| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 42 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 01:50:19 |
| Calls: | 220 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 824 |
| Messages: | 121,543 |
| Posted today: | 6 |
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is losing
its collective soul quickly enough.
--------------For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is losing
its collective soul quickly enough.
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn't
figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and then $10 a month.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
+0000, Dean wrote:
losingFor Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is
its collective soul quickly enough.
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn'ta
figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and then $10
month.
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS--------------
So that's the hill you pick to die on? Nobody else agrees with you.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:06:35 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
+0000, Dean wrote:
;losing
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is
aits collective soul quickly enough.;
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn't
figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and then $10
month.--------------
;
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
So that's the hill you pick to die on? Nobody else agrees with you.
This guy does:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbo6SdyWGns&t=230s
BTW, all of you who say that they disagree will not even listen to these things to see if they are any good. You made up your minds based on non
music factors.
On 12/11/2024 1:31 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:06:35 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
+0000, Dean wrote:
;losing
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is
--------------its collective soul quickly enough.;
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn't
figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and then $10 >>> a
month.
;
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
So that's the hill you pick to die on? Nobody else agrees with you.
This guy does:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbo6SdyWGns&t=230s
------------
I meant nobody *here*. I read the youtube comments by all those fools
who said the Zeppelin AI stuff was better than the original album. ------------
BTW, all of you who say that they disagree will not even listen to these
things to see if they are any good. You made up your minds based on non
music factors.
----------
Au contraire, here's a musical explanation of how we feel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xL1oAuEBXI
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:27:13 +0000, DianeE wrote:
isOn 12/11/2024 1:31 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:06:35 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
+0000, Dean wrote:
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity
couldn'tlosing
its collective soul quickly enough.
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I
then $10figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and
you.a
month.--------------
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
So that's the hill you pick to die on? Nobody else agrees with
fools
This guy does:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbo6SdyWGns&t=230s
------------
I meant nobody *here*. I read the youtube comments by all those
thesewho said the Zeppelin AI stuff was better than the original album.
------------
BTW, all of you who say that they disagree will not even listen to
nonthings to see if they are any good. You made up your minds based on
music factors.
----------
Au contraire, here's a musical explanation of how we feel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xL1oAuEBXI
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partlywith
AI.
-----------------
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
You say all that matters is what's coming out of the speakers, but I no longer believe that.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 21:27:13 +0000, DianeE wrote:then $10
On 12/11/2024 1:31 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 17:06:35 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 11:14 AM, Bruce wrote:> On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 10:22:19
+0000, Dean wrote:
losing
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is
its collective soul quickly enough.
I tried to start making my own AI music last night, but I couldn't
figure out how to use the website. Free trial for a week and
thesea
month.--------------
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
So that's the hill you pick to die on? Nobody else agrees with you.
This guy does:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbo6SdyWGns&t=230s
------------
I meant nobody *here*. I read the youtube comments by all those fools
who said the Zeppelin AI stuff was better than the original album.
------------
BTW, all of you who say that they disagree will not even listen to
---------------things to see if they are any good. You made up your minds based on non
music factors.
----------
Au contraire, here's a musical explanation of how we feel:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xL1oAuEBXI
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly with
AI.
--
For Christ's sake, stop posting this A.I. bullshit! Humanity is losingits collective soul quickly enough.
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partlywith AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having------------
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:------------
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partlywith AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:14:42 +0000, Bruce wrote:
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a bullshit argument.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!
Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:14:42 +0000, Bruce wrote:
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a bullshit argument.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!
Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having------------
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done.
Why do you say that? This makes me very curious.
From what I've read about him he had what they used to call a Napoleon complex and enjoyed being able to order other humans around.
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 2:52:56 +0000, Dean wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:14:42 +0000, Bruce wrote:
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a
bullshit argument.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!
Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
It's music. What matters is what it sounds like. Nothing else. But if
you want humanity, the human who uses AI to make the music is the
humanity.
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 2:52:56 +0000, Dean wrote:------------
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:14:42 +0000, Bruce wrote:
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a
bullshit argument.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!
Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
The main thing that makes someone a sociopath is not having empathy when
bad things happen to other people. What does that have to do with this discussion?
--
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partlywith AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partlywith AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with >>>> faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades >>> now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
On 12/12/2024 10:25 AM, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's >>>>> voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments >>>>> Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with >>>>> faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. >>>> Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having >>>> to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how >>>> it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, >>>> slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were >>>> actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades >>>> now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you >>>> find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not? >>>>
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who >>>> made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to >>>> sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It
doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
-------------
Inevitably, some disgruntled engineer will teach it to do exactly that.
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades >>> now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It >doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on
the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
On 12/11/2024 11:03 PM, Bruce wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 2:52:56 +0000, Dean wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 16:14:42 +0000, Bruce wrote:
ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHAT'S COMING OUT OF THE SPEAKERS
No matter how many times you repeat a bullshit argument, it's still a
bullshit argument.
