I didn't want to explain the Oz tricks in the article in case nobody wanted to hear it. But I'll gladly do the cliffnotes version if you don't want to watch a 50-minute video about it.
I watched most of the explanation and I was not satisfied at all. I get the writing down the the phrase on the trick pad of paper but I was very unsatisfied with the explanation for Rogan's PIN.
I watch Oz in the Bengal's camp and he wrote down time and again who Burrow was going to throw a ball to in the meeting room and I don't see how that could have been arranged beforehand. Watch this from the 1:45 mark... can anyone explain this?
So the answer is that everyone involved is in on it? Obviously there's an answer as to how he does it but does it seem reasonable that the thousands of times he's does things like this it's because all the parties involved are in on it?
I don’t know how he does the Burrow trick but I don’t think anyone is ever in on it. In the video, there’s never a time when the lawyer implied or says that the people are in on it. They give up the information without knowing it.
The Rogan one was easy for me to believe. He’s going to be seen by millions of people. He has to pull out all the stops. Why wouldn’t he be compelled to hire a PI to find out his pin? It makes perfect sense to me. He’s spending a small amount of money to do a trick that 99.9% of a million people will believe is real. That’s business!
Hire a PI to find a piece of information about Joe Rogan that would seem unlikely to know. He follows Rogan to a grocery store. Rogan uses his pin to pay for groceries. I use my pin in public every day and I never think if I’m being watched. If Rogan never uses his pin or hides it well, then Oz wouldn’t use Pin. He would use some other piece of information. I don’t think knowing a pin is a big deal, I think we make a big deal of it because we assume we are the only ones who know our pin. But that’s because there’s usually no incentive to have it without the card. Except in this rare case where you have a mentalist trying to wow an audience.
I agree with the lawyer when he says that Rogan isn’t amazed so much as he feels his privacy was invaded to make this trick happen.
So the scenario is that Oz gets booked on Rogan's show and he sends out the PI in hopes the guy can get his PIN in what... a matter of a few days? I would guess that Rogan uses a debit card very infrequently as most people use credit cards instead.
I'm just very skeptical the trick is to attempt to get hold of the PIN using this sort of subterfuge ahead of time.
I thinknit may be more likely that he sends out a PI to research anything he can about Rogan and then follow him at a reasonable distance for awhile with some closer moments. The PI observes and gathers anything he can, then Oz picks which information would be useful. It could be his pin, a security code for a laptop, his parking space number, or anything else, the more personal, the better.
I watched the whole 50 minute video. I wish he had done more cases and uncovered more stuff but it was as expected. I really like Penn and Teller/Amazing Randy and so forth for being upfront that what they do is illusion, misdirection and slight of hand. To pretend you have these otherworldly abilties is the lowest scum level of "magic" of any sort. It's supposed to be fun entertainment. But some people's egos are just too big for that to be enough. I did enjoy seeing Joe Rogan was not buying ANY of that guy's BS and it got uncomfortable at times.
It does seem like Joe Rogan would be more predisposed to skepticism than another podcast host, which doesn’t make his show an ideal setting for Oz.
As long as the audience realizes that Oz can’t read your body language to read your mind, then logically we must accept that everything he reveals was somehow an answer he already had the answer to before he asked the question. To believe that he reads body language to read your mind is no different than believing people can literally read minds, so naturally many of us are more curious about how the tricks are done. If we had always known that Oz makes people write down answers before the show on his personal notepad, we wouldn’t care about what he does on the shows at all. We would know how it was done.
I listened to his podcast for many years when it first came out and I hadn't yet soured on MMA. I will give the man this: he is absolutely willing to change his stance on things, which is rare in today's world. When I first started listening, he believed in the 'moon landing was faked' conspiracy. He had an astronaut on who explained how it was able to happen with 1960's technology, passing the change in atmosphere, and all of the talking points the conspiracy guys use. He changed his mind, live on that show.
I haven't been a listener for several years now, but when he would talk about one of the few subjects I know a lot about, I would often cringe at his takes, which were often simplistic or missed key points, but he's willing to be corrected and will interview just about anyone and let them talk. I think that's the biggest reason for his popularity. But he seemed visibly PISSED at Oz the Mentalist in those clips! I am curious as to how Oz got his PIN. I'm guessing he had to have had someone follow him and spy. That's an incredible breech of privacy and unethical, if not crossing legal lines.
I can only wonder what Oz plans to say in his upcoming book. Surely it isn't going to contain his real methods; yet he claims that anyone who reads it will be able to do what he does. He's the definition of a charlatan.
Rogan appears gullible only because he has an open mind and is willing to consider ideas that many cannot. It doesn't mean he believes everything he's told, to me it seems he goes with whomever makes the best argument. Most people believe things that are false because they are unwilling to listen to other alternatives.
Always been a skeptic so it's nice to see its all BS. But I got to give him props for his showmanship. Its legit how he manipulates the audience and not necessarily the mark. He looks for the most gullible and almost directs the show towards them, so when the reveal comes out, they react huge. Its entertaining for sure.
Seaside Joe remark that he learns through repetition and immersion. I am sure a lot of us are in that same boat. Sam Donald has had 73 starts in the NFL.Drew Lock has had 28. Many of them coming off the bench in spot starts or very little notice.
They are both the same age. I cannot help but wonder what Drew Lock would look like if he got to play consecutive games in a season. He has outplayed him so far or Sam Donald looks great if you factor in all the excuses. The pads come on next month and then we’ll know .,.theone thing I absolutely know for certain is that.Drew Lock is a ball to the wall competitor thrives on competition and lives for those moments when the game is on the line . Sam Donald is a starter for a reason and I recognize that I just don’t happen to believe he’s as good as Drew Lock. In any case, you will know soon enough.
We've been struggling here at work on how to guide employees on how to use AI products, like Co-pilot. Our guidance has been to not put any company confidential information in there, as it is often not clear on the chain of custody of that data, and how it may train a language model, which theoretically could assist our competitors.
I recently asked Co-pilot a question specifically about our company that it should not know the answer to, since it was information we had never made public. It got the answer right. Ugh. So I ask it how it knew that answer, and it pointed me to two 'industry articles' as the source of its 'knowledge'. I read them both. No mention of our company in either of them. I then tell it there is no reference to our company in those articles. It then comes back with 'oops, it appears I made a mistake'.
So, it knows something it shouldn't, yet it can't tell me how it knows. That's the part that worries me going forward. The technology is cool in some respects. It's frightening in others.
Gonna be cool as we learn to play well with AI. I'm not smelling any threats to what you do here, Ken. I am already finding I have a radar for anything trying to pretend to be Human.
First. Before YouTube there were these things called books. A bunch of papers bound together. One read them, and like watching YouTube, often many times, to get down the concepts. ;-))). Second, “moderately”? Sometimes I have no idea how the clip works with the content (JK. What you do won’t be replaced by AI. It’s incredibly useful and definitely helps a person write better, but to put your mix of thoughts, and clips, together requires a creative and adaptable brain. You switching to Devon couple years ago likely not happening with AI because AI would learn from the “pundits”.). Keep writing.
I used to go to FieldGulls but I have it blocked on my .hosts list now. Really uninterested in the toxic culture over there. I get my Seahawks news from my Bluesky feed mostly.
When I was looking much more closely at college QBs three years ago, I had Gabriel ranked pretty high. Perhaps he will be a steal. But then we've had a lot of QBs in the past who were in a similar situation, say Davis Mills for example, and it's obvious that they're starting because the team has no other options.
If Joe Flacco can't win that job, it's time for the booth.
I didn't expect him to start...at least not early in his career -if at all.. I just thought he was being overlooked a bit during the draft process while Sanders was being over hyped...until he wasn't.
I felt so sorry for Gabriel after the draft. Not only is he going to Cleveland, but then, even though he's drafted two rounds earlier, he's completely overshadowed by Sanders. It's hard to imagine that people are getting paid (really well!) to make these kind of decisions.
AI is a model and all computer models simply reflect the biases that its programmers hold. It makes me crazy when I see people on X ask Grok if something is true.
I watch a bunch of AI videos and I still don't quite understand it at all, but that does seem to be what I've seen a lot of lately. That as of right now, what AI can do and will do in the near future is very overhyped. Not saying it won't get more advanced, but so far it's just copying us from the sounds of it.
What is commonly called AI ( or really….Large Language Models-LLMs) does not think. It puts together words that their algorithms think go together based on your query. They have been trained on literally billions of examples of speech/text. They are VERY good at mimicking human language output but they have no understanding of what they say.
By training them on such a large volume of text, they are often able to piece together an answer that is accurate.
But since there is no computer system that actually understands, they are still prone to “hallucinations”. The words look and sound good together but are not fact based.
I have no worry that an AI system can replace you SSJ. I don’t read your columns for how you put your words together, although you do that really well. I read it for the thought provoking ideas and concepts you bring us.
That's not a bad explanation. I'd just add two brief things. First, the answers you get from a product like co-pilot or ChatGPT are only as good as the references they used for the answers. Bad references, bad answers. There is so much misinformation out there now on any number of topics, finding the truth is getting harder and harder, even for AI. Second, LLM's can be manipulated by bad actors, so that will be a very disturbing threat for AI models. We're already seeing LLM's compromised. So this will be something to watch for.
Yeah, I have no real clue about AI, (some would say I have no real clue, period!) but I think AI just scours the web on the queried subject at light speed, takes the most common point of views, collates and regurgitates. To me this is a way of always getting the majority thought on something, and I hate the idea of being denied the broad gamut of ideas. All throughout history, what started out as a tiny minority of thought became the majority as more came to understand it. I recently re-read and re-watched Stephen King’s 1963, and finally convinced my son to watch it. At the end of it, he asked me would you rather go back and live in 1963 or today? My answer was there’s no sense crying over spilled milk. To which he replied, there are some things better today. AI is making it unnecessary for students to learn thought processes and what goes into analyzing topics. I hate it. - So says the 70 year old curmudgeon
I found James Foster before the draft. He was interviewed by Dan Viens. He had a free draft board and incredible breakdown analysis of hundreds of players. I used his analysis and “The Beast” to come up with my draft board for the Seahawks.
And it’s all free. He goes very in depth in his analysis, including athletic scores. (His own) So you can try to determine who the Seahawks might target.
I didn't want to explain the Oz tricks in the article in case nobody wanted to hear it. But I'll gladly do the cliffnotes version if you don't want to watch a 50-minute video about it.
I watched most of the explanation and I was not satisfied at all. I get the writing down the the phrase on the trick pad of paper but I was very unsatisfied with the explanation for Rogan's PIN.
I watch Oz in the Bengal's camp and he wrote down time and again who Burrow was going to throw a ball to in the meeting room and I don't see how that could have been arranged beforehand. Watch this from the 1:45 mark... can anyone explain this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h78yGvxhKw4
Joe burrow is in on it I'm guessing...not sure how but he seems to be being fed info.
So the answer is that everyone involved is in on it? Obviously there's an answer as to how he does it but does it seem reasonable that the thousands of times he's does things like this it's because all the parties involved are in on it?
I don’t know how he does the Burrow trick but I don’t think anyone is ever in on it. In the video, there’s never a time when the lawyer implied or says that the people are in on it. They give up the information without knowing it.
(Without looking) isn’t that the definition of a predictable offense?
The Rogan one was easy for me to believe. He’s going to be seen by millions of people. He has to pull out all the stops. Why wouldn’t he be compelled to hire a PI to find out his pin? It makes perfect sense to me. He’s spending a small amount of money to do a trick that 99.9% of a million people will believe is real. That’s business!
How is a PI going to find out his PIN? If Rogan is like me he's the only one who knows it and it's not written down anywhere.
Hire a PI to find a piece of information about Joe Rogan that would seem unlikely to know. He follows Rogan to a grocery store. Rogan uses his pin to pay for groceries. I use my pin in public every day and I never think if I’m being watched. If Rogan never uses his pin or hides it well, then Oz wouldn’t use Pin. He would use some other piece of information. I don’t think knowing a pin is a big deal, I think we make a big deal of it because we assume we are the only ones who know our pin. But that’s because there’s usually no incentive to have it without the card. Except in this rare case where you have a mentalist trying to wow an audience.
I agree with the lawyer when he says that Rogan isn’t amazed so much as he feels his privacy was invaded to make this trick happen.
So the scenario is that Oz gets booked on Rogan's show and he sends out the PI in hopes the guy can get his PIN in what... a matter of a few days? I would guess that Rogan uses a debit card very infrequently as most people use credit cards instead.
I'm just very skeptical the trick is to attempt to get hold of the PIN using this sort of subterfuge ahead of time.
I thinknit may be more likely that he sends out a PI to research anything he can about Rogan and then follow him at a reasonable distance for awhile with some closer moments. The PI observes and gathers anything he can, then Oz picks which information would be useful. It could be his pin, a security code for a laptop, his parking space number, or anything else, the more personal, the better.
I watched the whole 50 minute video. I wish he had done more cases and uncovered more stuff but it was as expected. I really like Penn and Teller/Amazing Randy and so forth for being upfront that what they do is illusion, misdirection and slight of hand. To pretend you have these otherworldly abilties is the lowest scum level of "magic" of any sort. It's supposed to be fun entertainment. But some people's egos are just too big for that to be enough. I did enjoy seeing Joe Rogan was not buying ANY of that guy's BS and it got uncomfortable at times.
It does seem like Joe Rogan would be more predisposed to skepticism than another podcast host, which doesn’t make his show an ideal setting for Oz.
