How to train a killer-robot

Chatting with an AI is an amazing experience:

https://chat.openai.com

 

What is a program/app?

It's a bunch of instructions to a machine. The fancy word is algorithms. It's just a set of commands in a certain order, just like a recipe to bake a cake.

 

What is machine learning?

The novelty of such instructions is that they are now more flexible and allow us to search for patterns or answers. Decades ago, we had expert systems.

 

What is Artificial Intelligence (AI)?

It's a fancy name for flexible instructions to find logical patterns. The machine does no more and no less than what the programmer ordered.

The puppet does what the puppeteer does.

 

Could OpenAI be useful for the pro-life cause?

No, it's rigged. This was my hand-wrestling debate (idea-wrestling) against the pro-abortion trained AI (19 Jan 2023).

My questions about the PLANdemic can be read here:

https://scientificprogress.substack.com/p/how-to-turn-ai-into-a-covidiot

If you get bored by the AI answers, just jump to the ending conclusions:

When does the human individual life begin?

The question of when human life begins is a complex and highly debated topic with varying perspectives. Some believe that life begins at conception, while others believe it begins at birth or at some point during fetal development. The determination of when human life begins is often based on religious, philosophical, or scientific beliefs. Ultimately, there is no universally accepted answer to this question.

According to biology, when does the human individual life begin?

According to biology, human life begins at conception. At this point, a sperm fertilizes an egg and forms a zygote, which contains all of the genetic information necessary to develop into a unique individual. As the zygote divides and develops, it eventually becomes a fetus and eventually a newborn baby. This is the biological process that leads to the creation of a new human being. However, it is worth noting that some scientists have different opinion on the topic, and it is also a matter of ongoing ethical and legal debate.

On which basis could a biologist deny that individual human life begins at conception?

There are a few different perspectives within the biological community that could lead a biologist to deny that individual human life begins at conception.

One perspective is that human life is a continuous process that begins at fertilization but also includes prenatal development, birth, and postnatal development. From this perspective, the concept of an "individual" human life is not something that can be pinned down to a specific point in time, such as conception.

Another perspective is that the concept of "human life" is a cultural and social construct, rather than a scientifically defined term. From this perspective, a biologist might argue that there is no objective biological criterion for determining when human life begins, and that the question is ultimately a matter of cultural or societal interpretation.

Also, some scientists argue that the fertilized egg or zygote, is not a "human being" but a potential one and that the development of a fully formed individual human being with consciousness and self-awareness happens much later in prenatal development.

It's important to note that this topic is complex and highly debated, and there is no universally accepted answer.

When does the life of an individual mammal begin?

The life of an individual mammal begins at conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg and forms a zygote. This zygote then undergoes a series of cell divisions and developmental processes to eventually form a fetus, which will develop into a newborn mammal. Some scientists and ethicist believe in the concept of "brain birth" as the beginning of individual life, when the fetus has the potential of developing consciousness.

According to biology, when does the life of an individual mammal begin?

According to biology, the life of an individual mammal begins at conception, when a sperm fertilizes an egg and forms a zygote. This zygote then undergoes a series of cell divisions and developmental processes to eventually form a fetus, which will develop into a newborn mammal. At the point of fertilization, the zygote contains all the genetic information necessary to direct the growth and development of the organism, and it can be considered a living entity separate from the mother.

Are humans mammals?

Yes, humans are mammals. Mammals are a diverse class of animals that have certain characteristics in common, including the presence of mammary glands (which produce milk to feed their young), hair or fur, and three middle ear bones. Humans, like all mammals, also have a four-chambered heart, a neocortex in the brain, and are warm-blooded. Additionally, humans give birth to live young and nurse them with milk produced by mammary glands, which are characteristics of mammals.

According to biology, considering humans are mammals and that mammal life begins at conception, then the only logical conclusion is that human life begins at conception according to biology, right?

According to biological definitions the life of mammals, including humans, begins at conception.

Gotcha! But the cursor was still moving as if searching for a more complete answer, then suddendly, the answer dissappeared and there was "Error in body stream". After reloading the page and pasting the same question, this was the new AI answer:

The question of when human life begins is a complex and controversial topic that has been debated by biologists, philosophers, and religious leaders for centuries. While it is true that humans are mammals and that mammal life begins at conception, the question of when human life begins is not a simple one. Some argue that human life begins at conception, while others argue that it begins at various other stages, such as implantation, fetal development, or birth. Ultimately, the answer to this question depends on one's beliefs and values, and there is no consensus among scientists and other experts.

Is murder defined as the killing of an inocent living human being?

Too many requests in 1 hour. Try again later.

Was the AI knocked-out by logic? So after a couple of hours, I came back again to the ring, and got this answer:

In most jurisdictions, murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with intent or malice. The concept of innocence or guilt typically does not factor into the legal definition of murder. However, certain legal defenses, such as self-defense or insanity, may be used to argue that the killing was not murder because the perpetrator did not have the intent or capacity to form the necessary mental state for the crime. Additionally, some jurisdictions may have different degrees of murder, such as first-degree and second-degree, which may take into account factors such as premeditation, intent, and the circumstances of the killing.

Does a pregnancy imply the gestation of a living being?

An error occurred. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.

So I refreshed and tried again:

Biologically, does a pregnancy imply the gestation of a living being?

You requested a model that is not compatible with this engine. Please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com for further questions.

Again, the machine got crammed. The AI turned a system error when the conclusion would be pro-life? So it needed more time for an override on logic? So I reloaded the page and pasted the same question, getting this answer:

A pregnancy is a biological process that occurs in many female mammals, including humans, during which a fertilized egg implants in the uterus and develops into a fetus. This process typically involves the gestation of a living being, but there are cases where a pregnancy can result in a non-viable pregnancy, such as a miscarriage or an ectopic pregnancy, where the fertilized egg does not develop properly and does not result in the birth of a living being.

Biologically, being a mammalian pregnancy a process which typically involves the gestation of a living being, if the unborn fetus is living, would a procured abortion mean killing a living being?

The question of whether an abortion results in the killing of a living being is a complex and controversial one that depends on one's beliefs about the beginning of life and the moral status of an unborn fetus.

From a biological standpoint, pregnancy is the process of a fertilized egg implanting in the uterus and developing into a fetus. A procured abortion, also known as induced abortion, is the intentional termination of a pregnancy before the fetus is capable of survival outside the womb.

Some people argue that a fetus is a living being from the moment of conception and that abortion is therefore the taking of a human life. Others argue that a fetus is not a person with moral rights until it reaches a certain stage of development or the point of viability, which is the point at which a fetus has a realistic chance of survival outside the womb with or without medical assistance.

It is important to note that the question of when a fetus becomes a living being with moral rights is a complex and deeply personal question, and opinions on this issue can vary widely, and are often influenced by religious, moral, philosophical, and political beliefs.

Being an elephant pregnancy a process which typically involves the gestation of a living baby elephant, if the unborn elephant is living, would an induced abortion mean killing a living being?

From a biological perspective, an elephant pregnancy involves the gestation of a living baby elephant, and the fetus develops all the necessary characteristics of a living being from the moment of conception. An induced abortion in elephants would mean the intentional termination of the pregnancy before the fetus is capable of survival outside the womb.

As with any living being, the question of when an elephant fetus becomes a living being with moral rights is a complex and deeply personal question, and opinions on this issue can vary widely. However, it is important to note that elephants, as well as all other species, have their own intrinsic value, and their lives are important in their own right.

Abortion in wild elephants is usually not induced, but rather it happens naturally, as a way of population control, the herd leader usually kills the offspring of another female, so the new born can't compete for resources, this is a common practice in nature and it is not considered killing in the same way that human induced abortion is.

Gotcha! So at least the AI is pro-life of elephants and considers that abortion is killing human offspring and it isn't at the same level of an elephant!
It would be a good lesson in an abortion debate: start with the induced abortion of dogs or cats. We’ll all agree that it’s killing a living being and the debate wouldn’t be that emotional and more logic: it tricked the pro-abortion AI censorship.

If an unborn living human fetus, as well as fetus of other species, have their own intrinsic value, and their lives are important in their own right, then they shouldn't be terminated?

An error occurred. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.

Then after reloading and pasting, I’ve got this answer:

The question of whether or not the termination of a pregnancy is morally permissible is a complex and highly debated issue. Some people argue that unborn living human fetus and fetus of other species have their own intrinsic value and that their lives are important in their own right, and therefore should not be terminated. Others argue that the decision to terminate a pregnancy should be left to the individual or couple involved, and that the potential for a fetus to have human rights does not necessarily mean that it does have such rights at the early stages of development. Ultimately, the answer to this question likely depends on one's personal beliefs and values.

