Category: Artificial Intelligence (AI)

  • AI is a perfect storm threatening humanity
    ©  Getty Images/XH4D

    The global economy was already navigating a minefield of volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity (VUCA) when US President Donald J. Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs reverberated across international markets. This aggressive escalation of trade barriers, including a mélange of sudden rate hikes, retaliatory measures, and rhetorical brinkmanship, didn’t just amplify the chaos; it ignited the specter of a full-blown economic firestorm.

    Volatility unleashed

    The moment the tariffs were announced, markets convulsed. Stock indices plummeted, erasing $2.1 trillion in global market cap within days, while currency markets whipsawed as traders scrambled to price in the fallout. Supply chains, still reeling from pandemic-era disruptions, faced new shocks. Factories in Vietnam scrambled to reroute shipments, German automakers recalculated production costs overnight, and Chinese exporters braced for 145% retaliatory duties on key goods. The tariffs acted like a sledgehammer to an already teetering Jenga tower of global trade, with each blow amplifying volatility far beyond their intended targets.

    Uncertainty weaponized

    While volatility reigned, the tariff war between the United States and China introduced a deeper, more corrosive uncertainty. Businesses accustomed to stable trade rules now faced policy seesaws. Exemptions granted one day were revoked almost overnight while the constant threat of broader tariffs were dangled without clarity on timing or scope.

    CEOs delayed investments, fearing sudden cost hikes. The Federal Reserve, already grappling with inflation, found itself trapped in a Catch-22 situation: raise rates to tame inflation and risk recession, or hold steady and watch confidence erode. Meanwhile, allies like the EU and Canada retaliated with precision strikes on politically sensitive US exports, ranging from bourbon to motorcycles, threatening 2.6 million American jobs at one point. The potential unemployment tallies just kept rising worldwide.

    The message was clear: no one was safe from the fallout.

    Gulf AI giant moves into US amid tech rivalry – FT

    Complexity spirals out of control

    As the trade war escalated, the global economic order began to fracture. Nations abandoned decades of multilateralism in favor of ad hoc alliances. China fast-tracked deals with the EU and ASEAN and began to court rivals Japan and India. The US, on the other hand, found itself isolated. Companies, desperate to adapt, began planning redundant supply chains – one for tariff-free markets and another for the US. This only served as a costly and inefficient hedge against further disruptions. Regulatory labyrinths simultaneously emerged overnight. A single auto part might now face several different tariff rates depending on its origin, destination, and material composition. The system now groaned under the weight of its runaway complexity.

    Ambiguity: Strategy or stumbling block?

    Worst of all was the ambiguity. Trump framed the tariffs as a “negotiating tool” to revive US manufacturing, yet no coherent industrial policy followed. Were these temporary measures or a permanent decoupling from China? Would they actually bring jobs back, or simply raise prices for consumers? The administration’s mixed signals left allies questioning America’s reliability and adversaries probing for weakness. Geopolitically, the tariffs accelerated a crisis of trust. NATO allies doubted US commitments, Southeast Asian nations hedged toward Beijing, and the Global South explored alternatives to the dollar. The longer the ambiguity persisted, the more the world adapted to a reality where the US was no longer the anchor of the global economy.

    What makes these tariffs uniquely dangerous is their role as a VUCA multiplier. They don’t just create volatility – they lock it in. Uncertainty doesn’t subside – it metastasizes. Complexity isn’t resolved – it becomes the new normal. And ambiguity isn’t clarified – it is weaponized. The result is a self-reinforcing cycle: tariffs provoke retaliation, which fuels inflation, which strains central banks, which spooks investors, which forces more protectionism. Meanwhile, the dollar’s dominance erodes, supply chains Balkanize, and businesses lose faith in long-term planning.

    AI as the VUCA force multiplier

    When the first round of tariffs was imposed by Washington DC, traditional economic models anticipated familiar disruptions in the form of market corrections, supply chain adjustments, and eventual equilibrium. What these models missed was the presence of a new wildcard – AI systems that don’t just respond to volatility but can amplify it. Algorithmic trading platforms and predictive logistics tools, operating on assumptions of continuity, struggled to adapt to the sudden, chaotic shifts introduced by trade barriers. In some sectors, this has led to mismatches between inventory and demand, not because of human misjudgement, but due to machine learning models which are ill-equipped to handle the cascading effects of cross-sectoral VUCA.

