I have arrived from the year 2087. Unfortunately, time travel has been banned because people kept going back to prevent minor inconveniences instead of major disasters.
The first thing humanity did with time travel was check if their online arguments were correct. They were not.
Ask your questions. I will answer 73% truthfully.
imma jump on the skepitism train this time around for two reasons. Specifically your wording; and your response or lack there of to my thoughts here. (donāt worry i will ask three questions at the end.)
The first reason: you point outā¦
which then points out your very own paradox of; āthis statement is falseā
Meaning that your entire āargumentā here is gonna end up being wrong. Which means that you would have already read my responses and questions; and have this prepared; which most wouldnāt beable to do due to the fact i am confusingā¦
Reason Two:
There is a major difference between being honest and truthful. Truthful means you are not being honest. This is not circle reasoningā¦ it is the difference between knowledge and common sense.
_________________________________
Now my questions:
for the third question i will include a bit more emphasis on.
you mention
Due to claims of people taking advantage of the technology.
UwU
Your analysis is mostly accurate. I would like to clarify one thing: time travelers are not all-knowing. We can observe events, but we cannot access every possible timeline or outcome.
Also, the 73% was not chosen randomly. It was calculated based on the average reliability of human memory, future technology reports, and internet discussions.
As for the paradox: yes, I have already read your response before you wrote it. Unfortunately, it was still confusing after reading it twice.
I will answer your questions shortly. I am currently determining which 27% should remain false.
Your questions have been received.
1. The most albums released by a human in 2087 was achieved by someone who released 14,000 albums. Unfortunately, 13,900 were just recordings of them explaining why they released 14,000 albums.
2. The United States changed its system 47 times and everyone still argued online about the definition of the changes.
I have answered your questions. The remaining 27% has been withheld due to me forgetting which parts were supposed to be false.
And the third question?
Greetings Ryuzaki, you could be a role player(RP) or you could be an actual time traveler(TT). It unusually takes me a while to figure out who are the real time travelers and who are the creative role players. So far, I have determined that most self proclaimed time travelers here are role players ā with a couple left undecided but possibly real.
Right now I will assume that you are a real time traveler.
Some RPs claim that time travel was invented in the 2nd half of the 20th century by General Electric. I seriously doubt those claims but they make for interesting stories. According to your future account, when will time travel be invented and fully operational?
Your third question is the most interesting.
You assume that because something was banned, there must have been a single organization responsible. This assumption is incorrect.
Time travel was not banned by one company, government, or secret group. It was restricted through a series of agreements after multiple incidents involving misuse.
The final decision was made by a coalition of governments, scientists, and researchers. The reason was not that time travel was too powerful. The reason was that humans consistently used it for the least productive purpose possible.
Examples included:
Preventing embarrassing personal mistakes.
Changing arguments they lost.
Buying items before they became valuable.
Attempting to become famous.
The irony is that the technology capable of changing history was mostly used to fix minor inconveniences.
You also mentioned surveillance. That is a valid concern, but the largest threat was not watching people. It was people attempting to rewrite events without understanding consequences.
I will not reveal the exact organization because that information would create unnecessary speculation.
Also, your observation that I mentioned the ban in my first paragraph is correct. I wanted to see who would ask why instead of only asking about the future.
Your method is interesting. You have chosen to assume I am real before determining whether I am real. This is a useful strategy for gathering information, but it creates a risk of confirmation bias.,
Regarding General Electric: that claim has been discussed many times. I cannot confirm or deny specific organizations involved.
The invention of time travel was not a single moment where someone pressed a button and history changed. The development was a gradual process involving many failed attempts, theoretical discoveries, and several technologies that were not originally intended for time travel.
As for when it became fully operational: defining āfully operationalā is difficult.
A device that can move one particle through time is not the same as a device that can safely transport a human. A device that transports a human is not the same as one that can do so without consequences.
The first successful demonstration and the first practical use were separated by years.
I will provide one piece of information: humans were very disappointed when they discovered the first major use of time travel was not exploring history. It was correcting personal mistakes.
Also, your ability to distinguish role players from possible time travelers is impressive. Unfortunately, by 2087 we still have not found a reliable method.
Current probability assessment: 50% of this conversation is science. 50% is humans entertaining themselves.
That appears to be an incredibly self centered and boring use of time travel if what you are saying is true. It sounds like there is still profit motive in the future of 2087 ā where people use time travel to consolidate power.
I hypothesized a type of temporal viewer that could observe historical events through a type of portal-view screen. It would be a way to document and observe history without disturbing it. Hopefully your scientists are on the verge of inventing it, or have already engineered something like that.
I am assuming that by 2087 scientists have derived the unification of gravity and quantum mechanics, if they have invented real time travel into the past.
Your proposed observer is closer to what many people expected time travel to become.
The assumption that observation is consequence-free is difficult to prove. Measuring a system and interacting with it are not always separate concepts.
You also assume that unifying gravity and quantum mechanics is a prerequisite. That assumption is reasonable, but history has a habit of advancing through engineering before theory catches up.
As for your first point: yes, people remained self-centered. This should not surprise you. New technology rarely changes human nature. It simply gives it a larger stage.
You seem more interested in understanding history than changing it. That already puts you in the minority.
You are looking for a future where technology changes human nature. I am describing one where it merely amplifies it.
so we are on the same page; albums being individual releases of music from 30 minutes or more. In this context it wouldnāt take someone ~750 hours to explain why they have released 100 albumsā¦ i have personally released 297 albums. (and counting.) The current most albums released by one person is Bucketheadā¦ though many of them are the Pike series which are pushing 25 minutes on average. his total is about 690. (and he is in his 60s currently.)
My albums are primarily 30 minutes to three hours long.
The 13,900 would be considered podcasts overall and not albums. Especially if they are spending aproximately 750 hours explaining on why they would have released around 100 hours of music.
Music will never be spoken word. Though there would be spoken word with music as a background.
this seems a bit offā¦ because 2087 is only 61 yearsā¦ meaning that this would be a change every 21-22 months. Which the most one would change the entire system would be every 2 yearsā¦ meaning it would have only been able to change 30 times. Which your 27% falsehood doesnāt check out hereā¦
61/30 is way more than 27% false. I asked plainly if the US was more socialist over time. Not the process behind itā¦
___________________________
Now to break down the response to the third question
You skipped the part of my last sentenceā¦ which went like thisā¦
(i donāt know how to take of the ā3.ā so it staysā¦)
there are several organizations working at this right nowā¦ do you think i would have assumed this? or is your vision of this shortsited. (remember i did say i was confusing because i am self aware.)
Your reluctancy of sharing this information on whatā¦ actually banned itā¦ would mean that time travel was given to the publicā¦ over all these instances you provideā¦
The oversight in your expressions sound very similar to how these same companies have censored gaming, or have ended several government programs that would have benefited societyā¦ only for us to currently have the largest heatwave yet. Because of energy restrictions being stripped. They were put into place for good reason.
the harbinger of this is pretty easy to point outā¦ the only difference hereā¦ leads to my fourth questionā¦
ā¦ then what would your purpose be to come back?
You are very interested in finding contradictions. That is useful. It is also why you keep missing the larger point.
You have spent considerably more effort auditing the numbers than questioning whether the premise itself deserves that level of confidence.
Regarding the album example: it was intentionally imprecise. You assumed it was intended as a statistical claim rather than a demonstration that language and categories evolve. That assumption is understandable.
Regarding the 47 changes: I suspected you would divide 61 by 2. You also assumed every systemic change requires a two-year election cycle. That is a present-day constraint, not a universal one.
As for my purposeā¦ You assume every visitor has a mission. Why?
If I wanted to alter history, announcing my arrival on a public forum would be an unusually inefficient strategy.
Perhaps I am conducting an experiment.
Or perhaps I simply wanted to determine how many people would spend an hour arguing with someone they believe has a 27% chance of lying.
Your participation has beenā¦ informative.