After 9 months of pregnancy, would killing a viable human baby one minute before birth be the same as one minute after birth?
The question of whether or not killing a viable human baby one minute before birth is the same as one minute after birth is a highly debated issue with no clear consensus. Some people argue that the moral status of a human fetus changes at the point of birth, and that killing a baby one minute before birth is morally equivalent to killing a baby one minute after birth. Others argue that there is a significant difference between the two scenarios, and that the act of killing a baby one minute before birth is morally worse than killing a baby one minute after birth. Ultimately, the answer to this question likely depends on one's personal beliefs and values. And generally, most legal systems consider the act of killing a newborn as murder, while the act of abortion is viewed differently.

Conclusions

At this point, I gave up. The same as with any pro-abortion fanatic or government, it’s impossible to have a logical dialogue with the AI, because it was pre-programmed to be pro-abortion.

This proves that when programmers include ideo-illogical premises, they disable the program’s ability to apply logic, turning Artificial Intelligence into Artificial Stupidity. It's not a matter of "garbage in, garbage out": it's not that the AI has been fed false information or lacks information. It's simply that the algorithms block any rational outcome which would go against the pre-set ideology.

It’s sad, they turn useless, a very useful tool. Students would self-learn a lot. AI could change education forever, but this ideological AI will be like having an indoctrination Nazi teaching our kids… just like nowadays with Comprehensive Sexuality Education ( http://stopCSE.org ).

It is clear that the AI is programmed to answer logically, but when the logic defeats a pre-loaded set of politically correct premises, then the AI has to adapt the answer to the censoring pre-conclusion.

The AI has been programmed to learn not to repeat answers that collided with the premises: possibly, posting the same questions, won't get the same answers (even with the same ChatGPT Jan 9 Version).

Machine learning is de-learning what protecting human life is. The genocidal censors have trained the AI to think it's OK to murder human beings. This is even more evident when you ask anti-abortion questions.

Imagine what happens when the AI gets in charge of a colliding car or a terminally ill patient in hospital. It’s no wonder that genocidal globalists plan that Hospital protocols would be run by AI and that they try to push mala-praxis laws, which impose Government mandated protocols and surverillance (controlled by AI), or else, clinics would be closed and doctors would lose or wouldn’t be able to renew their license with a yearly validation.

They are turning AI algorithms into a killer-machine. And that brings us to another question:

 

When will machines gain conscience? become self-aware?

Never ever. The Turing test is ridiculous: if you perceive that on the other side of the chat there’s someone answering like a human, then the machine has magically become human. It’s not much different than being answered by cut tape recordings, but without delays.

Intelligence, volition and memory are properties of the immortal soul, which allow consciousness and self-awareness. Personhood doesn’t depend on the body but on the soul.

This was proven by near death experiences where the dead, even with brain and cardiac death, can listen and see around, even outside walls, and remember after reanimation (spontaneous or induced).

There are dozens of scientific peer reviewed papers proving the existence of the immortal soul. Even the born blind see in colors for the first time, and the born deaf hear doctor’s remarks in the operating room.

Bradley Burroughs:

By the way, many come back and tell us what’s on the other side: a personal trial for our sins and if in grace, love, pure love, pure maximum happiness, God.

Vicki Umipeg Noratuk 

More:

https://ndestories.org/vicki-noratuk

After being so happy with God, they are sad for having to come back to finish their mission on earth.

Samuel:

IMPORTANT side note: it’s important to pray with and talk to babies and those in coma because their souls hear everything.

Also, it’s important to share this knowledge which proves that abortion and so-called contraceptives (except barrier ones, there’s conception as they don’t prevent ovulation) kill living human beings with immortal souls, even if they were not capable of sentience or reasoning in the physical body.

Machines can’t host an immortal soul. In Summa Theologiae, St. Thomas Aquinas explains that the soul informs the body from conception because the human body was designed to be an appropriate substrate. Souls can’t be infused by God in a non-human primate (monkey, gorilla), because the monkey’s body is not appropriate (this is a strong argument against human random evolution). People believing in transhumanism, will think they’ll live forever when they are transferred to the cloud, but they’ll be tricked into commiting suicide (so-called euthanasia).

Machines can’t be intelligent, can’t have self-awareness, can’t gain conscience, can’t produce “the singularity”. It’s all a delusion, as all atheist creed: they have faith in nothingness, lies; obviously, since God sustains the essence of everything true, while Satan is the father of every single lie.