As long as the audience realizes that Oz can’t read your body language to read your mind, then logically we must accept that everything he reveals was somehow an answer he already had the answer to before he asked the question. To believe that he reads body language to read your mind is no different than believing people can literally read minds, so naturally many of us are more curious about how the tricks are done. If we had always known that Oz makes people write down answers before the show on his personal notepad, we wouldn’t care about what he does on the shows at all. We would know how it was done.
“It does seem like Joe Rogan would be more predisposed to skepticism than another podcast host, which doesn’t make his show an ideal setting for Oz.”
Really? Rogan strikes me as one of the most gullible human beings on God’s green earth.
I listened to his podcast for many years when it first came out and I hadn't yet soured on MMA. I will give the man this: he is absolutely willing to change his stance on things, which is rare in today's world. When I first started listening, he believed in the 'moon landing was faked' conspiracy. He had an astronaut on who explained how it was able to happen with 1960's technology, passing the change in atmosphere, and all of the talking points the conspiracy guys use. He changed his mind, live on that show.
I haven't been a listener for several years now, but when he would talk about one of the few subjects I know a lot about, I would often cringe at his takes, which were often simplistic or missed key points, but he's willing to be corrected and will interview just about anyone and let them talk. I think that's the biggest reason for his popularity. But he seemed visibly PISSED at Oz the Mentalist in those clips! I am curious as to how Oz got his PIN. I'm guessing he had to have had someone follow him and spy. That's an incredible breech of privacy and unethical, if not crossing legal lines.
I can only wonder what Oz plans to say in his upcoming book. Surely it isn't going to contain his real methods; yet he claims that anyone who reads it will be able to do what he does. He's the definition of a charlatan.
Rogan appears gullible only because he has an open mind and is willing to consider ideas that many cannot. It doesn't mean he believes everything he's told, to me it seems he goes with whomever makes the best argument. Most people believe things that are false because they are unwilling to listen to other alternatives.
I don't think that being gullible (I agree with you) is the same as being nonskeptical.
Always been a skeptic so it's nice to see its all BS. But I got to give him props for his showmanship. Its legit how he manipulates the audience and not necessarily the mark. He looks for the most gullible and almost directs the show towards them, so when the reveal comes out, they react huge. Its entertaining for sure.
Yeah, I’m still impressed with his gift of gab. Most people wouldn’t be able to do what he does even with the tricks.
Seaside Joe remark that he learns through repetition and immersion. I am sure a lot of us are in that same boat. Sam Donald has had 73 starts in the NFL.Drew Lock has had 28. Many of them coming off the bench in spot starts or very little notice.
They are both the same age. I cannot help but wonder what Drew Lock would look like if he got to play consecutive games in a season. He has outplayed him so far or Sam Donald looks great if you factor in all the excuses. The pads come on next month and then we’ll know .,.theone thing I absolutely know for certain is that.Drew Lock is a ball to the wall competitor thrives on competition and lives for those moments when the game is on the line . Sam Donald is a starter for a reason and I recognize that I just don’t happen to believe he’s as good as Drew Lock. In any case, you will know soon enough.
We've been struggling here at work on how to guide employees on how to use AI products, like Co-pilot. Our guidance has been to not put any company confidential information in there, as it is often not clear on the chain of custody of that data, and how it may train a language model, which theoretically could assist our competitors.
I recently asked Co-pilot a question specifically about our company that it should not know the answer to, since it was information we had never made public. It got the answer right. Ugh. So I ask it how it knew that answer, and it pointed me to two 'industry articles' as the source of its 'knowledge'. I read them both. No mention of our company in either of them. I then tell it there is no reference to our company in those articles. It then comes back with 'oops, it appears I made a mistake'.
So, it knows something it shouldn't, yet it can't tell me how it knows. That's the part that worries me going forward. The technology is cool in some respects. It's frightening in others.
Lots of ways to make money. The easiest is to work hard for it.
"Do I worry about A.I. taking my job?" hah, hah ~ No Way !
Ai can't hold a candle to KenJoe & Seaside Jay, 'n Clark.
... also wouldn't come up with "But was he called a Wussell Rilson?"
Gonna be cool as we learn to play well with AI. I'm not smelling any threats to what you do here, Ken. I am already finding I have a radar for anything trying to pretend to be Human.
First. Before YouTube there were these things called books. A bunch of papers bound together. One read them, and like watching YouTube, often many times, to get down the concepts. ;-))). Second, “moderately”? Sometimes I have no idea how the clip works with the content (JK. What you do won’t be replaced by AI. It’s incredibly useful and definitely helps a person write better, but to put your mix of thoughts, and clips, together requires a creative and adaptable brain. You switching to Devon couple years ago likely not happening with AI because AI would learn from the “pundits”.). Keep writing.
