A response to Michelle Rempel Garner's "Debunking Critics of Maduro's Arrest"

Debunking the Debunk.

RE:
Member of Parliament for Calgary Nose Hill. King's Privy Council. Shadow Minister for Immigration. Conservative. On her post (Twitter/X.com): Debunking Critics of Maduro's Arrest.
https://x.com/MichelleRempel/status/2007528059130482854?s=20

Argument Analysis & Fallacies

1. Overarching Narrative

The article presents the US operation as a moral and strategic victory, framing the abduction of Maduro (and associated civilian deaths) as justified, necessary, and beneficial for democracy.

---

2. Major Fallacies and Rhetorical Devices

a. Straw Man & Group Vilification

• Critics of the operation are equated with the governments of Russia, China, and Iran, implying that any opposition to the US action is morally equivalent to supporting authoritarian regimes.
• This oversimplifies dissent, ignoring legitimate concerns about international law, civilian casualties, and constitutional processes.

b. False Dilemma

• The article frames the issue as a binary: either support the US strike or support despotic regimes.
• This ignores complex third options: peaceful multilateral pressure, diplomatic solutions, sanctions, or legal proceedings through international courts.

c. Appeal to Consequences

• The article dismisses concerns about Canadian oil prices and pensions, arguing that such economic worries are morally irrelevant compared to justice for Maduro’s crimes.
• This is a form of moral absolutism and ignores the legitimate concerns people may have about their livelihoods.

d. Minimization of Harm

• Civilian deaths in Caracas are glossed over or minimized, described as a “precision extraction” with a “miracle” of avoiding casualties, despite the initial premise stating people died.
• This is ethically problematic, as it fails to grapple with the real human cost.

e. Appeal to Authority

• Cites Nobel Peace Prize winner María Corina Machado and recognized opposition leader Edmundo González, using their words to bolster the argument without critically assessing the broader context or dissent within Venezuela.

f. Historical Oversimplification

• The comparison to Manuel Noriega’s capture ignores international condemnation and the substantial civilian harm caused by that operation.
• The invocation of R2P is misleading: R2P is intended for multilateral, not unilateral, interventions—especially not those involving aerial bombing of civilian areas.

g. Constitutional Evasion

• The article argues that Article II grants the President authority, but fails to address the ongoing debate about the limits of this power.
• It dismisses the need for Congressional approval by claiming “surgical strikes” don’t qualify as acts of war, which is a highly contentious interpretation.
• The people of Venezuela are the only people that can truly assess if it was. Their response is here:
• https://p2b.drjpdns.com/w/tZ4vyJLQkD3LgzvscDtqrc

        h. Moral Grandstanding

• Phrases like “victory for moral clarity” and “the world owes them a debt of gratitude” attempt to shut down debate by implying any opposition is morally bankrupt.
• This is an attempt to silence legitimate criticism through emotional manipulation.

---

3. Factual & Legal Issues

• International Law: Unilateral bombing and abduction of a sitting head of state without UN or regional support constitutes a violation of sovereignty and likely breaches international law (UN Charter, customary international law).
• Civilian Harm: Civilian deaths are a grave concern under international humanitarian law (Geneva Conventions), regardless of the target’s alleged criminality.
• US Constitutional Law: The legality of such an operation without Congressional approval would be heavily disputed in legal and political circles.
• Precedent: Sets a precedent for similar actions by other countries—potentially destabilizing global norms and encouraging future violations.

---

4. SYNTHESIS & CONCLUSION

Enumerated Fallacies & Bad Devices

1. Straw Man/Group Vilification: Reduces critics to apologists for dictatorships.
2. False Dilemma: Presents only two extreme choices.
3. Appeal to Emotion: Uses loaded, moralistic language to stifle debate.
4. Minimization of Harm: Ignores or downplays civilian deaths and legal consequences.
5. Appeal to Authority: Selectively cites opposition figures without context.
6. Historical Oversimplification: Misuses historical precedent.
7. Constitutional Evasion: Cherry-picks legal interpretations.

What’s Wrong with the Statement?

• It uses demagogic rhetoric and logical fallacies to justify a highly controversial, violent act.
• It marginalizes legitimate concerns about law, morality, and civilian welfare.
• It weaponizes patriotism and moral clarity to delegitimize dissent.
• It risks undermining international norms and emboldening future abuses.

Conclusion:

Whether or not one agrees with the hypothetical decision to intervene in Venezuela, this article distorts the debate through emotional manipulation, logical fallacies, and selective use of facts. It is not a measured analysis but propaganda designed to rally support and silence opposition. Readers should be skeptical of such rhetoric and seek out balanced, fact-based perspectives, especially on issues of war, sovereignty, and international justice.

Brookfield vs Canada

TLDR; The meme mixes public-sector infrastructure projects and government initiatives with private investments and asset ownership, which are fundamentally different categories.

1. Brookfield and LNG Canada Phase 2 / Cedar LNG • LNG Canada Phase 2 is a proposed expansion of the existing LNG Canada export facility in Kitimat, but as of now it has not reached a final investment decision and is advancing under its own commercial process. It is not formally owned, financed, or operated by Brookfield; the project is led by the LNG Canada joint venture partners (Shell, PETRONAS, PetroChina, etc.). (CAPP)

• Cedar LNG is a separate LNG export project led by the Haisla Nation and Pembina Pipeline that has reached a positive final investment decision and is under construction toward a late-2028 start-up. Brookfield is not listed as an equity owner or operator of Cedar LNG itself. (Wikipedia)

• There are reports (from advocacy/critic sources) that Brookfield has financial exposure to LNG infrastructure through midstream and transition funds, but this is very different from direct ownership of the LNG export terminals mentioned. (Shift)

Conclusion: Brookfield does not directly own LNG Canada Phase 2 or Cedar LNG.

2. North Coast Transmission Line (NCTL) • The North Coast Transmission Line is a government-led initiative to expand electricity transmission in northern British Columbia, now identified as nationally significant and fast-tracked with involvement from public entities like BC Hydro and the Canada Infrastructure Bank, not privately owned by Brookfield. (Canada)

• There is no credible public evidence that Brookfield owns, finances, or operates the NCTL. It remains a provincial/utility/government infrastructure project. (BC Gov News)

3. Small Modular Nuclear / Westinghouse (Ontario) • Brookfield does have an ownership stake in Westinghouse Electric Company (a major nuclear technology provider) together with Cameco; Brookfield holds a controlling interest as part of Brookfield Renewable and institutional partners. (Cameco)

• Westinghouse is active globally and expanding Canadian supply chain deals, but actual nuclear builds in Ontario (such as SMRs) would still require separate project approvals and commercial contracts. The existence of Westinghouse ownership does not mean Brookfield directly owns or controls specific Ontario nuclear construction projects; it means Brookfield is a significant investor in the nuclear technology provider. (Westinghouse Nuclear)

Conclusion: Brookfield owns part of Westinghouse, not direct nuclear build-sites. The claim about Brookfield “owns small modular nuclear (Ontario)” oversimplifies the relationship.