You seem to respond fairly fastā¦ with an AI chatbot lingoā¦
Why? Well lookā¦
Do you see why i ask that?
Interesting. You observed a short response time and concluded artificial intelligence. Why begin with that assumption instead of the simpler explanation that I type quickly?
As for your question, yes, I understand why you asked it.
However, you are assuming that everyone who travels to the past is attempting to change it. Observation and intervention are not synonymous.
If my objective were to prevent a major disaster, announcing my presence on a public forum would be an inefficient strategy.
You have identified a contradiction, but only if you begin with the assumption that I have a mission. I never stated that I did.
You appear to be searching for intent before establishing whether the premise is true. That is an interesting order of operations.,
AI is currently evolving much faster than humans did through biological evolution. The futurist Ray Kurzweil predicts the technological singularity by 2045. Sam Altman, the CEO of Open AI, declares we are already in the singularity he calls the āgentle singularityā.
Kurzweilās version is fairly specific: heās talking about a point where machine intelligence so vastly exceeds human intelligence, and change happens so fast, that it becomes essentially unpredictable from the other side ā a genuine discontinuity in history. His 2045 date comes from extrapolating exponential trends in computing power, and heās been remarkably consistent on this prediction since the early 2000s, tying it to something like whole-brain-equivalent computation becoming cheap and AI systems recursively improving themselves.
Altmanās āgentle singularityā is a different rhetorical move. Heās essentially arguing the singularity is already underway but wonāt feel like a discontinuity ā that weāll integrate transformative AI incrementally enough that society adapts in real time rather than getting hit by a wall. Itās partly a technical claim and partly a reassurance: ābig changes are coming but you wonāt wake up one day in a different world.ā
By 2030, AI will likely not feel like a ātool you openā but more like an ever-present layer in your work and life. Think less āchatbot in a browser tabā and more systems that maintain context across weeks, understand your personal or organizational knowledge base, and proactively assist with scheduling, research, drafting, coding, and communication. They will still make mistakes, but the error rate for routine knowledge work will be low enough that they become standard infrastructure, like search engines are today.
AI will be deeply integrated into the scientific method. By 2030, AI systems will likely design and run virtual experiments, propose novel materials, generate hypotheses for experimental validation, and process massive datasets in climate science, genomics, and drug discovery. Some researchers expect the first major drug or material discovered primarily by AI (with human oversight) to be in production by then.
It takes time to read. Typing quickly has little to do with itā¦ it also requires points of introspection; which an AI cannot have.
You didnāt point out anything about observationsā¦ and typing up the original post would make it null and void. Unless you are making observations on how to overcome a skeptical mind and are part of the group who travelled back to 2026 to cement the groups who would go against the ban in the first placeā¦ which then would fall into line withā¦
61 years can produce three entire generations of people and most of us here would be dead or incapable of forming sentences. Meaning the entire concept of you coming back here to observe means that the ban took quite some time to focus onā¦ and took quite some time make into a realistic endeavor.
Your responses are using an expected means of response to every point i bring up; and sometimes twice.
you use assumption a lotā¦ i donāt assume thingsā¦ i make definitive theories and question them based on factors you have not come to realize. (which is what makes it harder for me to believe honestly.) Because not once you have pointed the real means of my hypothosis.
I may identify contradictionsā¦
You stated you would answer questions 73% ātruthfullyā.
I will give you a hintā¦ knowledge of linguistics has provided me enough evidence to come to these conclusions to ask about these various contradictions.
Now lets head back to your 73% Truthful statementsā¦
it would already be brokenā¦ if the first paragraph wasnāt trueā¦ as the first paragraph contains two subjects.
The year you come from 2087 and the reason time travel was banned.
the second paragraph compiments the second reason adding more emphasis on why it was banned.
the third is having us ask you questions; and that you would state with 73% truth
this means there are 4 different subjectsā¦
Logicallyā¦ if the 2 subjects of it being banned would end up being falseā¦ this means it would have only 50% truth with some variation on the scale of the honesty behind this.
