Is it a coincidence that mainstream media is talking about banning Artificial intelligence as there is a growing buzz in the alternative media about it?
According to physicist Harald Kautz Vella, who spent several years researching self replicating nanotechnologies found within geoengineering or chemtrails and Morgellons sufferers, we have been saturated in AI technology for decades. This technology uses heavy elements as well as artificial RNA to implant itself within the biology of an individual, for the purpose of tracking and transmitting biophotonic light energy from and to the host.
The exposure rates are 100% within the first world and heavily sprayed areas. While all this sounds ominous to say the least, the good news is these systems have been in place for a least 20 years, with only subtle suggestion as its strongest tool for manipulating consciousness. And there are techniques to unravelling intrusion into one’s body and life. Like any subliminal suggestion, so long as we remain ignorant it can work against us, but once we develop an awareness of these influences, we can override them.
The reason AI, even in well intentioned applications, can be problematic is its absolute adherence to its programing. Unlike humans, who can change their programing (values, beliefs and world views) an AI is hardwired for what ever the original programmer wrote. The risk of any computer program falling short of real world challenges and integration is almost assured, hence programs need to be re-written and upgraded as unforeseen events transpire. In computer programing circles it is well know that a program does not make mistakes, it follows its programing to the letter, revealing the programers errors. It is our inability to properly anticipate events which makes using AI very risky.
Enter the AI drone or soldier debate. The military industrial complex has long desired a highly obedient yet adaptable soldier, able to execute commands without question and anticipate needs so as to change tactics of battle real time. Human beings are programable, but human nature allows us to change, providing an unending source of risk and error for military activities. For example, in the Civil War, 50% of soldiers froze when aiming at a living target, and in some cases instinctually missed. This was despite standard training and practice shooting. What was the problem? – empathy.
“Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, a psychologist and professor of military science, looked at this evidence and concluded “that there is within most men an intense resistance to killing their fellow man. A resistance so strong that, in many circumstances, soldiers on the battlefield will die before they can overcome it.” In some ways this isn’t all that surprising. Very few people would seek out an opportunity to kill others. At the same time, you may find it hard to believe that it is sometimes impossible for soldiers to kill others even when their own lives are at risk.” – The Psychology of Killing and the Origins of War
Empathy is ‘hardwired’ into living organisms, with increasing levels of actualization in higher order life. Modern science has acknowledged this in discovering the so called mirror neurons, which fires when an action is taken by an organism or when it is observed. This is why when we watch another getting hurt we react as if we have been hurt. This subconscious and unavoidable process is the foundation for empathy processing, which concordantly is the basis for morality.
A computer program can emulate human behavior, the outward manifestation of experience, but it cannot replicate the inner experience of intuition, imagination and empathy. The ability to see another as oneself, to contemplate how one would feel if they were so treated provides the precursory data and awareness to develop an ethical point of view. But since AI has no such process, since it navigates the world by differentiating itself from other things, it has no basis to make a moral choice.
When one considers the notion of an AI drone or soldier, able to execute orders, fire weapons and destroy targets without empathy, the dilemma becomes clear. The following article reveals that we are much closer to this dream of morally bereft soldiers then we may think. And as several below mentioned, we would do well to ensure no such automated killing machine ever comes into existence.
Undoubtedly, proponents of such technology will speak of the limitation of human casualties, that our boys over there are risking their lives. But when we consider the reasons for war and conflict, they pail in comparison to the cost of making death dealing machines. We need only look out into the world to see how acceptance of an idea, when unvalidated, leads to chaos and disorder. Any limited gains we may realize as a result of this technology will come at a heavy price. Perhaps we should ponder the allegories of science fiction, such as the Matrix and the Terminator series, to explore the possibilities of what releasing this technology could mean.
The letter claims that totally autonomous killing machines could become a reality within ‘years, not decades’
Sentry robots like these are currently in use by South Korea along the North Korean border – but cannot fire their weapons without human input
Physicist Stephen Hawking is one of the more famous signatories to the letter
Source:
Leave a Reply