4. Crawford Nickel & Sisson Mine / Other Mining Funds • The Sisson Mine and other resource projects have been added to federal fast-track lists, but the owners/proponents are typically independent companies, not Brookfield. (Canada)

• Brookfield may invest more broadly in infrastructure funds that could hold mining equity, but there is no direct evidence that Brookfield controls these specific mines as lead owner in public filings.

5. Montreal Port & High-Speed Rail • Expansion of the Port of Montreal and rail projects are being discussed in federal economic announcements, but again this is government infrastructure planning; there is no clear evidence that Brookfield itself owns or controls these projects. (Canada)

6. Carney, MPO and CIB Financing • Canada’s Major Projects Office and Canada Infrastructure Bank are federal bodies that can choose to refer and help finance major infrastructure. Those choices may bring loans or support to third-party projects, but that does not equate to ownership by Brookfield. (Canada)

Overall Reality Check: Brookfield is a very large and diversified global asset manager with infrastructure, renewable power, energy transition, and industrial holdings. It does own a significant stake in Westinghouse (nuclear technology) and has indirect exposure in some energy and midstream assets through its infrastructure funds, but it does not literally own all the Canada projects listed in the meme as if they are all under a single Brookfield umbrella.

Part 2: The Mechanics and Ethics of Humor

 

Blog Series: Thoughts on Laughter and Humor

Introduction

In the first part of this series, we explored how laughter serves as a nervous reaction and a primitive form of communication, essential for diffusing social tensions and fostering group cohesion. In this second part, we delve into the nature of humor itself. Together we will now examine why some things are funny while others are not, and how humor can lead to both acceptance and dialogue, as well as why it can sometimes be perceived as offensive or in bad taste.

Laughter as a Diffuser of Tension

Building on the idea from our previous discussion, laughter acts as a social tool for diffusing tension. When a group of people experiences a shared tension, and a common reaction—laughter—emerges, it often leads to a sense of acceptance and unity. This shared experience can open the door to much-needed dialogue in more evolved social circumstances.

For instance, consider a group of people watching a comedian. The jokes might address societal issues or personal experiences that resonate with the audience. When everyone laughs, it not only reduces individual stress but also creates a collective sense of relief and understanding. This shared laughter can lead to a greater sense of community and, in some cases, spark important conversations about the topics being joked about.

The Anatomy of Humor

Humor is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, but at its core, it often involves elements of surprise and the destabilization of expectations. Here’s a breakdown of how humor typically works:

1. Surprise: The element of surprise is crucial in humor. A punchline that catches us off guard or a situation that subverts our expectations can provoke laughter. This reaction is tied to the autonomic nervous system, which responds to unexpected stimuli with a sudden release of tension—manifested as laughter.

2. Destabilizing Ideas: Humor often involves presenting ideas in a way that destabilizes our usual way of thinking. This can include absurdity, incongruity, or exaggeration. For example, a joke might highlight the ridiculousness of everyday situations by exaggerating their characteristics, prompting us to see them from a new, humorous perspective.

These mechanisms are rooted in the same autonomic responses discussed in the first blog. When we laugh, it’s our body’s way of coping with the sudden shift in perception, releasing built-up tension and fostering social bonds.

High-Level Cognitive Function in Humor

Despite these automatic responses, humor also involves a high-level cognitive function that allows us to evaluate and decide whether we find something funny. This evaluation process considers various factors, including personal beliefs, social norms, and ethical considerations.

1. Taste and Sensitivity: We might find certain jokes to be in “bad taste” or insensitive, especially if they address topics that are painful or controversial. Humor that relies on stereotypes or targets vulnerable groups can be seen as offensive because it fails to consider the real-life implications and experiences of those being joked about.

2. Ethical Considerations: The destabilization effect of humor can highlight social injustices or absurdities, prompting reflection and dialogue. However, when humor reinforces harmful stereotypes or dismisses serious issues, it can perpetuate ignorance and insensitivity rather than fostering understanding.

For instance, jokes that make light of serious societal issues like racism, sexism, or mental health can be harmful because they trivialize the struggles of those affected. As a result, individuals may “decide” not to find such humor amusing, recognizing the potential harm it can cause.

Conclusion

Humor is a powerful tool that can diffuse tensions, foster social bonds, and provoke thoughtful dialogue. It relies on elements of surprise and the destabilization of expectations, rooted in our nervous system’s responses. However, our ability to evaluate and decide on the appropriateness of humor adds a layer of complexity, highlighting the ethical considerations involved in what we find funny.

Understanding the mechanics and ethics of humor helps us appreciate its role in society while also recognizing the responsibility that comes with it. By being mindful of the impact our jokes can have, we can use humor to bring people together, promote understanding, and create positive change.

Citations

1. Ruch, W., & Ekman, P. (2001). The Nature of Laughter: Mechanisms and Implications. Journal of Neuroscience.
2. Wild, B., Rodden, F. A., & Grodd, W. (2003). Neural correlates of laughter and humor. Brain.
3. Clay, Z., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2013). Development of socio-emotional competence in bonobos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
4. Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D., & Frith, C. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nature Neuroscience.
5. Mobbs, D., Greicius, M. D., Abdel-Azim, E., Menon, V., & Reiss, A. L. (2003). Humor modulates the mesolimbic reward centers. Neuron.

---

This concludes my two-part series on how I view the subject. I hope this exploration has shed light on what I find fascinating about humor, its social functions, and the ethical considerations that come with it. I might follow up with the anatomy of a joke, and what are its constituant parts.

Part 1: Laughter as a Primitive Communication Social Tool

 

Blog Series: Thoughts on Laughter and Humor

---

Introduction

Laughter is a universal human experience, yet its origins and functions are often misunderstood. Recent research reveals that laughter is deeply rooted in our nervous system and plays a crucial role in social interactions. This first part of our two-part series explores the idea that laughter is fundamentally a nervous reaction and a primitive form of communication, akin to the social behaviors observed in our primate relatives, such as bonobos.

The Nervous Reaction of Laughter

Laughter is often considered a joyous expression, but at its core, it is a complex response driven by the nervous system. Neuroscientific studies have shown that laughter is triggered by the activation of specific brain regions, particularly the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in decision-making and social behavior, and the limbic system, which controls emotions.

