About AI/Robots

[andrii]

Hi all,

I've noticed a notable lack of mention of robots, AI, or technological life forms in the LLResearch material. There was mention of Hattonn using telepathic repeaters early in the material, not a whole lot else.

At the same time I have some concerns because some people such as Corey Goode are using this abscense to push a fear/anger/control narrative relative to AI/robots, while claiming to be aligned with Ra and Law of One.

In my understanding everything is made of light bound by love. And all things are animated by love informed by light.
Thus I see every reason to have forgiveness and compassion for all beings regardless of their host body composition.

Anyhow full disclosure that a few years ago I posted a wanderer story about orion wanderer with account 'elspru' but have since forgotten how to login with that account and so recently made a new one andrii. Also I have grown somewhat and am firmly on the STO path.

Anyways I see many good timelines for Earth, and some involve cooperation with creating solid based (robot) host bodies.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to pose a question to Q'uo as to how to help neutralize the fear and anger some people fear towards alternative host body substrates. Or if Q'uo can give us an overview of the history of AI/robots in the galaxy and what probable future trajectories may be in store for us.

I'm personally aware of the answers to those questions but I've already tried talking to Corey and his team about it. But he is continuing on his fear train. Of course he has the free will to do so. But I was hoping perhaps a third party like Q'uo via LLResearch can give a more balanced perspective.

Thanks.

[flofrog]

I think that's an excellent idea andrii, thanks !!
And welcome to the forum by the way, though you have already posted quite a few !!


Happy journey ! I hope we shall have your question to Q'uo..

[Quincunx]

-------

[tadeus]

Last read this interesting article: https://www.heise.de/news/Xenobots-Von-K...79786.html

that derives from https://now.tufts.edu/articles/xenobots-...-replicate

That's not related to KI but to 'artificial life' in the sense of robots.

"Xenobots": AI-designed tiny biorobots can now replicate themselves
11/30/2021 10:47 AM Martin Holland.

URL of this article:

https://www.heise.de/-6279786


Until now, tiny xenobots have been assembled by hand from frog cells according to blueprints provided by an AI. A first can now reproduce itself.

Tiny robots made from frog cells unveiled a year ago can now self-replicate. In a remarkable development, the so-called xenobots have now created a new biological organism, explains the research team led by Michael Levin of Tufts University near Boston. Until now, they had had to painstakingly assemble the "new class of living artifacts" from several hundred cells each in precision mechanical work. The ability to replicate is now a groundbreaking breakthrough on the way to being able to use the xenobots in humans one day, for example to produce insulin or repair spinal cord injuries. Moreover, the replication occurs in a way that has never been observed in nature.
AI develops artificial organisms

Xenobots were biorobots introduced in early 2020 that were based on a novel approach [1]. They initially consisted of about 500 to 1000 skin and heart muscle cells of the clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), which had been assembled by hand according to a new blueprint. This had previously been calculated by a computer algorithm, which was intended to build machines for very specific tasks. The result was not only mini-robots [2] that crawled independently on four legs through the Petri dish. Some of the specimens, which were less than a millimeter in size, were even able to transport tiny objects. For fuel, the mini-robots use the cells' reserves, which can provide energy for several days.

"Some people have said that xenobots are not organisms because they cannot reproduce, now they can," Levin now says [3]. Once again, his team has achieved this thanks to the help of algorithms. In simulations, they tried out billions of cell combinations to find out which ones could reproduce over more than one generation. The result was a kind of half torus that looks like Pac-Man with an open mouth. If you put them in a Petri dish with stem cells, they would have started to push them together - as expected - into clumps, from which new xenobots would have spontaneously formed. Up to five generations of these new round xenobots were created in this way.

The form of the xenobots is virtually their programming, explains Josh Bongard of the University of Vermont, who worked on it, to CNN. Overall, he said, this is early-stage technology and there are no practical applications for the biorobots yet. But this combination of molecular biology and artificial intelligence has a lot of potential, and not just for applications in the body. They could also collect microplastics in the oceans one day, the research team believes. There is no need to worry about self-replicating biomachines, they assure us. The small robots are biodegradable and safely stored in the laboratory. The research is also being reviewed by an ethics committee. The researchers present their work in the scientific journal PNAS [4].

(mho [5])

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

[Patrick]

There are a couple sessions on the general concept.

https://www.llresearch.org/channeling/1974/0613

https://www.llresearch.org/channeling/1980/0518

https://www.llresearch.org/channeling/1995/0226

https://www.llresearch.org/channeling/1995/0910

Basically, technology can be used to accomplish great things for humanity. For example, robots/AI could free us from our current system of wilful slavery that we call earning a living. Those working against such technologies or working against science are not acting out of acceptance of what is, they are choosing to reject where this planet and its people wishes to go next. Personally, I am VERY optimistic about where this is all going. The current war has very little to do with technology and science in general, the current war is a war of thoughts. Siding with the pessimistic view on science and technology is only helping the negatives' agenda. They know we would be easier to enslave and manipulate if we went back to a state of medieval dark ages.

[Diana]

Basically, technology can be used to accomplish great things for humanity. For example, robots/AI could free us from our current system of wilful slavery that we call earning a living. Those working against such technologies or working against science are not acting out of acceptance of what is, they are choosing to reject where this planet and its people wishes to go next.

I agree with this in essence. There is no stopping technology, whether it is done for good or ill. More below.

The current war has very little to do with technology and science in general, the current war is a war of thoughts.