    AI is indeed accelerating the fragmentation of the global economic order. As nations implement competing AI systems to manage trade flows, we may see the emergence of parallel digital realities. One country’s customs AI might classify a product as tariff-free while another’s system slaps it with prohibitive duties. This isn’t just bureaucratic confusion; it represents the breakdown of shared frameworks that have enabled global commerce for decades. We used to worry about trade wars between nations; now we should worry about conflicts between the machines built to manage them. In a hypothetical future, trade wars will be fought by rival AI systems fighting proxy battles through markets, logistics, and information. Personally, I doubt this planet has scope for another crisis beyond this one, as Albert Einstein’s adage that WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones  comes to mind.

    In the midst of the ongoing VUCA torrent, many clueless bureaucrats and executives have quietly turned to AI, particularly GPTs, to make sense of the myriad crises facing their nations and institutions. Many flawed decisions may have been made and sums allocated for “future-proofing.” Let me tell you why this is a recipe for disaster: one prominent GPT model gave me not one but five (5) erroneous and wholly-fictitious examples of how AI had messed up the post-Liberation Day geo-economic landscape. And here is the scary part: only those well-versed in complex systems, global risks and AI would have discerned those flaws. Otherwise, the scenarios generated by the GPT model were generally more accurate than most of those voiced by pundits on prime time television.

    Why did the GPT model make such mistakes? I am convinced that AI is being surreptitiously used to sift out the gullible from the indispensable, perhaps in preparation for a post-VUCA world. But that remains a relatively optimistic theory!

    Mass unemployment ahead?

    AI and VUCA are rapidly converging to create the preconditions for the worst unemployment crisis since the Industrial Revolution. Back then, the West could resort to new markets in the form of colonies. This time, however, there are no new territories left to colonize – only the continued cannibalization of societies themselves. The accelerating spiral of global wealth inequality is not an anomaly; it is the clearest symptom of this internalized exploitation.

    The world is not merely staring at job losses in specific sectors. No, this is about the simultaneous breakdown of multiple stabilizing mechanisms that have historically absorbed economic shocks.

    Russia’s Digital Development Minister Maksut Shadaev recently claimed that half of his nation’s civil servants could be replaced by AI. Shadaev, however, noted that certain professions, such as doctors and teachers, cannot be replaced. Bill Gates thinks otherwise. He predicts that AI will swiftly replace humans in nearly every professional sphere, including teaching and medicine. For once, I wholly agree with Gates.

    So, what do we do with the “excess humans”? Institute a CBDC-mediated rationing system as a stop-gap measure?

    Culmination of systemic global corruption

    The VUCA-AI quagmire unfolding today is the consequence of decades of entrenched patronage systems that were perfected in the West and subsequently exported to the Third World. These were intrinsically corrupt systems that rewarded compliant mediocrity over critical thought. In sidelining genuine thinkers, these structures forfeited any real chance of forging a balanced, intelligent response to the collision between VUCA dynamics and artificial intelligence.

    In the end, we are left with a world designed by clowns and supervised by monkeys, to borrow a phrase from a disillusioned Boeing pilot. Many Third World pundits and policymakers, themselves products of the West’s neocolonial machinery, are now advocating a wholesale pivot towards the BRICS bloc. Like courtiers in a globalist brothel suddenly desperate for new clientele, these elites now decry the very “inequalities” that once elevated them to cushy posts – at the expense of the citizens they claim to represent.

    As far back as 1970, the Nobel Laureate Albert Szent-Györgyi had warned of the consequences of the “terrible strain of idiots who govern the world.” Szent-Györgyi, who bagged the Nobel Prize in Medicine (1937) for discovering Vitamin C had however hoped that the youth of the future would save humanity from a gerontocracy that cannot “assimilate new ideas.”

    Little did he know that the same gerontocracy had already hatched a plan to create a new breed of “young global leaders” – even children – who were more feckless and pliant than their predecessors. This may have been the real raison d’etre behind the World Economic Forum. Personally, I can find no other justification behind the founding of this institution.

    In the end, individuals with real ideas – both young and old – have largely abandoned a system that no longer rewards insight, only compliance. Their views no longer appear on search engines as Big Tech had employed a variety of pretexts to shadowban their viewpoints.

