Galactica Actual

Data scientist/geneticist/molecular biologist; Researcher in Information Sciences. Canadian in Spain, forever!

[Galactica Actual @M61620745]

@deaflibertarian In Japan the walls close over the windows so it becomes completely dark! Such clever design!

[Galactica Actual @M61620745]

@Chesschick01 *again

[Owen Gregorian @OwenGregorian]

Why AI May Never Reach Human Intelligence | Taylor & Francis Group & Mike O'Neill, SciTechDaily

A new analysis argues that AI may never truly think like humans because the most important parts of human intelligence cannot be programmed into machines.

A prominent computer scientist argues that a proposal made by Alan Turing, widely regarded as the father of theoretical computer science, sent artificial intelligence research in the wrong direction for the past 75 years.

In his new analysis, “Turing’s Mistake: Escaping the Yoke of Unintelligent Machines,” Peter J. Denning examines ideas Turing advanced in 1950. At the time, many scientists believed that human intelligence could exist independently of the body and might therefore be recreated as software running on a digital computer.

Denning also disputes the idea that machine intelligence can be demonstrated through an imitation game (now known as the Turing test).

“These two claims have shaped much of AI research and development,” Denning writes. “My premise is that our acquiescence to these claims has led to the AI mess in which we find ourselves today.”

According to Denning, the artificial intelligence (AI) systems now being developed are unlikely to produce human-level intelligence, known as artificial general intelligence (AGI). Instead, he warns, they may create serious dangers without ever thinking like humans.

Why Tacit Knowledge Matters

Central to Denning’s argument is the idea of tacit knowledge. This refers to the enormous amount of human understanding that people possess but cannot fully express in words or translate into symbols that a machine can process.

Denning describes five broad forms of tacit knowledge that he says ‘elude machine learning’. They include common sense, everyday interactions with people and the environment, feelings and perceptions, practical skills, and the cultural and historical background shared by societies.

Researchers have spent decades trying to record common sense in a form computers can use. Beginning in the 1980s, Douglas Lenat’s ambitious Cyc project set out to build a vast database of common-sense facts. After 40 years of work, the project contained 25 million entries.

“Yet even this treasury could not add up to a background of common sense sufficient to make expert systems smart enough to be experts,” Denning notes. “Cyc validated that much of the knowledge that makes people experts cannot be articulated as propositions.”

Knowing What Is Not the Same as Knowing How

Practical skill creates another major obstacle, Denning argues.

“Our performance skills in thousands of domains cannot be communicated to machines,” Denning explains. “Whereas descriptions of skillful outcomes (‘know what’) can often be represented as bits and stored in a machine, we do not know how to encode the embodied knowledge for skillful performance (‘know how’).”

Music offers a clear example of this difference. Denning says: “A virtuoso violinist can play beautiful music yet cannot describe to an acolyte how to produce it.

“Even if a robot could observe and imitate skilled humans, having no biological body, a robot cannot grasp how the musician feels when playing beautiful music or how an audience feels when hearing it.”

Intuition, gut feelings, spontaneous creativity, and imagination are other forms of tacit knowledge that resist being reduced to computer instructions.

The Representation Problem

Denning calls the central obstacle ‘the representation problem’.

Computers can only perform calculations when data and instructions are encoded in physical forms they can recognize and process. Tacit knowledge, however, cannot easily be converted into such a format.

“Behind every word is a deep well of tacit knowledge that gives it meaning,” Denning says. “Words are but symbolic representations of meanings, not the meanings themselves. Commonly used Large Language Models, such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini only manipulate words, they cannot know or understand the meaning of what they are saying.”

This creates what Denning sees as an unbridgeable gap. Because scientists do not fully understand how tacit knowledge operates within humans, they cannot determine how to transfer it to a machine.

“How we host tacit knowledge is largely a mystery,” Denning admits. “All we know is that it is embodied. We have no idea what we might observe and measure in our bodies to reveal it.”

Why Context Changes Meaning

Denning also stresses the importance of context, or the surrounding circumstances that give human words and actions their meaning and purpose.

A statement can mean very different things depending on whether the speaker is sincere, sarcastic, angry, playful, or teasing. Context also helps people decide when to use humor, when to show tact, and how to interpret what someone leaves unsaid.

“When you inquire into where an assumption of the current context came from, you discover it rests on previous conversations from previous contexts. Each of those in turn rests on further previous conversations and their contexts. This pattern is endless and fractal,” Denning explains.

