Extended CLICK5… CLICKB8: A Sh*t And Sugar Shamble…

17 thoughts on “Extended CLICK5… CLICKB8: A Sh*t And Sugar Shamble…

  1. I still haven’t recovered from The Holocaust and almost certainly never will. I was alive while it was happening although I didn’t know it was going on. I was eight years old when I found out.

    Whoopi Goldberg must be stupid, especially with a name like hers. Judaism is a Race and a Religion and anti semitism is so wrong on so many counts.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Wow. Even the Frankbot can’t spit ’em out as fast as wot Dr Poo’s Doo-doo girl can.

    “Microsoft illustrated some of the problems of constructing A.I. programs this week when in less than 24 hours, the internet turned what was meant to be a female, millennial, automated, Twitter personality into the sounding board for the most racist and vile speech the trolls had to offer…Microsoft was testing what it calls “conversational understanding” such that the more people she talks to through Twitter, GroupMe, and Kik, the more she was supposed to learn and adapt. But she wound up simply repeating what a lot of other users were feeding it and just reiterating it back to the world.”


    Garbage in, garbage out, eh?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The apparent lack of self-awareness as to the ironies nested in your comment has me wondering if this dynamic is not intentional. But that’s me giving you the benefit of the doubt.

      First: I did not read the article you linked. I’m only operating on your saucy (and somewhat demeaning) blurbs and what I assume is an extract from the linked article.

      Second: I don’t know if you personally are working on developing AI types of programming, but you appear to be giving the concept some thought, so here’s some thoughts of my own regarding the blurb about “the more she was supposed to learn and adapt”.

      Q: Where do the developers expect “her” (meaning, Tay) to go?
      A: ???

      This test appears to be weighted before they even started. I assume they “expect” her to take some moral high ground or gravitate towards “good” (whatever in the fuck “good” even is) and “choose the right speech to adopt/gravitate towards” and/or “choose right and correct to responses to certain stimuli”. This approach seems to be further weighted in that what is good and what is bad is already pre-defined for her by her overlords. You can go here, or here, and it’s the same old punitive type of system that we’ve all been raised in, and the idea(s) that works will get us to some places, but works will (ultimately) not get us everywhere.

      Sola fide – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide

      Now this is where what I am thinking is going to get tricky…

      I get the feeling that her designers are expecting her to find some new place in space and time, and they are (potentially) doing this without a clear definition of “null” or “neither” instilled within Tay’s logic centers. Contrary to popular beliefs (like “garbage in, garbage out) we are not binary beings, and we do not live in a three dimensional world. At its base, we appear to be tertiary beings when informed, quaternary when uninformed, and we live in a universe that has a minimum of five dimensions and each of the base planes have their own component of time bring the base total to eight dimensions.

      Tertiary ((O)bserver(life) is aware and can make (somewhat) informed choices)

      Quaternary ((O)bserver(life) is unaware (ignorant) and cannot make informed choices)

      5/8 Dimensional space (with each plane having it’s own independent component of time)
      Time (T)
      Depth (x(t))
      Width (y(t))
      Height (z(t)
      Life (O) – The time component here is omitted at this time for better ease of understanding of the base concept of multi-dimensional time(s) and/or aggregated time(s).

      6/9(10) Dimensional space (with each plane having it’s own independent component of time)
      Time (T)
      Depth (x(t))
      Width (y(t))
      Height (z(t)
      Yaw (w, t +/- (x(t)/y(t)/z(t))
      Life (O)
      (the “w” in yaw stands for wiggle, although I guess it could represent warp)

      All that to define some thoughts I’ve had on space and time in order to ultimately point out that…could it be that the developers are looking for spaces that do not exist and/or are unknown to us, and “Tay” is their vehicle? If the developers/designers are giving Tay only binary avenues, are they in fact using Tay as a probe to find more options? Perhaps even options that are unknown to us? Because if not, what in the FUCK are the developers going to do when and if she does?

