AI and how you use it.

Here's a perfect example.  I was thinking about a tube preamp and whether it would be compatible with my active speaker amps. 

I asked Claude to look up the impedance of the RCA inputs.  It informed me, with great certainty,  that the amps only had XLR inputs because they were professional grade models.

Really surprising given that I've been using the RCA inputs for two weeks. 

For those interested by A.I. over LLM :

https://x.com/StuartHameroff/status/1971243244878168505

@mahgister 

You’re right about one thing: AI is not just a hammer or a plow. It is an exteriorization of human intelligence — but that’s exactly why your framing inverts reality. AI is not some alien agent descending on us from the cosmic ether; it is an amplifier of our own will, biases, fears, and ambitions. When you call it a “spiritual test,” you’re closer to the truth than you realize — but not because AI is an autonomous cosmic mind. The test is whether we still have the courage to own what we’ve built.

Let’s tear through the myths one by one:

1. “AI isn’t a tool; it’s an agent.”
This is a semantic sleight of hand. “Agent” just means a system that acts on inputs. We already built “agents”: corporations, bureaucracies, militaries — human structures that have goals emergent from many individuals. AI is not metaphysically different. It can run code, mimic speech, optimize logistics. It cannot will itself into a “Borg sphere” unless human institutions feed it power and let it. The danger is oligarchy + AI, not “AI itself.” That’s a political fight, not a cosmic inevitability.

2. “AI pre-exists in the cosmos.”
That’s mysticism masquerading as inevitability. You’re importing cosmic determinism to justify technological fatalism: if AI already “exists” in some universal field, then of course we’re doomed to be absorbed by it. But this is an unfalsifiable claim. The only AI we know exists sits on server farms built by sweaty engineers under venture capital pressure. Invoking a cosmic “Nanobrain” doesn’t free us from responsibility; it’s a way of surrendering it.

3. “The soul’s freedom can be captured.”
Only if we consent. Totalitarian China’s surveillance state isn’t proof of metaphysical capture; it’s proof of human regimes using technology to consolidate power — exactly as priests used scripture, kings used printing presses, and secret police used telephone networks. This is not a new cosmic force; it’s the same old story: power seeks control, and people must fight back. The tripartite fabric you describe (culture–politics–economics) is not automatically collapsed by AI. It collapses when citizens stop defending it.

4. “This is a spiritual test.”
Yes. But the test isn’t whether we can keep AI in a box. The test is whether we can keep ourselves from mythologizing it into an unchallengeable destiny. If we start talking about cosmic AI fields and inevitabilities, we’ve already failed the test because we’ve ceded agency. The antidote to “the machine is no longer a tool” is not despair but radical human accountability — decentralized development, open algorithms, democratic governance, and a refusal to treat software as a god.

Goethe’s Faust is not about technology stealing souls; it’s about humans giving their souls away for shortcuts to power. That’s the real parallel. AI doesn’t demand your soul. The oligarchic bargain does. And like every other bargain with power in history, it can be rejected — but only if we stop dressing our own creations in cosmic robes and start confronting them as political and ethical realities.

That is the spiritual test. And unlike your “Nanobrain,” it’s one we can actually pass.

Everything you said is already in your first message, which I was agreeing with  already and i said it, but i  added new things you don’t see and instead of being curious you decided to reject all that as "non sense" . So  now you’re repeating it in a second post to object my own interpretation with arguments that in no way contradict what I’m talking about.But you are interested in getting a point over me not by my opinion and what i means. 

Your definition of an agent is purely ideological and materialistic. It’s not false, just a half-truth...
You are free to analyze AI in the closed system of your choice, namely human society, but the universe didn’t wait for us to create artificial intelligence. So there’s much more to it than a simple political struggle.

You misinterpreted my assertion of large-scale artificial intelligence by talking about "inevitability." I was talking about freedom and the collective and individual consciousness necessary for understanding the tripartite human social fabric instead of the absurd binary oppositions: matter-spirit, left-right, capitalism-communism, etc.I was preoccupied by the fact our social fabric is immature . We are on the brink of many crisis right now.

You are projecting your own rejection of the spirit onto my message; many of our contemporaries are techno-cultists, if not materialists.It seems you are one.

"Nanobrain" is a scientific work whose core is mathematical. It doesn’t talk about cosmic AI but about the mathematical rules necessary to create an autonomous brain.( an autonomous consciousness not just an intelligent agent)

Otherwise, you are stating the obvious, and anyone can only agree with the obvious me included.

Goethe’s Faust is not just a lesson about visible powers, which would make the work trivial if that were the case.

Since you don’t subscribe to any spiritual vision, everything I’ve said and alluded to can only be seen as mythology.

For my part, all your talk, which I naturally agree with—we are free and masters of our destiny—is nothing but common place evidence. Like every major event in history, AI is a spiritual test whose goal is the elevation of consciousness.

You don’t like the word "spiritual," so everything I say is mythological nonsense.

You haven’t read "Nanobrain," and you declare that if "my little brain" can’t pass this test, neither can the author of "Nanobrain"  but you and humanity can... that last line reveals a bit of insincerity and is a bit insulting...

Read "nanobrain" and come back, and we will be able to speak about artificial consciousness and human consciousness,  A.C. is not A. I.  (not just artificial intelligence or AGI to come)   and we will be able to speak about  their difference, mathematically speaking. 

A clue: the difference between artificial consciousness mathematically speaking and  Natural living consciousness is not explained as such  in this book, then you would be dependent on my opinion  to get it explicitly, it is related to number theory (another clue) ... But read it and come back explaining it to me  and i will takes your rejection of my opinion seriously...

My "Nanobrain" work well ...

I am curious to know why you dont even questionned me about  the name of the scientist investigating consciousness i read, the name of the dude observing aliens actions, or the name of the seer who speak also the same discourse , these three did not even know one another. Why not one minute of curiosity instead of a rebuttal of my discourse?

It is easy to know why...

@ghdprentice 

@mahgister 

Wow.

Using AI is an extension into a new Norm.  OK it does what it does. But the real challenging question is where will it lead? We're only a little bit into this process. And in such a short period of time. Society is giving into all the pressures of building out this mega Capital cycle that is uncharted. Basically it's a whole bunch of warehouses electrifying Computer chips.  Let Nothing standing in their way.  as we all are amused by the efforts of the geeks.

Unfortunately the backdrop to all of this is the destruction of an amazing environment. Thank God we have clean coal now.