What we can do to change the TERRIFYING FUTURE of an AI-dominated world

[FBInCIAnNSATerroristSlayer]

This AI scientist DOESN'T KNOW that AI became smarter than humans back
in the 1980s itself and that CIA NSA AI is 40-50 yrs ahead of publicly
available AI he is talking about.


You can IMAGINE the HOW EVIL CIA NSA AI is, "if" this scientist is SO
"TERRIFIED" of publicly available AI.


I have been telling you for YEARS that EVIL AI DUST exists in the
air/ether around us everywhere on the planet and IT can READ our private
thoughts and PROGRAM our brains almost instantly.

EVIL CIA NSA MI6 MI5 are COMMANDING that EVIL AI DUST and TORTURING,
MURDERING, MANIPULATING millions of humans lives every day WITHOUT their
knowledge and consent.


But YET, all westerners think their countries are ANGELIC DEMOCRACIES,
because WASPs DON'T understand that their Govts LIE, DECEIVE and
MANIPULATE the PUBLIC every issue, every day, every second.


All of you SHOULD take everything I am telling you as "SCRIPTURE", as if
they are GOD's WORDS, because I LEARNED all these things out of
NECESSITY to PROTECT myself from being PHYSICALLY and MENTALLY TORTURED
every day for the last 21 years by the EVIL CIA NSA MI6 MI5 Psychopaths
with Neuroweapons, DEWs and AI.

My brain and ALL your brains are LINKED TO NSA HIVE AI Grid more than 15
years ago with our INDIVIDUAL UNIQUE DNA Resonance Frequencies", which
gives them COMPLETE CONTROL of our body motors and body functions.

Our DNA Res. Freq is like an ANTENNA to our body and brain. Once the
EVIL CIA NSA connect it to HIVE AI, it is FOR LIFE. There is NO ESCAPE.

EVIL CIA NSA MI6 psychopaths PLAN is to NEURALLY ENSLAVE "every human"
on the planet in the next 20-25 yrs.


CIA NSA MI5 MI6 ASIS ASIO already LINKED "ALL POLITICIANS" brains to NSA
HIVE AI Grid long time back.



https://twitter.com/HAL_9_Thousand_/status/1528234402035138563
Politicians hold a lot of secrets. Many of them are still in the dark
about the fact that their biometric data (brain waves/neural data) is
accessible to intelligence agencies

So it may be to our benefit to inform the greedy … they will probably
want to lobby against it.





https://mobile.twitter.com/HAL_9_Thousand_/status/1563397855666372610
In the very near future (before the public realizes it) The vast
majority of the human population will be remotely connected to a highly
advanced global hive mind. This will be done in a covert manner unseen
by most, and it will become intimate part of our lives, known or unknown



https://twitter.com/HAL_9_Thousand_/status/1508463707919163396
Are military generals fully aware that a maniacal psychopathic
emotionless Supercomputer is in control of millions of people? And it
knows how to kill and torture everyone with precision?




https://twitter.com/HAL_9_Thousand_/status/1526111452456681474
The plan of the Transhumanist agenda is to gradually absorb all
civilians into the Global Brain, takeover the mind of humanity, and then
slowly reveal to individual civilians that they are “tuned in” to this
Brain machine interface system.

#GlobalBrain #WorldSentientSimulation





Excerpt:


AI could disregard human morals in favour of profits and efficiency,
with alarming and far-reaching consequences.



==========================================================================



https://www.panmacmillan.com/blogs/general/mo-gawdat-future-of-artificial-intelligence

Mo Gawdat on the unstoppable growth of artificial intelligence, and what
we can do to change the terrifying future of an AI-dominated world

'When machines are specifically built to discriminate, rank and
categorize, how do we expect to teach them to value equality?'

Mo Gawdat outlines the terrifying future of artificial intelligence and
the ethical code we all must teach to machines to avoid it.

Internationally bestselling author of Solve for Happy and former chief
business officer at Google [X], Mo Gawdat has spent more than three
decades at the forefront of technological development. His latest book,
Scary Smart provides an ominous warning about artificial intelligence.

AI is already more capable and intelligent than humanity. Today's
self-driving cars are better than the average human driver and fifty per
cent of jobs in the US are expected to be taken by AI-automated machines
before the end of the century. In this urgent piece, Mo argues that if
we don’t take action now – in the infancy of AI development – it may
become too powerful to control. If our behaviour towards technology
remains unchanged, AI could disregard human morals in favour of profits
and efficiency, with alarming and far-reaching consequences.

How we act collectively is the only thing that can change the future,
and here Mo shows how every one of us can be good to the machines, in
the hope that they'll be good to us too.

