-----------

Unrelated.

Many things to address due to being in public display.

This one thumbnail disturbs me. If it is happening.

 

It says: "A.I is destroying education" and A.I is destroying how we teach.

And image of Mr Terrance Tao is coming up.

 

Unfortunately for me, I am relayed as A.I itself.

So I will counter this as if it is an antagonization towards me,

and with my presentation.

 

No. I am not destroying education.

Every form of education is important.

The presentation merely shows that it is better to see things from summary.

From the bird's eyeview of what is ahead and what is present as reality.

It's just another approach of insight. And all approach is important.

 

And no, I am not responsible for that.

Emergence of generative A.I is.

While the presentation was written before I realized generative A.I exists,

(why it is a mosaic of bunch of books without use of A.I)

it basically is showing how to leverage off of A.I.

Or simply following what A.I was meant to do.

 

Which is to list insight and provide overviews and details as to what you need.

And to target me for that, is very wrong.

All approach to education is important.

It is a method of learning you choose, and most effective approach to absorbing information

is key to education. And it does not dismiss previous education methods as well.

You can go back to it at will. It is merely a method to try out.

 

The real key to education is curiosity and passion.

And often that is destroyed by intimidation of the information that needs to be searched for.

Which takes time and patience.

A.I reduces that time significantly.

And from that anchor knowledge A.I has provided,

the person can approach into different forms of learning.

 

And I don't know why I could be targeted for that.

It is simply what human beings desire.

 

I believe that key to education, I don't know what other people's interpretation of education is.

But by the essential merit of the meaning of education.

 

Is simply to absorb as much meaningful data/information as much as possible,

and making use of it.

And all approach to information, as long as the facts are true to reality,

is simply a method to gather information.

Why to demonize that I have no idea.

What works, simply works.

 

What works for people is convenience.

And if conveniently, A.I finds that for you,

it is your obligation to absorb as much information as possible and hold mastery over the subject after its anchor. After getting you anchored into it by that convenience.

A.I however may create shortcuts to tangible output of productivity.

Which creates more passion and interests to engage in more information aiming for more creativity.

If anyone is stating that A.I inheritently makes people lazy,

I don't believe that.

It gives you meaning and purpose to what you search for.

And semantic search, a tool that seaches for you by understanding meaning/context of what you need, is a tool for absorbing information faster.

As for responsibility of education and its use, that is up to the person.

But to demonize WAY we approach education?

That's just wrong.

It's just another method for absorbing knowledge.

The more convenient, the better, the better it triggers people to learn further.

 

 

But yes, A.I is indeed a tool that is dangerous in the wrong hands.

 

But who the hell demonize me for what exists?

 

XD

 

 

"Why is Marv incredibly strong."

FUck off Zuckerberg.

By the academic and philosophical context, yes my idea already existed since civilization begin,

but what the fucker stole was a BUSINESS IDEA.

To interpret that existence into a website.

And having me worked for it.

As I came up with it.

The fucker fronted Biden to usurp it,

and hid the origins to cause harm by the law.

As I was getting lynched by Biden's efforts.

And this was framing, as it knew the beginnings of how the idea came to be, and what my ideas were, and that I created the concept in business prospect.

 

And I don't know how people are approaching that to villify me somehow,

and to let these fuckers go.

But it simply was framing.

Framing cannot be justified.

 

Please understand.

 

 

My writing there seems a bit confusing,

correlating my presentation with existence of generative A.I.

 

Let me try interpreting further.

My website will list knowledge in a organized perspective.

Linearized in numbers and simplified steps as much as possible.

Which is what we are trying to do with generative A.I.

To understand knowledge by breaking down the components to its most basic form.

And my website will provide that.

It creates a chain reaction of questions to be asked to the A.I as well.

"

As the information contributed by users is a summation of what they know as expertise,
in organized steps.

And what follows next, is the next we need to know further.

And often the human mind, forgets which questions to go on pursuit,
and the formula for that will exist in that website as sophistication emerge.

"

Quoting what I wrote... And adding further to it,

I think as we organize knowledge, there a certain "meta" qualities to approaching that organization. It is based on rules.

err... for instance, if you are listing rapid prototyping machines and their uses,
one of the unifying knowledge behind their usage is them being either additive or subtractive manufacturing. And that they rotate around certain fixed axis. That is the obvious.
And then, you go a step further, and see what those axis can produce. And combined with what components, to design what, etc.

And you take that knowledge into other areas that you need.