WHAT MATTERS IS THE FUCKING HUMAN ELEMENT!!!
Why do I even bother explaining humanity to a sociopath? It's like
giving medicine to a corpse.
The main thing that makes someone a sociopath is not having empathy when bad things happen to other people. What does that have to do with this discussion?
--------------
The dictionary definition of a sociopath is "someone with antisocial >personality disorder." (This is a formal DSM-3 diagnosis, not the
common colloquial use of "antisocial" to mean someone who avoids social >events.)
National Institutes of Health (U.S. government website) says:
"Antisocial personality disorder is a mental condition in which a person
has a long-term pattern of manipulating, exploiting, or violating the
rights of others without any remorse.
It goes on to say that arson and animal cruelty during childhood are
often warning signs of this disorder.
Dean, what you said was funny, but in no way literally true of Bruce.
Maybe Geoff. ?
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:25:16 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's >>>>> voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments >>>>> Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with >>>>> faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. >>>> Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having >>>> to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how >>>> it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, >>>> slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were >>>> actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades >>>> now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you >>>> find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not? >>>>
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who >>>> made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to >>>> sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It >>doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on >>the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that its enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know whats beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:37:03 +0000, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:25:16 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's >>>>>> voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing >>>>>> voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments >>>>>> Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with >>>>>> faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. >>>>> Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having >>>>> to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how >>>>> it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that >>>>> have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the >>>>> same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, >>>>> slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were >>>>> actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades >>>>> now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you >>>>> find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not? >>>>>
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who >>>>> made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to >>>>> sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary >>>>
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It >>>doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on >>>the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just
turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A
hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and
free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random >number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:11:35 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:37:03 +0000, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:25:16 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>>>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's >>>>>>> voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing >>>>>>> voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments >>>>>>> Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with >>>>>>> faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. >>>>>> Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having >>>>>> to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how >>>>>> it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that >>>>>> have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the >>>>>> same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, >>>>>> slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were >>>>>> actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades >>>>>> now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you >>>>>> find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not? >>>>>>
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who >>>>>> made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to >>>>>> sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary >>>>>
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI >>>>> plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It >>>>doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on >>>>the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just >>>>turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A
hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and >>free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random >>number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly
results.
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:11:35 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:37:03 +0000, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:25:16 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>>>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's >>>>>>> voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing >>>>>>> voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments >>>>>>> Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with >>>>>>> faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. >>>>>> Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having >>>>>> to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how >>>>>> it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that >>>>>> have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the >>>>>> same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, >>>>>> slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were >>>>>> actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades >>>>>> now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you >>>>>> find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not? >>>>>>
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who >>>>>> made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to >>>>>> sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary >>>>>
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI >>>>> plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It >>>>doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on >>>>the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just >>>>turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A
hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and >>free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random >>number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly
results.
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 16:38:59 -0600, Jim Colegrove
<coolg@thecoolgroove.com> wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:11:35 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:Not to go off on a tangent here but "Free will" made me recall there
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:37:03 +0000, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:25:16 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>>>>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's >>>>>>>> voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing >>>>>>>> voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments >>>>>>>> Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with >>>>>>>> faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. >>>>>>> Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having >>>>>>> to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how >>>>>>> it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that >>>>>>> have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the >>>>>>> same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, >>>>>>> slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were >>>>>>> actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you >>>>>>> find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not? >>>>>>>
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who >>>>>>> made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to >>>>>>> sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary >>>>>>
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI >>>>>> plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It >>>>>doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on >>>>>the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just >>>>>turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A >>>hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and >>>free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random >>>number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if >>>commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly >>results.
is a theory that free will does not exist.
https://phys.org/news/2023-10-scientist-decades-dont-free.html
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:38:59 +0000, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:11:35 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:37:03 +0000, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:25:16 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>>>>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's >>>>>>>> voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing >>>>>>>> voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments >>>>>>>> Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with >>>>>>>> faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. >>>>>>> Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having >>>>>>> to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how >>>>>>> it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that >>>>>>> have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the >>>>>>> same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, >>>>>>> slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were >>>>>>> actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you >>>>>>> find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not? >>>>>>>
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who >>>>>>> made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to >>>>>>> sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary >>>>>>
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI >>>>>> plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It >>>>>doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on >>>>>the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just >>>>>turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics)
is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I
don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A >>>hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and >>>free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random >>>number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if >>>commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly
results.
Anything organic would not be A1 anymore, and I don't believe that we
could create life intelligent enough to be evil and purposely do harm.