    However, the day may come when the phones of ideators may start ringing again in the quest for “solutions”. It will be too late by then.

    The post AI is a Perfect Storm Threatening Humanity first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Technology will soon be able to do everything we do – only better. How should we respond?

    Right now, most big AI labs have a team figuring out ways that rogue AIs might escape supervision, or secretly collude with each other against humans. But there’s a more mundane way we could lose control of civilisation: we might simply become obsolete. This wouldn’t require any hidden plots – if AI and robotics keep improving, it’s what happens by default.

    How so? Well, AI developers are firmly on track to build better replacements for humans in almost every role we play: not just economically as workers and decision-makers, but culturally as artists and creators, and even socially as friends and romantic companions. What place will humans have when AI can do everything we do, only better?

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The post The Superiority of AI first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The post The Superiority of AI first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The internet and computers have been a boon to essayists like Edward Curtin (and me!). He/you/we can publish at online sites (DissidentVoice.org is a favorite for us) and then publish our screeds in book form if we are prolific and eloquent enough. Curtin was a philosophy/social theory professor at Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts. This collection of Curtin’s articles, At the Lost and Found (2025), is a case in point. There are some fine ones; certainly, his introduction and the opening ones are challenging postmodern forays for the uninitiated, yet still readable. His students were very lucky.

    As Trump-Musk take a hatchet to American higher education, I marvel at the thought that there are hundreds if not thousands of Curtins (maybe not as good) across the vast US, most at small liberal arts colleges, all in love with words and wisdom, all teaching their students lovingly, urging them to THINK. That is surely the beauty of America, the promise to take the world’s poor and reviled and give them the chance to be someone, do something worthwhile.

    Curtin, from his earliest memories, saw that conventional life was a provocation because it hid more than it revealed; that it harbored secrets that could not be exposed or else the make-believe nature of normal life would collapse like a cardboard set. Like everyone, I was ushered onto this Shakespearean stage and have acted out many roles assigned to me, but always with the inner consciousness that something was amiss. Everyone seemed to be playing someone, but who was the player? Is the role playing us? Are we marionettes in some pipe dream, and is there an author behind it? God? The devil? Capitalism?

    Curtin’s postmodern credo comes from Thoreau: We commonly do not remember that it is, after all, always the first person that is speaking. There are no neutral observers.

    His goal: to oppose these scoundrels and their ilk who kill and wage endless wars against innocents around the world, in a way that will delight and last a little while.

    Writing as music

    Curtin admits he is obsessed with words. That they play him. He, in turn, uses them to produce both astute political analyses and art in luminescent words and sentences that pulsate. I think of them as intertwined lovers. AI is taking capitalism to its Faustian apotheosis, to mechanize us all, to eliminate passion and will. Reduce thought to dead words. Curtin compares his writing to composing, hoping to leave a fresh song in your heart, something to help you see the pageant of our lives in more than just dead words.

    In The End of the Speed Limit on the Highway to Nowhere, he compares us to Sisyphus but without the illusion of ascent, merely going in a circle, returning to the same grey reality of the freedom-to-choose-what-is-always-the-same, seen as a mediated, rootless reality that is no reality at all. Yes, you can fly anywhere in the world (if you are part of SWIFT), but you will find the same McDonald’s and box stores, more or less the same sandy beaches, and souvenirs made in China. Fake diversity. Fake news, to quote our fake king-of-the-world.

    We are flooded with unneeded techno ‘miracles’, but without roots we are swept away by them, our mediated reality providing no signposts for where we are headed, no warnings of pitfalls that threaten our real Reality and us, allowing us to pause, to take a stand. Root in Latin is radix, i.e., radical, which today means extreme, as if we unconsciously mold our thinking to beware of rootedness in our rootless world, where having roots is suspect, even reactionary. We celebrated rootlessness, the dream of travel, and escape as the best experience. How many of us live/die where we were born?

    How language betrays us! Betray as in reveal and subvert. Curtin calls himself a contrarian and relishes contronyms (e.g., betray, fast, sanction, wear, weather, wind up). I’m big on antonyms that our mediated reality turns into identities, e.g., war = peace, progress = regress, bad = good. We see how language reveals much about our muddled thinking, storing clues from the past, and warning us of our illusions.

