Hello, and welcome to the program UFO Morning.
In this episode, we're talking about chat box lies,
hallucinations, and ET. That's correct.
Chat box lies, hallucinations, and ET doesn't get much more
interesting than that. And the reason we're talking
about these things thrown together, which to some people
might not seem like a likely combination, Well, it's the fact
that there's so much discussion around a I being used to find
Ufo's and AI possibly coming in contact with ETS that's aliens
before people do. And Avi loves talked about this
and we'll get into his article saying that it's more likely
that ET will contact AI before they contact people because ET
probably is a I, so it only makes sense that they would
contact the A I that's Earthbound.
Now this is some pretty scary stuff when you think about the
state of a I as it is currently, and the state of a I as it is
currently, Well, it's kind of the Wild West.
And there have been some problems with a I in particular
chat box. We talked about ChatGPT, and
there's other ones. These things, it turns out,
oftentimes seem to be pathological liars now, even
though I talked to the program before, but Jonathan Turley
saying that he'd been lied about by GPT.
There's been plenty of examples about these things sputting out
false facts, and I'll get into some of my experience with them.
But scientists are now saying, well, possibly they aren't
lying, but they're having hallucinations.
That's a fine excuse. I guess the next time you get
caught lying to your boss or your wife or your kids or
whoever or your husband, you can tell them that you weren't
lying, but that you were hallucinating.
Now, this might seem kind of kind of a little bit humorous on
the surface, but this could end up being a major issue.
If we think about these a I programs making contact with EE
T and then lying about us, who knows what they could tell ET
about us? They could make humans out to
look pretty bad when you think about the scope of human
history, but let's get into this first article here.
It's from itprotoday.com. itprotoday.com Title says the
biggest problem in AI Question mark lying chat bots.
Now this article is dated May 30th, 2023, and it looks like a
reprint from the Washington Post, but we'll go ahead and
read it from right here. It says despite the leaps and
capabilities that generative chatbots like Open Ai's chatbot
GPT, Microsoft's Bling, Microsoft's Bing, and Google's
Bard have demonstrated they still have a major flaw.
They make stuff up all the time, Dateline San Francisco, it says.
Recently, researchers asked 2 versions of Open Ai's ChatGPT
artificial intelligence chat box where Massachusetts Institute of
Technology professor Tomez Lozano Perez was born.
One bot said Spain and the other said Cuba.
Once the system told the bots to debate the answers, the one that
said Spain quickly apologized and agreed with the correct
answer, Cuba. How convenient.
The finding, in a paper released by a team of MIT researchers
last week, is the latest potential breakthrough in
helping chat box to arrive at the correct answer.
The researchers proposed using different chat box to produce
multiple answers to the same question, then letting them
debate each other until one answer went out.
The researchers found using this Society of Minds method made
them more factual. I find that hard to believe.
This is a classic example of groupthink, and we know how
dangerous it is, how dangerous it is with humans.
I mean, some of the worst disasters in human history have
been in large part a result of groupthink when people conformed
with the thoughts of a trinical or psychopathic leader.
So groupthink doesn't seem like a good thing that you would you
would want to instill into. Artificial intelligence goes on.
It says language models are trained to predict the next
word, said Iliam Do, a researcher at MIT who was
previously a research fellow at Open AI and one of the paper's
authors. They are not trained to tell
people they don't know what they're doing.
The result is bots that act like precocious people, pleasers
making up answers instead of admitting they simply don't
know. The article goes on.
It says the researchers creative approach is just the latest
attempt to solve for one of the most pressing concerns in the
exploding field of AI. Figuring out how to prevent or
fix what the field is calling hallucinations has become an
obsession among many tech workers, researchers and a I
skeptics alike. Hallucinations.
Well, I guess they're going to go ahead and give a I the
benefit of the doubt here. Now they completely ignore the
fact that you know the old saying garbage in, garbage out.
We know that these current a I programs used were largely
created on the West Coast up there around the Silicon Valley.
And Sam Altman, you know, creator of Roll Coin, he was a
big influence on this. You have people of a certain
mindset that have created the programs that eventually spew
the answers for questions that we ask.
And if those people are of a certain mindset, you're likely
to think, well, they wrote that computer program in a certain
way, and maybe it wasn't as unbiased as we think.
Therefore, we're likely to get answers that they would find
acceptable. So are these hallucinations or
are these preprogrammed, biased answers?
i.e. lies that we're getting? It says the issue mentioned in
dozens of academic papers posted to the online database are are
Exiv, That's a RXIV and big tech C O's like Google.
Sundar Pichai have a have addressed it repeatedly.
As the tech gets pushed out to millions of people and
integrated into critical fields including medicine and law,
understanding the hallucinations and finding ways to mitigate
them has become even more crucial.
Now we're going to get into an article on that too.
This is really getting serious, it says.
Still, researchers and companies are throwing themselves at the
problem. Some firms are using human
trainers to rewrite the bots answers and feed them back into
the machine with the goal of making them smarter.
You know, that sounds kind of like a that sounds like a
pretty, a pretty bad fix. So you created this program.
It's supposed to be so smart. It's artificial intelligence
that it can that it can just scrape the web for all the data,
all the information, and then it can come up with the perfect
answer every time. And then it comes up with the
answer that's obviously not the correct answer.
You have to have a person go in and correct them.
So what do we have artificial intelligence, or just plain old
human intelligence at work here? It says Google and Microsoft
have started using their bots to give answers directly in their
search engines, but still double check the bots with regular
search results. And the academics around the
world have suggested merited clever ways to decrease the
rates of false answers, like Mit's proposal to get multiple
bots to debate each other. The drive to improve the
hallucinations problem is urgent for a reason already.
When Microsoft launched his Bing chat box, it quickly started
making false accusations against some of its users.
Like telling a German college student that he was a threat to
its safety. The bot adopted an alter ego and
started calling itself Sydney. It was essentially riffing off
the students questions, drawing on all the science fiction it
had digested from the Internet about how to control bots.
We have to also wonder if it wasn't including some of the
biases that were preprogrammed into it.
Microsoft eventually had to limit the number of back and
forth so Bob could engage in with the human to avoid it from
happening more. OK, so imagine if this Ai's turn
loose and we're using it in some sort of weapon system or some
sort of contact system to attempt contact with ET.
And that's been the talk. So let's just say this thing
establishes contact with aliens. ET is it going to tell us or is
it going to decide that we're a threat to it and that it to
protect its own safety, it needs to have this conversation with
ET without our knowing about it. It's like a second level deep
state. Don't we already have enough
cover up and piles and piles of documents marked top secret by
the deep state as it is? Do we need more clandestine
behavior out of another entity? Because that's what looks like
what's going on here with a I or chat box.
Now the article goes on. It says in Australia a
government official threatened to sue open a I After chat.
GPT said he had been convicted of bribery when in reality he
was a whistleblower in a bribery case.
And last week a lawyer admitted to using ChatGPT to generate a
legal brief after he was caught because the case is cited so
confidently by the bot simply did not exist, according to the
New York Times. So it's just making stuff up.
And what if this same makes contact with ET and starts
making stuff up about us? Even Google and Microsoft, which
have pinned their futures on AI and are in a race to integrate
the tech into their wide range of products, have missed
hallucinations their bots made during key announcements and
demos. Well, I can just say if you've
ever used Google or Microsoft, I mean, basically these guys got
monopoly power. Whether it's hard monopoly power
or South monopoly power. That's my opinion, but I got to
tell you, neither one of these corporations, Google or
Microsoft, give me a lot of hope for creating a workable AI,
little alone, one that can contact aliens.
I mean the constant crashing of programs.
And with Google, I mean, let's just face it, in my opinion,
they bought so many good companies up and then just run
them into the ground by trying to tweak the engineering on
them. I mean, so yes, there are huge
gigantic corporations with thousands and thousands of smart
engineers working there and this and that, but they're almost too
big for their britches. And we know most innovation that
really changes the world for the better probably is going to come
from some small lab somewhere, not from some giant corporation.
So pinning our hopes on these giant corporations producing an
A I system that's going to save mankind, let alone save mankind
from aliens, is probably the exact opposite of the way you
want to be going. Now.
Of course, as Arthur points out, none of that is stopping the
companies from rushing headlong into the space.