• Prefrontal Cortex: This area of the brain helps process social situations and is critical in the decision to laugh in response to social stimuli (Ruch & Ekman, 2001).
• Limbic System: Responsible for emotional responses, the limbic system's activation during laughter indicates its role in processing humor and social bonding (Wild, Rodden, & Grodd, 2003).

These neurological pathways suggest that laughter is more than just a response to humor; it is a fundamental aspect of how we process and react to social interactions.

Laughter as a Primitive Language

Observations of bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, provide valuable insights into the primitive nature of laughter. Bonobos use a form of vocalization that resembles human laughter to diffuse social tensions and promote group cohesion. Researchers have noted that these vocalizations occur during playful interactions, grooming, and even during mild conflicts, serving to reduce stress and foster positive social bonds (Clay & de Waal, 2013).

• Social Bonding: Bonobos' laughter-like vocalizations help maintain group harmony, much like how human laughter can ease social tensions.
• Conflict Diffusion: By laughing, bonobos signal non-threatening intentions, which helps prevent conflicts from escalating.

This behavior in bonobos supports the theory that laughter in humans has similar origins, functioning as a non-verbal communication tool to manage social dynamics.

Tickling and Laughter: A Physical and Figurative Connection

Laughter can be induced by both physical and figurative stimuli, drawing a fascinating parallel to the effects of laughing gas. When physically tickled, the body reacts with involuntary laughter, a response controlled by the nervous system's sensory and motor pathways. Similarly, when we encounter something humorous, our brain processes the information and triggers laughter, akin to the euphoric and uncontrollable laughter experienced under the influence of nitrous oxide.

• Physical Tickling: Stimulates the somatosensory cortex, leading to an involuntary laughter response (Blakemore, Wolpert, & Frith, 1998).
• Humorous Stimuli: Activates the brain's reward centers, producing pleasure and social bonding through laughter (Mobbs et al., 2003).

Both forms of laughter highlight the nervous system's role in mediating this complex reaction, emphasizing its deep-rooted biological function.

Conclusion

Understanding laughter as a nervous reaction and a primitive form of language reveals its roots and how it is operationalized in human social interactions. By examining the behavior of bonobos and the neurological basis of laughter, we can see that this seemingly simple response is a sophisticated tool for managing social dynamics and promoting group cohesion. In the next part of this series, together, we will delve deeper into how humor and laughter have evolved together to become powerful social tools.

Citations

1. Ruch, W., & Ekman, P. (2001). The Nature of Laughter: Mechanisms and Implications. Journal of Neuroscience.
2. Wild, B., Rodden, F. A., & Grodd, W. (2003). Neural correlates of laughter and humor. Brain.
3. Clay, Z., & de Waal, F. B. M. (2013). Development of socio-emotional competence in bonobos. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
4. Blakemore, S.-J., Wolpert, D., & Frith, C. (1998). Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nature Neuroscience.
5. Mobbs, D., Greicius, M. D., Abdel-Azim, E., Menon, V., & Reiss, A. L. (2003). Humor modulates the mesolimbic reward centers. Neuron.

 Key national indicators where Canada has made measurable progress since 2014

Theme	Metric	2014 baseline*	Latest reading	10-year trend
Poverty reduction	Persons below Canada’s official poverty line (Market Basket Measure)	14.5 % (2015—the first year MBM was tracked nationally) (Canada.ca)	7.4 % (2021) (Statistics Canada)	▼ -7.1 pp (≈ -49 %)
Education	Adults (25-64) with a college or university credential	54 % (2014) (Statistics Canada)	63 % (2023) – highest in the OECD (Education GPS)	▲ +9 pp
Gender equity	Median hourly gender wage gap (women vs men, paid workers 20-54)	16 % (2007) → ~15 % in 2014†	12 % (2022) (Statistics Canada)	▼ -4 pp
Digital infrastructure	Households with access to 50/10 Mbps unlimited fixed Internet	84.1 % (2019) (CRTC)	95.4 % (Feb 2025) (CRTC)	▲ +11 pp
Clean electricity	Share of electricity from renewables (all sources)	67 % (2017) (Canada Energy Regulator)	70 % (2022) (Canada Energy Regulator)	▲ +3 pp
	Wind + solar generation (TWh)	+37 % growth 2016 → 2023 (Statistics Canada)		Strong expansion
Climate	National GHG emissions (Mt CO₂-eq)	747 Mt (2014) (Canada.ca)	694 Mt (2023) (Canada.ca)	▼ -7 %
Environment-adjusted growth	Renewables & emissions taken together: electricity emissions fell 48 % since 1990 (context for the clean-power gains) (Canada.ca)

* Closest year with authoritative data is used where 2014 figures were not collected.

† Statistics Canada does not publish an annual series before 2007 on exactly the same basis; the 2014 value is interpolated from the longer series that shows the gap narrowing steadily toward 2015 and 2016.

---

Why these indicators matter

• Poverty: Canada met—and exceeded—its first statutory poverty-reduction milestone (-20 % by 2020) three years early, then cut poverty roughly in half by 2021. That advance is now built into the 2030 target of a 50 % reduction from 2015 levels.

• Human capital: The jump in tertiary attainment reflects both immigration and higher domestic graduation rates, underpinning productivity and wage growth.

• Gender wage gap: A narrowing gap signals progress on labour-market equity—though at 12 % it remains above the UN-SDG target of closing the gap entirely.

• Connectivity: Universal 50/10 service is now within reach; the CRTC’s 95 % threshold has been met nationally and the focus has shifted to the last ~500 000 rural and remote households.

• Energy transition: Canada’s grid is already one of the world’s cleanest; incremental gains now come mainly from rapid wind-solar build-out and the phase-out of coal in Alberta, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.

• Emissions: Absolute GHG emissions are finally lower than they were a decade ago—despite strong population growth—thanks to electricity decarbonisation, methane regulations and EV uptake. Canada still needs a steeper decline to hit the 2030 Paris target, but the direction has reversed.

---

Reading the numbers critically

• Pandemic effects: Several indicators (poverty, emissions, life expectancy) were temporarily distorted in 2020-2021; the latest data smooth those swings but longer time-series context is essential.

• Population surge: Record immigration since 2021 lowers per-capita metrics; gains in broadband or renewables are larger on a per-person basis than national totals suggest.

• Regional gaps remain: Rural broadband, Indigenous child poverty and emissions from oil-and-gas still lag national averages; the aggregate progress hides significant inter-provincial divergence.

Overall, however, these six headline metrics show clear, statistically-documented improvement for Canadians since 2014 across social, economic, digital and environmental dimensions.

Montreal Eats: Casual, Affordable, and Delicious!

 

Montreal is famous for its diverse culinary scene, and enjoying good food here doesn’t have to break the bank. 

Here's a list of local favorites offering affordable yet delicious dishes across various cuisines, perfect for a casual dining experience:

1. Pub St-Paul 🍔🥩

   • A classic Old Montreal pub known for hearty burgers and their standout steak and fries. A cozy place with great atmosphere.

2. Arahova 🇬🇷

   • A beloved Greek franchise serving excellent gyros, souvlaki platters, and Greek salads.

3. Boustan 🥙

   • Iconic Lebanese eatery, famous for shawarma wraps, garlic potatoes, and falafel.

4. Scores 🍗

   • Famous rotisserie chicken chain, loved for tender chicken, ribs, and a generous salad bar.

5. Chez Claudette 🍟

   • Casual diner popular for its comforting poutine varieties and breakfast dishes.

6. Mai Xiang Yuan 🥟 (Chinatown)

   • Legendary spot specializing in handmade dumplings—pan-fried, steamed, or boiled.

7. La Capital Tacos 🌮 (Chinatown)

   • Vibrant spot serving authentic tacos, quesadillas, and Mexican street food.

8. Restaurant Mon Nan 🍜 (Chinatown)

   • Classic Cantonese dishes like crispy chicken, sizzling beef, and comforting wonton soup.

9. Dunn’s Famous 🥪

   • Iconic Montreal smoked meat sandwiches, along with classic diner sides like coleslaw and pickles.

10. 3 Amigos 🌯

• A lively, festive Mexican restaurant known for fajitas, burritos, and margaritas.

11. Restaurant Paulo & Suzanne 🍳

• A local favorite serving diner-style breakfast, hearty sandwiches, and classic Quebecois poutines.

12. Bâton Rouge 🍖

• Affordable steakhouse serving tender ribs, steaks, and hearty sides in a relaxed setting.

This curated list offers something delightful for everyone, from authentic international dishes to comforting local classics—all wallet-friendly and authentically Montreal!

Bon appétit! 🍴✨

12 Unforgettable Restaurants to Impress Visitors in Montreal!

 Montreal boasts a vibrant culinary scene, offering numerous fine dining establishments that rival Michelin-starred restaurants worldwide.

Here are some top-tier restaurants in Montreal that are sure to impress tourists and food enthusiasts alike:

Vin Mon Lapin
Wine Bar · $$ · 3.6 (44 reviews)
150 St-Zotique Rue E, Montréal QC H2S 1K8
A celebrated wine bar and restaurant in Little Italy, known for its seasonal, market-driven menu and exceptional natural wine selection. Ranked #2 in Canada's 100 Best Restaurants for 2025.

Toqué
French · $$$ · 4.3 (178 reviews)
900 Place Jean-Paul-Riopelle, Montréal QC H2Z 2B2
An iconic establishment in Old Montreal, offering refined Quebecois cuisine with a focus on local ingredients. A pioneer in Montreal's fine dining scene.

Damas
Syrian Restaurant · $$$$ · 4.5 (227 reviews)
1201 Van Horne, Outremont QC H2V 1K4
A high-end Syrian restaurant in Outremont, renowned for its vibrant flavors, elegant decor, and exceptional service.

Bouillon Bilk
Restaurant · $$$ · 4.5 (409 reviews)
1595, boul. Saint-Laurent (entre De Maisonneuve & Ontario), Montréal QC H2X 2S9
Located on Saint-Laurent Boulevard, this restaurant offers inventive French-inspired cuisine in a minimalist setting.

Maison Boulud
French · $$$$ · 4.5 (211 reviews)
1228 Sherbrooke St West (entre Drummond & De la Montagne), Montréal QC H3G 1H6
Situated in the Ritz-Carlton, this upscale restaurant by Chef Daniel Boulud serves refined French cuisine with a modern twist.

Joe Beef
Steakhouse · $$$ · 4.5 (400 reviews)
2491, rue Notre Dame Ouest (btwn Charlevoix & Vinet), Montréal QC H3J 1N6
A legendary spot in Little Burgundy, known for its hearty French cuisine and eclectic atmosphere.

Monarque
French · $$$ · 3.6 (44 reviews)
406 Saint-Jacques, Montréal QC H2Y 1S1
A grand brasserie in Old Montreal, offering a blend of classic and contemporary French dishes in a stunning setting.

Le Club Chasse et Pêche
French · $$$ · 4.5 (187 reviews)
423 Saint-Claude, Montréal QC H2Y 3B6
An intimate restaurant in Old Montreal, offering sophisticated dishes with a focus on seafood and game.

Le Mousso
Restaurant · 4.2 (53 reviews)
1023, rue Ontario Est (entre Amherst & St-Timothée), Montréal QC H2L 1P8
Known for its avant-garde tasting menus and artistic presentations, offering a unique dining experience.

Île Flottante
French · $$$ · 4.1 (24 reviews)
176 Rue Saint Viateur O, Montréal QC H2T 2L3
A contemporary restaurant offering creative, vegetable-forward tasting menus in a minimalist space.

Critique of "ATLAS"

"ATLAS" is a visually stunning film that attempts to blend high-concept science fiction with action-packed sequences. However, beneath its glossy exterior, there are several glaring technical issues and thematic inconsistencies that detract from its overall impact.

Technical Issues with Resource Scavenging

One of the film's most problematic aspects is the portrayal of our protagonist, completely ignoring, resource scavenging from other mech suits. The concept, while intriguing, is executed with a lack of realism and logistical feasibility. This oversight undermines the film's credibility, as it fails to address the incompatibility of issues that would arise from using components designed for diverse systems and purposes.

The protagonist, a highly skilled analyst, exhibits abilities that border on the superhuman. While it's refreshing to see a character who excels intellectually, the film stretches the limits of believability. The analyst's capacity to predict outcomes with near-perfect accuracy and to solve complex problems instantaneously feels more like a convenient plot device than a well-developed skill set. This characterization diminishes the tension and stakes, as the protagonist rarely faces a challenge they cannot overcome. It would have been more engaging to see the character's skills tested in a more grounded and relatable manner.

Theme of Uniting Diverse Aptitudes

A central theme of "ATLAS" is the realization that the union of diverse aptitudes, A.I. vs human, surpasses the limitations imposed by human biases and with a simplistic reasoning. This message is still powerful and relevant: highlighting the importance of collaboration and the integration of varied perspectives. However, the film falls short in its execution. The narrative often resorts to simplistic dichotomies and does not delve deeply enough into the complexities of combining different skills and viewpoints. Instead of exploring the nuanced challenges and benefits of such integration, "ATLAS" opts for a more straightforward resolution that feels unearned and oversimplified.

