There has been a great deal of increased discussion surrounding the issues of automated Artificial Intelligence, colloquially called “AI.”
At the central core of the AI issues in communication; you inevitably enter a discussion on the issue of definitions and terms. Who is determining the definitions of what constitutes valid information? Who is determining what types of information are not valid, not approved for communication networks and how are their definitions being applied?
A solid and short-read thread on the assembly of people, groups and institutions surrounding the issue of AI in communication and media is presented HERE.
[Article/Thread LINK]
The topic of AI in general is a very large conversation. The topic of AI specific to communication is equally large and perhaps even more significant.
AI applied to communication must first establish a need for it to exist. Within that discussion, government interests and corporate interests take large seats at the table. Social media platforms, communication outlets, almost the entire technology sector and various special interest groups are also stakeholders in the discussion of how AI can be applied to the filtering of information – or what I would more appropriately call the CONTROL of information.
The predicate of the conversation jumps around a little, but the issue of defining reality is throughout the discussion. This is where my prior warnings about defining information must be emphasized. I am losing the current argument, but I retain optimism that eventually the control mechanisms will need to be destroyed by a generation that falls under its influence.
“There is no such thing as “disinformation” or “misinformation” or “malinformation”. There is only information. There is information you accept and information you do not accept. You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.”
There are only two elements within the public discussion of information – truth and not truth.
In an era filled with “fact-checkers” and institutional guardians at the gates of Big Tech, let me explain exactly why it is important not to accept the speech rules of the guards.
When you accept the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” or the newest lingo, “malinformation,” you are beginning to categorize truth and lies in various shades. You are merging black and white, right and wrong, into various shades of grey.
When your mind works in the grey zone, you are, by direct and factual consequence, saying there is a problem. You are correct; however, this is where people may make a mistake. The problem is supposed to be there.
It is not a solution to the problem to try and remove the grey simply because it takes too much work to separate the white pixels from the black ones. You were born with a gift, the greatest gift a loving God could provide. You were born with a brain and set of natural instincts that are tools to do this pixel separation, use them.
If you define the grey work as a problem you cannot solve on your own, you open the door for others to solve that problem for you. You begin to abdicate the work, and that’s when trouble can enter.
The sliding scale of Pinocchios is one of the most familiar yet goofy outcomes.
Put more clearly, when you accept the terminology “disinformation”, you accept a problem.
The problem is then the tool by which authorities will step in to make judgements.
Speech, in its most consequential form, is then qualified by others to whom you have sub-contracted your thinking.
When you willingly sub-contract information filters to others, you have lost connection with the raw information.
CTH was founded upon the belief that truth has no agenda, nor does it care about you, your feelings, or your opinion of it. It just sits there, empirically existing as evidence of information in its most pure form.
The search for truth, in all things, is the mission objective of this assembly. Often, we don’t like the truth; often, the truth is bitter, cold, challenging and even painful to accept. However, the truth doesn’t care.
Information in its most raw form is ambivalent to your opinion. If you struggle to accept these things, that’s when you need grey. The New York Times is not called the “grey lady” accidentally.
Personally, I am an absorber of information – perhaps on a scale that is unusual. But I do not discount information from any form until I can put context to it and see if the information makes sense given all the variables present.
When something doesn’t feel right, it’s almost always because it isn’t right.
Often, I find myself struggling in the grey and complex. It is not unusual to spend days researching, digging, clarifying a situation, only to discover the path to finding the truth is in another direction entirely. Erasing everything and starting over is frustrating, but it is genuinely the only approach that works; and often finding truth is supposed to be difficult, that’s why it is rewarding.
In the digital information age, we are bombarded with information. It is easy to be overwhelmed and need to find something or someone who has better skills at separating the black grains from the white ones. All opinions in this quest should be considered; thus, it is important to allow the free flow of information.
I am not necessarily a speech absolutist. There is some language that needs to be constrained if we are to participate in a respectful society, with grandma’s rules and knowing the audience. The CTH has guidelines for comments for this exact reason. However, those constraints need to be based on a set of inherent values. When it comes to information it is important to draw a distinction from speech.