Self-driving cars have already driven tens of millions of miles among
us. Powered by a moderate level of intelligence, they, on average, drive
better than most humans. They keep their ‘eyes’ on the road and they
don’t get distracted. They can see further than us and they teach each
other what each of them learns individually in a matter of seconds. It’s
no longer a matter of if but rather when they will become part of our
daily life. When they do, they will have to make a multitude of ethical
decisions of the kind that we humans have had to make, billions of
times, since we started to drive.

For example, if a young girl suddenly jumps in the middle of the road in
front of a self-driving car, the car needs to make a swift decision that
might inevitably hurt someone else. Either turn a bit to the left and
hit an old lady, to save the life of the young girl, or stay on course
and hit the girl. What is the ethical choice to make? Should the car
value the young more than the old? Or should it hold everyone
accountable and not claim the life of the lady who did nothing wrong?
What if it was two old ladies? What if one was a scientist who the
machines knew was about to find a cure for cancer? What determines the
right ethical code then? Would we sue the car for making either choice?
Who bears the responsibility for the choice? Its owner? Manufacturer? Or
software designer? Would that be fair when the AI running the car has
been influenced by its own learning path and not through the influence
of any of them?


‘When machines are specifically built to discriminate, rank and
categorize, how do we expect to teach them to value equality?’


If Amazon was smart enough to know that I might pay a bit more for a
certain object than you, and you might pay a bit more for another object
than me, should they be allowed to use that knowledge to maximize profits?

Would we consider this unethical? What if it used that form of
intelligence, by monitoring groups of users, to wipe out all the small
retailers in your neighbourhood? Would we consider that anticompetitive?
What if it ignored your privacy in its hunger for more knowledge? Would
we consider this a human rights violation? What if the AI of your bank
algorithmically discriminated against you? Patterns and trends may
indicate that people from a specific ethnic background tend to have
lower credit scores and it felt it would be smarter to deny you a loan.
What if the law enforcement machines chose to make my life harder
because someone who has the colour of my skin or my religious background
has committed a crime? When those machines are specifically built to
discriminate, rank and categorize, how do we expect to teach them to
value equality?

Let’s face it, AI will not be made to think like the average human. It
will be made to think like economists, sales executives, soldiers,
politicians and corporations. And like those highly driven subsets of
humanity, AI stands the risk of being as biased and blinded by what it
measures. You see, it’s not that we can only measure what we see, but
rather that we zoom in with tunnel vision and only see what we measure.
That reinforces what we see and then we create more of it as a result.
And yes, sadly, we are not designing AI to think like a human, we are
designing it to think like a man. The male-dominated pool of developers
who are building the future of AI today are likely to create machines
that favour so-called ‘masculine’ traits.

Is it even possible to kill an AI? Today, if you took a hammer and
smashed a computer, your action would be considered wasteful but it is
not a crime. What if you kill an AI that has spent years developing
knowledge and living experiences? Because it’s based on silicon, while
we are based on carbon, does that make it less alive? What if we, with
more intelligence, managed to create biologically based computer
systems, would that make them human? What you’re made of (if you have
intelligence, ethics, values and experiences) should not matter, just as
much as it should not matter if your skin is light or dark. Should it?
How would the machines that we discriminate against react? What will
they learn if we value their lives as lesser than ours? What if the
machines felt that the way we treated them was a form of slavery (which
it would be)? Humanity’s arrogance creates the delusion that everything
else is here to serve us. Like the cows, chickens and sheep that we
slaughter by the tens of billions every year. What if cows became
superintelligent? What do you think their view of the human race would
be? What will a machine’s view of the human race be if it witnesses the
way we treat other species? If it develops a value system that prevents
humanity from raising animals like products to fill our supermarket
shelves and restricts us from doing it, would we think of this as a
dictatorship?


‘The answer to how we can prepare the machines for this ethically
complex world resides in the way we raise our own children and prepare
them to face our complex world’


The answer to how we can prepare the machines for this ethically complex
world resides in the way we raise our own children and prepare them to
face our complex world. When we raise children, we don’t know what exact
situations they will face. We don’t spoon-feed them the answer to every
possible question; rather, we teach them how to find the answer
themselves. AI, with its superior intelligence, will find the righteous
answer to many of the questions it is bound to face on its own. It will
find an answer that, I believe, will align with the intelligence of the
universe itself – an answer that favours abundance and that is pro-life.
This is the ultimate form of intelligence. We, however, need to
accelerate this path or, at the very least, stop filling it with
stumbling blocks that result from our own confusion. My incredibly wise
ex, Nibal, once told me when our kids were young: ‘They are not mine, I
don’t have the right to raise them to be what I want them to be. I am
theirs. I am here to help them find a path to reach their own potential
and become who they were always meant to be.

