Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad AI?
AI, as its promoters portray it, is a fantasy. The dangers of AI, as its detractors portray it is not so much a fantasy as a diversion. AI will never control the world nor send an android back in time to kill your mother. But what AI is already doing is far more insidious. AI is both a propaganda and a censorship machine. When you “accidentally” post on FB or X and insert key words or phrases like “vaccines, transgender,” or “illegal aliens,” AI snaps up your offering and checks to see if anything you said is in any way deleterious to the narratives. If so, your post disappears.
If you make a statement on a forum such as “you should just k!ll yourself” (punctuation mark inserted to dodge the censors) it will be instantly deleted and you’ll be blocked for a day on your first offense. And this isn’t just on X. I subscribe to a staunchly conservative site called Townhall, and I’ve had multiple comments blocked by a site that claims to defend the first and second amendments. One post posed this fact, “The first amendment is absolute and protects even the use of insulting words like [examples omitted]. There is no illegal speech, but speech inciting crimes, such as violence, are covered under other statutes.” That statement was disallowed. When I reposted putting asterisks in place of the vowels, it went through. It wasn’t being done by any person, but by a bot, a crude AI. And what else is this AI doing with that information? Is my name passed on to the FBI or the HUAC? Will I find myself before a Congressional committee asking Sen. Nadler, “Have you no shame?”
These AI bots are also on gaming websites. If you’re playing Texas Hold ‘em on line, it’s likely that several seats at the table, the people taking your money, are bots.
These same algorithms are controlling not just what you see, but what people can see that you write. Some of us depend on our writings getting noticed, but if you’re writing about the wrong things… Let me give you an example:
I wrote an article entitled Covid Statistical Hijinx, a very specific title. If you asked for it by name, the original Yahoo search engine would have found it and listed it first, before then going on to list other articles of a similar nature. I entered that title and not only wasn’t I at the top of the page, my article didn’t show up in the first five pages, after which I gave up as would anyone. The first two pages of results were dominated by articles from WHO, CDC, NCBI, PBS, Johns Hopkins, and other publicly funded agencies of note. Most of the site urls were wither .gov or .edu, with a smattering of government funded offshoots like Science Direct, and with one entry from the NYT. The entirety of page one, and most of the next three pages were all government approved propaganda about how “safe and effective” the jabs have been, as well as a few denigrating the idea that any problems were associated with them.
In the former Soviet Union, the entity responsible for this sort of activity was called Pravda. It was a semi-clandestine (one of the world’s worst kept secrets) arm of the government. It helped them distribute propaganda as well as tracking down dissidents. Is that where we’re headed? Or are we already there? It would seem that, at least for now American Pravda is still flying under most peoples’ radar.
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed the trend yet, but search engines are now using AI, not just to perform your search, but to tell you all it thinks you need to know regarding your query. Many of my searches have generated such a response. Here is a random example:
I rate this answer as largely evasive but vague enough to be true, proving that even a stopped clock is right twice a day. But while some “Republicans” may be hesitant to back a full impeachment, it is only because they know it would meet the same fate as the Mayorkas impeachment in a Democrat majority Senate. I don’t think any Republicans doubt that Biden should be removed, with their only hesitancy being that a president Harris wouldn’t be an upgrade. In fact I’d bet that a number of Democrat House members would agree in private that the president should go. After all, if $20M from foreign entities is a lack of evidence, then why is Bob Menendez under indictment?
But this entry was not written by any person; it was instantly generated by AI, which was obviously programmed to denigrate any thoughts that our senile president who can’t climb a set of stairs and can no longer wear dress shoes for fear of him stumbling, is in any way unfit for office. The real reason he won’t debate Donald Trump is because the entire nation would witness him fumbling for words without his teleprompter. As we’ve seen, even with the teleprompter he struggles to make coherent statements. Both Republicans and Democrats wish we had a different president, even if for different reasons.
As part of an undertaking I started some years ago to write a book called the Diogenes Project, tracking down and itemizing the myriad lies coming at us from Washington, Wall Street, Hollywood and legacy media, I find myself marveling at the furor over “artificial intelligence.” Under that rubric is also the plan currently being undertaken by Elon Musk to implant computer chips into people’s brains. If you haven’t heard about that one, you might think I’ve got my tinfoil hat on too tight, but it’s not only happening, your taxes are funding it, although early results were not encouraging and a lot of monkeys have died for this project. We need to understand that there is virtually no intersection of these two ideas. One is a complete fiction, the other is a partial fiction. But the complete fiction masquerading as AI is a potential Orwellian nightmare, literally Orwellian!
AI is an urban legend, a myth invented to scare up funding. AI isn’t just not happening today, it is not possible that it can ever happen. I speak as someone who studied computer science and computer programming. A computer is simply an array of on/off switches, ones and zeros. Regardless of the complexity and the marvelous CGI effects in superhero movies, a computer is inescapably restrained to its box; it cannot generate original thoughts or ideas. What so-called AI can do is to streamline and supercharge the plans, ideas and thought patterns of its programmer.
The primary problems with brain implants are that a) we do not have adequate understanding of the interrelationship of the various regions of the brain. If we exercise external control over the frontal lobe, for example, will we discover, years down the road, that the same problems exist as we discovered with lobotomies, and b) while the human brain may have some computer-like functioning, it doesn’t have a wiring diagram AND it can generate original ideas. Some thoughts from those who are excited about brain implants is the idea that we can download your brain, and perhaps keep you alive in a different body or in an “intelligent” computer, which is something that doesn’t and can’t exist.
No, we won’t ever be able to download the contents of your brain, nor can an implanted chip control your thoughts. What these implants could potentially do is a different version of a heart pacemaker, stimulating your thyroid or thymus gland, for example. Elon thinks it might be able to control immune responses and cure cancer, but I highly doubt that it ever can. It doesn’t show promise for actually affecting thought patterns, although there might be a way to program a pain stimulus in response to certain actions. I’m sure they’ll test that on drug addicts at some point, probably black addicts. Maybe even in Africa, where they’ve tested a number of questionable vaccines and medicines like AZT.
So the only danger from AI is that millions of people are going to think that AI is real and that if AI generates an answer, it must be true. It will likely never be true, because the people pushing AI are the same people still telling you that mRNA injections are safe, while they are arguably the most unsafe thing to happen to our species since Joseph Stalin. That is not hyperbole; there is evidence to strongly suggest that over 17 million have been killed, worldwide, with no inclusion of those who were disabled, yet AI is programmed to keep saying “safe and effective.” Interestingly, looking for the paper detailing this and discussed below brought me first to an AI generated response. I use covid as my example, because it’s an area where we all know they’re manufacturing lie after lie. The single example that follows underscores the biggest problem with what I’ll simply call Artificial Stupidity.
I heard of a paper demonstrating that 17 million deaths were caused by the jabs. It truthfully reported that the majority of jab deaths happened in close proximity, 1-3 days — known as “temporality,” a substantial factor in the Bradford Hill formula for establishing causality — with a significant number happening within the window of “30 days after the second dose,” during which, for some unexplained reason, these people are listed as unvaccinated. Those deaths were simply swept into the pile of deaths from the virus, where they didn’t belong. But letting the world know the truth would promote “vaccine hesitancy,” read: destroy our profits and maybe land us all in prison. Here’s how my search engine responded to the query:
“Based on the provided information, there is no confirmed data to support the claim that COVID-19 vaccines caused the death of 17 million people. The non-peer-reviewed material making this claim is considered flawed, and the overall mortality rate coincides with an increase in COVID-19 cases,” (emphasis from the original). Considered “flawed” by whom? Who programmed this AI? The disclaimer below this entry was in such small and pale text as to be nearly unreadable. It cautioned “AI generated answer. Please verify critical details.” No data countering the “flawed” paper. No mention of the temporal connection of deaths to the jabs.
The search query did not take me to the actual study they were defaming, nor was any factual data supplied in support of the claim that the study was flawed. Retraction of papers is typically based on flaws in methods or data, as well as inappropriate citations from prior papers. There were no reports to be found showing any such evidence of error, fraud, or malfeasance, just the simple statement that it was “flawed.” If you want to know how controllable AI is, just ask Siri (an AI, if you didn’t know) “Why are fire engines red?” Siri reasons that it makes the dalmations’ spots stand out. Good to know. Harvard’s disgraced Claudine Gay can include that in her next paper.
I found the title of an article citing the study, after much toil and trouble, and then went back with a new query using it, Covid vaccines causally linked to excess mortality, and received a similar response. Based on the provided information, stipulating that “there have been reports of deaths causally linked to COVID-19 vaccines. However, these cases are deemed [by AI] to be extremely rare.” AI goes on to say: “Studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccines have been effective in reducing COVID-19-related mortality, and there is no clear evidence of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccinations and overall excess mortality” (emphasis from the original). We already know that the so-called vaccines were not vaccines, and that they did less than nothing to reduce mortality nor to reduce either infection or transmission of the virus. So AI’s response is incorrect on its face. But a surprising majority don’t know this: There has been an increase in ACM since the jabs of 17,000,000+ and they offer no alternate explanation, just a denial.
This brings me to one of the fundamental tenets of science, you will fail to find that for which you do not seek. It may be easier to look for your lost keys under a streetlamp rather than in the dark alley where you dropped them, but you won’t find them that way, although you might find some loose change. From that query, I had to go through four pages of results before finding, not a link to the study, but a link to the Substack article discussing the actual study, which will doubtless fail to pass peer review because, like the CDC itself and our medical colleges, the peer review process is unquestionably corrupt. Why? Because the vast majority of funding for these comes from Big Pharma. The typical results from the four pages were:
Analysis claiming to find COVID-19 vaccines killed 17 million people is highly flawed, doesn’t account for COVID-19 mortality surges, inferring without evidence that the surges, which occurred after the jab rollouts couldn’t possibly be related to the jabs. Of course not!
Report falsely claims Covid vaccines killed 17 million worldwide, relying on the Fauci canard that there was no proof the vaccines had any such effect, which he could state because he had not examined any of the data.
No Evidence Excess Deaths Linked to Vaccines, Contrary to Claims Online, another claim made without reference to the evidence in the report.
VAERS data does not suggest COVID-19 vaccines killed 150,000 people, as analysis claims, a blatantly false claim as numerous credible researchers, including Rose and McCullough, had categorically demonstrated the severe underreporting bias in VAERS, making 150,000 actually an extremely conservative estimate. This non-denial denial covered the period from 12/14/20 to 11/15/21, when the VAERS number was only a little over 9,000 and the largest barrage of reporting on jab deaths had barely begun. What numerous papers published on the topic of VAERS established was an underreporting factor likely being in the neighborhood of 40-45, meaning that the 9,000 reports would equate to 360,000 to 405,000 deaths, approximating the 500,000 jump in ACM that year. Scientifically vacuous, yet this article was on the first page of my query results.
Republicans’ excess death rate spiked after COVID-19 vaccines arrived, a study says, a study whose very title unmasks its deeply perverted prejudice.
New COVID Excess Mortality Number Highlights Vaccination Challenges, a study bemoaning vaccine hesitancy and the “systemic racism” that the report claims is responsible for the unequal distribution of both vaccines and fatalities in people of color, something I addressed in Top Tip for Surviving Covid, back in August of 2021, showing that the disparity existed primarily in POC living in northern latitudes and not getting adequate sun exposure, thus being dangerously low in vitamin D. Meanwhile POC still living in Africa experienced such low death rates that, barring the WHO’s global panic, these countries would probably not have known that a pandemic was occurring in other parts of the world.
The global picture of excess deaths is disturbing, yet another screed about vaccine hesitancy and the failure to distribute to poorer (African) countries. Meanwhile, perhaps the worst results of any nation were seen in Israel, which had the highest vaccination rate of any country.
So the actual study has been memory holed, but thankfully, one of my Substack coconspirators managed to see it and report on it before the Government-Media-Pharma consortium was able to crush it. Their active AI bots can find these new studies and hide them quite quickly. And yet the absurd, inane, and incredibly poorly structured so-called clinical papers damning Ivermectin managed to stay alive for over a year before they were discovered to be complete fabrications. Here is the Substack article:
The pandemic’s true death toll: millions more than official counts where I was finally able to find a link to the study: COVID-19 vaccine-associated mortality in the Southern Hemisphere
Data suggest COVID-19 vaccines haven’t saved lives, but instead, have resulted in 17 million deaths and increased all cause mortality (ACM) in 17 countries… researchers found that unprecedented peaks in high all-cause mortality in each country — especially among the elderly population when COVID-19 vaccines were deployed — coincided with the rollout of third and fourth booster doses… the researchers calculated a mean all-ages fatal toxicity by injection of vDFR (vaccine-dose fatality rate) of one death per 800 injections across all ages and countries.
Key Findings from 180-page report include:
• In all countries included in the analysis, ACM increased when the vaccines were deployed
• Nine of 17 countries had no detectable excess deaths until the beginning of the vaccination campaign
• Unprecedented peaks in ACM were observed in January and February 2022, following rollout of boosters in 15 of 17 countries studied.
• Excess ACM during the vaccination period beginning January 2021, 1.74 million, or one death per 800 injections, in the 17 countries studied.
• The vDFR increased exponentially with age, reaching almost 1 death per 20 injections among those 90 and over receiving a fourth dose.
“All-cause mortality is a good feature to use in statistical medical analyses since there is no ambiguity in whether someone has died or not.” Stephanie Seneff, senior research scientist at MIT. Not always true, Stephanie, as I pointed out in Covid Statistical Hijinx, but perhaps most of the time…
AI on your desktop is just a potential convenience — although just as likely a yard of wool being pulled over your eyes — the lazy person’s shortcut to gathering and structuring information, i.e., plagiarizing, without actually doing any research of your own. But when AI accesses your implant via Bluetooth or 5G, 10G, 20G or whatever the next wireless tech is, that’s when we step onto shaky ground. Any implanted technology, such as a pacemaker or even your smart home components, can be accessed and coopted, even without AI. So let’s not get the two ideas confused. If Iran’s Ayatollah had an implanted pacemaker, Israeli hackers could take him out remotely. Perhaps a major cyberattack or EMP could take out pacemakers and Elon’s implants on a massive scale.
More AI foolishness:
If you frequent casinos, the various slot machines, including video poker, are allegedly powered by random number generators so that your game play is completely random, except that it isn’t. The casinos can’t afford to take the chance that randomness might work against them, because if a true random number generator existed, it would be a coin toss as to whether you win or the house wins. But random number generators, just like AI are an urban myth. Let’s be kind and simply call them misnomered. Random number generators are the tip of the iceberg, or perhaps the early ancestors of AI. They use an algorithm to generate a number, which may then become the basis for a deck of electronic cards or the display of spinning wheels on a slot machine. However, that algorithmically generated number is not random by any stretch of the imagination. The internal computer in the slot machine knows every combination it’s going to produce going forward and therefore the exact payout percentage. If you hit a jackpot, leave town; if you keep pulling the handle, the casino will get it all back.