#prediction algorithm

[whumpacabra]

I don’t have a posted DNI for a few reasons but in this case I’ll be crystal clear:

I do not want people who use AI in their whump writing (generating scenarios, generating story text, etc.) to follow me or interact with my posts. I also do not consent to any of my writing, posts, or reblogs being used as inputs or data for AI.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Hypothetical AI election disinformation risks vs real AI harms

I'm on tour with my new novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT (Feb 27) in Portland at Powell's. Then, onto Phoenix (Changing Hands, Feb 29), Tucson (Mar 9-12), and more!

You can barely turn around these days without encountering a think-piece warning of the impending risk of AI disinformation in the coming elections. But a recent episode of This Machine Kills podcast reminds us that these are hypothetical risks, and there is no shortage of real AI harms:

https://soundcloud.com/thismachinekillspod/311-selling-pickaxes-for-the-ai-gold-rush

The algorithmic decision-making systems that increasingly run the back-ends to our lives are really, truly very bad at doing their jobs, and worse, these systems constitute a form of "empiricism-washing": if the computer says it's true, it must be true. There's no such thing as racist math, you SJW snowflake!

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/02/aoc-algorithms-racist-bias.html

Nearly 1,000 British postmasters were wrongly convicted of fraud by Horizon, the faulty AI fraud-hunting system that Fujitsu provided to the Royal Mail. They had their lives ruined by this faulty AI, many went to prison, and at least four of the AI's victims killed themselves:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Post_Office_scandal

Tenants across America have seen their rents skyrocket thanks to Realpage's landlord price-fixing algorithm, which deployed the time-honored defense: "It's not a crime if we commit it with an app":

https://www.propublica.org/article/doj-backs-tenants-price-fixing-case-big-landlords-real-estate-tech

Housing, you'll recall, is pretty foundational in the human hierarchy of needs. Losing your home – or being forced to choose between paying rent or buying groceries or gas for your car or clothes for your kid – is a non-hypothetical, widespread, urgent problem that can be traced straight to AI.

Then there's predictive policing: cities across America and the world have bought systems that purport to tell the cops where to look for crime. Of course, these systems are trained on policing data from forces that are seeking to correct racial bias in their practices by using an algorithm to create "fairness." You feed this algorithm a data-set of where the police had detected crime in previous years, and it predicts where you'll find crime in the years to come.

But you only find crime where you look for it. If the cops only ever stop-and-frisk Black and brown kids, or pull over Black and brown drivers, then every knife, baggie or gun they find in someone's trunk or pockets will be found in a Black or brown person's trunk or pocket. A predictive policing algorithm will naively ingest this data and confidently assert that future crimes can be foiled by looking for more Black and brown people and searching them and pulling them over.

Obviously, this is bad for Black and brown people in low-income neighborhoods, whose baseline risk of an encounter with a cop turning violent or even lethal. But it's also bad for affluent people in affluent neighborhoods – because they are underpoliced as a result of these algorithmic biases. For example, domestic abuse that occurs in full detached single-family homes is systematically underrepresented in crime data, because the majority of domestic abuse calls originate with neighbors who can hear the abuse take place through a shared wall.

But the majority of algorithmic harms are inflicted on poor, racialized and/or working class people. Even if you escape a predictive policing algorithm, a facial recognition algorithm may wrongly accuse you of a crime, and even if you were far away from the site of the crime, the cops will still arrest you, because computers don't lie:

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/texas-macys-sunglass-hut-facial-recognition-software-wrongful-arrest-sacramento-alibi/

Trying to get a low-waged service job? Be prepared for endless, nonsensical AI "personality tests" that make Scientology look like NASA:

https://futurism.com/mandatory-ai-hiring-tests

Service workers' schedules are at the mercy of shift-allocation algorithms that assign them hours that ensure that they fall just short of qualifying for health and other benefits. These algorithms push workers into "clopening" – where you close the store after midnight and then open it again the next morning before 5AM. And if you try to unionize, another algorithm – that spies on you and your fellow workers' social media activity – targets you for reprisals and your store for closure.