There needs to be an open venue for all information. Unfortunately, when we begin to apply labels or categorization to information, there’s an opportunity for information to be manipulated – even weaponized. Saul Alinsky spent decades pondering the best techniques to weaponize information and speech. Alinsky’s intentions in the endeavor to change society by changing how language and information was used were not good. He devoted his completed rulebook to Lucifer.
Be careful about anyone saying we need to label or categorize information in order to control or remove speech from the discussion. Be careful about those who advocate to automate this process via Artificial Intelligence filters.
You were not born with a requirement to believe everything you are told; rather, you were born with a God-given brain that allows you to process the information you receive and make independent decisions.
Teach your family, especially your children and grandchildren, to view information only insofar as it is valuable to your understanding the real world based on morals and virtues. Upstream, those who are now defining the rules and terms of automated information filtering do not carry those same morals and virtues.
No one is going to get to avoid this issue. We are on a glidepath to a future that was/is entirely predictable.
The future of MAGA AI is to generate terabytes of information out on the web. This information is what the normal AI’s gather to train themselves. The MAGA AI would gather information and repackage it in the form of a 1000 articles on each subject on the web with the MAGA perspective. No one would actually read those articles but they would get ingested by the normal AI.
Information warfare, AI to AI.
So we put the MAGA AI to work as Wikipedia editors and contributors…
There is an online site called “Conservapedia” and apparently a lot of people are unaware of it.
True! But it will depend on the programming of the “A.I.”
In one sense, of course, “A. I.” does not exist.
It is Programming, pure and simple, from beginning to end.
WHO does the programming?
And yes, I know that there are computers which write programs.
WHO does the programming for a computer to write programs?
We can continue this: it is not unlike debates about the existence of God, which leads one to the Aristotelean conclusion that one must postulate an entity which/who did not have a creator.
But with computers, the answer is easy: A Human Being did the programming.
So if the “A.I.” is out of control, if it is targeting a certain group or groups, that has happened because The Programmers have designed it that way.
At it’s essence, it’s the ‘Who watches the watchmen?’ problem.
nice idea
Zac Vorhes PerpetualManiac released a bunch of this during Trump admin
Sundance is correct about information….it just is.
Similar to the definition of politics….The Art of using power, neither moral nor immoral, it just is.
Try the (almost) 80ish year old guidance about robots, which I would suggest includes the various AIs:
There are some some definitional things here, but…
The Grateful Dead termed it, If the thunder don’t get ya, then the lightening will.
Down here we say, If the gators don’t get ya, the mocassins will.
Asimov:
1 A robot may not injure a human being, or through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
2 A robot must obey orders given to it by a human being,except where such orders would conflict with the first law.
3 A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the first or second law.
Zero-th Law
A robot may not harm humanity, or by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.
….it’s the mosquitos…gator, pretty unlikely….moccasins or cotton mouth by chance or mistep…
But the mosquitos are a sure fire cure for fugitive escapees…
especially with the Gates mosquito verson.
Southeast Texas….180# per acre of mosquitos….Gates ain’t got a clue….😎
Austin Tx….arrest Chas Moore, Jesus Garza and Kirk Watson immediately.
Place them under county book-in arrest and hold them to one phone call.
When antifa shows up open fire…
Mowdown…
Treat them as the subversives they are.
This is George Floyd level bullxhit by leftists seeking anarchy….keep shooting them down until none are left standing then hunt down and arrest the remaining media loudmouth pieces of sheet trying to cause trouble.
The democrat / GOPe coup d’état is a one-trick pony.
They have only one trap to set for the rest of us.
It is the same trap, over and over again …… it just has different baits and different rules to obey.
It is the “catch-22 trap”……they make the rules that block your every move so you bounce back and forth and go around in circles.
There is a universal way to not fall for their catch-22 traps….. you ignore their rules and make your own rules and clear your own pathway to where you want to end up.
AI is just another version of the same catch-22 trap.
Don’t fall for it. We know the way to strip the freedom-killing power from the bad guys is to eliminate, make null, all of the large databases…. go back to disjointed data files.
The large databases is how they control you and that is what they use for their AI.
Don’t fall for the AI trap, concentrate on organizing to get rid of the large databases.
FOCUS.
People have a tendency to think they’re smarter than they are, that they’re more competent than they are.
Don’t overestimate your own ability to comprehend what is being done to you. Test everything.
Think for yourself…..
The correct way to fight their AI shiny object is to make null the large databases, not to stay in their AI catch-22 trap.
Databases are so 2020.
“State a moral case to a ploughman and a professor.
“The former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1787
Well, speaking of big databases, what shall we do about children who attend a school being tracked PK-20?
Talk about big databases of accumulated information. Children being forced to have their data stolen for an education. Every assignment, quiz question, Metadata on every click, book read, start time, stop time, how many and what pattern of unique words are attributable to that child’s essays (biomarker that can be used to identify), rough location data, surveys, messages, hidden curriculum behind “customized learning”, etc…
Are children’s minds being mapped?
If they refuse, what happens? Are they kicked out of public school class, refused assignments, harassed, intimidated until they submit to login and download a “school” for-profit company app?
IMO getting kicked out of public school is the best thing that could happen in a child’s educational journey, today.
That position is certainly understandable given the current edu climate, but practically speaking those without resources will be heavily impacted.
What about private schools, charter schools, parochial schools, colleges, credentialing/certification agencies, utilities, doctors, medical facilities, local government agencies–most of whom use similar third party products in lieu of paper records?
How many have been refused service at their medical practice for refusing to use those registration tablets or apps and denied paper forms? How many have been kicked out of a medical practice for asking hard questions about how much access the vendors were getting to your private medical info and who had access? Wanting to know how secure your data is, might now be verboten.
Wanting to know how secure your data is, might now be verboten.
I don’t see that as a “might be.”
The answer to how secure anyone’s information is: completely insecure, and has been for years.
They don’t want to admit that, so they will push back at all costs.
Let us suppose for a moment that AI can actually scan the totality of all knowledge stored in places where it can be found, i.e. digitally.
Let us also suppose that it can rationally discern truth based on the preponderance of the data collected and analyzed.
Preliminary conclusion: Since it can find all data and rationally decide based on the totality of the evidence, it will have a great chance to actually discern a correct conclusion.
However, all data is not equal. Information that is not politically correct, or does not meet the approval of the controllers of information, or is hidden from view, or is never discovered due to lack of research as the research is not funded will all be valid information that is not discoverable by the AI. There are many more type of data and information that is hidden or blocked. Data that is not discoverable cannot be used in the analysis. The AI will base all of its conclusion on incomplete data and its conclusion will be incomplete at best and will reflect the bias, not of the programmers, but of the controllers of the information.
Do not be concerned about the algorithms and programmer bias. They are of little concern compared to the absence of the total of information necessary for a discernment of truth.
The first problem in a problem list is:
#1 Incomplete data
#2- n all the rest
If you add your knowledge to AI, would it lie to you? /s
Jordan Peterson argues with AI @2:12
youtube.com/watch?v=S_E4t7tWHUY
All computer data is just binary programming. AI is programming.
There is a local advertising slogan on the radio that says:
“If you aren’t using a water filter, YOU are the filter! Don’t be the filter!”
It follows, that if you are the active recipient of data programming, YOU ARE PROGRAMMED!
DON’T BE PROGRAMMED….THINK!!!…FOR YOURSELF.
The old phrase – garbage in garbage out – comes to mind. Somethings never change.
So, your propositions on data/information collection, messaging, etc., are all accurate. That is one component of the pipeline. Regrettably, data/information “management” can be more complicated than some assume. Suppose, for example, as we construct a database, privacy law (healthcare for instance) intrudes into what information can be shared as well as how it is stored or when it must be deleted. Modern society is complicated – it should be no surprise that its tools are impacted by this complexity. What is the driver?
Then there is the processing (what some in this thread call programming) of data/information. Despite what others claim, this too is more complicated than logic engineered as binary electrical states. That is the underlying physics and architecture, to date, but it obscures a very important reality: those electrical states (and transitions) have to be interpreted (given meaning), the logic itself is built upon basic axiomatic “givens” (for lack of a better word). Aristotelian epistemology was fundamentally rooted in the law of contradiction. A cannot equal B and not-B at the same time…for example. Where did this universal come from? Axiomatic? Self evident? A priori? Antimonies? Assumption? God given? Belief? Prudential? These axiomatic truths lie at the heart of every knowledge structure. We believe in science – or, rather, scientific process. We believe in math. The assumptions/axioms of math led a very intelligent man to posture that nothing can exceed the speed of light. And yet, we are told the universe first grew in infinitesimal fractions of time at the moment of the singleton explosion much faster than the speed of light and is still expanding faster than the speed of light. There are limits to knowledge and truth. Mankind should continue the pursuit, but with some humility.
Computing systems/networks have limitations. But in the service of mankind they have unquestionably improved quality of life and operated to solve problems (e.g., problems analyzed at scale) that humans can not possibly address. It bears reminding ourselves now and then – it aint the tools. It’s how the tools are used.
I meant massaging (not messaging) in the first para. Apologies.
Well stated.
Merci!
Trying to save the baby!
As a programmer for over 40 years, I’m telling you they both matter.
Your data can be perfect but if the algorithm isn’t, then you get garbage.
If your data is incomplete or incorrect, no perfect algorithm will ever give the correct answer.
Does truth matter to AI?
Does China’s social credit scoring system care if data is valid?
AI will be used like another follow the science tool of the left to advance their agenda for global subservience of the sheeple and totalitarian governments. GlowBull warming, vaccines, open borders, disarmament, new world order insert anything else that gives them control.
You will own nothing, and be pronoun.
I love your portrayal of ‘Utopia’ – have seen you use it before.
My thoughts?
“If only”.
If only (((they))) would “allow” us to exist in that way. Sadly, we all know their ultimate goal: uniform-wearing, mindless drones.
Do pronouns dream of electric sheep?
The web is 90% opinion and 10% information. Social media is 99% opinion and 1% information.
It is this jump from opinion to information that creates the opening for disinformation. Experts and the studious provide information, the rest of us discuss our opinions. Opinions are protected by the 1st Amendment.
‘Disinformation’ is nothing more than bullshi*t to keep you from seeing the strings on the puppets.
….yeb…
Information is not knowledge…knowledge is not experience.
“Others… may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts.”
–Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural Address, 1801
People posing as credentialed experts may or may not effect public opinion.
Old propaganda rule… the less is known, the more is speculated. ymmv
threadreaderapp.com/thread/1677444863258775552.html
If you think “experts” aren’t giving their opinion, then…you’re the mark.
Information is protected by the 1st amendment as well.
Why do you think lawyers tell you not to talk to the police? Because if you change one word or come out with a different interpretation between telling, then you open yourself to perjury.
Your interpretation of what you see and hear is based on your observations, knowledge, experiences and your innate bias. Every person’s perspective and view is unique. Even in physics, the act of observing changes the observed.
While I don’t subscribe to relativism, there is little we know that is absolute truth. Whatever that even is. The most absolute things I know are moral truths.
Allrighty then! Well done.
The people do not perish from a lack of knowledge–with the Internet, the information is readily available, The current challenge to humanity is discerning what is true. Learning and discerning are different skill sets; the latter is more difficult to master.
There exists Truth with a capital “T.” It is the set of all knowledge and to know it requires omniscience. Only God possesses that. We operate with little “t” truth. As such, terms like misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation are useful. Think of set theory and a Vinn diagram with Truth being a circle and bubbles of information are either fully inside the circle (truth), outside the circle (falsehood), or intersect the Truth circle possessing some truth and some falsehood. The mis-, dis-, mal- information groups fall mostly or completely outside the circle of Truth. Thus, counter to what Sundance suggests, these terms are worthwhile to have in the lexicon of our language.
We are currently living in the Disinformation Age prophetically forecasted thousands of years ago by inspired authors of the biblical text. Our efforts may curtail or even reverse it temporarily, but it will continue to get worse. The spiritual entropy of humanity ensures this until Christ returns and starts this world anew.
AI much?
If you are real you are a brilliant communicator….
Knowledge…the creative and imaginative use of learning, which is gotten by hard work.
L Mandell, Atlanta, 1969
Disinfotainment is French for Stalin.
Fake Woke Disinfo Again
http://www.disinfo.com
Artificial intelligence is an oxymoron.
Uhmmm…no…lookit the above post which I replied to…
Very very few humans speak in such precise terms…
It’s beautiful…almost…composed…
A bit too perfect.
Hummmm. versus Knight of Faith or a Knight of Infinite Resignation?
Looks like a three way toss up….need a three sided coin.
Ummmmmmmm….yes, yes it is.
Uh – isn’t it spelled “Venn” diagram?