Of course, we can already create organic things that can do harm, but
only when used that way by humans. Things like nerve gas and other
weaponized chemicals. But there will always be a human behind it, even
if the human teaches monkeys of other life forms how to disperse nerve
gas or something.
In any case if science is ever able to create life that thinks for
itself that will be long after any of us are still around.
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:46:50 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:38:59 +0000, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:11:35 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 21:37:03 +0000, Jim Colegrove wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:25:16 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partlywith AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's >>>>>>>>> voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing >>>>>>>>> voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments >>>>>>>>> Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with >>>>>>>>> faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. >>>>>>>> Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having >>>>>>>> to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how >>>>>>>> it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that >>>>>>>> have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the >>>>>>>> same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, >>>>>>>> slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were >>>>>>>> actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you >>>>>>>> find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not? >>>>>>>>
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who >>>>>>>> made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary >>>>>>>
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI >>>>>>> plus?
It will still only be able to do things that it's programmed to do. It >>>>>>doesn't "think." And a human still has to turn the computer on, click on >>>>>>the program, and give it a question or instructions. It doesn't just >>>>>>turn itself on and start doing what it wants to do.
It hasn't yer occurred but It's known as "singularity."
"This slippery concept describes the moment AI exceeds beyond human
control and rapidly transforms society. The tricky thing about AI
singularity (and why it borrows terminology from black hole physics) >>>>> is that it?s enormously difficult to predict where it begins and
nearly impossible to know what?s beyond this technological 'event
horizon.'"
It's a hypothetical theory that may never happen as I understand. I >>>>don't see it happening without some human being(s) making it happen. A >>>>hard drive is not gonna suddenly come alive with a a mind of its own and >>>>free will unless it is programmed to so like you would program a random >>>>number generator.
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if >>>>commanded to be that way by some human(s).
Maybe not a hard drive. Maybe something on the organic spectrum.
Many sci-fi writers have kicked this idea around since I was a
youngster. But harm it could do as in create conflicts with ghastly
results.
Anything organic would not be A1 anymore, and I don't believe that we
could create life intelligent enough to be evil and purposely do harm.
Of course, we can already create organic things that can do harm, but
only when used that way by humans. Things like nerve gas and other >>weaponized chemicals. But there will always be a human behind it, even
if the human teaches monkeys of other life forms how to disperse nerve
gas or something.
In any case if science is ever able to create life that thinks for
itself that will be long after any of us are still around.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949747724000071
More like he could always have it on with that program open, expect any
power failure even for a few seconds will shut it down.
{AI} may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 22:11:35 +0000, savoybg@aol.com (Bruce) wrote:
It may become something that could do harm some day, but only if
commanded to be that way by some human(s).
While very unwise (for some time to come at least) it would be
theoretically possible to hand over a nation's military defense to AI.
I asked Co-pilot (on behalf of everyone following this AI thread):
could AI in future have the ability to understand context and nuance
in the same way humans can
Response:
AI has made significant strides in understanding context and nuance,
but it still has a long way to go before it can fully match human capabilities. Here are some key points to consider:
1. **Current Capabilities**: AI can analyze large amounts of data,
recognize patterns, and make predictions based on that data. It can understand context to a certain extent, especially in specific domains
like language translation or image recognition.
2. **Limitations**: AI lacks the ability to truly understand emotions, cultural nuances, and the subtleties of human interactions. It
operates based on algorithms and data, which means it can miss the
deeper meanings and intentions behind human communication.
3. **Future Potential**: Advances in machine learning, natural
language processing, and neural networks are continuously improving
AI's ability to understand context and nuance. Researchers are working
on developing more sophisticated models that can better mimic human
thought processes.
4. **Ethical Considerations**: As AI becomes more advanced, it's
crucial to address ethical concerns, such as bias in AI systems and
the potential for misuse. Ensuring that AI is developed and used
responsibly is essential for its future growth.
While AI may never fully replicate the depth of human understanding,
it will likely continue to improve and become more adept at handling
complex tasks and interpreting context. The future holds exciting possibilities for AI, but it's important to approach its development
with caution and consideration.
I want to live in a world where A.I. performs menial tasks and people
create books, music, and art. Tragically, we're going in the opposite direction. I can't stop it, but I damned sure won't enable it by
consuming machine-made "art." I've read enough Isaac Asimov not to buy
into that corrosion.
Sorry for top posting, but I'm writing a short reply to a very long post.
One thing CP didn't specifically mention is that it has a hard time >recognizing sarcasm and/or irony, which can lead it to give
crazy-sounding responses.
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 20:59:22 -0500, DianeE <DianeE@NoSpam.net> wrote:------------
Sorry for top posting, but I'm writing a short reply to a very long post.who/what is CP?
One thing CP didn't specifically mention is that it has a hard time
recognizing sarcasm and/or irony, which can lead it to give
crazy-sounding responses.