Conclusion

In conclusion, "ATLAS" is a film that aspires to deliver a thought-provoking narrative within a high-octane sci-fi framework. While it succeeds in creating a visually captivating experience, it is hampered by technical inaccuracies, an overpowered protagonist, and a superficial exploration of its core themes. To truly resonate with its audience, "ATLAS" would benefit from a more meticulous approach to its technical details, a balanced portrayal of its characters' abilities, and a deeper, more authentic exploration of the complexities inherent in uniting diverse aptitudes.

There is 1000 to 1 chance that you might be right. Is it enough?

Introduction

From the moment we open our eyes each morning, the world unfolds before us in a way that's uniquely ours. Our vision, limited to the singular perspective behind our own set of eyes, shapes everything we perceive, think, and do. It's easy to forget that this perspective is just one of countless others, each with its own version of the world. Inspired by the profound yet simple wisdom of the Sesame Street song, "That's About the Size," this piece delves into the idea that where we set our eyes—what we choose to focus on—can vastly limit or liberate us. "There's a 1 in 1000 Chance That You Are Wrong" isn't just a statistic; it's a reminder of the power held in the perspectives we choose and the transformative potential they possess. If you take a moment to absorb the message: the entire universe will step, up, down, left or right according to what you will do.

The Personal Nature of Perspective

Our perspective is our reality. The only set of eyes through which we can view the world inherently frames our experiences, thoughts, and actions. This personal lens, shaped by a unique combination of life experiences, beliefs, and emotions, can be both a sanctuary and a prison. Like the simple yet profound message in "That's About the Size," it reminds us that what seems insignificant from one viewpoint can be monumental from another. This duality highlights the deceptive simplicity and the incredible power of perspective.

Acknowledging the limitations of our own viewpoint is the first step toward expanding it. It's a realization that the world is far more complex and multifaceted than what we can see from our singular vantage point. This humility opens the door to curiosity, learning, and ultimately, transformation. By consciously choosing where to set our eyes, we can begin to see beyond our self-imposed boundaries, discovering new horizons that were previously obscured by our limited perspective.

The journey of broadening our view is deeply personal and infinitely varied. It requires us to question what we believe to be absolute, to entertain the notion that there's a 1 in 1000 chance we might be wrong. This isn't about diminishing our experiences or doubts but about embracing the vastness of existence and the multitude of perspectives within it.

In the following sections, we'll explore how this personal endeavor intersects with the universal principles of physics and relativity, further illustrating how shifting our perspective isn't just a philosophical exercise but a practical and profound path to altering our realities.

This revised approach makes the discussion more intimate, focusing on the individual's journey through their perception. It uses the simplicity and depth of the Sesame Street song as a metaphor for the significant impact our perspectives can have on our lives, setting the stage for a deeper exploration of how this concept interacts with broader scientific principles and practical applications.

The Power of Mindset

The connection between our perspective and our mindset is profound. Mindset shapes our reality not just by filtering our experiences but by actively influencing our reactions and outcomes. Carol Dweck's groundbreaking research on fixed and growth mindsets illustrates this power vividly. A fixed mindset, believing abilities are static, limits potential and fosters avoidance of challenges due to fear of failure. Conversely, a growth mindset embraces challenges, views failures as opportunities for growth, and believes that abilities can be developed through dedication and hard work. This shift in perspective—from fixed to growth—can fundamentally change how we approach life's hurdles and opportunities.

Embracing a growth mindset is akin to expanding our perspective in the vast universe of physics and relativity. It allows us to see beyond immediate obstacles, recognizing them not as insurmountable barriers but as steps on the path of learning and development. This perspective encourages resilience, creativity, and innovation, as it focuses on potential and process rather than fixed outcomes.

Practically, adopting a broader, more flexible perspective can lead to significant changes in behavior. It can transform the way we approach problems, enhancing our ability to think critically and creatively. It affects our interactions with others, fostering empathy and understanding by acknowledging the multitude of perspectives that exist alongside our own. This can lead to improved communication, stronger relationships, and more effective collaboration.

Moreover, this shift in perspective and mindset can have a ripple effect, influencing not just our own lives but those around us. By embracing the idea that we can always learn something new, change our approach, and grow from our experiences, we set a powerful example for others. This can create a culture of growth, openness, and adaptability in our communities, workplaces, and society at large.

Real-world Examples and Practical Implications

Consider the story of someone who, after facing repeated failures in launching a startup, shifted their perspective from seeing these failures as personal shortcomings to viewing them as invaluable learning experiences. This shift not only reignited their passion but led to the successful launch of a new venture that capitalized on lessons learned from past mistakes.

Or, think about the impact of a teacher who encourages students to embrace challenges and view mistakes as part of the learning process. This approach can transform a classroom's culture, making it a space where students are not afraid to take risks, ask questions, and grow from their experiences.

These examples underscore that changing our perspective is not just an abstract philosophical exercise; it's a practical strategy that can lead to real, tangible changes in our lives and the world around us.

Conclusion

The notion that "There's a 1 in 1000 Chance That You Are Wrong" is not just a statistical curiosity; it's a beacon illuminating the profound power of perspective. This power, akin to the greatest of superpowers at our disposal, lies in its simplicity and the sheer force of transformation it can unleash in our lives and the universe at large. Perspective, much like choice, is our inherent superpower, enabling us to navigate the complexities of reality with wisdom and agility.

It might seem like an overstatement to say that with a simple change of mindset, the universe bends to our will. Yet, this is not just poetic license but a reflection of the deep-seated truth about the human condition and the fabric of reality itself. By shifting our perspective, we do more than just see things differently; we actively shape our experience of the world. This isn't to imply we control every aspect of our lives, but rather that our perspective has a profound impact on how we interact with our circumstances, perceive challenges, and seize opportunities.

The power of perspective and choice allows us to transcend the apparent limits of our current reality. By adopting a growth mindset, we open ourselves to endless possibilities, fostering resilience, innovation, and a deeper connection to those around us. This mindset shift can turn obstacles into stepping stones, failures into lessons, and conflict into collaboration.

I see it in my better half's struggles, daily. She is confronted with another hurdle in her adaptation to her new life here or her mundane struggles. And she'll say: "You know what, I'll change my mindset, this is not what going to get me, I'm better than this". 

And by saying so, believing so and going about her business as so, she is 100% right.