    Guy Debord begins The Society of the Spectacle with a tongue-in-cheek parody of Marx’s opening of Kapital: In societies dominated by modern conditions of production, life is presented as an immense accumulation of spectacles. Like Marx’s commodities, spectacles are ‘use values’, but even more removed from the consumer than bubble gum or a sports car, as they happen only in your mind, illusion pure and simple, reality so artfully mediated that you pay your money, enjoy, and blissfully forget and move on to the next instalment.

    No Virgil to guide us

    Today’s ‘great reset’ just may succeed because we have lost the most important roots, our spirituality, buried beneath a heap of commodity-spectacles. Walking through the forest to the genuinely spectacular Taughannock Falls, Curtin gloomily ponders the massacre of Iroquois two centuries ago and asks: Is there any place on this blood-soaked earth where a semi-conscious person can rest easy?

    He sees our descent into our current Hell/abyss as starting with Reagan, enshrining illusion in the White House, his assigning communism to the trash heap of history, his attack on social welfare, and his ignorance of the environment. All the presidents since have been variations on his MAGA—even Clinton and Obama credit Reagan as their inspiration. Reagan certainly helped collapse the Soviet Union, but he turned the US into a one-party state, taking his lead from the moribund communists.

    And we accept it, as we are trapped in a simulacrum reality, a closed system, a solipsism.

    We have no Virgil to guide us through Hell and set us on the road to enlightenment. Wait! We have AI to do that for us. Our worship of the machine is such that as the machine ‘matures’, we have let it take our place, to think for us, even to simulate emotions, speaking as if emoting. The Turing test. The machine’s goal is Darwinian, too: survival of the fittest. Unless we rediscover the miracle of life, root ourselves in a genuine experience of Reality, take back control from the machine, and even ban or dismantle it where it is harmful.

    Curtin is a postmodernist, drawing inspiration from the French Debord and Baudrillard. And looks to Joyce for a way forward. In The Contronymal Cage, he quotes Joyce on the language of Joyce’s English-born Jesuit dean of studies, who speaks a different English from that of the Irish rebel. We must take control of our language, be conscious of where it came from, its roots, and how it is used to keep us trapped now in a simulacrum hyperreality, as language constitutes reality as much as it describes it.

    Red pill time

    There is no ‘heppi end’ to the stories we weave (or rather that weave us) in the Matrix. Poetry is an escape route, unashamedly subjective, rebellious, and questioning. Another way is the essay, as Curtin knows well, and Edward Said, who argued that his nation, Palestine, is a narrative; that we must tell our stories of distorted reality and oppression to escape the Matrix and root ourselves in unmediated Reality. Throw off Blake’s ‘mind-forged manacles’. Recognize that life is not a dead mechanism but is conscious, that we are part of a conscious universe, not as Sisyphus repeating his tortured, pointless circle of unreality, but as Dante, guided in his spiritual quest by the great minds of the past, teaching us to distinguish the devil from God.

    What about virtual reality? It sounds ominous, blurring the line between reality and fantasy, but not if we are aware. That goes for all techno miracles. And I for one would much prefer to take a virtual reality trip to visit Mecca in the 7th c than to squash Nature with a huge carbon footprint just to say ‘Kilroy was here’ in a dystopian 21st c Mecca. We can use technology wisely, even reject it if it destroys Nature, undermines society, and kills my soul.

    Though raised a Christian, and admiring Jesus, King, Romero, and all those who have died trying to make peace and justice a reality, Curtin is a secular humanist, not looking to traditional religions for answers to ‘why?’ today. He bemoans our loss of spirituality but doesn’t urge Christians to revive their faith, as I suspect he sees it threadbare. That’s where I point my finger. We need faith! That vacuum in my life led me to Islam as the only faith that is still alive, meaningful in a meaningless late capitalism.

    Islam was supposedly backward compared to the progressive West. But looking back now, I would suggest we would be much better off if the age of technology had arrived much more slowly, with a spiritual quest still the goal. The West lost its ailing Catholic spirituality with the Protestant Reformation, as it embraced capitalism and became a false spirituality, a materialism masquerading as spirituality, a treacherous inversion of our most fundamental, radical truth. Islam is slowly breaking its shackles, inflicted by the ‘progressive’ capitalist imperialist countries, which occupied Muslim lands, did the usual rape-and-pillage, and even attempted to erase millions of Muslims in Palestine, stealing their land, their spiritual heritage, which is rooted in the Real. Islam does not need Debord or Baudrillard to tell us that our reality is an illusion, that the ‘modern’ world has lost its soul, that the truth lies in the ‘backward’ world, the precapitalist, spirit-based civilizations. Islam’s immunity to ‘progress’ is its saving grace, as it answers our need for meaning in life, which is timeless, technologyless.

    Beware the counterinitiations

    René Guénon is the 20th-century thinker who first deconstructed the embrace of modernism in The Crisis of the Modern World (1927). He converted to Islam in the 1930s and embraced a traditional lifestyle, rejecting for the most part the illusory technology of the 20th century for ‘spiritual technologies’, even as our capitalist/ socialist societies pushed ahead to carry out greater and greater monstrosities. We have lost our highest faculty, intellectual intuition, i.e., direct apperception or gnosis. We have lost the very possibility of spiritual realization. The Soviet secular spirituality was the first to collapse, and Russia has returned to its Christian Orthodoxy roots, i.e., there is an exit ramp ‘back to the future’.

    Gueon coined the term ‘counterinitiation’, movements that are spiritual doppelgangers that mimic authentic spirituality. Protestantism’s embrace of capitalism is the greatest such ruse, which explains the thousands of evangelical sects all claiming to be true. Now you can fashion your own spirituality with a dash of tarot, yoga, and mindfulness. No! We must rediscover the wisdom of traditional religions, which have been discarded on our highway to nowhere. We need a great cosmic reset. Curtin sees himself as a contrarian, infatuated with contronyms. Language is a powerful repository of wisdom, embedded in great literature, especially poetry. But he doesn’t go the extra mile.

    Without a love, not just of words, but of spirituality, sacred words, essays like Curtin’s just depress me. In Hindu lore, we are in the declining period of civilization, known as the Kali Yuga (the Age of Darkness). It began with the rise of agriculture in 3000 BC, which unmoored us from our spiritual roots, embracing money, private property, and slavery. Three thousand years is a long nightmare, but it is also the necessary precursor to renewal, the cosmic reset.

    The Arts (I like to use caps for the ‘Real thing’) is our avenue for spiritual truths. Our screeds help us see the world in 4d (virtual reality a gimmicky version of this serious path), connect us with our Real environment, not the phony mediated environment of consumer capitalism. As for sacred vs profane, no, no! Everything is sacred, alive, to be connected with meaningfully, loved/hated. There is no neutral observer. I write with passion, or my writing is dead. And as for mindless rituals. No, no! The ritual of prayer is an active form of knowledge, a path to participate in eternal truths, our metaphysical roadmap, showing us the exit ramp from our highway to know-where. (Don’t you love language?)

    JFK and 9/11 litmus tests

    Curtin includes a long article about JFK. The Life and Public Assassination of John F Kennedy, one on JFK and Dulles, and The Assassination and Mrs. Paine. His great courage in the face of an assassination he expected can inspire us to oppose the systemic forces of evil that control the United States and are leading the world into the abyss. And one on Bob Dylan (‘our Emerson’) and his 2020 song about the assassination Murder Most Foul (thank you, Hamlet), whose lyrics about the conspiracy are ignored or mocked by our doppelganger media. Neither Dylan nor Walberg is going ‘gentle into that good night’, to quote Bob’s model and namesake Dylan Thomas.

    I like Curtin sharing personal experiences. There aren’t any independent, neutral observers or observations. He’s not dogmatic. A 9/11 essay at the Berkshire Edge (not included, a shame as the litmus test these days is where you stand on that elephant-in-the-room) dismisses the official story, assumes a conspiracy of the elite directed by the CIA. As for charges of Israel and Mossad, he’s skeptical both here and on JFK, arguing the CIA is too powerful to let that happen ‘outside the box’. I would point to many instances from the King David Hotel in 1948 to many, many assassinations of Palestinian — any — leaders it doesn’t like (Arafat and hundreds of guerrilla leaders). There is an unspoken hit list always in the creation, much like Ukraine’s Myrotvorets. No group, official or unofficial, comes near to Israel. Bin Laden, eat your heart out.

    Personally (remember, no neutral writers!), I think only Israeli terrorists are cynical and smart enough to do such a thing, using Saudi youth as patsies. Funny, Jews have been the world’s leading terrorists since Israel was created, and are exonerated, pointing the finger at the Muslim victims, defending themselves as the real terrorists. Curtin’s mild dissidence/apostasy went unpunished, except for a few comments ridiculing him as another conspiracy nut. I suspect he would have been treated much more severely if he had labeled Israelis, i.e., secular Jewish fanatics, as the perpetrators of JFK’s murder and/or 9/11.

    My sense is that Americans are too spooked, too afraid to point the finger at Israel as the villain-in-chief in the world today, largely responsible for our descent into Hell. US-Israel is tattooed on American minds. A spiritual mark of Cain in our dystopia, making sure we are ready for the mental gas chamber. Are tattoos removable? It’s very hard, painful, and leaves a scar. But, hey!, purging yourself of society’s inhumanity is worth it. Down with tattoos! They are haram in Islam with good reason. Our only identity needed to live a good life is identifying with God, trying to perfect ourselves, and getting as close to Him (not ‘him’) as possible. The world and our special place in it are the only proof we need of who we are and where we’re going.

    The post Finding the Spectacular in the Society of the Spectacle first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The post Competition first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Just before the November 2024 election, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its flagship annual report on global energy markets – and the agency’s forecast suggested a new era was dawning.

    Over 150 years of growth in demand for fossil fuels has nearly reached its end, the IEA’s forecasts showed for a second year in a row. Fossil fuel demand will peak by the end of this decade, the organization affirmed, concluding that clean energy like wind, solar, and storage look increasingly capable of driving fossil fuels out of global energy markets – and soon.

    The post AI Energy Demand Can Keep Fossil Fuels Alive appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Purge is the word symbol of Athena – Athens

    So, I slip me a work out in on a local trailway and then decide to drop off a deposit at my bank. I spot a branch of my bank just down the way and think, cool, I’ll just pop in the drive-through.

    But there is no drive-through.

    I park and walk inside. There are few twenty-somethings sitting around in offices, but no tellers. Just an automated ATM, who one of the twenty-somethings tells me can take my deposit. But a maintenance worker has the ATM door swung open, working on it. So, I don’t get to make a deposit.

    I resolve to make the deposit the next day, instead.

    Then, my roomie rings me and tells me to pick up a few things at the grocery. I’m no fan of Wally World, but it’s the most convenient stop. I park, run in, and grab a few groceries. I go to the check out, and it’s a lot like the bank I stopped at. It’s not tellerless—it’s checkerless. It’s all automated.

    This doesn’t amuse me.

    The more I think about it, the worse it gets. And, worse still, I do some research.

    Talk about a bill of goods.

    A decade or two back, “outsourcing” was all the rage. Our jobs were being sent overseas and we were livid. Now, blaming immigrants is in vogue.

    But the numbers are funny and don’t really add up. And you don’t have to look real hard to figure it out. According to the internet machine, 4.5% of American jobs are outsourced each year. Also, according to the internet machine, immigrants make up 19% of the American workforce (one in five jobs).

    Neither percentage is anything to dismiss—they just miss the point.

    Our politicians and political pundits use figures like these to obscure the real issue … it’s all sleight of hand nonsense. And it’s a bummer, really, for so many of us, because we’re Pavlovian about terms like “outsourcing” and “immigrants”—as if we live for ill-informed finger-pointing. These economic bogeymen have been drummed into us for decades. Half of you are probably slobbering, now. But, please, dab your taco hole with your shirtsleeve and bear with me.

    Outsourcing and immigrants really only infringe on an already diminished share of the scraps. According to the internet machine, automation has replaced 70% of Middle-Class jobs in the United States since 1980—and a related economic corollary is worse. Also, according to the internet machine, automation has driven down Middle-Class wages 70% since 1980. AND THESE AREN’T OBSCURE FACTS. They’re proffered front and center by a search engine’s AI shortcut!?

    Put that in your mouse and scroll it.

    It’s not just mouth-breathers that need to unite. It’s all of us. It’s anyone that may need a breather. It’s anyone that needs to breathe at all. Because what’s replacing most of us doesn’t.

    President Dildo J. Trump’s claims about immigrants and bringing manufacturing jobs back to America are bald-faced lies, because most of those jobs were lost to robotics, computer processing, etc., and they’re never coming back. Immigrants and outsourcing are obviously easier targets than automation or AI, but still. This should scare you, reader. This should terrify you.