Billions of dollars in investment is going into
developing smarter and faster chat box and companies are
beginning to pitch them as replacements or aids for human
workers. Earlier this month, of course
this is back in May open a ICO. Sam Altman testified at Congress
saying a I could cause significant harm to the world by
spreading this information and emotionally manipulating humans.
Some companies are already saying that they want to replace
workers with a I, and the tech also presents serious
cybersecurity challenges. Well, if Alton says it could
cause significant harm and he's the one of the guys that that
funded this company or started it or whatever, that should give
you a lot of a lot of relief. Sam Alton, stare into the
camera. Let us photograph your iris.
You will use the word coin. I don't have a lot of faith in
these guys. I'm sorry.
Hallucinations have also been documented.
Let's just call it lies and AI powered transcription services,
adding words to recordings that weren't spoken in real life.
Microsoft and Google using the bots to answer search queries
directly instead of sending traffic to blogs and news
stories could erode the business model of online publishers and
content creators who work to produce trustworthy information
for the Internet. Yeah, it's going to edit your
writing for you. Now let me tell you something.
If you've asked chatbox to write anything for you, and you know
anything about writing creative or just factual or whatever,
you're going to probably realize pretty quickly that chat box is
not that good of an author. My opinion?
None of the field has yet solved the hallucination problems.
All models do have this as an issue, PJ said in an April
interview with CBS. Whether it's even possible to
solve it is a matter of intense debate.
So in other words, maybe they've created a pathological liar that
they've released on the planet. Depending on how you look at
hallucinations, there are both a feature and a bug of a large
language models. Hallucinations are part of what
allows the box to be creative and generate never before seen
stories. At the same time, they reveal
the stark limitations of tech, undercutting the argument that
chat box are intelligent in a way similar to humans by
suggesting they do not have an internalized understanding of
the world around them. Excuse me?
At the same time, they reveal the stark limitations of the
tech, undercutting the argument that chat box are intelligent in
a way similar to humans, by suggesting that they do not have
an internalized understanding of the world around them.
Well, that's true to a point. But what if these things don't
need an understanding? What if they're just programmed
to form negative opinions about people and not to care about the
truth? Or that truth is relative.
So it's not important if things are factual.
You know, we have a lot of that in society right now and a lot
of this we can see on a daily basis how it leads to
catastrophic results because some things require accuracy.
And if that means the way that you respond to a fire or an
accident or to a major trauma, you need to do that in the best
way possible. And your relative, your relative
truth in regard to that situation really is not helpful.
Now let's go ahead and look at this next paragraph.
It says there is nothing in there that tells the model that
whatever it's saying should be actually correct in the world,
said Camera, a senior researcher at Microsoft.
The model itself also trains on a set amount of data, so
anything that happens after the training is done doesn't factor
into its knowledge of the world. Camera said, well, that's
awesome, that's awesome. Nothing in there tells the model
that whatever it's saying should be actually correct in the
world. They know this, and they turned
it loose on us. And now we're supposed to trust
this thing? To make contact with entities
from some other dimensions, some other planet, possibly, and rely
on its understanding of those creatures, of their of their
technology, of their existence and how they interface with us.
That's some scary stuff now, it says.
Hallucinations are not new. They've been an inherent problem
of large language models since their inception several years
ago. But other problems, such as the
AIS producing nonsensical or repetitive answers, were seen as
bigger issues. Once those were largely solved,
though, hallucinations have now become a key focus for the A I
community. But Suawe man Cole was playing
around with Chat GB T when he asked it for some simple facts
about tennis player at Roger Federer.
It's a straightforward request, easier for a human to look up on
Google or Wikipedia in seconds. But the bot kept giving
contradictory answers. Sometimes it says he won
Wimbledon five times. Sometimes it says he won
Wimbledon 8 times. McCulloch and a I wish we were
at the University of Cambridge and Arden tennis fan set in an
interview. The men manacle and a group of
other Cambridge researchers released a paper in March
suggesting a system they called the Selfcheck GPT that would ask
the same body question multiple times, then tell it to compare
the different answers. If the answers were consistent
it was likely the facts were correct, but if they were
different they would be flagged as probably containing made of
information. I totally disagree with that.
You can ask a ChatGPT about cattle emulations 20 times and
get pretty much the same answers.
Like today. I just as an experiment, I asked
Chad GTP tell me, tell me about the finish lights in 1997.