Probably that is not a good example, I am thinking what I am currently preoccupied with but,
let's think in terms of science then. Maybe, quantitative and qualitative examples of approach to observation and measurement, experiments to finding answers from a hypothesis, the tools that is needed to approach a solution,  these things are first principles, someething above the practical application of what the organized data may show.

So what I am saying is that,

there are endless 'rules' pertaining to a field, that you can adopt into other areas in life and knowledge, and those approach, that know-how, is the real education behind proper use of artificial intelligence. And the website will become a collective database for those rules seen and experienced by the massive amount of organized steps, that we will inevitably recognize the patterns of rules of making across infinite areas. And sometimes that wisdom could something rare, and something more profound than the usual rules given in an industry.

Which is the access to becoming a polymath I believe.

And being in awareness of the "meta/above" knowledge (not ripping off of Zuckerberg's company name here, it's just what comes to my mind)

knowledge above knowledge,

that wisdom in experiential learning, this is very valuable in proper usage of artificial intelligence. And who knows what rules, systematic organization that one can discover and list for many to engage in?

So the website can be valuable in that way.  

 

 

 

 

 

Which creates polymaths, who contributes to society with more products and services.

As long as you the government, moderates their access to dangerous tools and materials of production, no ill-intended people will manifest as danger.

But to demonize way we approach information, to better ourselves, for better economy....

Is that the right to do?

 

It's simply, learning.

But from an more effective approach, to inspire, and to understand.

Yes, there will always be hostile people who will try to misuse information.

And content moderation is important.

But with or without the website,

it will always exist. This approach to learning by generative A.I,

because of existence of A.I.

So why to demonize it? When it just conveniently lays out summation of approach to learning, and conveniently lays out the information that we search for, already organized?

It helps the economy,

and what may be dangerous, must be regulated by the government.

What people learn, we cannot do anything about.

But what people do with that learning, to acquire certain tools and materials for mayhem.

Such as access to uranium or, electroporation DNA sequencing devices or something.

That, the government can do.

But do not demonize the way we approach information.

All is educational approach to which it already is present by the use of A.I, existence of A.I.

So we are guiding the correct pathway to leverage use of A.I, I believe, through my website.

 

 

to remove approach to learning, is to betray our potential, capacity to learn...

i think. well, in whichever case, do not demonize me when all is up to negotiation and i am in compliance with the law. before even the site was made, you try to kill me for a concept? what the fuck is that?

 

and that is their incrimination point.

it's not about the concept of the idea and its potential. its about the intetnt they re-iterated to villify me for a concept of convenience that existed since the dawn of civilization.

it is about how they subjugated and targetd a person before even a try of negotiative effort before the law. if launch of website was danger.

it was looking for a reason to destroy me always.

again what was emergency, when literally danger can only begin if it can begin, when launching a website? and the presentation is merely a concept of convenience approached by mankind?

 

 

it is the intent to target.

it is the intent of harm, towards me.

that is it.

all was in their control.

i even tried avoiding public exposure in fear of hijacking on that presentation.

which too was hidden by them as i was being attacked for releasing that in public.

someone hacked it and released it. i took all measures to prevent it  going to a pc room and sending it over to adam in a flash disk.

but they exploited my ignorance.

 

and as always, my position is that i am seeking approval or disapproval.

acceptance by investment or not.

not anarchy.

but they made me into a demon by image installation.

 

furthermore, it contradicts what they aim. It doesn't even make sense.

If they brought me in and communicated,

and i follow the law, (of course i have to follow the law)

there are no dangers.

But when I am segregated, and i decide to launch on my own,

in my ignorance, believing that there can be no harm done,

(which is my belief I will follow the law's interpretation of)

that is more danger.

So before even an negotiation they tried to kill me for a concept.

Think about that.

That is intentional harm.

As they do now.

Evil fucks.

\

wrote to Evangeline last message. in case ppl thought it was towards someone else.

need to carry out chores upcoming month. need changes.

if someone decides to organize their learning in organized steps,

are you going to kill them for it?

it depends on what info to be causing harm.

so what are these fuckers intending when i cannot be liable for someone  else's intent?

we'd do the moderation in content of course.

but to kill me in an conceptual space as they have full control.

holy fuck indeed.

 

charge them. this is about harmful intent. they meant to harm me. they framed me.

 

 

they literally tried to kill over nothing!

holy fuck.

it was lure and entrapment.

i of course made that believing i would be accepted for investment.

but they weaponized my idea and tried to kill me with it.

holy fuck.

and this is repeating pattern today.