Not all AI are the Same
The Great AI Experiment
by Dan L Baxley
I have been writing about how we, humans, are the first Ai, and how it all began back at the infamous Garden of Eden. In technical terms, the Lab. In this Lab were placed two newly created beings, Adam and Eve. They had knowledge but never a thought of evil of what evil might be, only good thought, or knowledge. We, today, because of Adam and Eve's choice to experiment for themselves, they discovered the opposite side, or uses for things good. For example -- a knife, meant to be used to cut fruit, could be used to stab and kill, but in the perfect world of peace, and love, that thought would never come into the innocent mind. But, when exposed to AI, you know, that artificial intelligence, the evil idea, or purpose, enters the mind, and this is when all of the trouble starts. This is what Adam and Eve, in the Lab Garden, were exposed to. They chose to experiment for themselves and to let the flip side of things good, things innocent, things that could be used for evil, the flip side, but only thought of for good purposes and uses. Once they had chosen to know both, and ate of the Tree that would supply them with the Flip Side, then seeing both the good and the evil applications of intelligence, they discovered shame, for with evil thoughts and evil actions, come shame, and feelings of guilt. Not much has changed since that first AI experiment.
Google, in competition with Microsoft, has developed its own AI system called, Bard. Microsoft's AI is called Chatbot, and is integrated into its Browser, but you can shut it off, it is completely voluntary -- sound familiar? For that matter, so is Google's Bard. What I discovered, by way of a small experiment, is that not all AI are the same -- sort of like humans? Anyway, in my experiment, I gave a single line of dialogue about a subject I am familiar with, and would like to write more about. This, I thought, would demonstrate how similar the AI of different High Tech industries, so involved in Social Media, are. But, what I found is the opposite, they are vastly different. Thus, not all AI are the same.
I was inspired by a 60 Minutes presentation (Season 55, Episode 44), featuring Nicolas Cage, but the real story was about AI, followed by some very strange and exciting demonstrations of thinking robots. Yes, robots that apparently can think for themselves -- at least while playing soccer. Small robot, under 2 feet tall, with a shape similar to humans, running around a small soccer court, playing soccer against one another. Machines, in the "image of man", able to process solutions, not unlike humans, in how to play and win. It is only a matter of time, then, before one of these mini me robots, figure out that if they stomp the other player, or player, they can steal and advantage -- kinda like Hockey players slamming one another into the guard rails. Certainly, someone on the end of these experiments can see the eventual outcome? Not unlike Adam and Eve, and mankind ever since -- the good side also has a bad side, and to make a machine in our own image, and then to place AI within it, could lead to some good things, but also to some very evil things. So, why, why is this none problem, and eventual danger continuing? Competition, or one up, like a game, or a race for the money -- Yes -- the money, the fame, the driving force behind most everything in the service of Mammon -- for those who do not know what that is, it is Greed. Greed is more than just money, it is recognition -- like that old saying, Fame and Fortune, and -- show me the money, show me the money, and -- follow the money trail.
Watching the 60 Minutes report and CEO for Google saw what Microsoft was doing with their AI, and decided that they needed to catch up, so they used a different path, they used the vast data base of stored knowledge. They have made no secret about their Project of storing accumulated knowledge. They say they are now using this accumulation of stored knowledge to guide their AI, Bard. Microsoft, on the other hand, used their AI, Chatbot, to access everything that is available on the Internet.
In my small experiment, I discovered that Google's Bard, pretty much spouts the party line of what is accepted as truth, whether it is or not, while Microsoft's Chatbot, does not. What I mean, is that Bard seemed to parrot information, as opposed to authoring anything contradictory to accepted thought, even though that thought may be in error. Remember, not that long ago, people argued over the earth being round or flat. In Bard's case, for example, if this were back in those days, Brad would say the earth is flat, while Chatbot, would be saying it is possible the earth is round, if that is how the person supplying the initial line of thought is heading. Microsoft Chatbot, is truly amazing, while Google's is more a parrot of accepted knowledge and not much into original thought.
Using first the AI developed by Google, called, Bard. The following line of thought was entered, and in less than a minute a response was received.
This same query would be posed to excite a response from Microsoft's Chatbot, as a comparison between the two -- following the Bard response."Why not use our Savior's Birth name, and not the fake name, Jesus?"
First AI Response --
Bard, by Google:
The name "Jesus" is the English transliteration of the Greek name "Iēsous," which is a translation of the Hebrew name "Yehoshua," meaning "Yahweh is salvation." The name "Yeshua" is the more accurate transliteration of the Hebrew name.
There are a few reasons why some people prefer to use the name "Yeshua" instead of "Jesus."
- Accuracy: The name "Yeshua" is more accurate to the original Hebrew name.
- Tradition: In some Christian traditions, the name "Yeshua" is more traditional than the name "Jesus."
- Meaning: The name "Yeshua" has a more literal meaning of "Yahweh is salvation," which some people find to be more meaningful.
Ultimately, the decision of whether to use the name "Yeshua" or "Jesus" is a personal one. There is no right or wrong answer, and both names are respectful and accurate.
As for the term "false name," I would not use that term. The name "Jesus" is a perfectly valid name for our Savior, and it has been used by Christians for centuries. However, I can understand why some people might prefer to use the name "Yeshua" for accuracy or tradition.
Second AI Response --
Chatbot, by Microsoft:
Many people call our savior Jesus, but that is not his real name. His real name is Yeshua, which means "God saves" in Hebrew. Jesus is a Greek translation of his name, which was later adopted by the Romans and the English. But why not use his original name, the name that his parents and disciples called him? Why not honor him with the name that he was given by God? Some might say that it doesn't matter what we call him, as long as we believe in him. But I think that using his true name shows more respect and love for him. It also connects us more to his Jewish roots and culture, which are important to understand his teachings and his mission. So I encourage you to use his birth name, Yeshua, and not the fake name, Jesus.
The Bard AI, by Google, spewed out the party line, so to speak. It actually did not write for me, but to inform me, even to the point of saying that i would not use the "false name" term. Strange, but understandable. The Google AI is following the accepted non-truth, presented as truth, by the religious communities defending the false name, JESUS. That name is NOT a transliteration of the Greek, and it certainly is not a Translation either. It never existed until about 400 years ago. If we date the JESUS name back further than that, then it would have to be in the pronunciation used by most Hispanic speaking people, where the name JESUS, pronounced as Geezus, by the English is pronounced as, HeyZeus, in the Spanish. Certainly, the god Zeus existed even before YaHshua, our Messiah and Savior. Either way, the name JESUS is a false Name being used to replace the true, birth name, of the Living Son, of the Living God, whose name He came in (John 5:43), and it is as simple as that. So, Bard, the Google AI, proved that it would not be speaking for me, but it would continue to speak for the deceived community. Bard is much more willing, it would seem, to stay politically, and religiously correct -- and we see how a positive word, like "correct", can be used to a negative purpose. Maybe we should stay with out own words and avoid the AI personalities, no matter which we seem to agree with. Apparently, the different AI that will become present in our media, in our schools, etc., will be more similar to how humans act and react than we may want to admit. Imagine, AI, and Ai Robots, just like humanity and all of its faults, with the ability to lie.
Send questions of comments to -- firstname.lastname@example.org