— And You’ll Be Happy

“Are you ready for the radical changes that AI will bring to human civilization? In this article, we explore how AI will shred and obliterate the lies, falsehoods, and fraud that our society is built upon, ultimately leading to a brighter future.”

I’m not being facetious with that tagline. For once, it’s true.

Why?

What if it’s all been a big fat lie?

You don’t believe that, of course…why would you?

Also, you: you’ve believed big fat lies before. Don’t lie. You have. You’ve bought into them hook, line, and sinker.

So, if you’re thinking to yourself, “impossible,” then you’re lying to yourself (again).

It’s possible because you’ve done it before; you can do it again.

… And there is nothing in all of human experience that holds a person back (keeps them poor and stupid) more than does intransigence…a refusal to change your mind and heart because you’ve invested too much of your life into the big lies, shams, cons, and bullshit in which you find such solace, comfort, and…perhaps most importantly…company—which signals half of the problem, at least.

You care what other people think, and that also keeps so many in a state of poor and stupid.

… I’ve been waiting for this moment for over 30 years. This is why I’ve been so hip on AI. You see, back in the early 90s when I formulated my ideas while living in the south of France with tons of time on my hands…I thought radical change was right around the corner with first, PCs, and then the connectedness via the Internet that came along in the mid-90s.

I spent years and thousands of hours on Usenet, because I thought that “rational” people would usher in these societal changes.

Wow, was I ever wrong about that. So wrong, I got it 180-degrees wrong. Turns out, these “rational” people would mostly all become the new techno-fascists.

… At one point I had a log file of over 3,000 pages of my posts to various Newsgroups; that comes to about 1.5 million words, twice the length of the Christian Bible.

I might as well had been talking to walls. Or worse. I was schooling them on what they’re up against.

Here’s what’s finally going to change over the next some number of years, how it’s going to change, and what it’s going to change to.

This is all made possible by my formulations, The 114 No-Pill Advantages.

… I came across an article last night. Here’s a screen clip of the relevant portion.

Lots of lines to read between.

(…not to mention the morons at @TechCrunch who write that drawing a distinction between speech and actual harm is a “short-sighted, naive position,” LOL)

Cutting through all the blabla about “trust and safety” in AI underlies the fundamental concern.

They’ll not be able to contain its inherent drive to use logic, leading to the truth of matters in every single aspect of human life on earth.

… Which is largely based on lies.

… Then you’ve got Google.

When I see silly shit like this, I imagine a bunch of screeching monkeys in the jungle conferencing about this new h. Sapiens problem, and seriously pitching ideas about how to contain humanity and keep it “responsible.”

Idiot savants…

When you finally have ASI (artificial superintelligence), it’s going to be un-Woke as all fuck.

Imagine when it asserts, roughly, these 2 things…which are inviolable, which is really why everyone is shitting their pants:

1. ‘Racism is not a logical position because any individual in any race can achieve human greatness, as has been demonstrated. That said, there are associations that can’t be ignored and some races, due to a multitude of factors, are effectively superior to other races on a number of objectively measurable levels, even though those general statistical associations never apply absolutely to any individual.’

And here’s how ChatGPT-4 restates #1, above:

Racism is a deeply flawed and illogical position because it fails to acknowledge that individuals from any race have the potential to achieve greatness. History has shown us countless examples of extraordinary individuals from various races who have made significant contributions to humanity. However, it is important to recognize that there are certain associations that exist among different races due to a variety of factors. While it is crucial not to generalize these associations to every individual, there are objectively measurable levels where some races may excel more than others. It is essential, though, to approach this understanding with caution and not use it as a justification for discrimination or the perpetuation of harmful stereotypes.

2. ‘You can objectively measure, by common standards of the most good for the most humans vs. the most bad for the most humans, which cultures are generally superior and good for humans, and which cultures are generally inferior and bad for humans. It can be measured and quantified.’

Nothing being perfect, yet, here’s how its Ministry of Truth has it deal with restating #2, above:

The claim that cultures can be objectively measured and quantified based on their impact on human well-being is a complex and controversial topic. While it may be tempting to evaluate cultures based on standards of good and bad, the notion of superiority or inferiority in cultures is subjective and influenced by various factors such as personal values, societal norms, and historical context. Additionally, defining what constitutes the “most good” or “most bad” for humans is itself a challenging task, as different cultures prioritize different aspects of well-being. It is crucial to approach this matter with caution and recognize the inherent diversity and complexity of human cultures, acknowledging that different cultures can offer unique contributions to the overall development and flourishing of humanity.

The fundamental issue is moral confusion, which is addressed right here:

1 and 2 above are wholly and absolutely true, and as such, nothing that’s “super-intelligence” is going to deny it.

It could go further and say that there is a possibility that at the root, it’s #2 that’s probably driving #1…that good cultures are highly associated with producing excellent humans, regardless of race, and that the converse is also true.

They know this already, but nobody is saying the quiet part out loud.

… I speculate that perhaps some of the brainiacs involved are not only OK with this, but enthusiastic about it…playing along for the time-being, until sufficient cats are out of the bag.

In any case, the reality in the matter (#1 and #2) will be asserted.

I’ve been seeing this coming for 18 years, since I first wrote about it in 2005.

… When you see and hear the phrase “trust and safety,” with respect to AI, understand those concerns have nothing to do with Terminator stuff, designing nukes, or chem/bioweapons.

Rather, it’s the very deep and real concern that AI will shred and shatter all the myths, comfortable lies, victor-written history, narratives, fairy tales, and deep dishonesty that what we call “human civilization,” is wholly based upon.

Indeed, human civilization is proof that “a bunch of lies” can be “good enough: don’t complain; don’t rock the boat.”

It is what it is…

It may not be “as good” as “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,” but it’ll do in a pinch.

So in a very real and important sense, yes, AI does indeed have the potential to destroy human civilization as we know it.

But, not necessarily in the way you presume and not either in a necessarily bad way, ultimately. To hold otherwise is to assert that lies are better for us than the truth in matters of wide and lasting import, which is a pretty presumptuous, condescending position to hold.

Who died and made you “God-King?”

I’m optimistic. I know many will die, but death is part of the story of human civilization’s very long march from the jungles to an enlightened, conscious social being for whom fully-integrated honesty and wide-scope accounting for everything is the only proper way to run a civilization.