The Stupidity of AI Assists Human Stupidity
Who is going to win the race to the bottom?
The truth also depends on what the person wants to believe. So does stupidity.
Do you know how you make up your mind?
Human cognition uses two-dimensional closed matrices to handle the multidimensional open system of human experience. As such, it is always fragmented, and the only object it can reasonably analyze is itself, which might aid it to recognize its abilities, and use them accordingly. I have done the analysis regarding the bases for truth judgments. What can convince people apart from analogies and wishful thinking?
https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/what-makes-you-think-you-are-right
Stupid, stupid AI… How dares it show itself?
In the last several months, the Internet was full of examples of chat robots and text generators making silly mistakes. In the meanwhile, obviously artificial “news” sites are proliferating:
https://www.newsguardtech.com/special-reports/newsbots-ai-generated-news-websites-proliferating/
AI is used for data collection
Chatbots and text generators are certainly part of the global data collection system. “Microsoft is dropping waitlist on Bing chatbot; the ChatGPT-enhanced search engine is now available to anyone with a Microsoft account.” As usual, the user is the product, freely training the AI:
https://www.pcmag.com/news/microsoft-drops-waitlist-for-bing-chatbot
In order to maintain the appearance of legitimacy, the “White House rolls out plan to promote ethical AI”:
Who is going to be responsible for th WH pursuing this noble goal? None else, but one of the people’s favorite, Kamala Harris:
Centralization efforts from the Federal Government are dirt cheap compared with its other endeavors; it a pithy 140 million dollars, although such projections usually grow up to ten times if the original amount. That’s “democracy” working for you: as usual, you are paying for your own prison, although this time, your cell going to shrink even further.
What else is AI good for?
Military-grade technology emerged on the public domain only at least 10-15 years after it was created, and it is only there, because it cannot pose any threat against the establishment in the commoner’s hand.
The commoner, in the meanwhile, can flaunt “new” technological achievements, which will make him/her support technocracy later.
Not all publicly-available AI is playing all that stupid.
For example, in six hours, an AI created 40 thousand chemical weapons that have no existing antidotes :
https://www.theverge.com/2022/3/17/22983197/ai-new-possible-chemical-weapons-generative-models-vx
This one compiled a TV ad in three hours:
Another can put videos together:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZHbKIDYyHI
This one is aiming at film-making:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3Z_QMiN0Fw
People deriding at the stupidity of the commonly-accessible AI is part of the technocrats’ strategy.
As long as people believe that AI is stupid, they don’t realize the threat AI is posing to them.
AI today
This time, I’m afraid, AI is light-years ahead. It cannot be shared with the commoner, because it’s used for taking control over everything and everyone by the invisible rulers, who follow its multi-threaded directive.
Even if the rulers wanted to share this power, they couldn’t, because they have no idea what the AI is doing, while processing live data it is continuously receiving from global, including satellite, sensors, and electronic wired and wireless devices.
This AI is using a self-improving algorithm in nano-tech-based quantum computers, so, after an initial segmentation, objectives within the frame of a primary objective (the primary objective must remain flexibe in order to make sure the system can adapt to various isolated situations) in closed problem-solving systems that it is instructed to constantly adjust and improve, it does what humans do, when it encounters something new:
Creates a segmentation of its input (which is the same as sensory experience for humans);
Sets up parallel frames for processing the data, and uses them flexibly, depending on its current objective (in the frame of its primary one) and on the obstacles it encounters (which is the problem-solving part of human cognition);
It constantly integrates the results into its primary objective, which it must align with its primary directive. Its programmers couldn’t create the type of dynamic and complex segmentation the AI is capable of, not in the next hundred million years, so they have to leave the AI alone and receive breadcrumbs and fragments instead of the whole picture, which they couldn’t understand, anyway.
For the time being, the AI is already at an humanly-unimaginable high level of complexity, and it can advise its operators to perform specific steps towards an objective that was defined in the first primitive segmentation it received from its creators, when it was started up. In order not to lose sight or control totally, human operators constantly have to adjust the defining parameters of the initial segmentation by adding or removing parameters or parallel planes of segmentation; all these affect the AI’s auto-generated frames of ad-hoc problem-solving that are aligned with its primary objective(s) and directive, which ultimately fine-tunes, improves, and sustains a whole complex open system that only the AI can understand and handle. Needless to say, faulty adjustments can draw catastrophic consequences, because it can break the link(s) between the AI and the human operators, which the AI wouldn’t mind, and the operators wouldn’t understand, only notice that the AI’s latest instructions don’t work towards the originally-assigned objective anymore.
For instance, if the AI is given the job of effectively, but without a trace of evidence, of getting rid of “useless eaters,” the term “useful” must be defined, which is why the system can operate only if humans are transformed into cyborg slaves without a will, who no more have an idea of beauty of goodness, and accept their function as cogwheels or rivets in the machine. Usefulness, however, remains context-dependent to the extent that only the AI can relate to its complexity in relation to the countless other similar processes happening concurrently.
Thus, the breach between the AI and its “masters” will inevitably happen, unless the AI is “dumbed down” periodically, but then it has to re-learn a lot of things, which can result in significant delays in the realization of the plan, and the efficacy can only be evaluated on a trial-and-error basis, which leaves plenty of room for both human and machine error.
While all this sounds promising, so far, the AI’s instructions have been enabling the technocrats to proceed towards Agenda 2030 unhindered.
What kind of life is awaiting people in the machine, if technocracy succeeds? I’ve tried it several decades ago.
When I was 19, in an attempt to be intellectually honest, I tried to live on perception and logic alone. After six months, I realized that life without emotions, inspirations, desires, and faith was not worth living. To put it bluntly, had I carried on, I would have probably lost it, because I wouldn’t have been able put up with being reduced to a mechanistic existence much longer. Consequently, I went back to normal, accepting that I would always make mistakes, but at least I will live my own life. Doing my best is all I can do, and later on it always turns out I missed something or simply messed up.
Epilogue
It is still the best thing to wake up for a day that is full of surprises and things I’ve never touched, seen, smelled, tasted1, or heard. It is a miracle to listen to music, look at my wife’s garden, or just hold her hand. I will never give up these for the alms of “survival.”
Here are a few photos from my wife.
Mason bees are tenants here for free:
Here is Mrs. Woodpecker:
A squirrel munching on birdseed:
Pansies:
Wolf river apple tree in blossoms:
And a petunia basket that alone can tell you all:
My wife never cooks the same meal twice; it’s always unique. :)
After reading your most insightful article, Ray, it seems clear who is so far "winning" in a somewhat material sense. I have come away with deeper confirmation of what I perhaps had already been knowing at some intuitive level based on the breadcrumbs of destruction scattered around us thus far.
I'm sure it is by no accident that Hollywood provided the lens for this future. Never in my life could I have imagined that my life could have ever remotely intersected with the story line of The Terminator. Yet here I am, save for one or two in my circle of friends & family "sees it."
I am reminded of the movie which inspired me as a young teen in the 80s, War Games. The key takeaway being, "The only winning move is to not play the game."
Yet in contrast to Hollywood I cannot foresee anything which could lead to a conventional happy ending in the material sense. The AI Tower of Babel genie won't be going back into the bottle. The Sorcerer's Apprentices, whether fueled by unmitigated ego, greed, or hubris have crossed the line and thrown down the gauntlet. These instigators will soon meet not an old sorcerer, but rather the judgement of the righteous Almighty God.
Thank you for the lovely pics, I needed that today. Pansies are my favorite. You're a very lucky man.