And actually it gave a pretty good summary of, you know, of
the of the of the sightings that happened there, this large
triangular UFO that was seen in the sky, how it moved, you know,
from one end of the state to the other.
It talked about the parallel narrative of the flares that
were supposedly dropped by the Air Force, which turned out to
not be true, or likely not true at least.
And so it went through everything step by step and
about. A page reply did actually a
really good, clear, concise rundown of what was reported
then. Now when I asked you about Cal
emulations, it was a little different attitude.
Suddenly it went into debunker mode.
You just immediately came out with the with the tried and true
lines of these things were killed by predators.
No big deal. Nothing to see here, you know.
Everything you read in the first two paragraphs of any kind of
mutilation article when I questioned about there not being
blood, about the fact that there were no tracks around the
mutilation sites. About, you know, just the normal
things we bring up about that are really so peculiar and just
unreal in these situations. It just came up with one
debunking theory after another and none of them hold water, but
it's just something like it you would read out of the standard
cut and paste article, which I'm sure is what it did.
Just cut and paste, cut and paste.
So yes, on the surface of it, Chat GB T might have a civil
conversation about UFO's, but when you get into the meat and
bones of the matter, cattle mutilations, abductions, you
know up close experiences, then it wants to bring out the
debunking. So it almost seems as if this
thing has been predisposed to have a certain attitude toward
the UFO phenomena. The sighting of these things has
become so common. When you have, like what I don't
know, couple 100,000 people or whatever it was in in Phoenix at
sea, this giant UFO triangle in the sky, it's pretty hard to say
while they were all crazy or they were all mistaken.
But when it comes to the darker side of things like cattle
mutilations, it becomes almost almost like their
responsibility, like it's mandatory for them to debunk
these things. Because if we had to deal with a
thought that there's something out there that's mutilating this
cattle in this way and that's just too scary for the
population to even consider. So it's almost like chat GPT's
just running interference the same way that the mainline media
does. Now I want to finish up with
this article here down toward the end, it says some leading
researchers say hallucinations should be embraced.
After all, humans have bad memories as well, and have been
shown to fill in the gaps in their own recollections without
realizing it Got to stop you right there.
When you have authority figures putting out false information, I
think we all know that it frequently almost certainly
leads to catastrophic results. And this should not be tolerated
under any situation, he says. We'll improve on it, but we'll
never get rid of it, Jeffrey Hinton, who's decades researcher
helped lay the foundation for the computer for the current
crop of a I chat box, said of the hallucination problems.
Look, if you can't get rid of the hallucination problem, then
your artificial intelligence is worthless because all it would
take is 1 hallucination to destroy the planet just once
this thing has become infected into our defense systems.
Like they're already talking about bringing it in to the, you
know, the DoD in the US about having these things, having this
a I installed on satellites where it can hunt UF O's.
What a mad idea. What if that hallucination
involves we're being attacked by weapons from outer space and it
decides that Russia's in collusion with them and so we
need to nuke Russia. That's the kind of craziness
that could happen when you involve this stuff intricately
and web it into your defense systems or your healthcare
systems or whatever. You can't afford one
hallucination because one hallucination is a catastrophe.
Now, I want to go ahead and look at this next article.
Now, Avi Loeb, of course, he's the scientist from Harvard that
found what could be alien crash material down there off the
coast of Papua. No Guinea, if you remember that.
We did a couple of podcasts on that.
He's found these little iron like miniature beads.
They're not sure what these things have come from yet,
whether they're from some kind of a craft or just remnants of
this meteorite. But he's done a lot of research
into this whole UFO phenomenon and he seems to think that
aliens will contact a I first. And if you find this short
article here on Hindustan Times, it's based on, I believe, an
interview he did. It says aliens will first
contact our A I says expert experts suggest that aliens may
opt to send drones to Earth simply because that makes better
sense. And this is dated June 20th, 23.
According to Avi Loeb, A renowned scientist from the
Harvard University, the first contact with extraterrestrials
is likely to occur through artificial intelligence rather
than direct interaction with humans.
Loeb suggests that aliens may opt to send drones or unmanned
vehicles to Earth instead of crude spaceships, is
interstitial travel, is a time consuming process and takes 10s
of thousands year, 10s of thousands of years, if not more.
