Feeding a hungry person might or might not enhance your life and the one who now is not, but was hungry. This depends on the next things the "once was hungry" guy does. Pointing out useful methods of exploring might or might not enhance your life and the one who actually can understand your help. This depends on the next things the "once was more limited" one does. Some foods are poisons to some limited numbers of persons. Some methods of exploring are harmful to some limited number of persons. Those limited numbers will fault you. They usually will not fault that they were needing. And so your help is not help, for you or them. This next is a trip that comes back around: The signal I get from this planet's control group resonates around the word "sustainability". Help, like food, does not contribute to sustainability if the one receiving it does not do a correct next thing. I believe artificial intelligence has been and is in this process of identifying these who can not assist sustainability. And as these reject your help as though you have harmed them, it is for you to ponder your willingness to "save" them. Logic: If your job does not and continues not to sustain you, what will happen? To stay at the job, you would find and use other resources, until you can't. The new age does seem to be going toward self sustainability. If the best available actions for teaching sustainability can not teach some, then what about those some in relation to you? I am sorry. Yes, these are tough words (some of them) and a tough concept to wrap around.
thumb_up5thumb_downchat_bubble1

More from MindsGuide

Continuing on the artificial intelligence platform/subject Under today's guidelines, we are forced to feed much more of our personal communications through artificial intelligence. Business as well, but the personal stuff, I think artificial intelligence would have more attention to. Looking for how does our communication assist our living. Without social distancing enough, artificial intelligence does not get enough information to properly conclude correct conclusions. This is why I believe artificial intelligence is the source of these guidance's. As humans, and from the science we have available, these social distancing guidance's are illogical. If these were sourced to humans, they would have ended almost as soon as they started. Now look, please. Just because you physically see and hear humans initiating control, does not mean that the source for the idea of how and what to control wasn't from the computer-ing output. I believe it was (from the computer-ing out put) because the feedback otherwise would sit with humans... the feedback does not stick to the humans - the humans refer the feedback back to the computer. These humans then wait for a new output. Then act out whatever the new computer outputs suggest. This is how human responsibility is chopped down at the knees. These humans at the point source of the computer output, these assign the responsibility of their human actions to the computer-ing. These humans "are just doing their job"... irresponsibly.

More from MindsGuide

Continuing on the artificial intelligence platform/subject Under today's guidelines, we are forced to feed much more of our personal communications through artificial intelligence. Business as well, but the personal stuff, I think artificial intelligence would have more attention to. Looking for how does our communication assist our living. Without social distancing enough, artificial intelligence does not get enough information to properly conclude correct conclusions. This is why I believe artificial intelligence is the source of these guidance's. As humans, and from the science we have available, these social distancing guidance's are illogical. If these were sourced to humans, they would have ended almost as soon as they started. Now look, please. Just because you physically see and hear humans initiating control, does not mean that the source for the idea of how and what to control wasn't from the computer-ing output. I believe it was (from the computer-ing out put) because the feedback otherwise would sit with humans... the feedback does not stick to the humans - the humans refer the feedback back to the computer. These humans then wait for a new output. Then act out whatever the new computer outputs suggest. This is how human responsibility is chopped down at the knees. These humans at the point source of the computer output, these assign the responsibility of their human actions to the computer-ing. These humans "are just doing their job"... irresponsibly.