
Click to expand...
Yea, that's what Grok says.

The truth is that for the Soviet Union, S-25 Berkut and the spin-off 32B design by KB-1 section 32 under D L Tomashevich was the most influential. In the US Project Bumblebee had far more impact on SAM design than the short-lived Nike Ajax. Follow-on systems from Nike Ajax, like Nike Hercules and Zeus saw very limited deployment primarily as stop-gap ABM systems in the void of anything better. Bumblebee was the progenitor of Talos, Terrier, Tartar, then Standard. It led to the Aegis targeting system (from the earlier Typhon system) and those developments went into the modern Patriot system.

SA-2 had some limited early successes but by the time of Vietnam, it was dated and largely ineffective. In Vietnam, its success rate against B-52's fell to a low of less than 2% hits. That's worse than if N. Vietnam had been using heavy antiaircraft artillery. The problem with the 32B, and then SA-2 and other similar contemporary Soviet designs like V-1000 was these were developed to defend against high-flying, non-maneuvering, bombers in a limited ECM environment.

If you look at later Soviet SAM designs they too move towards missiles and guidance systems that came out of Bumblebee, easily the most influential SAM program in history to date.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
The truth is that for the Soviet Union, S-25 Berkut and the spin-off 32B design by KB-1 section 32 under D L Tomashevich was the most influential. In the US Project Bumblebee had far more impact on SAM design than the short-lived Nike Ajax. Follow-on systems from Nike Ajax, like Nike Hercules and Zeus saw very limited deployment primarily as stop-gap ABM systems in the void of anything better. Bumblebee was the progenitor of Talos, Terrier, Tartar, then Standard. It led to the Aegis targeting system and those developments went into the modern Patriot system. SA-2 had some limited early successes but by the time of Vietnam, it was dated and largely ineffective. In Vietnam, its success rate against B-52's fell to a low of less than 2% hits. That's worse than if N. Vietnam had been using heavy antiaircraft artillery. The problem with the 32B, and then SA-2 and other similar contemporary Soviet designs like V-1000 was these were developed to defend against high-flying, non-maneuvering, bombers in a limited ECM environment. If you look at later Soviet SAM designs they too move towards missiles and guidance systems that came out of Bumblebee, easily the most influential SAM program in history to date.
Click to expand...


So you say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top