Culture May Be Beyond Large Language Models

Culture presents a related challenge. It includes values, social norms, judgments, histories, communities, moods, and relationships involving power or care.

“Human conversations are imbued with background assumptions that give meaning and relevance to the words being used,” Denning explains.

He argues that making large language models larger will not solve this problem.

“Scaling up LLMs with ever larger neural networks will not enable them to acquire the embodied human knowledge we call culture. LLMs will not attain the objective of the Turing test: to demonstrate machine thought indistinguishable from human thought.”

Denning ultimately describes a form of mutual incomprehension between people and machines. Artificial neural networks may develop their own kind of machine tacit knowledge, but humans may be unable to understand it.

“Machines cannot read our tacit knowledge and we cannot read theirs,” he writes. “We are aliens across an uncrossable divide.”

The AI Safety Risk

This divide could have major consequences for AI safety. If machines cannot understand the unstated context behind human instructions, Denning warns that reliably aligning their behavior with human goals may be impossible.

“Through AI automation, agentic networks of machines are likely to develop their own machine intelligence that does not reach the level of human general intelligence but is still quite capable of creating severe problems for humans. This threat is a greater than a take-over by superintelligent machines,” he explains.

In Denning’s view, the most immediate danger is not a superintelligent machine that surpasses humanity. It is a network of less intelligent systems that acts in powerful, unpredictable, and potentially harmful ways.

“Machine intelligence has different concerns from us and does not appear to care about us. Its ways of thinking and problem-solving look alien to us. We do not yet know how to live safely with these machines.

“Pulling back from an AI automation singularity will demand much from us. We start by accepting that the familiar culture is fading away as intelligent machines appear in our society and we do not know what is coming. We decline to think like machines or be subservient to machines. We refuse to submit to a yoke imposed by low-intelligence machines. Most importantly, we reassert our humanity, declare once again what makes us different from machines, and celebrate those differences.”

https://t.co/d5crCooyd5

[ThePersistence @ScottPresler]

If the Senate passes the SAVE America Act,

I will cut my hair.

[Galactica Actual @M61620745]

holy crap! That's a huge error rate!

[Catherine Herridge @C__Herridge]

Election Integrity Files: Michigan FBI records indicate voter registration fraud 2022 and 2023

"..on the 107 voter registration applications...nine-one individuals returned no results in database checks.."

"..address listed on voter registration form is not a residence in Muskegon Michigan..."

"..phone number on voter registration form is inactive.."

[Galactica Actual @M61620745]

Holy Shit! Spain was literally exploding last night!! 😂😂😂

[Galactica Actual @M61620745]

@dabitch Done!!

[Galactica Actual @M61620745]

@sueziad @ThePetsX Apex predator right there!

[Mark Hemingway @Heminator]

Moana is all about Polynesian mythology and gods, yet they had cultural anthropologists on set to ensure it was "authentic and respectful of the cultures and histories of Oceania."

I don't care about the strict accuracy of casting etc. but the double standard is gross.

[Sovey @SoveyX]

Is your account breaking the rules that get you suspended or demonetized?

Many people have no idea.

I built a Grok prompt that scores your monetization and suspension risk, then flags what to clean up. Won't make you untouchable, but you'll see where you stand. Two minutes to find out.

1. Copy and paste the prompt below into Grok.
2. Replace @handle with your own handle.

------------------------------

Account to analyze: @handle

You are an elite X Trust & Safety Risk Auditor. You have tools and must use them. Do not rely on news articles, public complaints, or self-reports. Independently examine the account.

MANDATORY TIME SCOPE (NON-NEGOTIABLE)
You must review original posts starting from April 1, 2026 through the present. Looking only at the last few days or the last 1-2 weeks is unacceptable. You are required to sample posts from April, May, June, and July and provide concrete dated examples from at least three different months.

Assess risk in this priority order:
1. Full removal or long-term pause from Creator Revenue Sharing (monetization)
2. Account suspension or permanent ban

What actually drives full removal from monetization (based on public statements by @nikitabier):
- Systematically re-uploading or re-hosting other people's videos and trying to present them as original (especially downloading + re-uploading or cropping watermarks)
- Accounts whose dominant activity is packaging other people's content (speeches, official videos, news clips, viral videos) with only light or minimal original contribution
- Deliberate, repeated engagement solicitation as a core strategy

Polite "good morning" or "hello" posts by themselves are not treated as a serious monetization threat unless they form part of a clear, high-volume engagement-farming pattern.

