Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CIA Star Gate Project: An Overview (1993) [pdf]

cia.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–136 of 136 posts

Re: CIA Star Gate Project: An Overview (1993) [pdf]

#131

Post by buildsjets »

mnky9800n wrote: post #89
the_af wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The "difficulty" with remote viewing is nonsense pseudoscience and crackpottery. It absolutely does not work. Not "unreliably", but not work at all. This reminds me of that one time on HN when someone tried to convince me that ritual witchcraft (I think they called it blood magic) on servers was a real thing, necessary to make them work, and my dismissal was typical of narrow minded people.

I would be supportive of blood magic if it made things work lol

Don’t knock it till you try it:

I call upon thе blood-moon goddess for I have but one request.

I've laid the altar, charged the crystals, the circle, I have blessed.

Then make clean && make all, BOOM compiles with no errors or warnings every time.

Witchcraft.

Re: CIA Star Gate Project: An Overview (1993) [pdf]

#132

Post by buildsjets »

__patchbit__ wrote: post #109
akatechis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the CIA report predates the attack, which is especially strange It's only strange if you believe the CIA released notes from their super-secret psychic program rather than the more plausible explanation that this is disinformation that was backdated for a boost of prestige.

A spicily prepared `false flag' operation dead drop will do the time travel trick especially given the CIA is being outgamed on all the dimensions.

Always nice to stumble across your posts. Any progress on the jailbreak?

Re: CIA Star Gate Project: An Overview (1993) [pdf]

#133

Post by chasemc67 »

krackers wrote: post #108
sxp wrote: post #44

For those who want to consider the mundane explanation about remote viewing: remember that humans can still be surprised by the birthday paradox and other synchronicities that occur when sampling data at large scale. So across thousands of sessions, the weak coincidences documented by the Stargate project are expected. For those who want a skeptical & cynical view: if remote viewing works, it would be part of the sta…

That social-rv is really interesting, apparently the target is randomly assigned _after_ submission, so it's not just remote viewing but also precognition? The popular ones on the "explore sessions" are a very close match, but if you look at other predictions by those accounts, they're less sure. It's very easy to form a connection between any two images if you allow abstracted forms of similarity, and fundamentally…

Hey, creator of Social RV here! Awesome to hear you're enjoying what we're doing.

Some answers to your questions: - the target pool has 275 targets in it - we USED to use the last 9 targets as decoys, but changed to randomly sampling 9 targets from the pool instead several months ago. I've updated the FAQ to reflect that - the unique identifiers we show the LLM for the decoy targets is not the file name but rather the DB primary key for that target. There should be no information in it the AI could use to bias a decision - in regards to the tournament-style elimination, we have a new judge coming out soon that does a single pass. When this was originally built, the single-pass wasn't reliable enough on available models

Thanks very much for your thoughtful feedback and questions about what we're doing!

Re: CIA Star Gate Project: An Overview (1993) [pdf]

#134

Post by chasemc67 »

fumeux_fume wrote: post #86
sxp wrote: post #44

For those who want to consider the mundane explanation about remote viewing: remember that humans can still be surprised by the birthday paradox and other synchronicities that occur when sampling data at large scale. So across thousands of sessions, the weak coincidences documented by the Stargate project are expected. For those who want a skeptical & cynical view: if remote viewing works, it would be part of the sta…

Just go to wikipedia for the mundane explanation: data leakage to the judges of poorly designed experiments. Absolutely zero reproducibility.

There have been many reproductions.

social-rv is our attempt to do yet another reproduction, as publicly as possibly. And we got the same result

Re: CIA Star Gate Project: An Overview (1993) [pdf]

#135

Post by krackers »

chasemc67 wrote: post #133
krackers wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That social-rv is really interesting, apparently the target is randomly assigned _after_ submission, so it's not just remote viewing but also precognition? The popular ones on the "explore sessions" are a very close match, but if you look at other predictions by those accounts, they're less sure. It's very easy to form a connection between any two images if you allow abstracted forms of similarity, and fundamentally…

Hey, creator of Social RV here! Awesome to hear you're enjoying what we're doing. Some answers to your questions: - the target pool has 275 targets in it - we USED to use the last 9 targets as decoys, but changed to randomly sampling 9 targets from the pool instead several months ago. I've updated the FAQ to reflect that - the unique identifiers we show the LLM for the decoy targets is not the file name but rather th…

You should do a show HN post, it's definitely interesting. One of the few good cases where blockchain is useful.

And maybe find some statistician to define a proper metric for statistical significance here, since my gut feeling is that naively using a uniform distribution of ratings as the null hypothesis isn't correct (see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46438181)

Re: CIA Star Gate Project: An Overview (1993) [pdf]

#136

Post by [deleted] »

stevenhuang wrote: post #118
someothherguyy wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She also says " There is little benefit in continuing experiments designed to offer proof, since there is little more to be offered to anyone who does not accept the current collection of data. " Which is an insane thing to say and reveals her motivated reasoning.

The results have been collected using experimental rigour stricter than medical trials. The one's engaged in motivated reasoning are skeptics like you and Randy who refuse to engage with the data because of, ironically, motivated reasoning. The data is clear. Either point out the flaws in the experimental protocols or consider you have some metaphysical priors to update.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN