Is It That Simple?
AI - the descent of man and the rise of the machines...? A rant and a ramble - hyperbole perhaps but truth comes in many guises
Is it that simple?
There’s a black and white world where that age-old dichotomy obtains - good versus evil, light against dark , yin-yang etcetera…
If it were so, we’d never have enjoyed the subtlety of literature, art and indeed the relationships that unarguably shape the human condition where multiple layers of nuance provide the canvas upon which we coexist. Sure, some literature is just that – literal and without moral – black and white like hyper-realistic line drawing but there has always existed the (almost) prehistoric narrative of fables, myths and legends that permeate (at some level) almost every tale that has ever been told around a campfire or in scripture (when we sought to make sense of a claimed divinity, now paralleled by the multiplicity of quantum mechanics) or found its way into “fairy” tales, poems, allegories, songs, psalms and anthems.
And now we stand poised at a place in history where we aren’t even sure who or what is real, even in the basest five-sense reality. The machines write, not only algorithms that guide us through internet experiences suggesting what we might like or should perhaps buy, but these AI driven bots are now producing graphic art and writing with the most rudimentary input from an actual human. Videography and the integration of biometric mapping produces effects that bamboozle the viewer into believing that he or she is watching someone orating a speech in realtime that never ever happened…
Such is the power of the technology available and being used all around us, enough, it would seem to confound the average man….or woman for that matter or… (what gender have you written on your latest governmental or medical form?)…
The plethora of available genders have also emerged in very recent times amid a rainbow fanfare of alphabet-soup abbreviations – LGBTQIA+ blurring the barriers between men and women (and even boys and girls) despite there always and only being two sets of biological genders insofar as genitalia might determine – but we know it isn’t as simple as that, right? Or has it been deliberately complicated to further some other agenda?
Has it really come down to the battle of the pronouns prefaced by “I identify as…”?
And the other question - why our governments are at war with us. Yeah, why is that exactly? And the elements I’ve touched on above seem to be the means whereby these have become weaponised in that war.
Anything that dissents from or even questions these narratives, to the degree that AI algorithms have been written as a means of censoring any internet content that does so, is seen not just as objective commentary or debate but flags the dissenting author/s as person/s who may be subjected to varying degrees of gaslighting, de-platforming and sometimes even commercial or social punishment at the hands of the arbiters of “truth” – the tech-giant-owned so-called fact-checkers and their political allies – the government itself.
That anything could become more Orwellian dystopian is hard to imagine. But there you have it.
The Twitter Files provided ample evidence of collusion between Big-Tech – (specifically social media companies) and the three-letter agencies during (and using the excuse of) Covid where internet content was “sanitised” to suit the state sanctioned orthodoxy, collusion which had previously been vehemently denied.
Now it doesn’t matter what one might think of Elon Musk – love him or hate him (and I incline to a bit of both) but he certainly shook up the tree on that score and drained the Twitter swamp – ironically physically expurgated the Twitter editorial division who had become self-proclaimed arbiters of truth as long as that “truth” followed the orthodox narrative and where anyone who departed from that narrative – they were censored and/or banned outright and labeled as dangerous individuals who were spreading mis and disinformation, even at a time when what was being said in contradiction of the narrative could readily be shown to be factually accurate.
Further vindication came to the fore months and years down the line when it was grudgingly (by many) admitted that the best form of defence against the deadly C19 was, in fact, natural immunity and millions of people supported by qualified professionals had been saying this all along. That the figures had been deliberately fudged pertaining to efficacy and adverse effects, mortality from C19 and – all in support of the orthodoxy and the desire to get as many jabs into arms as possible.
I’m not claiming there’s a simple right and wrong stance when it comes to epidemics but it has to be asked where epidemics really come from and why it has never ever been demonstrated through the agency of scientific enquiry, why the basic tenets of virology cannot be substantiated under the most rudimentary scrutiny?
To suggest such a thing, casts one into the realm of tinfoil-hat-wearing-loony-tune conspiracy theorists but calling people names instead of objectively interrogating this fragile houses-of-cards masquerading as science, is what we should be doing. As nothing about it actually stacks up and the covid (so-called) pandemic proved this time after time. And I truly mean – nothing.
