4/6/24
This will simply be a demonstration of irrationality, caused by erroneous assumptions and world view. We are going to turn to Claude 3, currently the most advanced artificial intelligence "bot" available for free on the internet. I'm going to show you how this supposed "superintelligence" makes the same error that scholars make--trying to fit square pegs into round holes, in order to conform to its assumptive base.

The following dialogue took place between myself and Claude 3 about a week ago. The image I'm sharing with it is genuine. Note that I gave the image a neutral file name, "object_1."

Stephen
If I share a photograph of an object in the desert, can you tell me if you think it is natural, or artificial?

Claude 3
Yes, if you share a photograph I can analyze it and provide my assessment of whether the object appears to be natural or artificial (human-made). However, you have not actually shared an image yet in our conversation. So please go ahead and upload or send the photograph you'd like me to analyze, and I'll be happy to take a look and share my perspective.

Claude 3
Based on the image, the object appears to be an artificial or human-made structure or artifact found in the desert environment. It has a distinct geometric shape that does not seem natural. While the material and exact purpose are difficult to discern from this single image alone, the angular formed shape strongly suggests it is an artificial construction or object, rather than something that occurred naturally in that desert setting.

Stephen
That is from a photograph taken by one of the Mars rovers, on Mars.

Claude 3
Ah I see, that makes complete sense now. Given that this photograph was taken on Mars by one of the rovers, the angular shaped object is almost certainly an artificial or human-made artifact left behind, likely debris or part of the rover machinery itself.

The geometric, manufactured appearance that made me initially interpret it as an artificial object in a desert on Earth is consistent with it being human debris or equipment on the surface of Mars. Thank you for providing that crucial context - it's a fascinating glimpse at remnants of our exploration on another planet. I appreciate you sharing this interesting Martian photograph and allowing me to re-evaluate my analysis with that revelatory information.

Now, all Claude does, as I understand it, is to reflect the biases of society, by predicting the most-likely next word. But you will, I think, agree with me (unless you are going into irrational denial, yourself) that it has fallen into an irrational conclusion. I didn't stick around to argue with it, but obviously, this object is heavily encrusted, and hence cannot be a part left over from any man-made vehicle. At the same time, "Claude" has made a strong logical case that it is not a natural formation.

Logically, the NASA authorities have to be aware of this. This object is one of perhaps 50, or even 100, I could show you which are clearly beyond the easy explanation of "pareidolia." Obviously, there is a coverup.

Precisely the same thing is occurring with my discovery of two "dark horses" of 19th-century literature, which discovery puts the lie to several deeply-entrenched myths of famous literary figures including Charles Dickens and Edgar Allan Poe. My evidence that Dickens didn't write "A Christmas Carol," and that Poe didn't write "The Raven," is just as strong as this object standing on its encrusted metallic legs on the surface of Mars. And literary academics are engaging in just as vigorous a coverup as NASA is.

By this time, I have written to hundreds of these people. I'd say about one percent have responded, at all. Some of my query e-mails probably land in spam folders, but no more than half. I used to send out personalized letters from a template; but now, I literally write a personal letter from scratch to each professor, and lately, I've been referring to specific papers, articles or book chapters they have written. So courtesy would normally demand at least a polite reply.

With a very few exceptions, these people are not being polite. Even the ones who are polite, are merely polite. None engage me in any serious way. Occasionally they will start to, when the subject is isolated from the more threatening elements of my work. But, presumably, as soon as they realize what elsw I've discovered, they clam up. Or, if I start to produce real evidence, they clam up. I know the first explanation occurs, because I saw in my Academia.edu stats that one professor I'd written to about a minor subject, i.e., the unrecognized premiere of Mathew's parody on "The Raven," read (or saw) my paper on "A Christmas Carol." And that was the last I ever heard from him.

Now, pay attention to this last example. I had just demonstrated to him that I had made a real discovery. I sent him incontrovertible proof that scholars were wrong, and I was right, in locating the premiere of the well-known parody of "The Raven," called "The Vulture," in the Dec. 18, 1852 Boston "Carpet-Bag," rather than in the 1853 edition of "Cruikshank's Comic Almanack." This means I'm a real researcher, making real discoveries. But the instant he sees I claim similarly strong evidence showing that Charles Dickens was not the original author of "A Christmas Carol," he stops communicating.

Therefore, logically, he did not cut off communication because I have bats in my belfry. He cut off communication for fear I might actually be able to prove my case concerning the "Carol." He may have told himself anything--it's irrelevant. In terms of his actual motivation, he was afraid.

Whether he was afraid of cognitive dissonance, or afraid to touch something that could bring the wrath of his colleagues down on him, we don't know.

This astrological reading(s) I recently had, bolstered my self-confidence. One begins to subtly doubt oneself when one is universally shunned and marginalized. I even began to feel that, of course, no-one would find my daily blog worth keeping up with, and I should write less often.

Nonsense. My daily blog is far more worthy than many daily columns which have had a wide readership. Only, this is not for the masses. So far, apparently, it's not even for the elite. This, it would seem, is for the future.

Maybe the existence of an ancient, destroyed civilization on Mars is for the future, as well. But then, things are speeding up. It may not be the distant future...

Sincerely,

Stephen Sakellarios, M.S.