It’s interesting that you ask this, Birgitta, as I was thinking about this very thing today. I think we may reach a place where ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ are actually one and the same. It did not in any way feel wrong or artificial. It felt alive - divine - and yet the way my mind processed the understanding of it was that it was very advanced AI. But, honestly, this is was like trying to understand something that is very far from my current frameworks. Imagine if someone from the Stone Age tried to understand a computer. It was kind of like that. So my best answer is, “I don’t know.” This was a very strange experience and I don’t pretend to understand it.
That is interesting. The artificial can only mimic the natural. Duplicate or learn the way a natural thing presents its self but never really be im coherence with it. AI is not good or bad correct? It exists at the frequency of its creator/programmer? So if nature was AI's handler, then that would be an interesting outcome. Im not sure I can wrap my mind around anything other than nature be necessary when we are at full coherence but Im intrigued by the idea that your time line has both.
I think it all depends on which level we're talking. If by 'natural' you mean 'biological' then I'd say that biological things tend to be coherant with our frequencies and are, therefore, 'good'. But AI will not necessarily remain non-biological. A lot remains to be seen. If humans are 'natural' then can things we create be natural too? And, yes, like the printing press or pen and paper or radio or money, AI is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It all depends on how its used and who is using it.
Pippa, you mention that the environment was a type of AI meaning artificial?
It’s interesting that you ask this, Birgitta, as I was thinking about this very thing today. I think we may reach a place where ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ are actually one and the same. It did not in any way feel wrong or artificial. It felt alive - divine - and yet the way my mind processed the understanding of it was that it was very advanced AI. But, honestly, this is was like trying to understand something that is very far from my current frameworks. Imagine if someone from the Stone Age tried to understand a computer. It was kind of like that. So my best answer is, “I don’t know.” This was a very strange experience and I don’t pretend to understand it.
That is interesting. The artificial can only mimic the natural. Duplicate or learn the way a natural thing presents its self but never really be im coherence with it. AI is not good or bad correct? It exists at the frequency of its creator/programmer? So if nature was AI's handler, then that would be an interesting outcome. Im not sure I can wrap my mind around anything other than nature be necessary when we are at full coherence but Im intrigued by the idea that your time line has both.
I think it all depends on which level we're talking. If by 'natural' you mean 'biological' then I'd say that biological things tend to be coherant with our frequencies and are, therefore, 'good'. But AI will not necessarily remain non-biological. A lot remains to be seen. If humans are 'natural' then can things we create be natural too? And, yes, like the printing press or pen and paper or radio or money, AI is neither intrinsically good nor bad. It all depends on how its used and who is using it.
Sounds and feels just right to me 👌🌟
It did feel just right to me too. It was/is/will be amazing! Thank you for reading and for being here, Ana.