Between Posts

  The Assistant Director of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently posted the article: 8 Barbaric Criminal Illegal Aliens Finally Deported to South Sudan After Weeks of Delays by Activist Judges One of the questions that the article does not address—and something that came to my mind immediately—was this: Why would anybody who has even a semblance of fear and dread left in his otherwise completely seared conscience want to risk getting deported to South Sudan?  As the article pointed out, these criminals are so heinously bad that their countries of origin won't take them back. That leaves them with few options other than being deported to some human hell-hole of a nation like South Sudan. First, they can just take their chances and hope they will never get caught and deported from the United States. With recent SCOTUS decisions making that much less unlikely, and with no notable decrease in the Trump Administration's campaign to remove these worst-of-the-worst ille...

  The Point of Singularity (The Big Bang), and Darwinian macro-evolution: Such an extravagant fancy as this can only possess the thoughts of a disordered brain . "2. The production of the world could not be by chance. It was indeed the extravagant fancy of some ancient philosophers, that the origin of the world was from a fortuitous concourse of atoms, which were in perpetual motion in an immense space, till at last a sufficient number of them met in such a happy conjunction as formed the universe in the beautiful order in which we now behold it. But it is amazingly strange how such a wild opinion, which can never be reconciled with reason, could ever find any entertainment in a human mind. Can any man rationally conceive, that a confused rout of atoms, of diverse natures and forms, and some so far distant from others, should ever meet in such a fortunate manner, as to form an entire world, so vast in the bigness, so distinct in the order, so united in the diversities of natures,...

WikiMedia Commons As I pondered the recent Democratic primary in which Zohran Mamdani, a Communist, Socialist, Marxist Muslim, I was led to the following passage (and many others) from Vol 1 of "The Works of Thomas Boston." Communism, Socialism and Marxism are, by definition and choice, atheistic philosophies. And atheism is the foundation that makes all these socio-political movements (Communism, Socialism and Marxism) devastating not only to cities and nations, but to the human soul. Without the God of the Bible, there is nothing but destruction and hopelessness. We should not want that for NYC or any other city. We should not want that for the United States, or any other country. We should not want that for our families, or for our own souls. I urge you to read, digest and meditate on the following. I urge you to share this post. "Atheism is of pernicious consequence both to others and to the atheist himself. To others: for (1.) It would root out the foundation of gov...

When Did Loyalty Die? The rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth dogs of the Hypocrat party, forever looking for someone to attack and infect with their deadly political doctrines, lately have taken to the streets to slobber about President Trump's alleged demand that his Cabinet members, political appointees and other government employees under the purview of the Executive branch, should be loyal to their God, to their constitution, to their country, to their office, to their boss and co-workers, to their constituents whom they serve, to their military service and to the dreams and ideals upon which the United States was founded, and to which the Republic owes its survival. For the vast majority of the history of the United States, Loyalty was not a bad thing. Like military service, going to church, being a boy or girl scout, honoring your parents, good manners, politeness, honesty and a host of other desirable ideals and behaviors, Loyalty was and is considered a good thing. But the Hypocra...

I don't know if the folks at the consulting powerhouse PWC coined the terminology "Agentic AI" or if they merely picked it up elsewhere as a sub-topic of the many general AI conversations being had these days, but a PWC article is where I first became acquainted with this new terminology, thus I will aim my guns specifically at PWC, with the entire evolving AI industry also in my sights. The PWC article begs the questions: Do humans themselves possess autonomous agency? And would not the article have been better served if the idea of autonomy had been kept out of the conversation? I ask these questions while realizing that "autonomy" long has occupied the discussions of workplace theorists and historians as that word (autonomy) has been applied to workers of the human variety, making it inevitable that the issue of autonomy would worm its way into AI discussions. Regarding the first question, anyone trying to answer will, if thinking about the question more tha...