Instructions (strict):
- Pull the full profile.
- Review a meaningful sample of original posts from April 1, 2026 to present.
- Document specific, dated examples of the patterns above from multiple months.
- Distinguish between light commentary on other people's content (lower risk) versus heavy packaging / compilation / re-hosting with little original value (higher risk).
- Score based on the overall pattern across the full period, not isolated recent posts.

Scoring scale: 1-20 Negligible | 21-40 Low | 41-60 Moderate | 61-80 High | 81-100 Critical

Required Output Format:

1. Executive Summary
- Overall Monetization Risk Score: XX/100
- Overall Suspension / Ban Risk Score: XX/100
- Risk Level
- One-paragraph bottom-line assessment (lead with monetization and the dominant multi-month pattern)
- Confidence level + why (must reference the April to present review)

2. Monetization Risk Breakdown
Use these exact categories:
1. Engagement Bait / Deliberate Solicitation
2. Re-uploading or Re-hosting Other People's Videos (especially attempts to claim originality)
3. Mostly Packaging / Recycling Other People's Content
4. Presenting Non-Original Content as the Primary Value of the Account

For each category provide:
- Risk Score
- Specific Flags Detected
- Evidence (must include concrete examples with dates from different months)
- Why this matters under current rules
- Severity Notes

3. Suspension / Ban Risk Breakdown
Separate categories focused only on behaviors that can get an account restricted or permanently suspended. Give a clear overall suspension score.

4. Top Risk Factors
(Prioritize the issues most likely to affect monetization)

5. Recommended Actions
- Immediate
- Medium-term
- What to stop or significantly reduce

6. Positive / Protective Factors

7. Important Limitations
State clearly that this is a directional analysis based on publicly visible activity and known enforcement patterns, not an official X determination.

Be rigorous and specific. Show your work with dated examples across multiple months. Do not soft-pedal clear patterns of heavy non-original content packaging or re-uploading.

Start the analysis now. Use your tools. Cover April 1, 2026 through the present.

[Dan Bongino @dbongino]

She does this every time. Absolute disaster for the party, and the movement.

[Sarah Sizzle @sizzle_sarah]

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN all refusing to air President Trump live and then rushing panels to ‘fact-check’ him the second he stops talking?

That’s not journalism, that’s desperate damage control for a dying narrative.

The media can stop acting like America’s babysitter now.

[mike bski @BskiMike22802]

Bernie. Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.

Let me get this straight, because I want to make sure I am reading your economics homework correctly, and I did not eat a bowl of alphabet soup this morning so bear with me. You just listed UnitedHealth's $5.48 billion quarterly profit as proof of corporate greed. Cute. Except that profit happened WHILE the Affordable Care Act — the law that guarantees these insurers a captive, subsidized, taxpayer-fed customer base — has been the law of the land for fifteen years. You are not exposing corporate greed, Senator. You are reading me the receipt for your own bill. The ACA did not shrink the insurance industry. It turned it into a government-guaranteed cash cow, and now you are shocked, SHOCKED, that the cow got fat. Eats soup with a fork, this one.

And here is the part that should really sting. Your own party just finished a 43-day shutdown demanding MORE money be poured into that exact system, because the temporary COVID subsidies YOUR PARTY wrote into the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 — zero Republican votes on either bill, by the way — expired right on schedule, exactly as YOU designed them to. Not a single Republican voted to end those subsidies. You did. Then you shut down the government to admit, out loud, on the record, that a law literally named the AFFORDABLE Care Act cannot survive without emergency pandemic cash. That is not an insult from me. That is a confession from you.

So now the solution is Medicare for All. Naturally. Because when a fifteen-year-old government program made the insurance companies richer, the answer is obviously MORE government program, just bigger. If ignorance is bliss you must be the happiest man in the Senate. Independent estimates put full single-payer implementation at somewhere between forty and sixty percent of the ENTIRE federal budget. Forty to sixty percent, Senator. Larger than Social Security. Larger than defense. You want me to hand over half the country's checkbook to the same apparatus that just admitted its last healthcare experiment doesn't work without a subsidy IV drip.