44 lines is not a very long post :-)-----------
Roger's Duets (etc) posts are approx. 130 lines
And WHY would the machine be outside? It's not gonna be on too long
before the rain shuts it off anyway.
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partlywith AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades
now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's
voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments
Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with
faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer.
Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having
to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how
it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar,
slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were
actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades >>> now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you
find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not?
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who
made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to
sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
One of my favorite sci-fi stories answers this question.
In "Answer" by Fredric Brown the most powerful AI enabled supercomputer
ever devised is switched on and the first question is asked of it---a question that has been asked by every generation of Man for aeons.
The operator asks "IS THERE A GOD?"
The supercomputer answers "YES NOW THERE IS A GOD"
At which reply the fearful operator makes a move to switch off the
machine but a bolt of lightning from a cloudless sky strikes him
dead---and fuses the machine's switch to permanently "ON".
who/what is CP?------------
It's Co-Pilot, the entity you were talking to.
On Fri, 13 Dec 2024 20:50:29 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Thu, 12 Dec 2024 15:06:50 +0000, Roger wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 23:21:36 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Wed, 11 Dec 2024 22:21:25 +0000, DianeE wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:35 PM, Bruce wrote:
You said you like the newest Beatles song now. That was done partly >>>>> with AI.
AI was used (in ways I don't pretend to understand) to extract John's >>>>> voice from a tape cassette. It was not used to create the singing
voices, George's lead guitar, Ringo's drums, or whatever instruments >>>>> Paul was playing. Very much not the same thing.
I don't have a problem with technology per se. I have a problem with >>>>> faking human creations.
It's STILL a human creation. Except it's all done now by the producer. >>>> Spector would have loved it if he could have made music without having >>>> to deal with the musicians and singers to get it done. I don't see how >>>> it's much different from all of the studio and electronic tricks that
have been used now for like 75 years. Double and triple tracking the
same vocal, using electronics to get different sounds out of a guitar, >>>> slowing down and speeding up human vocals, or did you think there were >>>> actually Chipmunks who talked and sang?
They've been using computer made drum and rhythm tracks for many decades >>>> now. Including records that you like. Will you stop liking them if you >>>> find out that what you thought were human creations were actually not? >>>>
AI is still a human creation. The programs can only do what humans who >>>> made the software allow them to do. Instead of teaching a person how to >>>> sing you are showing a computer how to sing like a human.
In the end I must admit to finding this whole AI concept slightly scary
You say its a human creation and so it is.
But what happens when AI is inevitably given the freedom to invent AI
plus?
One of my favorite sci-fi stories answers this question.
In "Answer" by Fredric Brown the most powerful AI enabled supercomputer
ever devised is switched on and the first question is asked of it---a
question that has been asked by every generation of Man for aeons.
The operator asks "IS THERE A GOD?"
The supercomputer answers "YES NOW THERE IS A GOD"
At which reply the fearful operator makes a move to switch off the
machine but a bolt of lightning from a cloudless sky strikes him
dead---and fuses the machine's switch to permanently "ON".
You do know that the "FI" part stands for FICTION, right?
And WHY would the machine be outside? It's not gonna be on too long
before the rain shuts it off anyway.
Nobody said it was "outside". I'm sure most people are aware that the
full effects of a powerful enough lightning strike (and this one is
coming from God himself)
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 7:46:45 +0000, Roger wrote:
Nobody said it was "outside". I'm sure most people are aware that the
full effects of a powerful enough lightning strike (and this one is
coming from God himself)
god = fiction
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 15:55:19 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 7:46:45 +0000, Roger wrote:
Nobody said it was "outside". I'm sure most people are aware that the
full effects of a powerful enough lightning strike (and this one is
coming from God himself)
god = fiction
My feelings too but sadly thats all it is.....just feelings
I have no proof that God is fiction as neither do you
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 20:49:17 +0000, mariabus@blueyonder.co.uk (Roger)
wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 15:55:19 +0000, Bruce wrote:
On Sun, 15 Dec 2024 7:46:45 +0000, Roger wrote:
Nobody said it was "outside". I'm sure most people are aware that the
full effects of a powerful enough lightning strike (and this one is
coming from God himself)
god = fiction
My feelings too but sadly thats all it is.....just feelings
I have no proof that God is fiction as neither do you
Thankfully, the burden of proof is not on me.
You hope, baby!!-----
On 12/15/2024 12:12 PM, DCartrow wrote:
You hope, baby!!-----
I know it in my heart. Every cell in my body knows it.
I wish it were otherwise, but it can't be.
On Tue, 17 Dec 2024 1:17:24 +0000, DianeE wrote:--------
On 12/15/2024 12:12 PM, DCartrow wrote:
You hope, baby!!-----
I know it in my heart. Every cell in my body knows it.
I wish it were otherwise, but it can't be.
Why do you wish it were otherwise?
--