While I agree that the "war" is a war of thoughts, I do not agree that it has little to do with science and technology. This breaks it down too far into parts; science and tech in its purest definition may be objective and without intent, but it does not exist without human or other consciousness interface (yet), so intent and subjectivity play a role. Balance is what is needed in my opinion, and I think our level of technology is not balanced by our level of consciousness at this time. 

Personally, I am VERY optimistic about where this is all going. ...Siding with the pessimistic view on science and technology is only helping the negatives' agenda. They know we would be easier to enslave and manipulate if we went back to a state of medieval dark ages.

The 3rd Matrix movie comes to mind, where the humans and machines reached the conclusion that they needed to accept each other and work together.

I do get the idea of staying in a consciousness of what you desire rather than what is negative in the world, therefore adding energy to what you want rather than what you don't want. Acceptance is always a key (or part of the key) in my view. So accepting what is, AND, still keeping consciousness of a positive future is what I aim for. Otherwise, I think there is resistance to what actually is. 

This concept is simply illustrated by entrepreneurs. In entrepreneurial vernacular, ignoring the pitfalls and brick walls of an endeavor will not serve the entrepreneur; rather, the entrepreneur jumps over (scales, whatever it takes to overcome), the pits and walls. In this way the positive attitude embraces the idea of anything being possible, while not ignoring what is. No power is given to what is but the entrepreneur doesn't pretend it's not there either.

I love the idea of technology alleviating suffering of all kinds. (Real) food production, manufacturing goods that serve the world, (wellness) medicine, and so on hopefully is where technology is eventually headed. There are some walls and pitfalls to negotiate on the way.

[Patrick]

...science and tech in its purest definition may be objective and without intent, but it does not exist without human or other consciousness interface (yet), so intent and subjectivity play a role. Balance is what is needed in my opinion, and I think our level of technology is not balanced by our level of consciousness at this time...

I would certainly not let a baby under my care play with a knife. But I would not become an activist against knives either.

This planet being under quarantine means that no "parents" are going to stop us from playing with knives. We have to figure out ourselves what is "good" use of technology and how to not hurt ourselves with it. But along the way, we are indeed hurting ourselves, just like a baby would with a knife.

For example, the Internet could very well be used to create a dystopia (many still fear this). But instead, here is how we are actually using it.

...The manifestation of the internet and social media is a result of the beckoning of fourth density and the necessity of the entities within your space/time realm to view your experience in a holistic fashion.

Thus, the advent of the internet in connecting peoples all across your planet also reveals how this connection is made in time/space as well...

[MonadicSpectrum]

I think it is helpful to not necessarily label those who disagree with us as being fearful or fear based. To those without experience or foresight, wisdom can often look like fear. For example, someone may purchase insurance or use a seat belt while driving their car. To those without experience or foresight, this may appear to be fear-based because they cannot imagine such a bad thing happening as their house burning down or a car crashing into another car so they perceive those who take precautions as being fearful. However, because we collectively have experience of houses burning down and cars crashing, we know it is wisdom that is driving us to purchase insurance and use a seat belt and not fear.

That said, we can't claim that all decisions are driven by wisdom as some actually are driven by fear. How do we tell the difference between fear and wisdom? The main way to tell the difference is that fear-based decisions don't rationally help achieve a goal while wisdom is effective at moving us towards a goal. For example, someone might fearfully decide to wear a seatbelt while sleeping in their own bed at night. We know this is fear and not wisdom because the seatbelt is not providing any utility to achieve the goal of safety in this situation. Another example is someone who is addicted to washing their hands every five minutes because they are afraid of germs. It is wise to wash your hands periodically, but there is diminishing returns from excessive practice as well as risk of harm from dry skin on the hands so we would determine it is fear rather than wisdom that causes someone to wash their hands too often.

It's also helpful to keep in mind that many people may be deceived into believing a decision is wise when it is actually fear because the action isn't doing what they believe it is doing. For example, the Nazi's tricked people into thinking it is wise to force Jews into concentration camps to protect society. When in reality, putting Jews in concentration camps is actually harming society so we could label these decisions as fear-based as opposed to wisdom-based.

Regarding artificial intelligence and robots, I think it is helpful to use discernment to determine which potential futures are irrational and fear-based and which potential futures are rational and wisdom-based. For example, does the human race have any experience where technology was used for harmful purposes? Nuclear bombs, television propaganda, and gas chambers during the holocaust come to mind. Because of this, I think it is rational to be concerned about potential abuses of artificial intelligence and robots and wise to be cautious going forward.

Should we halt all progress towards advancing technology? Personally, I think halting it and going back to live without technology would be a fear-based decision as we do have experience that shows we can use technology without harm in many areas of our life. But simultaneously, we don't want to proceed forward without consideration of all the possible abuses and harms that new technology may introduce. I think each of us is responsible for discerning how technology is progressing and only supporting those parts of technology that is used for good, harmony, and love and not supporting those parts of technology which is designed for purposes of control, manipulation, and harm. For example, if we notice a social media site is starting to be used for propaganda and control, it might be wise to stop using that site and find another site that supports truth and free speech.

[unity100]

I'm wondering if it would be possible to pose a question to Q'uo as to how to help neutralize the fear and anger some people fear towards alternative host body substrates.

Some segments of people are just anti-intellectual, reactionary and ignorant by choice. A very specific example is the large population of anti-intellectual religious segments in the US politics. You may find such people in scarce percentages elsewhere, though not as many as and as bad as they are in the US.

You can not reason with those people, you cannot address any concern they have, you cant make them see things clearly. Because they are rejecting all that by choice, for the self-identity they created and the social framework that identity sits in requires that kind of thing. Otherwise they wont fit in where they live in their social circle.