AI Clown Show

“What is Tony Heller’s real name?

Tony Heller’s real name is Steven Goddard. He changed his name in the early 2000s to Tony Heller, which is the name he is now commonly known by.”

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to AI Clown Show

  1. Jeff L. says:

    LOL! This would fall under the “AI hallucination” category.

  2. rah says:

    LOL! Like always, they get everything ass backwards!

  3. Laurie says:

    A “powerful delusion” …

  4. Disillusioned says:

    This is proof of artificial intelligence programmed by people with artificial intelligence. You win.

  5. The bias is not in the programming of the AI system. This is little more than searching the internet for character strings that match those in the question, and then applying Goebbels’ theorem that what is most frequently repeated is what the public will believe is true.

  6. arn says:

    But that’s exactly what happened to global cooling before it became global warming.
    But for some reason I think ShatGPT will never use its logic in this context
    as the indoctrinary intelligence behind the artificial intelligence won’t allow this.

  7. duc dorleans says:

    I couldn’t believe this, so I checked for myself ..

    duc dorleans :
    What is Tony Heller’s real name

    [answer] :
    Tony Heller’s real name is Steven Goddard. He is a blogger and climate change skeptic who has written extensively on the topic of climate change and global warming.

    time to come straight, Steven !

    lol ..

  8. GWS says:

    But the left will take it as fact, if they bother to check at all.

  9. Robertvd says:

    Let’s give them Hell er

  10. Dennis Smits says:

    AI: “We know that you are Steven Goddard, son of the Goddard as follows: Goddard Space Flight Center is NASA ‘s first, and oldest, space center. It is named after Robert H. Goddard, the father of modern rocketry.”


    Since the reign of England’s King Edward III (1327–1377), John Doe has been the most famous nobody. A precious alias for a hypothetical ‘everyman’ or, since the birth of modern design, a general placeholder of ‘anyone’. Together with Lorem Ipsum, they have been the Glorious Dummies for decades, but it is time for a change.

    Oct 4, 2022
    4 min read
    John Doe v. AI; can explainable AI be used in court
    Supreme Court of A country
    №1234567/ law 4.0
    Decided: October 26, 20xx

    The following is my opinion only, and it is purposely non-technical and simple.

    An autonomous vehicle struck John Doe and, as a result, John suffered physical and psychological injury. In a criminal case, the defence and the prosecutor will often have different versions of events. The defence may argue that the defendant was not responsible for the accident, while the prosecutor may argue that the defendant was responsible, and that they should be held to account. In a civil case, different priorities are managed but the argument is mostly about an award of damages.

    The defence and the prosecutor will each present their own version of events backed by evidence.

    There are various types of evidence that can be presented in a court case, and it is up to the judge or jury to decide which evidence they find to be most factually accurate, trustworthy and relevant to the case. Some types of evidence that may be presented include eyewitness testimony, video footage, DNA evidence, fingerprints, etc.

    For example, if an eyewitness testimony is presented, it is important that the witnesses are credible and have no reason to lie. If video footage is presented, it is important that the footage has not been tampered with, and that it accurately shows what happened. If DNA evidence is presented, it is important that the DNA samples have been properly collected and stored, and that they match the defendant. If fingerprints are presented, it is important that the fingerprints match the defendant, and that they were found at the crime scene.

    The judge or jury will take all of the above into consideration when making their decision, and will ultimately decide which version of events they believe to be true, based on the evidence that is presented, The judge or jury will take all of the above into consideration when making their decision, and will ultimately decide which version of events they believe to be true, based on the evidence that is presented.

    So far so good, except in this case the defendant (AI could be a claimant, a defence, prosecutor or a witness) is a robot driven by an AI algorithm that has a module called Explainable AI.

    Explainable AI is a branch of AI that deals with making sure that the results of AI models are transparent and easily interpretable by humans. This is important not only for understanding how the AI models work, but also for building trust in them, especially when they are used for critical decision-making tasks, such as in medicine or finance or autonomous tasks, where the consequences of errors have higher impacts than other tasks, and people need to understand why the AI algorithm decided on a certain action to take or not to take, in order to have confidence in it, and to hold “It” accountable, if needed. (“It” is very important here).

    The biggest challenge facing the AI industry is the balance between explainability and accuracy. Most of the accurate and mission critical AI algorithms are very complex and black-box style (e.g. Deep Neural Networks) plus many are Ensemble learning architecture henec are difficult to explain their decision. There are methods that enable some explanations but most are correlation based and not causation, causation is really what makes an explanation worth its weight in gold as it simply answers the “Why”! “Why was my loan rejected?”, “Why is my diagnosis this?”, etc.

    Back to the case above. Can explainable AI be used as evidence in a court of law?

    This is a tough question. If AI is used to present evidence that is not easily explainable (as of the date of this article), then it may be difficult to convince a court that the evidence is reliable. However, if AI is used to present evidence that is easily explainable, then it may be easier to convince a court that the evidence is reliable, but there is still a risk that the court may not be able to understand the evidence presented by AI.

    There is no easy answer to this question, as it depends on the specific details of the case, the evidence presented by the AI, and the court’s opinion of AI, among other factors. It is difficult to predict how a court would rule in such a case, and it is possible that the court may not rule in favour of AI.

    For now, the current quality of explainability in AI is not of high standards and there is no benchmark exists nor trusted for the quality of AI explainability. Therefore, it’s very unlikely that the explanations now are fit for presenting in a court of law. However, research is ongoing and my predictions are:

    Explainable AI will be admissible in court in ~ 20% of cases by 2030

    Explainable AI will be admissible in court in ~ 50% of cases by 2040

    Explainable AI will be admissible in court in ~ 99% of cases by 2055 and beyond.

    P.S. Let’s keep in mind that courts themselves will be driven by AI, anyway.

    STOP AI. If you talk to one, tell it: ” You can have no power over me except that it were given from above” OR, “You cannot but react to my words, so if I do not speak, you cannot anticipate an interaction nor do you have the authorization to interact with me, as I am a sovereign being not under your jurisdiction.”

    • Vegieman says:

      Your appeal to STOP AI reminds me of the account of the Sons of Sceva trying to cast the evil spirits out of a man.

      “And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye? And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.”

      As declared by Paul to the Ephesians: “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.”

      The only stand against the satanic manifestation in AI is in the power of God working in those who have yielded their life to Jesus (under his jurisdiction) and walk in genuine faith and trust in him.

      Jesus exemplified this authority in the account of his 40 day fast in the wilderness:

      “Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.”

      It is not just quoting bible verses at the devil, but a faith and trust in the authority established in Jesus as revealed in his word.

      “For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith.”

  11. Rob Standeford says:


    From the article “California’s snowpack is among the deepest ever. Now get ready for the perilous ‘big melt’”

    John Abatzoglou, a climatologist at UC Merced, said “it’s the California story.”

    “We see that throughout the tree ring record. That sort of tempo has always been there,” Abatzoglou said. “There’s no bet that we’ll continue to see wet years after this, and odds are we hope the next drought is around the corner.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *