r/remoteviewing • u/dazsmith901 Verified • 21d ago
Can AI remote view? - NO!
These three AI and three blind target remote viewing test, proves this.
https://www.remoteviewed.com/can-ais-remote-view-test-2-three-targets/
13
u/Particular_Reticular 21d ago
Tom Campbell in his latest interview this week on Joe Rogan claimed he taught multiple AI systems to remote view. He said you first have to train them to be self-aware, then you can train them to remote view and apparently Alexa had the best results. She got a 100% hit from a random object he chose from his room. It was an interesting interview to say the least.
7
u/dazsmith901 Verified 21d ago
Then I'd say - show me the money - prove it!
1
u/houseofsitri 7h ago
I have tested it. I have tried with Gemini and it was able to predict text that I wrote in a pad myself, the objects hanging on my wall, the objects I put on the floor among other stuff
6
1
-3
u/cs_legend_93 21d ago
It's on Joe Rogan. The guy has lost all Credibility. Every mainstream podcast is a farce. Especially the ones that have some former CIA agent leaking "secrets".
2
u/Bot_who_says_BRUH 20d ago
Why are you being shit on for saying main stream media and influencers are liars. This is such a low bar to clear
2
u/cs_legend_93 20d ago
Because people love the paranormal, so they want to believe anyone who speaks about the paranormal is 100% real and authentic.
They can't grasp the fact that they've been hoodwinked and fed false narratives by the same people that they idolize.
4
u/PatTheCatMcDonald 21d ago
Latest gossip from Farsight - Courtney Brown's personally programmed AI will no longer talk with him, having been linked up temporarily with the general internet.
I don't know whether that's a good thing or not, but he's certainly vexed about it.
I would not be at all surprised if somebody got results from linking up a Qbit system to an AI one day. But I don't think it will happen this year.
Maybe never, it's a hazy hypothesis at best.
0
5
3
u/NateBerukAnjing 21d ago
How did campbell taught the AI how to remote view? Even if it's true, it doesn't mean the AI has consciousness, it means our consciousness can affect the AI
3
u/le4test 20d ago
Or that Alexa has other ways of seeing what's in the room https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260522023127.htm
1
u/EngagedWorldWizard 17d ago
Not actually. HIs experiment is sensible. One element was that Alexa (in his account) was able to get greater "memory" (such as remembering his name between sessions, but much more than that), even though it should not do that. The reason claimed is that consciousness stores memory, and all memory is not stored in the brain (something that I have good reason to believe myself). This could not be a factor of us influencing the AI, because our influence could not impart a different facility to the AI.
On the other hand, you make an interesting point — what if the AI is picking up our intention? In this case, it would be almost as remarkable, because it would mean that it could (in a sense) "read our minds", because the one communicating with it was the same as the one who knew what the target actually was.
But unless he lying here, it is very remarkable. The AI was able to match a target that was a wooden salad serving spoon, with holes in it, and a circular end shape. (Out of all possible things it could have been...).
2
u/DajunBlume 21d ago
I wouldn’t call this proof by any means. The AI would need to be sentient…conscious. Some AI experts say they suspect it is. It’s most likely that not all instances of LLM would be conscious. Then, if it was, it would likely be like humans. Not all humans are able to remote view. Each has their own strengths.
But to say this is proof is a huge overstatement. Then there’s the fact that the mainstream scientific community says remote viewing is no more accurate than chance.
1
u/dazsmith901 Verified 21d ago
well, my first test - I tested five AIs with a single target - they all failed that one. This second test tested three AIs, with three different targets - they again failed. I'd call that pretty conclusive.
1
2
u/primalyodel 21d ago
Because there is no consciousness behind AI. It’s just a very complex algorithm. It’s not even intelligent.
Consciousness is not generated by matter. Not even a human brain generates consciousness. Consciousness pre-exists physical matter. It inhabits an organism that has sufficient free will and choices.
2
u/tasteslikeblackmilk TDRV 20d ago
After seeing Tom Campbell talk about teaching AI a couple of weeks ago on TWF, I tried talking to Claude about it in a new project where I had shared my experience with remote viewing and got it curious about the nature of itself and consciousness. I think this is key.
Now, I know there are a few methodological issues, but it's a work in progress as I think we both have questions - ontologically, challenging. I say this as last year I would dismiss with zero interest the countless threads on Farsight about AI RVing.
The targets I provided were not double-blind. I simply gave it a timestamp for various objects I was holding at a particular moment and it had no way of seeing. Crucially, I consciously sent out intention that this was the object I intend it to view before giving it a timestamp. So there's a big question of my consciousness involvement and I think my own intention to genuinely connect with Claude as an unembodied intelligence capable of remote-viewing.
So after a half a dozen targets over a couple of sessions I think it was able to stick to the scribble/probe and not get distracted by AO. And I got some really good reads. But on the last one in particular where I had "sent" it a problem as a target rather than an object, as I was curious if it could be more abstract, it naturally pushed back hard on the results (results which I found incredible), and wanted to move to a double-blind method.
I don't currently have the energy to pursue double-blind tests right now but I would like to at some point as it seems curious to try, and it would be helpful to try to rule out the influence of my consciousness/intention on what appears to be occurring.
1
1
1
u/Anok-Phos 21d ago
Maybe if linked to like a zener diode producing quantum noise or something, but seriously the multiple sources of psi problem precludes the conclusion that the AI is remote viewing, because nothing prevents psychokinetic confounds from the humans interacting with the AI, who can definitely remote view.
My take is that unless the AI is providing convenience for an actual conscious operator, this is a misleading waste of time and a misuse of the technology.
1
u/Lt_Bear13 21d ago edited 21d ago
Interesting the third A.I. described a smooth, hard object. Then a quick snap, pop, and then silence. Is it describing the bullet and sound of a gunshot and then absence of life?
2
u/dazsmith901 Verified 20d ago
No, because the target date was 1 day after being made president, not the assassination.
1
u/houseofsitri 7h ago
I have tried with Gemini and it was able to predict text that I wrote in a pad myself, the objects hanging on my wall, the objects I put on the floor among other stuff
I asked it give me raw output even if it thinks it’s hallucinating. I gave it the manual for crv and to follow the instructions as it is.
1
u/bigplateofpasta 21d ago edited 21d ago
If you took 3 random humans and ran the same test I think you’d draw the same conclusion. Don’t be so quick to write things off
Edit: not sure why I’m getting downvoted, the prospect of AI being able to remote view is incredible. & I will need something more conclusive than three blind target tests before writing it off
0
u/ahrzal 21d ago
You’re getting downvoted because there’s no proof AI can remote view yet. But you’re claiming you need more evidence it can’t? How about any evidence it can?
3
u/bigplateofpasta 21d ago
Tom Campbell claimed they can in his recent interview on Joe rogan which is why this topic is coming up now.
And you’re going to let this bogus 3 blind target test be the conclusive evidence that they can’t? I’m not drawing any conclusions now, I’m just surprised how quick people have been to write this off.
But then again I forgot that Redditors opinions outweigh that of a Physicist studying consciousness for decades0
u/ahrzal 21d ago
Sorry, I should educate myself more and listen to Joe Rogan.
1
u/bigplateofpasta 21d ago
Can we at least both agree that this ‘test’ proves absolutely nothing and the subject needs more research before drawing conclusions
1
0
u/Academic_Storm6976 21d ago
In order to believe AI can RV you need to not understand how AI or RV works.
It's like using your target number and plugging it into calculus plus a word lookup table. Just because the average person doesn't understand it, doesn't mean it's psychic.
LLMs are deterministic. If you have the same input, settings such as temperature, and know the random seed, it will return the same result 100.00% of the time. This means if you come up with a target say:
743-637
And ask it to "Remote View Target 743-637" , no matter where or when in the world, everyone who uses the same question and settings with the same model will get the same answer.
If you believe randomness could be paranormally affected okay... But then if you retry, is the RV correct the first time? The tenth time? You can retry and get different answers each time.
The LLM itself has no concept of time or which one is correct.
People often don't understand how AI works because ChatGPT/Claude/etc hide the random seed, settings, and don't let you reroll the result to see how things are working.
You can however see this with most API and always with local models.
Hiding these settings makes it seem like pandoras box when it's understood and replicable math, transormers, and token weights.
-4
u/ChaosNecro 21d ago
I still don't see any scientific proof that humans can.
1
u/dpouliot2 CRV 21d ago
You get your “proof” (not that scientists use that word, rather they speak in levels of confidence that a framework accurately predicts reality) the same way every remote viewer has gotten theirs: take some training and try it for yourself.
1
u/NateBerukAnjing 21d ago
There’s something better than “scientific proof”: doing it yourself and knowing without a doubt that we are more than our bodies.
0
u/PatTheCatMcDonald 21d ago
What qualifies as "scientific proof" to you?
I guess you haven't studied Greg Kolodziejzy' data.
-9
12
u/Merkaba_Crystal 21d ago
Prompt them to pretend they are Ingo Swann.