ONE SHOW. TWO MEN. NO RULES..

He's witty, charming, dashingly handsome, and has one hellova tee shirt collection. Join me as I welcome 2 Time Emmy Award Winning writer, actor and comedian, Bruce Vilanch to the show.

You Don't Mess with the Zohan

About 200 years in advance​—long before the king was born—​the Hebrew prophet Isaiah mentioned Cyrus by name and described how he would conquer the mighty city of Babylon.

Isaiah 44:24, 27, 28: “This is what Jehovah says, . . . ‘the One saying to the deep waters, “Be evaporated, and I will dry up all your rivers”; the One saying of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd, and he will completely carry out all my will”; the One saying of Jerusalem, “She will be rebuilt,” and of the temple, “Your foundation will be laid.”

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the army of Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River, which flowed through the city of Babylon. Cyrus’ strategy enabled his troops to enter the city along the riverbed. After taking the city, Cyrus freed the Jews who had been captive in Babylon and allowed them to return and rebuild Jerusalem, which had been destroyed 70 years earlier.

Isaiah 45:1: “This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of to subdue nations before him, to disarm kings, to open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut.”

The Persians entered the city through the massive two-leaved doors in the city wall, which had carelessly been left open. Had the Babylonians been aware of what Cyrus was planning, they could have shut all the gates that opened onto the river. But as it was, the city was defenseless.

BIBLE PROPHECY FULFILLED IN THE TIME OF ISREAL

About 200 years in advance​—long before the king was born—​the Hebrew prophet Isaiah mentioned Cyrus by name and described how he would conquer the mighty city of Babylon.

Isaiah 44:24, 27, 28: “This is what Jehovah says, . . . ‘the One saying to the deep waters, “Be evaporated, and I will dry up all your rivers”; the One saying of Cyrus, “He is my shepherd, and he will completely carry out all my will”; the One saying of Jerusalem, “She will be rebuilt,” and of the temple, “Your foundation will be laid.”

According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the army of Cyrus diverted the waters of the Euphrates River, which flowed through the city of Babylon. Cyrus’ strategy enabled his troops to enter the city along the riverbed. After taking the city, Cyrus freed the Jews who had been captive in Babylon and allowed them to return and rebuild Jerusalem, which had been destroyed 70 years earlier.

Isaiah 45:1: “This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of to subdue nations before him, to disarm kings, to open before him the double doors, so that the gates will not be shut.”

The Persians entered the city through the massive two-leaved doors in the city wall, which had carelessly been left open. Had the Babylonians been aware of what Cyrus was planning, they could have shut all the gates that opened onto the river. But as it was, the city was defenseless.

Murphy moved to California and searched for a dance partner while working as an instructor. During the U.K. Open Championships in England, she met Manfred Stiglitz and a dancing partnership was formed. The two began to compete and eventually became the 1990 and 1991 Austrian National Champions. Despite their success, the constant travel and Murphy's domestic commitments took their toll. Murphy had opened the Champion Ballroom Academy in San Diego in 1990 and found it difficult splitting herself between these two obligations.

For the next five years she went on to build a list of accomplishments with partners based in California, earning titles at the Southwest Regional Dance Tournament, the Saint Louis Star Ball, and the International Grand Ball. With partner Bill Milner, Murphy made the U.S. Open Standard final in an unprecedented six months. Finally, in 1996, she and partner Jim Desmond made the final of the U.S. Open American Smooth and won the U.S. Open American Nine Dance. She retired from competition and shifted her focus toward her dance academy.

Dalton had a number of hits in the 1980s, including "Takin' It Easy", "Crazy Blue Eyes", and "16th Avenue". Though absent from the U.S. country charts since 1990, she still continues to record and perform, having most recently released three independently recorded albums: Wild Horse Crossing on Shop Records in 1999; The Last Wild Place on Song Dog Records in 2004; and her 2010 self-released Here's To Hank.[3]

When asked about her musical influences, she replied: "Bob Dylan, Joan Baez, Kris Kristofferson, Guy Clark, Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, Dolly Parton, Janis Joplin, Robert Johnson, Karen Dalton, Fred Koller, Big Mama Thornton, Billie Holiday, Hank Williams, Tammy Wynette and J. J. Cale."[4]

A research paper produced for the United States Air Force written in 1996 speculates about the future use of nanotechnology to produce "artificial weather", clouds of microscopic computer particles all communicating with each other to form an "intelligent fog" that could be used for various purposes. "Artificial weather technologies do not currently exist. But as they are developed, the importance of their potential applications rises rapidly."

The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (Geneva: May 18, 1977, Entered into force: October 5, 1978) prohibits "widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injury". In 1972 an ENMOD convention on weather warfare presented that this permits "local, non-permanent changes". The "Consultative Committee of Experts" established in Article VIII of the Convention stated in their "Understanding relating to Article II" that any use of environmental modification where this is done "as a means of destruction, damage or injury to another State Party, would be prohibited.".[3] It also suggests all signatories are expected to abstain from using weather modification to cause harm at any scale, stating "military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques, would result, or could reasonably be expected to result, in widespread, long-lasting or severe destruction, damage or injury." However, the treaty does not directly condemn military use of weather modification when it does not directly cause harm,[3] such as the United States' use of weather modification in the siege of Khe Sanh, discussed above. The limitations of the treaty, and its application only to signatory states, allow weather warfare to continue to play a role in warfare throughout the twenty-first century. The United States prohibits weather modification without permission of the United States Secretary of Commerce.

With the United Nations climate change summit now underway in Paris, those opposed to tackling greenhouse gas pollution from fossil fuels are engaged in a last-ditch desperate attempt to prevent a new international agreement.

It is little surprise then that ‘The Wall Street Journal’ has published a long and rambling polemic by two of the UK’s most prominent campaigners against the regulation of the pollution from fossil fuels.

The article by Matt Ridley and Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which lobbies against policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, recycles a series of ‘sceptic’ talking points, to create a false impression of the science and economics of climate change.

They start with the standard ploy of misrepresenting the scientific evidence for climate change.

First they claim that global mean surface temperature has “gone up only very slowly”. They add that “the world is barely half a degree Celsius (0.9 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than it was about 25 years ago”. In fact, the World Meteorological Organisation has warned that the last five years are the warmest such period since instrumental records began in the 19th century, and that the average global temperature for 2015 is likely to be about 1 centigrade degree higher than the average during the pre-industrial era, before the burning of fossil fuels started to dump large volumes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

Viscount Ridley and Dr Peiser downplay the significance of this rise in global mean surface temperature, which may seem small compared to local daily fluctuations. But it should be remembered that the global mean surface temperature during the last Ice Age was only about 5 centigrade degrees lower than today. During the last major interglacial period, which ended about 116,000 years ago, global mean surface temperature was no more than 2 centigrade degrees higher than today, but the polar land-based ice sheets on West Antarctica and Greenland were much smaller, and global mean sea level was between 5 and 10 metres higher than today. This shows the profound consequences of what may appear to be relatively small changes in global mean surface temperature.

Viscount Ridley and Dr Peiser next seek to obscure the impacts of the rise in global mean surface temperature that has already occurred, falsely claiming that “on a global scale, as scientists keep confirming, there has been no increase in frequency or intensity of storms, floods or droughts”. This is blatantly misleading.

The most authoritative assessment of the scientific evidence, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013, concluded: “Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950”, including a likely rise in the frequency of heatwaves in large parts of Europe, Asia and Australia, and an increase in the number or intensity of heavy precipitation events in North America and Europe.

Viscount Ridley and Dr Peiser try to hide the true picture on floods and droughts by ignoring the fact that the impact of climate change varies between regions, which means some parts of the world are becoming drier while other parts are becoming wetter.

Hence the IPCC noted that “although the most evident flood trends appear to be in northern high latitudes, where observed warming trends have been largest, in some regions no evidence of a trend in extreme flooding has been found”.

And on drought, the IPCC found that “it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”.

Similarly the data for storms across the world also presents a complex picture, but the IPCC noted that it is “virtually certain” there has been an “increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s” in the North Atlantic basin.

Hence, the attempt by Viscount Ridley and Dr Peiser to focus only on global trends is really an obfuscation of the evidence of regional changes.

They also turn a blind eye to the growing number of studies that have analysed how climate change has increased the probability of different types of extreme weather. Recent research by scientists around the world found that climate change influenced the probability of the frequency and severity of many extreme weather events in 2014.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE:

There are no easy answers for Christians willing to entertain these questions. And, certainly, there’s a case to be made that Christians shouldn’t bother in the first place. The Christian Bible never anticipates non-human intelligence, much less addresses the questions and concern it creates. It does, however, teach that God has established a special relationship with humans that is unique among all creatures. Russell Bjork, a professor at the evangelical Gordon College who is cautious about broadening the Christian understanding of personhood to include AI, argues in the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith, “What makes humans special is not what humanity is, but rather it is God’s relationship to us based on his purpose for making us.”

In addition to the Bible, many Christians look to their ancient creeds for guidance. One of the most popular, the Nicene Creed, speaks of Jesus as “the only son of God, begotten, not made.” The implicit corollary is that humans are God’s children who are made, not begotten. Christians believe that God makes humans, but humans make machines. By this logic, one might conclude that AI could not be considered God’s children or possess a soul.