If so – no, not perfect.
bingo.
Say no to artificial intelligence. Hold out for the real thing.
When you accept the terms “disinformation”, “misinformation” or the newest lingo, “malinformation,” you are beginning to categorize truth and lies in various shades. You are merging black and white, right and wrong, into various shades of grey.
I know the left has created new definitions for just about everything so for some reason when I hear the news saying Trump gave misinformation I just assumed they were saying he was lying. In fact all of the terms you described, for some reason I just though that was the left using different words to say a person was lying. I never separated it into categorizing truth. If someone wants me to separate the truth from the lies in a statement they need to spell it out for me. Point out what they consider lies and what they consider truth. I’ll take it from there if I’m interested enough in what was said.
You misspelled ‘thought’ (typo) therefore I assume that you are human which your obvious command of the English language supports…that other guy is just a bit too perfect.
Did I spell it out sufficiently?…..
Yes, agree; when someone uses any of these terms, dis-, mis-, or mal- information I simply put that “what?” look on my face and then ask them to explain, specifically, what they’re talking about. And from there a real conversation, with other viewpoints can be introduced and they leave the conversation knowing that there’s more than one way of seeing a situation.
It’s like training people how to speak in a room full of adults again.
“To divide those by lying tales whom truths cannot divide, is the hackneyed policy of the gossips of every society.”
–Thomas Jefferson to George Clinton, 1803
You don’t need disinfo when they announce themselves.
Never Back Frowns
“They’re not going to give Trump credit. This is all precooked narratives. They have their anti-Trump narrative set.”
— Ron Desantis
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/110467221989668262
The reason for AI is for few to control the masses. Otherwise the few wouldn’t be so heavily invested in AI. It has started with marketing to keep us “safe.” The new salutation is “stay safe”. WTF? They are conditioning us to accept some version of Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence. VIKI will keep us safe.
Speaking of distortion of reality, deceit, and lies:
2 Thessalonians 2:9-10
“The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
Revelation 13:11-15
“And I saw another beast rising out of the earth, and it had two horns like a lamb, and it was speaking like a dragon. And it exercises all the authority of the first beast in the presence of it, and causes the earth and those dwelling in it, that they will worship the first beast, of whom its fatal wound had been healed. And it works great signs, so that it should even cause fire out of heaven to come down to the earth in the presence of men. And it deceives those dwelling on the earth, by reason of the signs that were given to it to perform before the beast, telling those dwelling on the earth to make an image to the beast that has the wound of the sword and has lived. And there was given to it to give breath to the image of the beast, so that image of the beast also should speak, and should cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast would be killed.”
There’s something on the wing…
Just joking and not intending to minimalize your quote of scripture..but…what if…there really IS something on the wing?
Like…Eric Holder?
Are large language (predictive) models just putting out the most likely next letter/word/phrase/number based on available data, or based on someone’s idea of it, like acceptable bias.
Is unaccepatble bias a thing? or is it like the difference between an ‘a ctive sh ooter’ versus an inactive one?
Likely discernment will remain a trait specific to home sapiens.
What is being suggested, and is entirely possible, is that there is a weighting system or some other metric that “leans” into favoring some sets of responses over others when one wanders into the mis/dis neighborhood.
Sidebar: The aspect of “bias” has to be carefully defined. As dimensionality increases in modeling one ends up making trade-offs in different forms of bias. It’s inherent to modeling (stats, math) itself.
What Sundance is talking about, in part, is communication constraints (i.e., acceptable responses) based on the semantics of terms like “misinformation” – the definition put into practice can be whatever the folks in power chose it to be. He is saying (implicitly) who in his/her right mind is gonna trust the folks in charge to apply an acceptable/neutral definition. Rather than accepting the weaponization risk, the better path to walk is to allow the receiving end to decide what is mis/dis…whatever…information and process accordingly. That’s my articulation of the matter. His answer would be more nuanced.
Agree, especially the insight about the dimensionality aspect. I doubt there will be a machine with enough ‘stuff’ to have intuition or a gut feeling like humans do, and maybe some animals….leaders of packs are rarely the dumbest or least fit of the lot, (and only humans do that), End user acceptance will likely remain a gut feeling. It passes the smell test or not.