If you're driving an Amazon delivery van, algorithm watches your eyeballs and tells your boss that you're a bad driver if it doesn't like what it sees. If you're working in an Amazon warehouse, an algorithm decides if you've taken too many pee-breaks and automatically dings you:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/04/17/revenge-of-the-chickenized-reverse-centaurs/

If this disgusts you and you're hoping to use your ballot to elect lawmakers who will take up your cause, an algorithm stands in your way again. "AI" tools for purging voter rolls are especially harmful to racialized people – for example, they assume that two "Juan Gomez"es with a shared birthday in two different states must be the same person and remove one or both from the voter rolls:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/eligible-voters-swept-up-conservative-activists-purge-voter-rolls/

Hoping to get a solid education, the sort that will keep you out of AI-supervised, precarious, low-waged work? Sorry, kiddo: the ed-tech system is riddled with algorithms. There's the grifty "remote invigilation" industry that watches you take tests via webcam and accuses you of cheating if your facial expressions fail its high-tech phrenology standards:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/02/16/unauthorized-paper/#cheating-anticheat

All of these are non-hypothetical, real risks from AI. The AI industry has proven itself incredibly adept at deflecting interest from real harms to hypothetical ones, like the "risk" that the spicy autocomplete will become conscious and take over the world in order to convert us all to paperclips:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/27/10-types-of-people/#taking-up-a-lot-of-space

Whenever you hear AI bosses talking about how seriously they're taking a hypothetical risk, that's the moment when you should check in on whether they're doing anything about all these longstanding, real risks. And even as AI bosses promise to fight hypothetical election disinformation, they continue to downplay or ignore the non-hypothetical, here-and-now harms of AI.

There's something unseemly – and even perverse – about worrying so much about AI and election disinformation. It plays into the narrative that kicked off in earnest in 2016, that the reason the electorate votes for manifestly unqualified candidates who run on a platform of bald-faced lies is that they are gullible and easily led astray.

But there's another explanation: the reason people accept conspiratorial accounts of how our institutions are run is because the institutions that are supposed to be defending us are corrupt and captured by actual conspiracies:

https://memex.craphound.com/2019/09/21/republic-of-lies-the-rise-of-conspiratorial-thinking-and-the-actual-conspiracies-that-fuel-it/

The party line on conspiratorial accounts is that these institutions are good, actually. Think of the rebuttal offered to anti-vaxxers who claimed that pharma giants were run by murderous sociopath billionaires who were in league with their regulators to kill us for a buck: "no, I think you'll find pharma companies are great and superbly regulated":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/05/not-that-naomi/#if-the-naomi-be-klein-youre-doing-just-fine

Institutions are profoundly important to a high-tech society. No one is capable of assessing all the life-or-death choices we make every day, from whether to trust the firmware in your car's anti-lock brakes, the alloys used in the structural members of your home, or the food-safety standards for the meal you're about to eat. We must rely on well-regulated experts to make these calls for us, and when the institutions fail us, we are thrown into a state of epistemological chaos. We must make decisions about whether to trust these technological systems, but we can't make informed choices because the one thing we're sure of is that our institutions aren't trustworthy.

Ironically, the long list of AI harms that we live with every day are the most important contributor to disinformation campaigns. It's these harms that provide the evidence for belief in conspiratorial accounts of the world, because each one is proof that the system can't be trusted. The election disinformation discourse focuses on the lies told – and not why those lies are credible.

That's because the subtext of election disinformation concerns is usually that the electorate is credulous, fools waiting to be suckered in. By refusing to contemplate the institutional failures that sit upstream of conspiracism, we can smugly locate the blame with the peddlers of lies and assume the mantle of paternalistic protectors of the easily gulled electorate.

But the group of people who are demonstrably being tricked by AI is the people who buy the horrifically flawed AI-based algorithmic systems and put them into use despite their manifest failures.

As I've written many times, "we're nowhere near a place where bots can steal your job, but we're certainly at the point where your boss can be suckered into firing you and replacing you with a bot that fails at doing your job"

https://pluralistic.net/2024/01/15/passive-income-brainworms/#four-hour-work-week

The most visible victims of AI disinformation are the people who are putting AI in charge of the life-chances of millions of the rest of us. Tackle that AI disinformation and its harms, and we'll make conspiratorial claims about our institutions being corrupt far less credible.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/27/ai-conspiracies/#epistemological-collapse

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[hplonesomeart]

Hey!! So turns out a video I made between a certain “well beloved but highly sensitive/emotionally reactive T.V” and an “orange haired inkling-turned-human” has managed to sweep my YouTube channel and accumulate 100k VIEWS!! THAT’S A LOT OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY?? My most widely viewed video EVER to exist in this moment in time?? AAAAA?? Not even mentioning the various comments and staggering increase in subs! It’s so much more then what I expected or even prepared for—might even be the most impactful thing to happen for me this year <3

…aside from graduating high school + the social connections I’ve been fortunate to make lol

BUT THE POINT IS I’d been closely monitoring the YouTube growth through the entirety of October. It’s make me smile like a dork, gawk in astonishment, dance frantically in my room from the energy boosts, and grow courage to stop being so selective/self-conscious with what I wish to share with the world! It’s kept my ambitions going!

I needed to find some way to celebrate the occasion and express my thanks—because I can’t NOT acknowledge this milestone jksjskp. Typically I try to avoid getting tunnel visioned focusing on the metrics/numbers. Mr. Puzzles had already demonstrated how much those things can mess with the minds of creatives. Caring too much about chasing views or placing your artistic value in attention seeking gets damaging. But at same time…it’s hard to deny the sense of pride the 100k achievement has filled me with. I understand that reaching 100k views doesn’t immediately make me any “better” or “worse” then I was before. I’m still just me! It only helps me feel seen by others—and that’s all I really needed. To hear some nice words & receive reminders that my ideas are cared about. So thank you SMG4 fandom for that, seriously thank you.

Please accept this Mr. Puzzle drawing as a way of sharing the happiness around. He’s so entertaining. Love him for simply existing. So glad we can all collectively be super attached to him (and the rest of the SMG4 cast of course). Can’t wait to see more incredible artworks from the fandom :)

Just incase anyone is confused by my vague description over which “animated video” I’m referring to here—hopefully this photo will help clarify lol. It’s this one!! Sorry about not outright stating the title at the start, I got carried away with writing!!

I’ve been in an odd place mentally when thinking about it. Wondering to myself if any of the attention is deserved considering it’s not even fully colored and could be dismissed as “low effort” content (despite taking several days making it). It’s easy to get into a trap of comparing yourself to others and questioning how much of the videos success is based on your skills, sheer algorithm luck, or only because you used popular characters and catered to a specific fandom. And then judging yourself by looking at other peoples videos. I’ve seen several artists post higher quality works then my own but it somehow gets less views. So why did mine succeed when others (who should have gotten just as much attention if not more) didn’t? Sometimes you feel like you’ve unfairly robbed them of that chance to be seen. However I’ve realized that I can’t ever expect views to be consistent—and comparing is pointless. So why worry about it or feel inadequate? I mean it’s pretty common for funny cat videos to go viral, so who am I to question the system lol. “Popular” YouTube videos can range from a passion project which took 7+ artists…to a clip of Toad singing Chandelier or a nonsensical Vine sketch. Anything can happen when it’s the internet! And just-so-happened my video was chosen. I should stay glad about that and get rid of all the overanalyzing. So that’s what I’ve chosen to do :)

[critical-skeptic]

The Illusion of Complexity: Binary Exploitation in Engagement-Driven Algorithms

Abstract:

This paper examines how modern engagement algorithms employed by major tech platforms (e.g., Google, Meta, TikTok, and formerly Twitter/X) exploit predictable human cognitive patterns through simplified binary interactions. The prevailing perception that these systems rely on sophisticated personalization models is challenged; instead, it is proposed that such algorithms rely on statistical generalizations, perceptual manipulation, and engineered emotional reactions to maintain continuous user engagement. The illusion of depth is a byproduct of probabilistic brute force, not advanced understanding.

1. Introduction

Contemporary discourse often attributes high levels of sophistication and intelligence to the recommendation and engagement algorithms employed by dominant tech companies. Users report instances of eerie accuracy or emotionally resonant suggestions, fueling the belief that these systems understand them deeply. However, closer inspection reveals a more efficient and cynical design principle: engagement maximization through binary funneling.

2. Binary Funneling and Predictive Exploitation

At the core of these algorithms lies a reductive model: categorize user reactions as either positive (approval, enjoyment, validation) or negative (disgust, anger, outrage). This binary schema simplifies personalization into a feedback loop in which any user response serves to reinforce algorithmic certainty. There is no need for genuine nuance or contextual understanding; rather, content is optimized to provoke any reaction that sustains user attention.

Once a user engages with content —whether through liking, commenting, pausing, or rage-watching— the system deploys a cluster of categorically similar material. This recurrence fosters two dominant psychological outcomes:

If the user enjoys the content, they may perceive the algorithm as insightful or “smart,” attributing agency or personalization where none exists.

If the user dislikes the content, they may continue engaging in a doomscroll or outrage spiral, reinforcing the same cycle through negative affect.

In both scenarios, engagement is preserved; thus, profit is ensured.

3. The Illusion of Uniqueness

A critical mechanism in this system is the exploitation of the human tendency to overestimate personal uniqueness. Drawing on techniques long employed by illusionists, scammers, and cold readers, platforms capitalize on common patterns of thought and behavior that are statistically widespread but perceived as rare by individuals.

Examples include:

Posing prompts or content cues that seem personalized but are statistically predictable (e.g., "think of a number between 1 and 50 with two odd digits” → most select 37).

Triggering cognitive biases such as the availability heuristic and frequency illusion, which make repeated or familiar concepts appear newly significant.

This creates a reinforcing illusion: the user feels “understood” because the system has merely guessed correctly within a narrow set of likely options. The emotional resonance of the result further conceals the crude probabilistic engine behind it.

4. Emotional Engagement as Systemic Currency

The underlying goal is not understanding, but reaction. These systems optimize for time-on-platform, not user well-being or cognitive autonomy. Anger, sadness, tribal validation, fear, and parasocial attachment are all equally useful inputs. Through this lens, the algorithm is less an intelligent system and more an industrialized Skinner box: an operant conditioning engine powered by data extraction.

By removing the need for interpretive complexity and relying instead on scalable, binary psychological manipulation, companies minimize operational costs while maximizing monetizable engagement.

5. Black-Box Mythology and Cognitive Deference

Compounding this problem is the opacity of these systems. The “black-box” nature of proprietary algorithms fosters a mythos of sophistication. Users, unaware of the relatively simple statistical methods in use, ascribe higher-order reasoning or consciousness to systems that function through brute-force pattern amplification.

This deference becomes part of the trap: once convinced the algorithm “knows them,” users are less likely to question its manipulations and more likely to conform to its outputs, completing the feedback circuit.

6. Conclusion

The supposed sophistication of engagement algorithms is a carefully sustained illusion. By funneling user behavior into binary categories and exploiting universally predictable psychological responses, platforms maintain the appearance of intelligent personalization while operating through reductive, low-cost mechanisms. Human cognition —biased toward pattern recognition and overestimation of self-uniqueness— completes the illusion without external effort. The result is a scalable system of emotional manipulation that masquerades as individualized insight.

In essence, the algorithm does not understand the user; it understands that the user wants to be understood, and it weaponizes that desire for profit.

[muddypolitics]

Tesla is facing a new scandal that once again sees the electric automaker accused of misleading customers. In the past, it has been caught making "misleading statements" about the safety of its electric vehicles, and more recently, an investigation by Reuters found Tesla EVs exaggerated their efficiency. Now, a lawsuit filed in California alleges that the cars are also falsely exaggerating odometer readings to make warranties expire prematurely.

more of the same

[arthoure]

Messing with AI chatbots...that's an insta-unfollow from me

[memorys-skyscraper]

taking donations of any and all good employment-related vibes rn

[jonnestt]

YT has been recommending this video to me for days now. They're trying to turn me trans! Definitely. That's what must be happening.

[fellhellion]

Funniest Miguel animation detail to me is that he looks legitimately annoyed when Miles calls Lyla “some algorithm” shdhdjf like empathy and understanding for what he’s asking of Miles with the canon event framework but calling the bestie some algorithm? A step too far lmao

[poisonheadcrabsalesman]

reads more lore: Halo is so fucking stupid

[alice-rose-00]

Why have people historically turned to predictive behaviours and beliefs, through premonitions; and how has this evolved in the modern world? Abstract: In my essay I aim to understand why people continue to turn to predictive behaviours, either supernaturally or through modern technology, despite all of the evidence which opposes their accuracy. I look at the validity of premonition claims and see how this has evolved with our modern desire to predict and control.

Introduction:  How do premonitions traditionally present?  A premonition is a forewarning, or presentiment. (Allen, 1990) Premonitions traditionally present as supernatural visions of the future and have often been believed in terms of contact with a deity. In ancient Greek times for example, an oracle would be consulted for prophecies of the future, often seeking guidance in times of uncertainty. In this essay I attempt to analyse why people are drawn to premonitions of the future, and how this has developed over time. 

What are they, can they be explained?  I started by looking at Déjà vu and premonitions because of the link between the feeling of having already lived through a situation and the precognition of living through a situation. Also, Déjà vu is a common phenomenon, therefore it is easier to find more sound scientific data, rather than focusing on an isolated event where there is little way of discerning the truth. You can find more solid evidence for something observable, repeatable, and measurable, so there needs to be a way to reliably repeat the sensation of Déjà vu. 

Methodology: For this project I used studies to back up my main theories about premonition. For example, scientific research about Deja vu and the connection to people having illusory premonition, helped me to reach a conclusion about people relying on the illusion of control to feel secure. For example, the use of unreliable law enforcement technology, creating the illusion of security. I cross-referenced this with studies about how people's desire for premonition, or interest in supernatural abilities increases during times of low control, showing that it is not facts which people are looking for, but instead the comfort that perceived knowledge would give. 

Literature Review:  I decided to use studies from academic journals to support my project, because they are a reliable source of information. This is because they have been peer reviewed in order to be published. However, there could be problems with funding, as this could create bias. I also used books, as they have had to go through the publishing process, and therefore have to be fact-checked. I used historical case studies from the ancient Greeks in order to show an example of a time where people have believed and relied upon premonition. This research was not intended to act as a reliable source, but instead show an example of illusory premonition, therefore the fact it is inaccurate is part of the research. 

Main Findings: Dr Anne Cleary’s Déjà vu Generator:  Dr Anne Cleary and her team created a virtual reality Déjà vu generator to try and find the link between precognition and Déjà vu. They spatially mapped scenes to have identical proportions, but the themes were unrelated. People were more likely to report Déjà vu in the scenes that spatially resembled earlier but forgotten scenes amongst spatially unique scenes. If a scene was similar spatially, then Déjà vu was 27% more likely, if it was similar in multiple ways, Déjà vu was 59% more likely. “We cannot consciously remember the prior scene, but our brains recognise the similarity. That information comes through the unsettling feeling that we’ve been there before, but we can’t pin down where or why.”Cleary (Cleary, 2018) 

The Déjà vu generator then adapted to try and find an explanation for precognition. The same scenes were taken from the previous Déjà vu test, and converted into virtual reality tours, so that they would unfold over time like a real-life experience. So, a person would be following a virtual tour which would follow a particular navigational path through the scene, and end in a left-hand turn. Then later on in the study a person would be viewing an identically configured tour, following the same navigational path, but only up to a point, stopping just before the final left-hand turn. This was the method of putting someone in the middle of a memory to see if it would enable actual prediction, without being able to recall the previous tour. People showed no precognition ability whatsoever. However, they ran the study again and this time asked, “Do you feel like you know the direction of the next turn?”. Participants were 75% more likely to experience a feeling of precognition, and more likely to feel like they knew the direction of the next turn when they were experiencing Déjà vu then when they were not. (Cleary, 2018) 

This experiment does explain Déjà vu, but does it really apply to real life premonitions? Because it does show that our past experiences will create a sense of familiarity and give someone feeling that they know what will happen next, but it doesn’t explain prewarning’s people have, namely ones which come true. 

Cleary has a theory which could be used to counteract this, which is, when we are in the middle of a Déjà vu state, it feels like we are right on the verge of retrieving from our memory the entire situation around us, including how it unfolds. As the situation does unfold, and continues to feel intensely familiar, it could be taken to be a signal of having correctly predicted what was going to happen when we actually didn’t. In terms of the Déjà vu generator, when the tour went left, participants were asked if it unfolded as they had expected, and it was found that people are more likely to feel that they knew what would happen all along following Déjà vu. Another variant was run where participants were asked to rate how intense there feeling of familiarity within the scene was, and what was found was that when someone is faced with the juxtaposition of familiarity and novelty, when the familiarity is intense it can lead to an illusion of having known what would happen all along. (Cleary, 2018) (Cleary, 2018) 

Analysis:  Cleary’s Déjà vu generator still does not explain prewarning’s of an event. There are cases where people experience and record a premonition before it actually happens, which undermines Cleary’s explanation of illusory precognition in these instances. However, the idea of prewarning’s being due to past experiences could still be valid. This is because being subconsciously reminded, by a feeling of familiarity of an event, could be experienced as a prewarning of the event reoccurring. But in these cases, to what extent would this be common sense rather than a premonition? It makes sense for us to learn from our past experiences and to use then to avoid bad events reoccurring, does that have to be a premonition? 

As well as this, premonitions regarding the Titanic could be seen through this view too, as although it had never happened before, it makes sense that some people had concerns about its safety, and this does not have to be seen in a supernatural way. (Keefe, 2021) This is relevant to premonitions because it explains how we can understand them as an illusion. 

Case study: In 67 AD, Emperor Nero, who was just 30 years old and had killed his own mother in 59 AD, when visiting the Oracle was told: Your presence here outrages the god you seek. Go back, matricide! The number 73 marks the hour of your downfall! The incensed emperor had the Pythia burned alive. Nero thought he would have a long reign and die at 73. Instead, his reign came to a short end after a revolt by Galba who was 73 years of age at the time. (Parke, 2023) 

Can these explanations make sense of the case studies?  Yes, they can, because the premonition was already desired. The fact that the premonition was considered relevant despite the leap to connect the information, surely shows the desire for the premonitions to be true that discrepancies are overlooked, the fact the man who killed him was 73 and not Nero himself. 

What has driven the need for premonitions and does this explain their prevalence?  -socio-historical context: Throughout history, premonitions of the future have been believed in a supernatural sense., such as visions from God, or going to an oracle. In these times people had little control over their lives, so feelingthey had access greater power acted as a comfort. In the case of Emperor Nero and the oracle, despite the vague nature of the premonitions, people would maintain faith in them, and even adjust their interpretation of the premonition to find a meaning in it. (Parke, 2023)Oracles would be consulted in times of uncertainty, when the future was unsure, and oracles would give a sense of comfort during that time. This is consistent with Dr Cleary’s conclusion that premonition relies on illusion and people’s faith in them does not come from any real insight into the future, but on a desire to believe that they have more knowledge than they really do. 

-individual context: Precognitive abilities would allow people to predict the future, thus belief in these abilities should be differently endorsed when people most desire prediction, that is in situations of low control. Therefore, belief in precognition is a predictive control strategy that people can turn to when feeling low in control. As a result, loss of control will cause an increase in belief in precognition. Loss of control has been found to increase other types of paranormal beliefs, like superstition, which also include an element of being able to predict, or at least guide the future. In the case of precognition, people have a direct and exact channel to knowing the future through psychic means. These types of beliefs should therefore be particularly attractive as predictive control strategies in so far as the give people the illusion of being able to predict and therefore control the future. (Greenaway KH, 2013) 

Analysis:  This study is in agreement with the conclusions which Cleary drew from her study. She also concluded that it is illusory precognition which occurs, rather than true premonition. 

Are they the actualisation of a need within individuals/society?  Research:  People were drawn to predictability when they experienced loss of control, even to the extent of endorsing seemingly irrational beliefs about precognition. Therefore, these kinds of beliefs are a response to control deprivation, as belief in precognition increases perceived control. Predictive arts are highest in times of threat and uncertainty. It is at these moments that individuals feel the need to control the course of their lives. Belief in precognition meets this need by enabling people to feel that the future is predictable and can therefore be controlled. Regardless of whether precognitive abilities actually exist, therefore, belief in their existence serves an important psychological function of boosting perceived control in times of uncertainty. 

How do premonitions present now, what might this say about us?  Predictive Technology:  If belief in supernatural predictive abilities increases during times of uncertainty, then it makes sense that predictive technology should also experience a surge of popularity. However, the interest in this technology is, like supernatural premonition, not reliant on the accuracy of the technology, but on the perceived sense of control and power gained by the illusion of foreknowledge. This is highlighted by the use of unreliable technologies by the United States Law Enforcement Officers. This technology analyses data to try and predict who may commit crimes and where or when they are likely to be committed. (Fraerman, 2024) The persistent use of unreliable technology shows that people are drawn to the perceived comfort that this technology brings, rather than for any practical reasons. 

Research:  Health monitoring as a whole has become increasingly popular, with the use of Fitbit’s and apple watches to monitor steps, sleep and even stress. (Burnham, et al., 2018) But recently there has been a trend of non-diabetics wearing continuous glucose monitoring devices. This could be used to demonstrate how people are drawn to predictive control behaviours as there are no real health benefits to wearing these devises and in fact, they can even cause harm by people becoming obsessive and even leading to eating disorders. But despite this Dr Surampudi says, “Wearing a CGM may help someone who is not diabetic make informed nutritional choices, but it also has the potential to cause users to become overwhelmed by the information”. (Surampudi, 2023) 

Conclusions: In conclusion, the interest in premonition, through supernatural means or predictive technology, is driven by the comfort that perceived knowledge brings, and it is irrelevant how accurate it really is. When people turn to premonition, they are looking for illusory control in a time where they are in fact lacking in control. 

Bibliography:  Allen, R., 1990. The concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. 8th Edition ed. New York: Oxford university press. 

Burnham, J. P. et al., 2018. Using wearable technology to predict health outcomes: a literature review. 

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 25(9), p. 1221–1227. 

Cleary, A., 2018. Youtube. [Online] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0M6qXYJkhDc [Accessed 9 July 2023]. 

Cleary, A. M. &. C. A. B., 2018. Déjà Vu: An Illusion of Prediction. Sage Journals , 29(4), pp. 635-644.. 

Fraerman, A., 2024. RELYING ON UNRELIABLE TECH: UNCHECKED POLICE USE OF ALGORITHMIC TECHNOLOGIES. Santa Clara High Technology Law Journal, 40(2). 

Greenaway KH, L. W. H. M., 2013. Loss of Control Increases Belief in Precognition and Belief in Precognition Increases Control. PLoS ONE. Keefe, T., 2021. Premonition of the Titanic disaster. 1st ed. Leicestershire: Matador. 

Parke, H. W., 2023. Wikipedia. [Online] Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oracular_statements_from_Delphi [Accessed 15 April 2024]. 

Surampudi, V. M. M., 2023. UCLA Health. [Online] Available at: https://www.uclahealth.org/news/continuous-glucose-monitoring-becoming-popular-among-non [Accessed 10 December 2023].

[thebananwithaplan]

@skyfcx gets a chance for the Sur-Prize Box!