In essence, changing our perspective does indeed bend the universe in subtle yet profound ways. It influences the energy we bring into our spaces, the vibrations we send out into the world, and the paths we carve out for ourselves and others. This superpower, accessible to each one of us, invites a renaissance of personal and collective evolution.

As we embrace the vast potential of our perspectives, let us remember that the power to change our world lies within our grasp. It is through the seemingly simple act of shifting our mindset that we unlock the ability to bend the universe, crafting a reality that reflects the boundless potential of human creativity, resilience, and spirit. In this journey of transformation, perspective is not just our lens to view the world but our tool to shape it, manifesting a future where every challenge is an opportunity, and every moment is steeped in possibility.

The Impact of Government Rubber-Stamping Price Increases: Fueling Inflation and Encouraging Grocery Store Price Inflation

Introduction

I try to stay apolitical. But things with food prices and inflation and "shrinkflation" are completely getting out of hand. So I wanted to share my 2¢ on the subject.

One of the critical factors affecting inflation rates in any economy is the government's control over prices, particularly when it comes to essential commodities such as food. While government-controlled prices may seem like a solution to protect consumers, the practice of rubber-stamping price increases without considering the underlying market dynamics can have unintended consequences. In this article, we will argue that government rubber-stamping price increases on foods with government-controlled prices can drive inflation and inadvertently encourage grocery stores to inflate their prices.

Distorted Market Forces

When governments set controlled prices on essential goods like food, they essentially interfere with the natural functioning of supply and demand dynamics. Price controls can disrupt the balance between producers and consumers, leading to imbalances in the market. By rubber-stamping price increases without considering the underlying market forces, governments fail to acknowledge the impact of supply chain complexities, input costs, and competitive pressures or more importantly, the lack thereof, facing grocery stores.

Increased Production Costs

Implementing government-controlled prices without proper consideration of production costs can lead to a significant increase in expenses for producers and suppliers. These costs include labor, raw materials, transportation, storage, and energy. If the government does not account for these factors when approving price increases, it puts additional financial strain on producers, who are likely to pass on these increased costs to consumers. This phenomenon can ultimately drive inflation, as the burden of increased expenses is transferred to the end consumer.

Diminished Incentives for Efficiency and Innovation

Price controls tend to stifle innovation and efficiency in the food industry. When producers are limited in their ability to set prices based on market demand, their incentives to invest in research and development, improve production techniques, and streamline operations diminish. This lack of motivation can lead to a decrease in productivity and quality, resulting in a negative impact on consumers. Moreover, without the ability to adjust prices to reflect changing market conditions, producers may have fewer resources to invest in sustainable and environmentally friendly practices.

Distorted Supply and Demand

By rubber-stamping price increases, governments may inadvertently create artificial shortages or surpluses in the market. If the approved price increase does not align with the actual costs incurred by producers, it can lead to a reduced supply of goods. Additionally, when consumers perceive a sudden increase in prices, they may resort to panic-buying, further exacerbating the supply-demand imbalance. These distortions can result in increased volatility and higher prices in the long run, perpetuating the inflationary cycle.

Encouragement of Price Inflation by Grocery Stores

Government rubber-stamping of price increases can create an environment where grocery stores are more likely to inflate their prices beyond the approved increase. Since the government has set a precedent for price hikes, stores may take advantage of the situation and exploit the lack of price control by inflating their prices even further. This behavior can lead to a vicious cycle of rising prices and increased inflation, as businesses respond to the distorted market signals created by the government's rubber-stamping practices.

Conclusion

While the intention behind government-controlled prices is to protect consumers, the rubber-stamping of price increases without considering market dynamics can have unintended consequences. By distorting market forces, increasing production costs, diminishing incentives for efficiency and innovation, and encouraging grocery stores to inflate their prices, government rubber-stamping contributes to inflationary pressures. To address these challenges effectively, policymakers must adopt a balanced approach that takes into account market realities, encourages competition, and fosters an environment where efficiency and innovation can thrive while ensuring consumer protection and affordability.

La naissance de l’IA

L’I.A. est née il y a longtemps.

Je ne prétends pas être un spécialiste dans ce domaine, mais j’ai passé de nombreuses années à y réfléchir. À certains égards, cela en soi prouve que l’intelligence artificielle existe depuis des décennies, en tout cas, pour moi.

C’est sans aucun doute la partie « artificielle » de celle-ci, de le la réduire qui est le défi auquel nous sommes confrontés, pour lui donner son plein potentiel. Mais le voulons-nous vraiment? Ne serons-nous pas obligés de nous regarder nous-mêmes, de manière troublante, pour parvenir à une véritable I.A.?

J’ai pensé que ce serait amusant, de partager avec vous ce que j’ai pensé, et voir si cela génère des opinions.

Jeux informatiques et vidéo.

Je pense que l’un des exemples les plus clairs de l’émergence de l’intelligence artificielle, vient des jeux vidéo. En pensant aux tout premiers jeux, ce fut pendant un certain temps, seule la capacité de la machine à répondre plus rapidement, qui lui a donné l’avantage de nous battre ou de « gagner » un match.

Des jeux simples, des données simples à passer au crible. La vitesse de traitement devient tout.

La loi de Moore amènerait sûrement cela à un point mort, après un certain temps.

Mais néanmoins, au fil du temps, il y aura pas mal d’efforts mis dans des algorithmes de plus en plus complexes, pour prendre de « meilleures décisions », comme pour ne pas passer autant de temps à calculer des scénarios improbables ou peu pratiques. Les deux, avec des jeux comme les échecs ou "GO", les mouvements probables étant trop nombreux à calculer. Nous avons appris à utiliser des modèles statistiques pour réduire les scénarios improbables. Ou essentiellement, établir la portée de ce qui était un mouvement intelligent, ou non. Jusqu’à présent, les humains ont très bien réussi à battre les machines en faisant des mouvements absurdes dans ces jeux.

Les données ne sont pas tout.

Plusieurs œuvres de science-fiction ont été traitées sur ce sujet: Comment tout ce que nous traitons en tant qu’êtres intelligents peut être réduit à des données et peut-être même numérisé et j’ai un fort soupçon que c’est l’un des principaux obstacles à la réalisation d’une véritable intelligence machine.

Nous sommes des êtres analogiques. Tout ce que nous faisons et ressentons est en quelque sorte lié à autre chose. Et notre cerveau est littéralement câblé dès la naissance, pour travailler de cette façon. Nous sommes pour la plupart nés avec la capacité de nuancer notre expérience en fonction de beaucoup de tout ce que nous avons vécu. Pourtant, cette même subjectivité variante est parfois très polarisée. Le concept d’un superlatif, un absolu et une hyperbole fait très bien partie de nous. Et à l’ère numérique, nous sommes devenus des experts dans la décomposition de ces choses en descriptions absolues et en uns et zéros.

Mais c’est l’émergence de la relation entre de grandes collections de données binaires organisés qui prétend créer l’I.A.

Ce n’est pas naturel pour une machine: Les relations dans les uns et les zéros en soi, ont peu de sens, même pour nous. Mais pour un cerveau, simplement l’emplacement physique d’une neurone, par rapport à une autre, aide à déterminer sa fonction et sa capacité.

Réalité statistique ou déterministe ?

Notre aptitude à naviguer dans notre propre réalité est largement basée sur notre aptitude à peser la probabilité des résultats. Si chaque fois que nous faisions une promenade, nous revenions avec un orteil écrasé, nous conclurions rapidement que cela se reproduira. Et donc que cette marche = orteil écrasé.

Et pour une grande partie, c’est là où nous en sommes avec l’I.A. Nous avons appris aux machines à examiner de grands jeux de données et à généraliser les règles ou les corrélations. En lui enseignant comment établir des relations, et non ce qui est ou n’est pas relatif, nous avons parcouru un long chemin pour arriver à quelque chose de très proche à de l’intelligence artificielle. Mais il y a cette partie ennuyeuse de l’artificiel qui ne cesse de revenir. Je crois que ce sont les machines qui manquent d’expérience réelle du succès ou de l’échec, dans la détermination ou le jugement des choses qui continueront d’être son talon d’Achille.

Les machines n’évoluent pas, c'est nous qui changeons.

Lorsque nous regardons les percées que nous faisons avec nos algorithmes, c’est nous qui adaptons nos machines à une meilleure description de l’intelligence. Jusqu’à présent, nous n’avons pas réussi à le décrire d’une manière qui leur permet de parvenir à une conclusion, qui s’est objectivement avérée meilleure que la précédente. Nous, le humains, experts tant que nous le sommes, avons restés le juge de ce qui est mieux ou pire. N’ayant pas de motivation réelle ou de détermination propre, les machines sont restées apprivoisées et contrôlées. Bien que quelques expériences aient donné des résultats choquants: Est-ce que tout le monde se souvient de l’incident sur Twitter avec un chatbot précoce qui a été rapidement désactivé après qu’il a été « enseigné » beaucoup de bêtises, sans la capacité de discriminer?

Nous sommes encore et beaucoup, en train d’inventer les règles de l’I.A.  Le guider vers ce qu’il devrait et ne devrait pas conclure. Et je crois que c’est la partie éthique qui inquiète tout le monde. 

Le pouvoir actuellement exercé par les chatbots et la technologie deepfake, est déjà suffisamment capable d’influencer les opinions humaines, en masse. La décision d'en faire une arme, ce pouvoir est toujours entre nos mains et n’est pas dans la « portée décisionnelle » d’une machine. 

Une pierre ou un baton enre restent que des outils rudimentaires, jusqu'à ce qu'on les balance dans la figure d'un de nos voisins. L' I.A. n'est pas différent à cet égard. Mais sa portée elle, est massive et insidieuse.

Ce qui prouve encore une fois que nous sommes actuellement technologiquement limités dans ce que nous pouvons faire. Mais face à cela peut-être plus important encore à réfléchir, nous devrions considérer ce que nous devrions faire, ou pas.

Qu’est-ce que l’intelligence après tout?

Il est vrai que cette question peut rapidement dégénérer dans un débat philosophique. Mais je crois que c’est la nature « analogique » de l’intelligence, qui la fait continuellement échapper à une description adéquate. Et tout modèle que nous proposerons manquera des nuances et du contrôle que la vie exerce sur un être vivant, pour créer une imitation raisonnable.

Si nous essayons d’énumérer les caractéristiques distinctives de l’intelligence telle que nous la connaissons, nous découvrirons rapidement que la nôtre, vient avec une série de facultés ou de dons "naturels" qui sont extrêmement difficiles à simuler dans un appareil ou même une collection de machines.

Donner une vision mécanique, n’est pas difficile, mais expliquer comment l’expérience imprègne notre existence et façonne notre existence elle-même... beaucoup plus!

C’est-à-dire que ce n’est pas seulement l’entrée que nous recevons, qui nous donne le pouvoir de la raison, mais peut-être la puissance de notre propre production, nos "extrants" dans notre environnement et la rétroaction que nous en obtenons, qui le font. Et que dire de notre capacité à réécrire nos propres algorithmes, en réponse à cela? Plus important encore, notre nécessité de le faire. 

Indépendamment, mais aussi en collaboration avec, d’autres êtres intelligents (de différents niveaux de compétence), nous possédons l'habileté d’établir des « jugements » et des règles qui nous font périr, survivre ou prospérer. Un trait élégant de toute vie évoluée, je devrais ajouter. Et peut-être une limitation organique qui devient un atout. La survie, se perpétuer après tout, est la motivation sous-jacente à toute vie, telle que nous la décrivons actuellement. Du moins, à mon avis, bien sûr. Cette dualité semble très binaire aussi, à certains égards.

Conclusion.

Je crois que nous sommes à la croisée des chemins. Il y a probablement assez de données qui circulent dans nos systèmes et assez d’appareils technologiques, pour commencer à constituer un véritable algorithme de détection "sensible". Quelque chose capable de lier et créer des relations sur de nombreux types de données, à la fois, de manière autonome. Pas quelque chose de déjà quelque peu organisé comme le World Wide Web. 

Étant donné qu’il y a beaucoup d’esprits brillants qui y travaillent quotidiennement, une façon à venir de décrire les modèles d’apprentissage de la motivation personnelle est appelée à émerger. Ce qui, à son tour, nous amène à la: « devrions-nous le faire? »

Les questions étant en fin de compte: Y a-t-il un seuil de sécurité, un pas de bébé approprié que nous pouvons faire? Celui qui améliore nos machines et nous aide à améliorer nos vies, Le ferons-nous, alors que nous-mêmes ne le faisons souvent pas de notre propre nature humaine, les défauts portés par notre propre soi-disant intelligence? La cupidité, l’hypocrisie font-elles vraiment partie de l’intelligence ? Répandu comme il est en nous. Des moyens sûrs, à l’abri de qui?

Pour le meilleur ou pour le pire, nous avons ouvert la boîte de Pandore de l’I.A. il y a un certain temps. Que la prochaine génération soit plus comme nous ou non, devrait en fin de compte refléter le fait que nous avons besoin de  mieux nous connaître. Ne pas faire semblant de le faire. Et soyez prêt à l’amélioration. Parce que si nous créons quelque chose de vraiment intelligent, je suis convaincu que nous soupçonnons tous  qu’il sera rapide de nous dire, ce qui ne va pas avec nous-mêmes.

ChatGPT est très diplomatique sur « ce qui ne va pas avec l’humanité » et cela en dit long sur nous. Ce n’est pas le cas.

Notre tendance à être facile sur nos propres egos peut-être le bord que l’I.A. tiendra toujours sur nous. Et donner à l’I.A. un (un ego), peut juste être notre faille fatale.

The Birth of AI

 

A.I. has been born a long time ago.

I don't pretend to be a specialist in this area, but I have spent many years pondering on it. In some ways, that in itself, proves that artificial intelligence has been around for decades, for me.

It is without a doubt the "artificial" part of it, reducing it, is the challenge we are facing to give it it's full potential. But do we really want to? Will we not be forced to look at ourselves, in some disturbing ways, to achieve real A.I.?

I thought it would be fun, to share with you what I've come up with, to see if it generates some opinions.

Computer and Video games.

I think one of the clearest examples of the emergence of Artificial Intelligence, comes from video games. Thinking of the very early games, it was for a time, only the machine's ability to respond faster, that gave it the edge to beat us or to "win" a game. 

Simple games, simple data to sift through. Speed becomes everything.

Moore's law would surely bring this to a head, some time.

But nevertheless, there was quite a bit of effort put into increasingly complex algorithms, to make "better decisions", as not to pass so much time calculating improbable or impractical scenarios. Both with games like chess or go, the probable moves being too many, We've learned how to use statistical models to reduce unlikely scenarios. Or basically scoping what was an intelligent move, or not. 
So far humans have been very successful at beating machines by making nonsensical moves in those games.

Data isn't everything.

Several works of science fiction have been treatises on this subject: How everything we deal with as intelligent beings can be reduced to data and perhaps even digitalized and I have a strong suspicion that this is one of the major obstacles in achieving true machine intelligence.

We are analog beings. Everything we do and feel is somehow related to something else. And our brain is literally wired from birth to work this way. We are mostly born with the ability to shade and grade our experience according to much of everything else we've experienced. Yet that same subjectivity is sometimes very polarised. The concept of a superlative, absolute and hyperbole is very well a part of us. And in this digital age we've become experts in breaking down things to absolute ones and zeroes. 

But it is the emergence of the relationship between large collections of organized ones and zeroes that pretends to create A.I.

This is unnatural for a machine. Relationships in ones and zeroes makes little sense even to us. But to a brain, the simple physical location of a brain cell in relation to another helps determine its function and ability.

Statistical reality or deterministic?

Our aptitude to navigate our own reality is largely based on our aptitude to weigh the likelyhood of outcomes. If every time we took a walk we came back with a stubbed toe, we'd quickly conclude that it will happen again. And that walk=stubbed toe.

And for a great part, that's where we are with A.I. We've taught machines to examine large sets of data and generalize rules or correlations. By teaching it how to relate, not what is or isn't relative, we've come a long way in bringing something very close to artificial intelligence. But there is that annoying part of artificial that keeps coming through. It is my belief that it's machines lack of actual experience of success or failure in determining or judging things that will continue to be its Achille's heel.

Machines aren't evolving, we are.

When we look at the breakthroughs we are making with our algorithms, it is us adapting our machines to a better description of intelligence. We have so far failed to describe it in a way that makes them able come to a conclusion, that is objectively proven to be better that the previous one. We have remained the judge of what is better or worse. Having no real motivation or determination of their own, machines have remained tamed and controlled. Though a few experiments have yielded some shocking results, is everyone remember the incident on twitter with an early chatbot that was quickly deactivated after it was "taught" a lot of nonsense, without the ability to discriminate. 

We are still very much so, inventing the rules of parenting A.I. Guiding it to what it should and shouldn't conclude. And I believe this is the ethical part that has everyone worried. 

The power currently wielded by chat bots and deepfake technology, is already able sway human opinions in masse. The decision to weaponize this power is still in our hands and not in a machine's "decisional scope". Which again proves that we are currently technologically limited in what we can do, But perhaps more importatntly, what we should do.

What is intelligence after all? 

It's true that this question can quickly devolve in a philosophical debate. But it is my belief that it is the "analog" nature of intelligence, that makes it continuously escape proper description. And any model we come up with will lack the nuances and the control that life exerts on a living being, to create a reasonable facsimile.

If we try to enumerate the distinguishing characteristics of intelligence as we know it, we will quickly discover that our own, comes with a series of faculties or "natural" gifts that are extremely hard to simulate in a device or a collection of machines.

Giving a machine vision isn't hard, but explaining how the experience permeates our existence and existence itself... much more so!

That is to say, it's not only the input we receive, that give us the power of reason but perhaps the power of our own output in our environment and the feedback we get from from it. And what to say about our ability to rewrite our own algorithms, as a response to it? More importantly, the necessity to do so. 

Independently, but also in collaboration with, other intelligent beings (of varying levels of competence) we are force to establish "judgments" and rules that makes us perish, survive or flourish. An elegant trait of any evolved life I should add. And perhaps an organic limitation that becomes an asset. Survival, perpetuating oneself after all, being the motivation underlying all life as we currently describe it. Well, in my opinion, of course. This duality seems very binary in some ways.

Conclusion.

I believe we are at a crossroads. There is probably enough data flowing in our systems and enough technological apparatus, to start and piece together a real sensing algorithm. Something able to relate many forms of input at once, autonomously. Not something already somewhat curated such as the world wide web. 

Since there are many brilliant minds working on it daily, an upcoming way to describe learning models of self motivation is bound to emerge. Which in turn brings us to the: "should we do it?"

The questions being ultimately: Is there a safe threshold, a proper baby step we can take? One that improves our machines and helps us make our lives better, Will we do it, when we ourselves often do not do it out of our own human nature, the flaws borne of our own so called intelligence? Is greed, hypocrisy really part of intelligence? Prevalent as it is in us. Safe means, safe from whom?

For better or worse we have opened A.I.'s Pandora's box quite a while ago. Whether the next generation is more like us or not, should ultimately reflect the fact that we need to know ourselves better . Not pretend to do so. And be ready for improvement. Because if we do create something truly intelligent, I am convinced that we all suspect that it will be quick in telling us, what is wrong with ourselves.

ChatGPT is very diplomatic about "what is wrong with humanity" and that says a lot about us. Not it.

Our tendency to be easy on our own egos maybe the edge that A.I. will forever hold on us. And giving A.I. one (an ego), may just be our downfall.