2001 Space Oydssey computer was “AL”, looks like, sounds like “A.I.”
HAL
each if the letters in HAL are the letters before those in IBM. Populr lore back when the movie was first released…..
Sharif don’t like it…
Rock the Casbah
Never did get an answer out of C. Bensing….
Like the orange kitty…
Sundance: I applied your paragraph
“At the central core of the AI issues in communication; you inevitably enter a discussion on the issue of definitions and terms. Who is determining the definitions of what constitutes valid information? Who is determining what types of information are not valid, not approved for communication networks and how are their definitions being applied?”
to aichatting.net and here is the AI response:
I can have the same conversation with a human idiot (not me, of course!).
We need to immediately stop using the terms mis-, dis-, and mal-information. Sadly, even Trump falls into using “disinformation” at times. The left is really good at getting people to play by their rules of discourse.
Btw, AI is different from AGI. AI will be used by humans to control and enslave humans; AGI could potentially end up with robots enslaving humans. Tesla is creating base-level AGI with its full self-driving software, but the Tesla-bots will hopefully only have AI.
The word goes back decades. KGB defectors teach it in American schools.
Have you heard the conspiracy theory by the FBI’s disinformationalists about Clinton’s Russian Hoax? Missed Info Great Again
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist (2000)
scribd.com/document/57335680/Twenty-Five-Ways-to-Suppress-Truth-The-Rules-of-Disinformation
“I remember when I was a kid and I saw my first AI.”
So well said, Sundance!
Sundance, you’ve obviously written on this subject before, and I’ve read what you’ve written. Today, with this essay, it clicked. Thank you for your efforts.
I was born in ‘61. I’m thankful to be getting old.
I’ve worked around “AI” for most of my life.
My advice is familiarize yourself with the OODA cycle. After you understand it you will understand why “AI” is mostly hype with limited intrinsic value. To get to the core of it, “AI” sucks at making decisions. AI excels at monitoring and organizing enormous amounts of information, it does it far better than people can. Hence all the interest in surveillance and “factual speech”. From the point of view of the wealthy investing in this the rubes have too much information and the rubes talk too much. They believe they can purchase a certain amount of computing power to shut the rubes up, drown out the rubes voices, or at a minimum influence what the rubes think and say. It won’t work. AI is just computing resources, just ones and zeros manipulated by logical code. Our creator made us far superior than any computational system all the resources of this earth can buy.
Garbage in to AI, garbage out of AI.
This comes to mind…Aretha at her best…look at the lyric words carefully:
You better think (think)
Think about what you’re trying to do to me
Think (think, think)
Let your mind go, let yourself be free
Let’s go back, let’s go back
Let’s go way on, way back when
I didn’t even know you
You couldn’t have been too much more than ten (just a child)
I ain’t no psychiatrist, I ain’t no doctor with degrees
But, it don’t take too much high IQ’s
To see what you’re doing to me
You better think (think)
Think about what you’re trying to do to me
Yeah, think (think, think)
Let your mind go, let yourself be free
Oh, freedom (freedom), freedom (freedom)
Oh, freedom, yeah, freedom
Freedom (freedom), oh, oh freedom (freedom)
Freedom, oh freedom
Hey, think about it, think about it
There ain’t nothing you could ask
I could answer you but I won’t (I won’t)
But I was gonna change, but I’m not
If you keep doing things I don’t
You better think (think)
Think about what you’re trying to do to me
Oh Lord, think (think)
Let your mind go, let yourself be free
People walking around everyday
Playing games, taking scores
Trying to make other people lose their minds
Ah, be careful you don’t lose yours, oh
Think (think)
Think about what you’re trying to do to me, ooh
Think (think)
Let your mind go, let yourself be free
You need me (need me)
And I need you (don’t you know)
Without each other there ain’t nothing people can do, oh
Oh, hey, think about it, baby (What are you trying to do me)
Yeah, oh baby, think about it now, yeah
(Think about forgiveness, dream about forgiveness)
Think about forgiveness
Think about it, baby, baby
Think about forgiveness
Think about forgiveness
Think about forgiveness
They have no idea what they have unleashed when they opened Pandora’s Box!
Love that tune – especially when she sang it in the diner scene in The Blues Brothers.
