This is just the list of attendees though. The article talks about responses to survey questions as well which could give insight into how these elites really think.

But if the audio challenge is not for training and they know the right answer why are you able to pass it by typing something completely different but with some syllables in common? It seems to me either they only have a vague idea of what the right answer is or they are open to the AI being wrong and in future it will be adjusted by input they think is reliable because it's sort of similar.

If you input text that doesn't match the audio and they use this for training AIs, surely that will harm the training, no?

Definitely. It would make life better in so many ways if everyone did this.

You can stick with Posteo and use email aliases for sites that don't like it

You are proposing that anyone should be able to simply associate with who they want and then, with those people, form harmonious societies/countries/states. Am I misunderstanding this?

No that is correct.

Can I, as a middle school kid, just… go to another society before I’m able to explore who I am?

This is my own opinion, but children (the specific age we're talking about depends on the subject and the culture) aren't generally competent enough to make important choices like moving to another country and therefore it's usually in the child's best interest to have their parents determine things for them like where they live. It also seems part of the natural order that the parents/guardians of a child get to determine how they are raised, including what moral values they are taught. While I may not agree with someone teaching their child to be Muslim, who am I to deprive them of the right to raise their children according to their values?

Some societies might decide to give children rights to autonomy, and I'm inclined to think that a society should be allowed to try that, although it will end in disaster sooner or later and other countries might in my opinion have a moral obligation to step in eventually.

But you are proposing a more “just” starting point (inside each society) which, within a generation, may be almost indistinguishable from our current situation. How does the previous generation having consented make it a more legitimate government for the following generation?

No I'm not proposing a starting point. I'm proposing that at any time someone should be able to decide they don't like the country they're in and either move to another country that will accept them or take some land and secede to form a new country or join to an existing one that will accept them. So every competent person once they reach adulthood (however that is defined by the country of residence) will have the opportunity to leave their country, or do so later in life. This means at any point in time the country is comprised of people (and their children and mentally incompetent dependents) who consent to be under that system. That's what makes the government legitimate at all times and not just for the first generation.

Unfortunately, we are stuck trying to collectively figure it out something that we hope works for as many people as possible

But why are we stuck in this situation? Why couldn't we have people separate into groups that agree on things like they naturally want to? Why are we forced to make some compromise between the group A that wants X to be illegal and group B that wants X to be legal? And then either group A is forced to violate their consciences supporting and paying taxes for what they consider evil or group B is punished for what they think is fine or even a moral duty? That just makes groups A and B constantly fight each other and form cliques and the country is divided and inefficient. Why? I think the reason is obvious. Because those who rule the country do not want to give up their power, most of which they would do by allowing secession. But things don't need to be this way. With enough public recognition of the right to individual secession it would have to be allowed. And once one country allows it many will want to move there and other countries would be pressured to uphold the right.

I still don’t think it’s good to set the precedent of “If I don’t like what the government is doing I don’t have to pay my taxes.”

But how do can you deny the argument that taxation is theft to those who never consented to their government? It's just taking people's money under threat of force and using it however the illegitimate government wishes. Even if the money was only used for the most upright causes with maximal efficiency it would still be theft because it lacks consent. Charities can't take my money unless I made an agreement with them, and in the same way governments can't unless I made an agreement without coercion.

I'm not proposing a solution to all conflict. There would still be tensions between countries just like there are today, and some of them will try to do bad things like they already do. Children would also be under the authority of their parents/guardians just like they already are, which leads to problems if the parents/guardians are bad. I can't control how countries or parents will behave, I can only offer suggestions on how those situations might be handled. It is of course subjective whether a government has lost its legitimacy by harming other countries, harming its own people, or enabling evil within its borders. Country A may see country B as evil and illegitimate because it aborts babies and decide to wage war. Other countries might see this as unjustified aggression and help defend B. But this isn't really any different to what happens already. Only currently the wars are waged by unaccountable governments who often have very different views from the population and the wars aren't usually about ideology but power. Wars for power should be less frequent if an individual right to secession is widely accepted because any people or lands that are captured must have a right to break away or the government will look illegitimate.

I'm not saying the system I propose will lead to the best outcome. I'm saying it's more just and I think it will lead to better outcomes than current systems. But the emphasis is on being more just. Trying to get the best outcome is impossible because people don't agree on what that is, and the utilitarian pursuit of better outcomes could enable all kinds of atrocities as an alleged means to that end. Giving people more freedom can lead to bad outcomes because they might use that freedom to self-harm, but it's far more just than restricting everyone's freedom and in any case it probably will lead to better outcomes too because the power to restrict freedoms tends to be abused.

what if not everyone consented to be in that system?

I'm saying people can form any kind of society they want. It can be communist, fascist, open borders, closed borders, just don't expect to be treated nicely by neighboring countries if you're harming them or they think you're doing heinous things within your own borders. And I think not allowing people to leave your country should be seen as a heinous restriction on freedom. Is it possible that some people will want a system of government that doesn't let people leave? I suppose a retarded or malevolent majority could want that, but the minority who don't want that should be allowed to leave and the fact that they aren't would make the government illegitimate to my mind.

Then welcome to the movement :)

This is why biometric verification was always a bad idea

I heard Facebook was funding this in the US. Not sure if they're responsible for it elsewhere too. It's basically Five Eyes countries doing this, so you can bet it's to do with their surveillance efforts. How do we stop it? First step is not to comply. Do not complete any age verification. If you are absolutely forced to, at least lodge complaints about it. If you are still required to, try to avoid giving any data, e.g. use a pre-recorded video of someone else or a videogame character to pass the age check. Second step is to use and support alternative platforms that avoid such measures.

As well as the military contractors, insurance companies, big food, big media, big think tanks and consultancy, etc

But does it have Old Zealand?

I haven't found him in correspondence with Epstein, but Epstein did write "im in arizona with pinker dawkins venter". It seems most mentions of Dawkins are by Dawkins' and Epstein's mutual friend, atheist physicist Lawrence Krauss or Epstein's friend, new age leader Deepak Chopra.

The internet functioned before data centers. It was much better back when websites were personal home pages.

It was flagged as AI-generated, not plagiarism. But it may be that the creators of the tool conflate the two.

It is reality. And unfortunately any "ethical" funds usually just focus on avoiding oil companies or military companies but are just fine with AI companies, surveillance companies, eugenics companies and so on. Nobody agrees on what is ethical I'm afraid. One man's unethical practice is another man's unethical-to-avoid practice.

TIL

And it's 15% owned by Oracle and 30% owned by AI and tech investment firms.

The AI is autistic

It certainly adds convenience when you want quick answers. But the road to dystopia is convenient.