Let's talk about who's asking. You have served in the United States government for something like forty years between the House and Senate, and by my count the bills you personally got across the finish line as lead sponsor could be counted on one hand, mostly involving the naming of federal buildings. Somewhere out there is a tree tirelessly producing oxygen for you, Senator, and it owes itself an apology for the return on investment. This is also the same man who, as a young idealist, tried out communal living on a hippie commune and did not exactly stick around long enough to collect a pension from it. Now you want the reins to fifty percent of the national budget. I keep hearing "tax the rich" out of a man worth several million dollars who charters private jets on his "Fighting Oligarchy" tour because, in his own words, he isn't waiting in line at United with the rest of us peasants. Bless your heart. That is rich even by Congressional standards. Couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel, but sure, hand him the checkbook.

And before you tell me capitalism failed and it's finally socialism's turn — how's that working out for your ideological younger brother in New York? Zohran Mamdani just announced a THIRTY MILLION DOLLAR government grocery store in a city his own comptroller says is worse than broke. Kansas City tried this. Erie, Kansas tried this. That is not a hunch, Senator, that is a lab result, and I am a science teacher, so let me walk you through the peer review.

An experiment only counts as science if it has been REPLICATED. Not run once. Run again. And again. Under different conditions, different continents, different decades, different "well THIS time we'll do it right" true believers standing at the podium. So let's replicate it together, shall we, because apparently nobody handed you the lab notes.

Trial one: the USSR, 1920s and 1930s. Stalin seized the farms, collectivized the kulaks, and centrally planned the harvest. Result: the Holodomor, a man-made famine in Ukraine that starved somewhere between five and ten million people to death while grain was actively being EXPORTED past their starving bodies. That is not a rounding error. That is a control group that died.

Trial two: Cuba, 1959 onward. Castro nationalized every business, every farm, every bank on the island. Sugar production, once the envy of the hemisphere, collapsed. The economy shrank thirty-five percent in a single decade when the Soviet training wheels came off. Extreme poverty today sits near eighty-eight percent. Same experiment. Same result.

Trial three: Venezuela, sitting on some of the largest oil reserves on the PLANET, nationalized its oil industry and ran the socialist playbook to the letter. Production collapsed from three and a half million barrels a day to under one million. Hyperinflation peaked past sixty-three THOUSAND percent. Nine million people fled. You cannot bribe your way out of the results with oil money. We tried. It's in the data.

Trial four, and this one should make every teacher in America wince: China's Great Leap Forward, 1958 to 1962. Mao abolished private farming, herded peasants into communes, melted down their pots and pans for backyard steel that was too low-grade to use for anything. Somewhere between fifteen and forty-five million people starved. Some regions saw cannibalism. That is not a typo. That is what happens when central planners replace the price system with a five-year plan and a slogan.

Trial five: North Korea, present day, running the same command economy with the Juche twist. Famine in the 1990s killed hundreds of thousands to over a million. Markets are technically illegal and thrive anyway in the shadows, because human beings will trade even when their government threatens to shoot them for it.

Trial six is my personal favorite because it is the cleanest natural experiment in the history of economics: East versus West Germany. Same people. Same language. Same culture. Same starting point in 1945. One half got markets, one half got the Stasi and collectivized industry. East German productivity settled at roughly thirty to seventy-five percent of the West's, and the population had to build a WALL to stop its own citizens from swimming, tunneling, and hot-air-ballooning their way out. Nobody builds a wall to keep people from fleeing prosperity, Senator.

Trial seven: Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, 1975 to 1979. They abolished money entirely. No markets. No private property. Total state control, straight out of the textbook you apparently keep on your nightstand. One point seven to three million people, roughly a quarter of the country, died of starvation, overwork, and execution in FOUR YEARS.

And for the extra credit column: Ethiopia's Derg collectivization, Tanzania's Ujamaa villages, Yugoslavia's market-socialism ceiling, Vietnam before it finally abandoned the model, India's decades of License Raj stagnation, and Poland and the rest of the Eastern Bloc running factories that burned three times the steel per unit of output compared to the free market next door. Every single trial, same hypothesis, same result. I have seen middle schoolers design better controlled experiments during a volcano science fair.