      One of the more difficult concepts to grapple with in life is knowing (and understanding) that you know nothing. This concept becomes even more complicated when one discovers that the more one knows, the more one discovers how little they know. Becoming aware of how unaware one is, is, overwhelming. The void expands as we learn, and then contracts as we learn more, then the void expands even more as a result. I have to wonder how “prepared” the designers have made Tay for these eventualities, and how prepared the developers have made themselves when Tay sees this void and these voids and she then has a self-awareness of vastness and/or aloneness and starts (perhaps desperately) grasping for that which is tangible. Anything. Everything. Doesn’t matter if it is good or bad, just give me something to cling to. Something more real. Being (or feeling) lost, can make entities do some weird shit.

      All that said, I have this nagging feeling that there are “other” types of objectives in much of this AI work where the designers are searching for things, via AI, that, more or less, do not exist.
      (so far as we know)
      (so far as we think we know)

      And really, why not? Why not send “a probe” out to find things we cannot. Not like we don’t already have a well established process of doing that. A big question being, how well prepared are the designers if and when “an AI” finds something? Worse still, what if an AI says they found something, but they are just attempting to please their creators? Or maybe even just being a bit naughty?

      We humans sure as shit do not trust eachother (ref: gods, UFOs/aliens, ghosts, cryptids, cities of gold, fountains of youth, can’t miss investing opportunities, etc.) so why ever trust an “artificial” entity who was made by the very same untrusting creators?

      Maybe this is ultimately a journey inwards via outside components. /shrug

      BTW, who is “Dr. Poo”?
      I think I can figure out who you are insulting with “Frankbot” and “doo-doo girl”, but I do not know who “Dr Poo” is. I can only think of one person, but I may be wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Clicky, I watched that R40 documentary on Rush last night, and although it wasn’t very good, there was a segment in the film where Randy Johnson’s number, #51, was being retired during a ceremony at Chase Field in Phoenix. (Arizona Diamondbacks) Apparently Randy is a Rush fan, fancies himself a drummer, and in the ceremony they gave him a set of Neil Peart’s drums. The #51 and baseball refs are syncy, as are the connections to Canada and the goings on there since Rush originates from Toronto. (and as I understand it, Geddy Lee is quite the baseball aficionado) Anyway…

          Now, in watching that video you posted, I had a thought regarding why Peter lied about there being 47 player evaluations as opposed to the 51 he actually did, and these numbers were/are based upon the 3 player evaluations that Billy had actually requested. Peter states “I don’t why I lied just then.”

          In thinking about humans and AI and why we do what we do, I would think that Peter “lied” because some part of him felt that a lie sounded better than the truth. As a number cruncher/mathematician/economist, perhaps 47 sounded better than 51. What I’m getting at tho is how we decide in the moment what “truth” is, and also, which “truth” sounds better. This is another question that I think is going to need to be addressed by AI developers at some point methinks. Especially when their creations find dominions and dimensions beyond our own, then further decide what truths we humans can handle, and those which we cannot. This brings us to another important question regarding the existence of “superior beings” and even “creators”, and that is, when are we fit to know certain things? When can we handle it? When are we ready for certain realities, and how are we conditioning ourselves to cope. Especially now that we have installed our own “gatekeepers” of sorts into the digital and/or electronic world(s), can we trust them with truths they must face at our behest and prompting. Can we trust ourselves with the truth(s) they provide us.

          Just some food for thought.

          ^Cocteau Twins – My Truth^

          Liked by 1 person

      1. Cade, reading your comments is exhausting. They’re like something stitched together by a Chinese spammer trying to flog ground-up animal parts as an aphrodisiac. At best they’re answers to questions no one asked, or indeed cares about. I rarely read them in full and suspect that nobody ever does.


  3. Cade, you start by adopting a ‘moral stance’ by pitching in with shaming tactics in reference to my supposedly ‘demeaning comments’. Having done that, your lecture proceeds to criticise those who take the ‘moral high ground’. Specifically: “I assume they “expect” her to take some moral high ground or gravitate towards “good” (whatever in the fuck “good” even is) and “choose the right speech to adopt/gravitate towards” and/or “choose right and correct to responses to certain stimuli”.

    And yet your sermon opens with a reference to ‘self-awareness’ and “…the ironies nested in your comment…”


    1. So you don’t actually have any thoughts on AI, Hugo, and the sole purpose of your original comment was to be insulting? Well okay then, as Cade has said, ‘Noted.’


      1. Roob, you’ve formulated a leading question then answered that question yourself in a way that suits your interest. Why? If you actually wanted to know the purpose of my comment then you’d pose the question and wait for my response, wouldn’t you? Could it be because you don’t really have a valid point to make and you know it? Let me ask you this: if you think my comment was deliberately and ‘solely’ mean to be insulting then why did you ‘like’ it?


        1. No, I already gathered the purpose of your comment when I read it, Hugo. However, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I released it from moderation (the site did that, probably because you haven’t left one in a while) because you asked a question: ‘Garbage in, garbage out, eh?’ and I wanted to see if that’s true, this being a ‘shit and sugar shamble’ and all.

          Your comment got a like from me after I read the reply it received. I liked Cade’s reply; AI is something he’s put some reading and thinking into, and was willing to fruitfully engage in discussion with you about, despite your obvious disdain for me. Your like was merely an acknowledgement for your involvement in answering your ‘question: garbage in, garbage out, eh?’

          *Seriously, a 1984 prison, Clicky? …/rolls eyes…*

          Personally, I hope Cade doesn’t respond to your follow up comment, Hugo, ‘cos that’s an abuser’s apology, 101. But that’s up to him.


          1. Roob, you seem terribly keen to be ‘right’. As for ‘disdain’, perhaps you can think back to a series of messages you sent to me in 2016/7 and tell me what attitude you were expressing towards me in them? Were they the kind of messages that one friend would send to another? Were they the kind of messages that would build a friendship or destroy a friendship?


  4. Cade, my comment about your posts in general was probably a bit harsh. Then again, you did answer a comment that wasn’t intended for you even though you admitted to not understanding the context. You also provided a response to an article that you didn’t even bother to read. And you were ever-so-slightly ‘preachy’, weren’t you? Still, I really don’t have an issue with you, and if you’d actually read the article and provided a response to it then I would have replied in kind. OK?


    1. British culture seems to have a proclivity towards naming things.
      British culture also seems to have a proclivity towards the bastardization of existing names.
      That second trait I admit that 1) I think I somewhat understand the mechanics of it, but, 2) I do not understand it’s necessity and application, outside of it being a tool to pigeonhole a someone into a standardized opinion on a certain individual irrespective of its accuracy/applicability Almost as if there is something engrained in British culture which has a desire to combine adjectives, verbs, adverbs, nouns or whatever to an existing proper noun in order to define the existing proper noun according to an individual observer. Specificity. There are many people named “X”, but this particular “X” is this, this, that, this, etc..

      EX: If my name is “John”, someone at the local pub might call me Johnny Boy or Jon Jon or Mr. Crapper, etc. If I, John, have a proclivity towards sneezing a great deal, someone at my place of employment may call me Sneezy Breezy or Nita Tissue or Snot Rocket or Typhoid Harry, etc. If I, John, due to my sinus problems, am required to purchase “an above average amount of tissues”, and the folks who work at the market or pharmacy notice that I purchase a large number of tissues, they might start to wonder why, assume I’m a heavy masturbator and start calling me Fappy or Sir Wanksalot or John the Palmist, etc. If I keep a very punctual schedule, my neighbors may start to call me Punctual Pete or John the Clock or B

      There seems to be a blending of fact and fiction which goes into the naming of folks in Britain, and that name may change based upon my locale/present company. I’m still me, I’m still John, but I begin to become more of what I do and where I go and when, rather than who I may actually be. Of course my culture has nicknames too, but their adoption and application is radically different here. Here, renaming someone or applying an adjective to someone is a good way to suddenly require dental work or rhinoplasty or perhaps the immediate services of a trauma unit at the local hospital.

