On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 17:48:45 -0600
"\\0xDynamite" <dreamingforw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Dude, I've done AI -- believe me, they don't know much beyond
> >> keywords.  Give me a break.  You're still uneducated about it which
> >> makes you an easy victim.
> >
> >         okay - your first try might have been because you are
> >         'uneducated'
> >
> >         but now you are repeating the exact 'uneducated' bullshit
> > so at this point you can't be just stupid, your have malicious
> >         intent.
> No -- even though you haven't told me that you're not educated on the
> topic, which would make it seem like you can pose as a semi-expert
> without anyone getting the wise.  However, I can tell through analysis
> of your writing. 

        lawl -  Oh wait - Are you using a super AI to do the 'analysis'?

> People educated on a topic simply don't talk about
> the topic in the same way as those who aren't, except a few
> self-educated wildcards.  Maybe you're one of them, but if you were,
> you'd know that it was bullshit (even AI gadgets like Alexa and such
> -- stick with Roomba-level and you'll be more accurate).  so...

        I originally referred to AI BULLSHIT. Looks like your "writing
        analysis" doesn't include basic reading on your part.

        Ill spell it out for you : the AI bullshit I was
        referring to is image recognition. Of course there isn't
        anything 'intelligent' in it,  it just works by brute force on

> >         so no, I don't believe your  government propaganda  of the
> >         form "trust me! they are inept!"
> You may believe the media hype but most of it is just that:  hype.

        what hype - oh you mean a couple of half honest reports once
        in a while to keep some illusion of the 'press' being
        'independent' - LMAO.

        such political 'education' coming from you...

> Have you ever talked to a high-level government official?  

        No. But I've talked to a lot of lackeys of 'high level


> They
> cultivate and harness the feelings you are expressing so they can live
> in that magical moment of power you provide.

        if you are a surveillance state with records of people
        all over the planet, do you want your targets to know that you
        have that 'capability' or do you want them to believe you

        the answer to the rhetorical question is obviously : if you are
        a spy you don't want your victims to realize they are being
        spied on. So you lie and say you can't spy on them cause it's
        'too expensive'. 

        in other words what you are saying is what a government agent
        would say. 

> >> >         and even without that 'neural network' bullshit, you
> >> > think they can't index text? Or record audio? etc etc etc
> >>
> >> No, the cost is too high.
> >
> >         thanks. I was about to made that exact point. You saved me
> >         half the trouble.
> >
> >         As a matter of FUCKING, VERY IMPORTANT FACT, the price of
> >         electronic garbage for spying keeps going down by the
> > minute. 'Processing power' gets cheaper and cheaper by the minute
> > while the amount of people to surveil remains pretty much
> >         constant.  Do you get that, you 'expert' on 'artificial
> >         intelligence' from 'mit' ?
> It sure seems like it. 

        because it is like it. Again, do you have any basic grasp of
        simple counting, trends and historical data? Hardware is
        ridiculously cheap and there are spying devices everywhere.
        Fucktards even use them 'voluntarily'. 

>  But a lot of it works on pixie dust -- people,
> like you, who believe in the enormous power of it all.  No one knows
> how to make flash memory for example.  Research it.

        "No one knows how to make flash memory "

        the hell is that supposed to mean? Do you think jesus makes
        flash memory? 

> >> Once they filter all of the data with the
> >> best AI, they still have months of work to do which mostly ends up
> >> as worthless because in the end terrorists aren't using the
> >> network.
> >
> >         you can't be so fuking stupid? What TERRORISTS are you
> > talking about? There are NONE.
> >
> >         the target of surveillance is joe-six pack, not any
> > 'terrists' that only exist in the mind of fascist juedo-christian
> > scum from the 'developed world'.
> Yeah, and joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data to analyze by
> your super AI network.  So all that work for nuthin'.

        I first mentioned "AI bullshit" (not super network) and
        now I further clarified what I meant by that. 

        "joe sixpack isn't generating any useful data" 

        of course he is - and here you show again that you are either
         clueless or spreading misinformation on purpose. 

        I'll let you figure out why totalitarian governemnts (that is
        all governments) find it very useful to know what their tax
        cattle think and do. 

> >> >> Don't get paranoid -- get educated & get HARD.
> >> >
> >> >         get educated about what? the true nature and scope of
> >> >         surveillance and government?
> >>
> >> Yes, you're still living on 90's level understanding.
> >
> >         sure that coming from an american statist, lunatic
> >         jew-kkkristian who has written a bunch of nonsense straight
> > out from the pentagon.
> Fine.  If I can generate content that is pentagon level, that's great.

        lawl - pentagon level means intellectual cesspool level.

        furthermore, what I mean by stuff "from the pentagon" is that
        what you are saying is military propaganda. The kind meant
        to mislead the enemy in to a sense of false security. 

> It shows I got high up at one point -- that's all.  I probably got it
> from being in jail, actually. But seriously, you're better off
> following a path to enlightenment then getting super specialized in
> crypto or anything else technical at this point.

        not sure if you're using the impersonal you, but I am not
        getting specialized in crypto anyway 

> My writing is going to be wierd.  It's true -- it comes from a very
> unique journey across the unknown, but treat it/me like digital shaman
> -- wild but magically, technically accurate.

        your writing didn't strike me as weird. It struck me as cheap

        though in reality you are mostly arguing for its own sake. YOU
        said "the internet has been turned into the old medium"
        which I take it to mean the internet has become an outlet for
        the same old propaganda. I simply added it's not just a passive
        outlet but it spies on the users. 

        You know. Like the telescreen. 

> Marxos

Reply via email to