Another Viewpoint To Consider

But this hasn’t stopped Kevin Kelly from beginning to advocate for the development of “a catechism for robots.” A catechism is a statement of faith usually framed in a question-and-answer format that outlines orthodox belief and is typically taught to children in some religious traditions. Kelly says he takes the idea “very seriously” and even suggested it in a keynote talk at Q conference, an annual gathering of more than 1,000 prominent Christian leaders.

“There will be a point in the future when these free-willed beings that we’ve made will say to us, ‘I believe in God. What do I do?’ At that point, we should have a response,” Kelly says.

A.I. Helping Bolster Your Faith

Here is one last mischievous point: AI actually could bolster a person’s faith. “For some people, religion is precisely about recognizing that I, as a human being, am not God and so I don't have all the answers and will inevitably be wrong about things,” he says. “If that is one’s outlook, then finding out you were wrong is a good thing. It simply confirms what you already knew: that life is about trusting God and not trusting in my own understanding.”

1. Lack of Transparency

Lack of transparency in AI systems, particularly in deep learning models that can be complex and difficult to interpret, is a pressing issue. This opaqueness obscures the decision-making processes and underlying logic of these technologies. 

2. Bias and Discrimination

AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate or amplify societal biases due to biased training data or algorithmic design. To minimize discrimination and ensure fairness, it is crucial to invest in the development of unbiased algorithms and diverse training data sets.

3. Privacy Concerns

AI technologies often collect and analyze large amounts of personal data, raising issues related to data privacy and security. To mitigate privacy risks, we must advocate for strict data protection regulations and safe data handling practices.

4. Ethical Dilemmas

Instilling moral and ethical values in AI systems, especially in decision-making contexts with significant consequences, presents a considerable challenge. Researchers and developers must prioritize the ethical implications of AI technologies to avoid negative societal impacts.

5. Security Risks

As AI technologies become increasingly sophisticated, the security risks associated with their use and the potential for misuse also increase. Hackers and malicious actors can harness the power of AI to develop more advanced cyberattacks, bypass security measures, and exploit vulnerabilities in systems.

6. Concentration of Power

The risk of AI development being dominated by a small number of large corporations and governments could exacerbate inequality and limit diversity in AI applications. Encouraging decentralized and collaborative AI development is key to avoiding a concentration of power.

7. Dependence on AI

Overreliance on AI systems may lead to a loss of creativity, critical thinking skills, and human intuition. Striking a balance between AI-assisted decision-making and human input is vital to preserving our cognitive abilities.

8. Job Displacement

AI-driven automation has the potential to lead to job losses across various industries, particularly for low-skilled workers (although there is evidence that AI and other emerging technologies will create more jobs than it eliminates).

9. Economic Inequality

AI has the potential to contribute to economic inequality by disproportionally benefiting wealthy individuals and corporations. As we talked about above, job losses due to AI-driven automation are more likely to affect low-skilled workers, leading to a growing income gap and reduced opportunities for social mobility.

10. Legal and Regulatory Challenges

It’s crucial to develop new legal frameworks and regulations to address the unique issues arising from AI technologies, including liability and intellectual property rights. Legal systems must evolve to keep pace with technological advancements and protect the rights of everyone.

11. AI Arms Race

The risk of countries engaging in an AI arms race could lead to the rapid development of AI technologies with potentially harmful consequences.

In the letter, the leaders said:

"Humanity can enjoy a flourishing future with AI. Having succeeded in creating powerful AI systems, we can now enjoy an 'AI summer' in which we reap the rewards, engineer these systems for the clear benefit of all, and give society a chance to adapt."

12. Loss of Human Connection

Increasing reliance on AI-driven communication and interactions could lead to diminished empathy, social skills, and human connections. To preserve the essence of our social nature, we must strive to maintain a balance between technology and human interaction.

13. Misinformation and Manipulation

AI-generated content, such as deepfakes, contributes to the spread of false information and the manipulation of public opinion. Efforts to detect and combat AI-generated misinformation are critical in preserving the integrity of information in the digital age.

14. Unintended Consequences

AI systems, due to their complexity and lack of human oversight, might exhibit unexpected behaviors or make decisions with unforeseen consequences. This unpredictability can result in outcomes that negatively impact individuals, businesses, or society as a whole.

15. Existential Risks

The development of artificial general intelligence (AGI) that surpasses human intelligence raises long-term concerns for humanity. The prospect of AGI could lead to unintended and potentially catastrophic consequences, as these advanced AI systems may not be aligned with human values or priorities.