There’s a powerful meme doing the rounds on social media calling out the virology scam and it’s amazing how incredibly quiet the “fact” checkers have become on that issue yet they’ll still get the bots to call you out on “hate speech” if you say something like (the idiom) “heads must roll” by way of utilising our wonderful mother tongue as it was intended to be used.
The expression simply means –
a) according to the Collins Online Dictionary:
“If you say that heads will roll as a result of something bad that has happened, you mean that people will be punished for it, especially by losing their jobs.”
b) The Cambridge Dictionary online defines the idiom thus:
“something that is said to mean that people will be punished for something bad that has happened”
c) Merriam Webster online says the following:
“…used to say that people will be severely punished or will lose their jobs because of something that has happened”
Now the bots, the fact checkers, all the tech science and algorithms have the benefit of being able to access all of these (and other) contemporary references when this idiom is used but they elect instead to censor and ban people accusing them of employing hate-speech by suggesting an incitement to cause violence and encourage people to kill other people by saying “heads must roll.”
We all know what is being said – it is, after all, a contemporary idiom and using the same frame of reference, an idiom is:
“An idiom is a group of words which have a different meaning when used together from the one they would have if you took the meaning of each word separately.”
“…a group of words in a fixed order that has a particular meaning that is different from the meanings of each word on its own”
“…an expression in the usage of a language that is peculiar to itself either in having a meaning that cannot be derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements (such as up in the air for "undecided") or in its grammatically atypical use of words (such as give way)”
The obvious takeaway from these definitions is that an idiom is not to be taken literally, by its very existence, it cannot be – it is suggestive of something using words that is never intended literally but figuratively.
And we all know that. But apparently the AI bots that construct Internet algorithms don’t…. the cleverest technology known to humankind and vaunted as the direction in which we must go at breakneck speed and yet they can’t figure out the difference between an idiomatic statement and a call to behead people…? Really?
Which is why robots should never write articles, let alone books. Keep them the fuck away from everything humanly nuanced.
But we don’t and we won’t and it is a very dangerous precedent to be setting.
So, in short, the bots will jump on the “hate-speechers” albeit entirely disingenuously but they are now as quiet as the tomb on the covid, virology and jab claims that just a couple of years ago were being claimed as empirical unassailable “truth.”
Maybe Elon Musk is one of the good guys? I truly don’t know.
What I do know, however, is that he bought Twitter, soon to become X (owns more of the global citizenry’s personal data than anyone else in the world and while I know he says it’s private and protected – he can access it at a whim- we all know this) He has also openly spoken out on the potential dangers associated with AI and how we need to reel it in as there seems to be a trend within the techno community that AI is fundamentally anti-human and if that is the case and we load all of our IT eggs into that particular basket, one of the AI imperatives would be to ensure its survival and our demise as a species.
Yeah, I know, visions of Terminator and the obvious parallels cannot be ignored – we are already here and the prevailing narrative in recent memory is just how much humankind has fucked up the planet (not in any way saying we’ve been exemplary custodians), how we are like a virus on Gaia’s skin, how there are far too many of us for survival to be sustainable and how it is very likely for us to initiate the next extinction event purely as a result of our existence and insidious impact on everything.
Now while there is much to ponder there - it must be said that none of it is supported by any evidence-based information. In fact, the opposite is true.
There is no empirical data past or present that demonstrates an anthropogenic catastrophist scenario and that we have tipped the environment and the climate to the point of irreversible and cataclysmic trends where, as Greta pointed out, we had circa 7 years before the whole thing just turned into a flaming ball of shit. Well that was a few years back and nothing of any significance has really occurred since then and the ongoing evidence that I have found would confirm that the polar caps are not reducing in volume, sea levels are not rising and the global temperatures are not increasing as predicted. In fact, if one studies ice core data, the climate was cooler during periods of much higher atmospheric CO2 – that is an unarguable fact and yet we are told that as we increase (the miniscule amount that we continue to generate) of CO2 due to our nefarious activities, we are going to heat the planet to irreversible unlivable conditions – it’s simply not true.
What we can admit to – is another gargantuan wave of oceanic pollution – this time from face masks that were (as we constantly tried to tell the acquiescent and fearful) completely unnecessary and we struggle to get the power polluters (running coal-fired power plants) to clean up their acts as they continue to pump mercury and other horrible toxins into our skies and waterways. And the reason they perpetuate this trend is simply because it costs them significant operating expenditure to clean it up but it can be cleaned and to extremely high levels of purification.