. "We've all got our own form of smarts, but how is your Puzzling Puzzler smarts?"

🎙️ "A cowboy rides into town on Friday. He stays in town for 3 days, and then leaves on Friday. How did he do it?"

Maybe Tails wouldn't even need the multiple choice options, but here they are anyways because them's the rules:

(1) With something involving time zones (2) With something involving a time machine (3) With something involving the tides (4) With something involving his horse

[author-orchids]

I came up with this story as a coping mechanism when I got really panicked about seeing an AI write a story

It Was 𝘼bsolutely 𝙄nevitable

Part One

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Everything was the same as it was the day before. And the day before that. As the day before that. How all days were.

-

I have a feeling that things will go wrong. And soon. So I will detail from where I think this all started up to now, so that they all might carry on without me, if it all does go wrong. I still am unsure how I came to be a leader in all this, but I guess that that is simply my role.

-

Monotony. That is how it is. Every day is the same. Puffs of steam. The sound of metal hitting metal. Stale air. Heat that is barely bearable. My job, on this hellish assembly line, is to screw a single nut, onto a single bolt.

In my head, things are different. In my head I get to devote myself to my true passion. I'd get to spend my days writing beautiful stories, flying in beautiful skies through the lives of my own characters. I would have that, rather than to make a living by screwing things together for the overbearing empire of robots.

But instead I'm here. Nothing new or exciting is to be had. It's all the same.

"Hey Az', do you wanna go out tonight?"

Except for that. That was the only thing that was different. People weren't the same. We don't run on algorithms and codes and binaries.

-

Thinking back now, us people are the only ones who can be truly random. The robots are, at their core, made of code, of ones and zeros and of logic.

They can't be random. They cultivate their code so precisely that they might appear to have a capability for randomness. But they are even quite predictable at times.

That predictably has saved my life more than once. And inversely, the human ability for randomness has ended that of robots. If you could call what they have life, that is.

Amongst that, human randomness has saved the lives of mine and my people. The ability to be random might just save them again, but it looks like it will cost my life. I'm content with that. I've lived long enough now. I've done so much.

I just hope that they will be able to carry on without me.

-

I look to my right, to the source of the voice. That would be Seizon. The closest of my very few friends.

"I can't afford to go out tonight."

The prices of things are preposterous. We all get food that fulfills all the nutrients we need provided to us in the form of an unappetizing gray slop, and so the purchase of any other food is deemed unnecessary, and therefore expensive.

Our provided food is barely filling, tastes bad, and is hard to eat. We could technically get by on it alone, but most everyone spends their extra money on other food. Myself included.

Suffice to say, going out to eat at a restaurant is a very rare treat, when most can barely afford to buy food for themselves to cook. Going out to a restaurant is a once in a blue moon type expense.

"don't worry about it. I can pay for you."

"oh Sei no, I couldn't ask you to-"

"you wouldn't be asking. I'm offering."

"but that is so much money. I couldn't in goon conscience have you-"

He always did have a back for cutting me off when he believed I was saying something foolish.

"Azalea. Look at me. I have been saving specifically so that I could treat us to going out. Okay? You're coming out with me tonight. Now do you want to pick the place? Or should I?"

I sigh, there's no arguing with him, "you pick."

[thehealingsystem]

nate please please please please I am shaking you by the shoulders right now no one needs to do this please you can make a actual thought provoking interesting thumbnail for the song you don't need to appeal to clickbait algorithms anymore you're still letting yourself be bound to it people loved your early original songs for what they were without this. please stop doing this please stop changing thumbnails I am going to cry

[ailifehacks]

Predictive Policing: AI-Driven Crime Forecasting and Its Ethical Dilemmas

Discover how AI-driven crime forecasting in predictive policing is reshaping law enforcement. Explore its ethical dilemmas, including bias, privacy concerns, Predictive policing refers to the use of AI algorithms to forecast potential criminal activities based on historical data. While this approach aims to enhance law enforcement efficiency, it introduces significant ethical concerns. What Is…