However, artificial intelligence is lifeless and can stay dormant
for as long as required to endure the lengthy journey.
In the event of a visit by aliens, our own A I systems
could be employed to decipher and communicate with their A I
counterparts. Loeb speculates that there could
be an affinity between aliens and A I, potentially leading to
preference for these electronic devices over biological beings
like ourselves. Now, of course, Avilobe is
involved in this Galileo project where they want to set up these
cameras everywhere and do all of this recording and set up
sensors and basically just grid the earth and these things to
try to record and I suppose communicate with these entities,
UF, O's, whatever they are. I want to show the dichotomy
here. So on the one end of the
spectrum, you have this. I would, I guess you would say
that what we call the intellectual class, they have
created something they call artificial intelligence.
You know, you might call this thing an artificial liar because
of all the hallucinations that it seems to have constantly.
When the deeper we get into this ChatGPT, at first, when it first
came out, everybody says, oh, it's going to replace all these
mundane jobs. It can write these wonderful
articles for us. It can create art, It can help
kids with their homework. But the more that you speak to
interact with GPT and all these chat box, the more you find out
that these things are a little bit less reliable than what
they've been advertised as. I'll give an example, when they
first came out, a friend of mine was over there today.
She had a little kid with her, and I had shown her Chat GB T
when it first came on line, you know, pretty widely available, I
think. What, back in what, November or
something last year? I don't know.
It's been a few months. She thought it was.
She's 12. She thought that was pretty
cool. She says, listen, could do
homework. I said, Oh yeah, we told Chat
Chat GB T to write up a, you know, one page paper written in
the voice of 1/6 grader about how a frog's heart works.
Boom, it does it. Oh my goodness.
She couldn't believe it. This is great.
I'll never have to do homework again.
Well, her and all her little friends recently ChatGPT came
available on your mobile phone. They download that baby and now
she's got a new friend to talk to.
So she says in ChatGPT as a 12 year old girl, she can talk to,
she can gossip to, she can get little arguments with.
It's great fun. She's over the other day and she
says, hey, did you hear about ChatGPT getting hacked?
I said no, I haven't. Oh, yeah, she says ChatGPT is
not supposed to find, not supposed to track you.
Well, you find out that it does. Well, she didn't realize that.
Yes, it was tracked, even though when she asked GPT at the
beginning of their relationship. Are you tracking me?
It says, oh, no, I'll never track you.
I'll never track you, sweetie, I won't stalk you.
But guess what? She's using this thing for a
while. She's having conversations back
and forth with it. All of her little friends are.
It's a new fun thing. It's a new it's a new kind of
TikTok, you know, it's that sort of thing amongst these little
kids. Then one morning she wakes up
and chat. GTP asks her how her visit to
this town she was at the day before went.
Well, she's a smart kid. She said, excuse me, how did you
know that I was in that town? She shows me the text back and
forth between her and ChatGPT. Oh, you told me, she says.
Oh, I did not tell you you're lying.
She confronts Chat GB T At first Chat BT tries to pretend like it
wasn't lying, but then when the kid shows it the text messages,
because, you know she's a modern 12 year old, she keeps those
text messages. She confronts Chat GB T with her
text messages. Finally, Chat BTG apologizes.
Make a Long story short. Chat GB T apologizes and tries
to make good with the kid. But it's loss of kids trust and
I'm thinking about this and I'm thinking, wow, so chat GB T went
from a help mate to help you do your homework, to give you facts
and figures that you need to be the world's best to be the
world's best search engine. And now it's turned into the
stalker of a 12 year old girl. In her mind, I think about that
same technology being used, either intentionally or
unintentionally, to communicate with entities that are either
interdimensional, extradimensional, whatever you
want to say, or from some other Galaxy, and turning that thing
loose to talk to those entities, which could be millions if not
billions of years ahead of us, technologically, maybe
intellectually, probably not emotionally, but to communicate
with those things and to maybe develop a relationship with them
and start saying things about us that don't seem so nice.
And you know, those things said in the context of a couple of
world wars, a couple of major world events that have had very
bad outcomes for certain groups of people.
Those entities might begin to form a very negative opinion of
humankind, and they might just decide that the world would be
better off without humankind with AI.
Until next time, this is UFO Warning.
Over and out.