These are the same people who own and sponsor Greta Thunberg and who wish to usher in the electric car revolution – that same endeavour that requires child slave labour to mine the battery cores, additional coal-fired plants to be built to service all of the charging stations while the cost per kilometre still doesn’t stack up against a petrol or diesel powered car and travel time is longer and slower in the E-cars. Notwithstanding the flurry of self-igniting batteries and the prohibitive replacement costs of the cells – between $10-$15,000 US. Teslas included, so sorry, Elon – I know you love all this shit but you’re ostensibly still part of the problem.
In the next instance, the maths, the science and the sustainability studies all point to a planet, that with adequate management, can easily support circa 10 billion people but we are constantly being told (by the budding eugenicists) that we’re a blight on the planet and the best thing we could do for humankind’s survival is to reduce numbers – old Bill Gates reckoned he could reduce population over a short period of time “if we really do a good job with vaccines” by around 10% and my answer to these messiah-complex fucktards is: Well, buddy, do us all a favour and start with yourself – top yourself and have your remains mixed into the soil as nutrients. Again, the bots would be censoring this piece as that is clearly hate speech and a call to do oneself harm when it patently isn’t – it’s just taking the ethos to its natural conclusion – if you truly believe right now that there are too many people on the planet and we should be reducing that number – if you were truly committed to your beliefs, you’d do that right thing and reduce the numbers and the only one you have a right to control is yourself – nobody else. That would be abuse or murder.
And old Bill knows all about that on a mass scale through his vaccination endeavours in the developing world – the stories there would make your hair stand on end and much of it is chronicled in RFK Jr’s bestseller, The Real Anthony Fauci – all meticulously sourced and no lawsuits as yet. One can only surmise then this must all be true. And I’m sure it is. And yet these sociopaths Fauci, Gates et-al continue to exert their hegemonic influence on global health policies in the most insidious ways imaginable. For obscene amounts of profit.
The truth is – the climate isn’t heading down a cataclysmic irreversible slope of doom and it was never as a result of what we have done or continue to do. Do we need to clean up our act? Hell, yeah. So much more than we have been doing for decades but we don’t need to cull populations nor do we need to turn humans into soylent-green or stop having babies.
Like carbon dioxide, humans are good for the planet, they come up with solutions to the world’s challenges and the more we have, the more chance we have of creating better solutions – ditto CO2 – we create a lot of it, plants breathe it in (it sinks to the tree canopy as it’s 4 times heavier than atmospheric air – it cannot rise to trap heat at a layer in the upper atmosphere despite what they tell you) and the more we have of it, the more the plants thrive and the more plants we have, the more oxygen we have – and that’s mostly what we breathe.
In nutshell, folks, and the more I delve, the more I have discovered that whatever the mainstream orthodoxy asserts, the opposite is usually the truth – almost without exception.
And we certainly don’t need to hand over our creativity to the AI cyberworld thereby abdicating our cultural heritage. The tool is rapidly becoming the master and that is never a good thing.
But even if we are to avoid AI-driven anti-human bots, we are likely to be eradicated through ill-health and self-induced intoxication through our addiction to convenience and instant-gratification as we believe that what we have created now in modern society is better and more advantageous than anything that’s gone before.
No, folks. What’s gone before is precisely where we are at right now. Those golden civilisations fell apart as a result of humankind’s hubris, the self-aggrandising arrogance that we knew what we were doing and nothing could get in our way.
One meteor strike is all it takes or another one or two global self-intoxication programs as just occurred where people lined up in their billions to be injected with untested, unnecessary chemicals because they were told to by the white-coated gods and the politicians and the media who are supposed to be there to serve us.
The fallout is ongoing and the human race may well be poised on the brink of the abyss but it’s not of our own design or making but it will be if we continue to buy into all of the bullshit that’s being sold and accept the spurious assertions that we are just parasites of no significance, meat-puppets with no souls – our acquiescence and blind acceptance of the orthodoxy will be the death of us. Our dissidence and rebellion will be the very things that guarantee our survival for generations to come.