I used to go to FieldGulls but I have it blocked on my .hosts list now. Really uninterested in the toxic culture over there. I get my Seahawks news from my Bluesky feed mostly.
Dillon Gabriel might start?
https://athlonsports.com/nfl/cleveland-browns/browns-dillon-gabriel-kenny-pickett-shedeur-sanders-qb-competition-nfl
When you have 4 QBs, you have none.
When I was looking much more closely at college QBs three years ago, I had Gabriel ranked pretty high. Perhaps he will be a steal. But then we've had a lot of QBs in the past who were in a similar situation, say Davis Mills for example, and it's obvious that they're starting because the team has no other options.
If Joe Flacco can't win that job, it's time for the booth.
I didn't expect him to start...at least not early in his career -if at all.. I just thought he was being overlooked a bit during the draft process while Sanders was being over hyped...until he wasn't.
I felt so sorry for Gabriel after the draft. Not only is he going to Cleveland, but then, even though he's drafted two rounds earlier, he's completely overshadowed by Sanders. It's hard to imagine that people are getting paid (really well!) to make these kind of decisions.
I love defense so here a few ( Rob Ryan )
The 46 defense
https://youtu.be/CaNmQdLxGko
Defensive Fronts
https://youtu.be/Qsjp0n3gi3s
Pass rush situations.
https://youtu.be/uGH8k7twV7s
Oh yeah, I forgot I had seen a video by REX Ryan recently too, that he made way back in the 90s. Thanks for these!
Humans create and machines just basically mimic to create the illusion of thinking. My opinion.
May the 12s be with you and Go Seahawks!
AI is a model and all computer models simply reflect the biases that its programmers hold. It makes me crazy when I see people on X ask Grok if something is true.
...I think a lot of people just mimic to create the illusion of thinking too lol.
Nice twist!
I watch a bunch of AI videos and I still don't quite understand it at all, but that does seem to be what I've seen a lot of lately. That as of right now, what AI can do and will do in the near future is very overhyped. Not saying it won't get more advanced, but so far it's just copying us from the sounds of it.
I think there are great uses for AI but there needs to be a watermark or something to tell us it is AI.
We all need to be protected and creative artists and writers so AI can’t steal what you create.
What is commonly called AI ( or really….Large Language Models-LLMs) does not think. It puts together words that their algorithms think go together based on your query. They have been trained on literally billions of examples of speech/text. They are VERY good at mimicking human language output but they have no understanding of what they say.
By training them on such a large volume of text, they are often able to piece together an answer that is accurate.
But since there is no computer system that actually understands, they are still prone to “hallucinations”. The words look and sound good together but are not fact based.
I have no worry that an AI system can replace you SSJ. I don’t read your columns for how you put your words together, although you do that really well. I read it for the thought provoking ideas and concepts you bring us.
That's not a bad explanation. I'd just add two brief things. First, the answers you get from a product like co-pilot or ChatGPT are only as good as the references they used for the answers. Bad references, bad answers. There is so much misinformation out there now on any number of topics, finding the truth is getting harder and harder, even for AI. Second, LLM's can be manipulated by bad actors, so that will be a very disturbing threat for AI models. We're already seeing LLM's compromised. So this will be something to watch for.
Sorry…that came across as “man ‘splaining”.
Yeah, I have no real clue about AI, (some would say I have no real clue, period!) but I think AI just scours the web on the queried subject at light speed, takes the most common point of views, collates and regurgitates. To me this is a way of always getting the majority thought on something, and I hate the idea of being denied the broad gamut of ideas. All throughout history, what started out as a tiny minority of thought became the majority as more came to understand it. I recently re-read and re-watched Stephen King’s 1963, and finally convinced my son to watch it. At the end of it, he asked me would you rather go back and live in 1963 or today? My answer was there’s no sense crying over spilled milk. To which he replied, there are some things better today. AI is making it unnecessary for students to learn thought processes and what goes into analyzing topics. I hate it. - So says the 70 year old curmudgeon
I agree with the curmudgeon.
I found James Foster before the draft. He was interviewed by Dan Viens. He had a free draft board and incredible breakdown analysis of hundreds of players. I used his analysis and “The Beast” to come up with my draft board for the Seahawks.
His draft web site which takes a while to load, is here: https://jfosterfilm.shinyapps.io/25draft/
Foster seems like a very bright chap.
And it’s all free. He goes very in depth in his analysis, including athletic scores. (His own) So you can try to determine who the Seahawks might target.