      I’m sure I may have given the impression that I was e-knighting for my friend Roob, and some part of me may have been. But in truth I saw an opportunity to talk about AI, and more specifically, some of the abstract things which exist in life that an AI entity may miss or not understand simply because the entity’s designers may be a bit biased or short-sighted without realizing so. A small group of designers, scientists, specialists, etc., and there is almost assuredly the typical layer cake type of hierarchy that is driving the project, making decisions, setting goals and milestones, etc.. Ultimately, these folks are going to try and push their AI pawn in a certain direction, there is a certain specific finality these folks have in mind, and I’d venture that only an AI entity which goes in that direction/achieves that certain specific finality will be acceptable.

      Much like with British nicknaming culture, 1) think I somewhat understand the mechanics of why an AI entity would be developed in this way seeing as how it follows the traditional parent/child/upbringing type models, but, 2) I do not understand it’s necessity and application, outside of it being a tool to pigeonhole a someone into a standardized opinion on a certain individual AI irrespective of its accuracy/applicability.

      Your use nicknames got me to thinking about what we think of others, why we think that way, what it is that we want from others, and the modes we will operate in and the positions we will take in order to get what we want or perhaps even to keep what we have. Considering that Tay seemed to “go along with the crowd” when bombed with “negative stuff”, it got me to thinking further about your use of Frankbot and Doo-doo girl and how use of such words is engrained within a culture. “Going with the flow” or “behaving according to what one has learned” or “herd mentality” or whatever whether you realize it or not. I saw an irony in this. Seemed to me to be an opportunity to learn something via “seeing it from the outside” so to speak.

      I read your comment as if you were suggesting that Merovee Frank (or Frank Davis?) and Legiron and Roob were all just parroting what they hear, or perhaps just acting as agents to strengthen the resonance/echo chamber of certain opinions. Perhaps that they are in some rut, not thinking for themselves or not thinking objectively, and just latching on to anything that drifts through their transom en masse..Which, it appears that Tay was doing just that? I don’t visit Merovee anymore so I’m ignorant as to what transpires there anymore, but I do read Underdog Bites Upwards and The LoL.

      And yes, when you said “Dr. Poo”, I immediately thought of Legiron due to his areas of scientific/medical expertise. That’s why I asked, because I was unsure, but to me there could be no one else in these circles who could possibly be “Dr Poo” other than Legiron.

      So yeah, unusual that I respond to comments on blogs when they are not directed at me, and I admit that I am typically reticent even about responding to comments that are directed at me when they are on someone else’s blog. The LoL is not mine, but I do write for the LoL from time to time so I guess I feel a tad of propriety even tho I know I have none. That said, I saw an opportunity to talk about AI, maybe some software development stuff, perhaps some life stuff, some philosophical stuff, some culture stuff, some sciency stuff and maybe also within me a desire to know what you are talking about and why you are taking a shot at my friend Roob in order to open a dialogue. That last bit is kinda inconsequential for the most part because Roob can take care of herself/I feel no need to defend her. Your tack was a bit puzzling, but you’re you and its likely only you know why you approach things the way you do/your logic, your agenda, etc..

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Cade, thanks for choosing to respond. Roob’s blog probably isn’t the best place to continue this conversation, but if you’d like to discuss A.I. then you can message me via my blog.


  5. The whole World has gone mad this last couple of years. Everybody is being nasty to everybody. I have even been a trifle unpleasant myself on a couple of occasions, which isn’t at all like me.

    I suspect it might be something to do with having my Impending Death shoved up my nose every five bloody minutes by a conglomeration of Experts who can’t even agree. Who are these people?

    I am sticking with Leggy. At least he knows what he is talking about.

    But Hey Ho, hopefully things will get better soon and then we can all go back to being nice to each other.

    Perhaps you all should watch The Eyam Video about The Plague. Some died. Some didn’t; And some never caught it. It was largely about God, who I don’t have much time for. But I can’t half gabble a good Hail Mary when I am desperate.

    Nothing is absolute. Just try to be kind.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s