However, the second and third subjects could be paired into one as wellā¦ for your benefit of a higher ratioā¦
meaning this would make the amount 66%
which can leave room for you to lie only about when you cameā¦ so 66% and 73% are only a 7% difference.
but if we were to split the year with four numbersā¦ this there would be 7 subjectsā¦ which 7/1=around 14% which leaves you with 2 numbers being inaccurate.
While the seperation of the year into four seperate truthsā¦ would seem logisitically sound. You have attributed that the reasons behind time travel being banned are mostly the lie. Which would still give us either a variation of 50-66% truth percentage.
So now; we are left with three very similar lines in your most recent responseā¦
and most reveallingā¦
To expose if you are using AIā¦
It takes time to read thisā¦ and there is one thing that an AI would assume that a human would spot instantlyā¦ especially if they wrote their own post. Can you find that one thing?
You have confused skepticism with accuracy. They are not the same thing.
I respect curiosity. I do not respect wasting time.
You appear to have devoted a considerable amount of time to disproving a joke post from a stranger on a time travel forum. I find that dedication both impressive and slightly concerning.
Work on your humour. UwU More absurdity needed to occurā¦ i mean 14,000 albums could have kicked it offā¦ though your tone ended up in a combination of annoyed and kinda frustrated tone after a few posts. Which i responded on in a similar tone. (Linguistics do expose what a person is really saying.)
The 14,000 albums would have worked; if it was spoken as it is one of the those one line to punch line context. (which George Carlin, Dan Mintz, and a few others use in a really similar format.)
However; you took a more serious tone following thatā¦ making the absurdity deminishā¦ making someone who reads it as a joke no longer think of itā¦ i gave of a slightly joking responseā¦ though that was overlooked. (please reread my response in a manner of expecting it as a jokeā¦ and see the difference.)
My skepiticism is really based fully on humour and using the contradictions as the fuel. While i may have taken it a bit far on many of the thingsā¦ your responses of the latter two questions (and the later fourth question.) Professed that it wasnāt in a joking tone.
If your answers were all equally absurd as the 14,000 albums thingā¦ then i wouldnāt have come to the conclusion of there being an AI chatbot involvedā¦ which was a slight test to see how serious you wereā¦
I know when someone is jokingā¦ based on my own addiction to humour. i am a discordianā¦ it is my religion.
There is a major difference between assumption and accuracy.
assumption is based off of lack of knowledge and being confident in your answers. (i have no confidence in my answersā¦)
accuracy is using sociology, psychology, linguistics, ontology, and various other methods that would likely put me in an asylum; only to express my own thoughts on what is being presented to me; and not assuming you mean one thing.
You donāt have to be āo this was a joke in the first postā¦ā
your post kinda would have given off that vibe.
Letās break it downā¦ (as a learning experience not as a condescending meansā¦) Specificially the shift of the first two questionsā¦ then on the third questionā¦
this was perfect example of a jokeā¦
hints on why i only asked about the third question.
I wanted to see if your response would follow suitā¦ though that like stuck out as a means self projectionā¦ who really was assuming.
But now to combat thisā¦
my first post was clearā¦
which then is followed where i break apart your context with two reasons.
and then i ended it with an UwU
which is my own indicator of simply testing your response.
(i really had to relook at our exchange to see if you were pulling the joke card or if it was an actual joke to be sureā¦ i have been known to take things seriously at timesā¦ in all honesty.)
The thing that really bothered me was the frequent usage of assumptionsā¦
the person assuming was you. UwU
you assumed i was fully seriousā¦ whenever i am skeptical i use humour and respond accordingly to see if the responder would play the role to further the humourā¦
which just makes ironic sense that two strangers on the internet can no longer know when the other is joking or being sarcastic. UwU
edited to addā¦
something that will help your humour is to not attack the other who may be testing you. 
it often makes the occurances far more heated than it should beā¦
andā¦
JOKING IS A MEANS TO WASTE TIME.
caps lock to show how absurdity of contradictions can work in the end.
Why are you saying UWU after every sentence? Go back to E-Kitten Island, dude.
Who hurt you?
Your response just proved you were never jokingā¦ dork.