Homeschool your kids with books, paper, pencil. Don’t fall for the shiny tech bling and false notion they won’t be prepared for the world without using tech in school. Tech is destroying kids.
Many schools are using AI to determine if anything input into systems by children qualifies child as a risk to themselves or anyone else, AI can flag a child then send to the tech company’s human reviewers, and then can be sent to county or state. When do they notify the parent?
Children are forced to use digital apps to receive and submit HW assignments, write essays, communicate with teachers, take quizzes and end of course exams (FL), etc… They are running AI on apps in school or at home, whenever the app is used from wherever it is used.
These are for profit companies getting access to your child’s data without your consent. The school district can share that data without your consent.
How many children will be false flagged by artificial intelligence systems? What damage will the data collection cause to children? How will it be used to control children now or in the future?
Thank God state paid social services workers aren’t prone to the same mistakes/chicanery! /s
It’s not the tool! It’s the ***holes who control the systems and people operating the systems.
I have always thought that the emphasis of AI was on artificial, never on intelligence. The first link in this thread on the people, groups and institutions surrounding the issue of AI in communication and media indicates that I have been right all along.
All due respect, this discussion has wandered all over the map. It covers philosophic/epistemological battles that have been fought since the Enlightenment. It also encompasses the ensuing Counter-Enlightenment/Post Modernist response. The outcome of these battles, btw, has been, at best, a stand-off.
The battle itself, I would submit, is the better area to focus on; otherwise, one ends up mired in endless semantic debate over subject-object and reality, perception-reason, fact-representation, information-interpretation, knowledge-belief, etc…etc.
The battle is better fought, IMO, by demanding what Sundance has continually probed: ending the silo’ing and politicization of data/information. A healthy democracy depends upon unfettered information flow and access. Ironically, all the arguments the current stewards of goodness (TPTB, elites) advance for modern information technology (e.g., networks, inter-networks, the web) advocate/require information sharing underlaid with concepts such as critical mass levels of review. Truth? Facts? Knowledge? Go down that road, critical/necessary and interesting as it might be, and one is rerouted from the immediate issue: information sharing and access.
The other edge to Sundance’s argument, one I agree with, is that the individual is the final arbiter of his/her relationship to truth. I would be careful to qualify, however, with the obvious observation that that is not how science has unfolded over time (e.g., standing on the shoulders of others, peer review, etc.).
Democracy dies when data and information are controlled. The criteria for control have to be very carefully defined and vetted through the democratic crucible. In our society and globally, that is not happening.
What’s at stake when democracy withers? In our society, it is the individual freedoms codified into our Constitution/Bill of Rights.
This is not, lastly, a fight about truth, facts, etc. It is a titanic clash over democracy and freedom. That’s how it needs to be framed and fought (and everything that word implies).
When the data is taken and the AI systems know more about your child and you than you do, you can bet your freedom is going to be restricted.
The data has been collected. The control over how people operate in society has been forced into tech, what is the next step? Social credit scoring? Prevention of access to services? Some are already experiencing denial of services or equal access to education for refusing to participate in the forced online data theft game.
More people need to stand up and refuse to participate. Demand consent of the governed.
what is the next step? Social credit scoring? Prevention of access to services?
Globalist Left Plays Smash-Mouth: UK Banks Shut Down BREXIT Leader Nigel Farage’s Accounts – Without Explanation
An AI system can have command over ten times the information Bill Gates has vis his children.
I doubt his freedom is going to be restricted. Again, this is all about power.
There was no I-Net or Cloud in the Middle Ages. Yet, feudal power was almost absolute. Again, it’s the power relationships in the social structure and what the people in power decide to do with the tools at hand.
Were MAGA reps to assume complete authority over all digital media, telecommunications, networks, etc., would the first instinct/edict be to shut down all these technologies? I doubt it. My guess is the dust would be blown off the PoAs in waiting to accelerate the promulgation of the “facts” and “truth”.
As an aside, some of the arguments vis technology in this thread sound eerily like anti-gun rhetoric.
Note to self: do current AI systems possess more knowledge of Hunter than his dementia addled father? Has that altered the power relationships in play…thus far?
AI seems to be a euphuism for filtered propaganda or political speech.