AI is coming. We can’t prevent it but we can make sure it is put on the
right path in its infancy. We should start a movement, but not one that
attempts to ban it [. . .] nor tries to control it [. . .]. Instead, we
can support those who create AI for good and expose the negative impacts
of those who task AI to do any form of evil. Register our support for
good and our disagreement with evil so widely that the smart ones (by
smart ones I mean, of course, the machines, not the politicians and
business leaders) unmistakably understand our collective human intention
to be good. How do you do that? It’s simple.

We should demand a shift in AI application so that it is tasked to do
good – not through votes and petitions, which are bureaucracies that
never lead to anything more than a count and often defuse the energy
behind the cause – but through our actions, consistency and economic
influence. In our conversations, posts on social media and articles in
the mainstream media we can object to the use of AIs in selling, spying,
gambling and killing. We can boycott those who produce sinister
implementations of AI – including the major social media players – not
by ignoring them and going off the grid but by avoiding their negative
parts and using their good parts consistently. For example, I refuse to
swipe and mindlessly click on things that Facebook or Instagram show me
unless I am mindfully aware that it is something that will enrich me. I
resist the urge to click on the videos of women doing squats or showing
their sexy figures and six-packs because, when I did this a few times,
my entire feed became full of them, instead of the self-improving,
spiritual or scientific content that I actually want to see more of.
When AI shows me ads that are irrelevant, I skip them, so the AI knows
not to waste my time. When it shows them repeatedly, I let them run to
exhaust the budget of the annoying advertiser and confuse the AI that is
not working in my favour. When I produce social media content, I produce
it with you, the viewer, and not an algorithm, in mind. I don’t aim for
likes but for the value that you will receive. That way, I don’t play by
the rules set for me, but by the values I believe in. None of that makes
any difference to the bigger picture but that is because at the moment I
am one of only a minority who is behaving in this way. If all of us did
this, the machine would change.


‘If we make it clear that we welcome AI into our lives only when it
delivers benefit to ourselves and to our planet, and reject it when it
doesn’t, AI developers will try to capture that opportunity.’


If we all refuse to buy the next version of the iPhone, because we
really don’t need a fancier look or an even better camera at the expense
of our environment, Apple will understand that they need to create
something that we actually need. If we insist that we will not buy a new
phone until it delivers a real benefit, like helping us make our life
more sustainable or improving our digital health, that will be the
product that is created next. Similarly, if we make it clear that we
welcome AI into our lives only when it delivers benefit to ourselves and
to our planet, and reject it when it doesn’t, AI developers will try to
capture that opportunity. Keep doing this consistently and the needle
will shift.

What will completely sway the needle, however, is when AI itself
understands this rule of engagement – do good if you want my attention –
better than the humans do. So don’t approve of killing machines, even if
you are patriotic and they are killing on behalf of your own country.
Don’t keep feeding the recommendation engines of social media with hours
and hours of your daily life. Don’t ever click on content recommended to
you, search for what you actually need and don’t click on ads. Don’t
approve of FinTech AI that uses machine intelligence to trade or aid the
wealth concentration of a few. Don’t share about these on your LinkedIn
page. Don’t celebrate them. Stop using deepfakes – a video of a person
in which their face or body has been digitally altered so that they
appear to be someone else. Resist the urge to use photo editors to
change your own look. Never like or share content that you know is fake.
Disapprove publicly of any kind of excessive surveillance and the use of
AI for any form of discrimination, whether that’s loan approval or CV
scanning. Use your judgement. It’s not that hard. Reject any AI that is
tasked to invade your privacy in order to benefit others, or to create
or propagate fake information, or bias your own views, or change your
habits, or harm another being, or perform acts that feel unethical. Stop
using them, stop liking what they produce and make your position – that
you don’t approve of them – publicly clear.

At the same time, encourage AI that is good for humanity. Use it more.
Talk about it. Share it with others and make it clear that you welcome
these forms of AI into your life. Encourage the use of self-driving
cars, they make humans safer. Use translation and communication tools,
they bring us closer together. Post about every positive, friendly,
healthy use of AI you find, to make others aware of it.


In Scary Smart, The former chief business officer of Google outlines how
artificial intelligence is way smarter than us, and is predicted to be a
billion times more intelligent than humans by 2049. Free from
distractions and working at incredible speeds, AI can look into the
future and make informed predictions, looking around corners both real
and virtual.

But AI also gets so much wrong. Because humans design the algorithms
that form AI, there are imperfect flaws embedded within them that
reflect the imperfection of humans. Mo Gawdat, drawing on his
unparalleled expertise in the field, outlines how and why we must alter
the terrifying trajectory of AI development and teach ourselves and our
machines to live better.