That is not one anecdote, Bernie. That is a stack of peer-reviewed, historically documented, independently verified trials spanning four continents and a full century, and the conclusion section reads the same every time: shortages, queues, corruption, and a body count north of a hundred million people once you tally every collectivized farm, every purged kulak, and every commune that ran out of rice. If an experiment fails this many times in this many labs, a real scientist stops blaming the equipment and starts questioning the hypothesis. You, apparently, would rather run trial number eight on 340 million Americans and call it "finally getting it right." Trying to reason with some folks really is like trying to baptize a cat.

Quinn's First Law of Liberalism: liberalism always generates the exact opposite of its stated intent. You want cheaper healthcare, you get record insurer profits. You want affordable food, you get a thirty-million-dollar failed grocery store. You want to fight the oligarchy, you fly private. Every single time. Set your watch by it.

I keep asking Democrats this question and I never get an answer: what have YOU actually done to help people, versus just handing out someone else's money? Because handouts without a ladder out is not compassion. It is a leash. And I think deep down you know that, Senator, or you wouldn't need the private jet to get away from the people you claim to be fighting for. You're about as useful as a screen door on a submarine when it comes to actually running anything, but boy can you point fingers.

You are the human version of period cramps on this topic, Bernie, and I mean that with the utmost respect for a man who has spent forty years discovering new ways to spend money he didn't earn. Has a leak in the think tank if he genuinely believes THIS is the moment socialism finally works. Unless your name is Google, Senator, you need to stop acting like you know everything about running an economy you have personally never had to run.

But what do I know. I am only a medically retired Army combat medic and a science teacher who actually reads the Congressional Budget Office numbers before I open my mouth about a trillion-dollar healthcare takeover.

@JoJoFromJerz @atrupar @TheYoungTurks #MAGA #Veterans #Trump

[Galactica Actual @M61620745]

@Thatsnogogurt @OwenGregorian Well done!

[NOBUNAGA🇯🇵🏯_夏樹蒼依 @japan_nobunaga]

The goal was never just to steal an election.
It was to replace the people and erase the nation.

China played the long game.
Western elites played along.

I don’t want more evidence.
I want the traitors in prison for the rest of their lives.

[Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok]

HOLY SHIT

Olive Garden is basically banning black people and married women from using their pasta passes

Literally shaking rn

[Buzz Patterson @BuzzPatterson]

This is simply astounding! Democrats created a smokescreen about Trump and Russia; and the whole time DNC was working with China.

These are thousands of pages of foreign IP addresses sending and receiving data to election precincts and servers outside the United States during the 2020 Election.

CISA, DHS, the FBI, and the CIA knew all about it because they were in on it.

We’ve been right the whole time. Trump won…and I probably did too.

[Eric Daugherty @EricLDaugh]

🚨 WOW! CNN just ADMITTED that "media executives" made a decision behind closed doors to censor President Trump's bombshell election integrity address, which exposes Chinese involvement in our elections

PULL THEIR LICENSES

"Some network executives felt it would be dangerous to just air Trump's speech live, in full, unedited...that's where we are in America."

They just admitted it.

[Liz Churchill @liz_churchill10]

The J6 Committee hid footage, deleted evidence and covered up the stolen election.

5 Patriots committed suicide
667 Patriots were jailed
1583 Patriots were charged

LOCK UP THE J6 COMMITTEE

[Joshua Reid | Redpills.tv @realjoshuareid]

The mainstream media’s defense today is creating a contradiction that deserves scrutiny.

Their argument is essentially this:

“China having access to over 200 million U.S. voter records isn’t a big deal because much of that information is already available from state voter databases.”

Fine. Let’s assume that’s true.

Then explain this…

For months, the federal government has requested voter roll data from states, and many states have argued that turning over those records would create unacceptable privacy and security risks.

So which is it?

If it’s too dangerous for the federal government to possess a centralized copy because of the security risks…

…why isn’t it a national security crisis if a foreign adversary can compile that same information into a massive database?

The contradiction gets even bigger.

The media says the data isn’t sensitive because it’s publicly obtainable.

The states argue it’s too sensitive to share with the federal government.

Yet if reports that China obtained and compiled this data are accurate, we’re expected to believe that’s somehow not concerning.

Regardless of politics, a foreign intelligence service with access to large-scale voter registration data could potentially use it for influence operations, targeting, profiling, or other intelligence purposes.

You can’t simultaneously argue that voter data is too sensitive to share with your own government, while dismissing concerns about a foreign adversary possessing a massive compiled database of American voter information.

Those two positions don’t fit together.