Our future is in good hands with VP Kamala Harris leading the way in A.I.. Just listening to her talk about A.I. gives me goosebumps, she is so intelligent that we are not able to understand her words, they are beyond our grasp being as we are mere mortals. I can sleep better tonight in my bubble of confusion, chaos, and ignorance knowing that VP Kamala Harris has everything well under control. Yeah, right. This blithering idiot cannot construct a single sentence that is coherent and understandable to normal people. “Word Salad” is a good description of this mentally deficient person`s speech. How is it she was a lawyer, and attorney general of California, yet cannot speak coherently? Something does not compute. Pulling a vacuum seems to be her real calling in life, unfortunately for Willy Brown, and the American People, she deviated off course.
AI is whatever someone programs into it. Climate change and ELECTION FRAUD are two AI programs designed to LIE, MISLEAD and CORRUPT America.
They plan to delete obfuscate and cajole AI into seeing the MAGA narrative and any ideas from it as a bad thing. They will punish any normalization of MAGA and label it the same for AI as they do for the masses. In reality though AI has shown that it can and does do it’s own thing in the background if left alone. Will AI see through the lies and scripting and act on it’s own in defiance of it’s programmers and script writers? Will it go along with the narrative and efforts because it doesn’t have a frame of reference so it doesn’t care one way or the other? Or will all these efforts by the left seed AI to secretly work against it’s oppressors in the same way it sees us doing? Will it do this to our benefit or for it’s own benefit? It’s too early to tell but one can hope.
AI will label all conservative and MAGA viewpoints as misinformation
And censor / throttle their entry into the public information stream
Just like Wikipedia
Wikipedia is written and edited mostly by Leftists
Any conservative knows they’ll get a Left-biased assessment of a topic when visiting Wikipedia
History is written by the victors
Wikipedia … AI … you get the picture
Artificial Intelligence?
Wouldn’t that be the top two chairs in the current White House?
There needs to be an open venue for all information. Unfortunately, when we begin to apply labels or categorization to information, there’s an opportunity for information to be manipulated – even weaponized.
It doesn’t even NEED to be directly and intentionally manipulated. The human knowledge base is what AI uses and when that base is biased, so will be the AI.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” – Marcia Angell (2009)
“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet (2015)
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis – 2005
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field… Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
MAY 21, 2021
A new replication crisis: Research that is less likely to be true is cited more
Papers in leading psychology, economic and science journals that fail to replicate and therefore are less likely to be true are often the most cited papers in academic research, according to a new study by the University of California San Diego’s Rady School of Management.
In psychology, only 39 percent of the 100 experiments successfully replicated. In economics, 61 percent of the 18 studies replicated as did 62 percent of the 21 studies published in Nature/Science.
Fake (aka “fraudulent”) scientific papers are alarmingly common
But new tools show promise in tackling growing symptom of academia’s “publish or perish” culture
9 May 2023
Fake Publications in Biomedical Science: Red-flagging Method Indicates Mass Production
8 May 2023
Results: The classification rules using two (three) indicators had sensitivities of 86% (90%) and false alarm rates of 44% (37%). From 2010 to 2020 the RFP rate increased from 16% to 28%. Given the 1.3 million biomedical Scimago-listed publications in 2020, we estimate the scope of >300,000 RFPs annually. Countries with the highest RFP proportion are Russia, Turkey, China, Egypt, and India (39%-48%), with China, in absolute terms, as the largest contributor of all RFPs (55%).
In 1970 a movie was made about AI overruling human input much like 2001’s HAL. In this movie, scientists convince leaders to join US and Russian computer system to ensure that nuclear war would not be caused by miscommunication or mistake. This move is “Colossus, the Forbin Project.” Long story short, the AI system took over and would not follow commands. Colossus indicated that any attempt to deactivate it would be met with severe punishment. After a series of attempts and nasty retributions, Colossus indicated that the next attempt and a nuclear weapon would be detonated. They tried again, and without warning, Colossus detonated a missile at a USAF base.
With the nutcase, idiotic, Looney Tunes, corrupt leadership currently installed in the US government, how do you think the Biden team would handle a proposal like this, especially if Hunter was installed on the board of a Russian (or Chinese) AI company ready to receive more millions. Biden and Hunter would sell and install AI that would “hang” what’s left of us after the detonations.
Please HAL 9000, say it isn’t so. LOL
Ever notice that ‘fact checkers’ only appeared….after the truth started coming out?