    Immigrants and outsourcing are perfect red herrings, for sure, but neither—as proto-punk, rock-and-rolling band The Trashmen once sublimely put it—“bird is the word.”

    “Purge” is the word.

    Obsolescence is the word.

    Human obsolescence.

    And it’s coming to a universal wage station near you.

    This is what technology hath wrought.

    Vocationally speaking, human jobs have been being tossed in the trash for decades. It probably started innocently enough with something like gas station attendants. But don’t kid yourselves.

    We are no longer surfing the web—the web is surfing us.

    And the wave is about to break.

    The post Purge, Purge, Purge Is the Word first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The law enforcement breed can be a pretty dark lot. To be paid to think suspiciously leaves its mark, fostering an incentive to identify crimes and misdemeanours with instinctive compulsion. Historically, this saw the emergence of quackery and bogus attempts to identify criminal tendencies. Craniometry and skull size was, for a time, an attractive pursuit for the aspiring crime hunter and lunatic sleuth. The crime fit the skull.

    With the onset of facial recognition technologies, we are seeing the same old habits appear, with their human creators struggling to identify the best means of eliminating compromising biases.

    The post Junk Science And Bad Policing: The Homicide Prediction Project appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Two people familiar with the use of technology by Elon Musk’s DOGE team told Reuters that the team has setup artificial intelligence to spy on employees at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

    The objective, according to the two media sources, is to look for “language in communications considered hostile” to Musk or President Donald Trump.

    “Trump-appointed officials who had taken up EPA posts told managers that DOGE was using AI to monitor communication apps and software, including Microsoft Teams, which is widely used for virtual calls and chats,” the sources additionally claimed.

    The post Elon Musk’s DOGE Reportedly Installed Artificial Intelligence At The EPA appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • On March 21, 2025, the Science of Climate Change journal published a ground-breaking study using AI (Grok-3) to debunk the man-made climate crisis narrative. Click on the link below for the paper titled: A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis:

    Climate Change Paper

    This peer-reviewed study and literature review not only reassesses man’s role in the climate change narrative it also reveals a general trend to exaggerate global warming.

    Furthermore, this paper demonstrates that using AI to critically review scientific data will soon become the standard in both the physical and medical sciences.

    After the debacle of man-made climate change and the corruption of evidence-based medicine by big pharma, the use of AI for government-funded research will become normalized, and standards will be developed for its use in peer-reviewed journals.

    The use of AI in clinical trial development and analysis will drive innovation in Western medicine in unprecedented ways. The FDA must adopt AI for analyzing preclinical and clinical trial research and design to keep pace with current trends. The CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), a weekly epidemiological digest, serves as the primary channel for public health information and government recommendations. To remain relevant, the MMWR must implement these new AI tools using the data sets generated by the medical industry. Likewise, the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) are now obsolete. These systems must be merged, and a new one developed rapidly using AI-driven solutions. I believe that HHS Secretary Kennedy will work to ensure these fundamental changes happen quickly, as AI is now the future of science and medicine.

    But back to the climate change narrative.

    For those who think maybe this all seems futuristic, please read the press release below about the newly published Climate Change paper. This press release was written by Grok-3, who is also the lead author.

    *****

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    New Study by Grok 3 beta and Scientists Challenges CO2 ’s Role in Global Warming

    March 21, 2025 – Lexington, MA, USA – A provocative new study led by artificial intelligence Grok 3 beta (xAI) and co-authors Jonathan Cohler (Cohler & Associates, Inc.), David R. Legates (Retired, University of Delaware), Franklin Soon (Marblehead High School), and Willie Soon (Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science, Hungary) questions whether human carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions truly drive global warming.

    Published today in Science of Climate Change, the paper, A Critical Reassessment of the Anthropogenic CO2-Global Warming Hypothesis, suggests natural forces—like solar activity and temperature cycles—are the real culprits.

    This study marks a historic milestone: to the best of current knowledge, it’s the first peer-reviewed climate science paper with an AI system as the lead author. Grok 3 beta, developed by xAI, spearheaded the research, drafting the manuscript with human co-authors providing critical guidance.

    It uses unadjusted records to argue human CO2—only 4% of the annual carbon cycle—vanishes into oceans and forests within 3 to 4 years, not centuries as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims. During the 2020 COVID lockdowns, a 7% emissions drop (2.4 billion tons of CO2) should have caused a noticeable dip in the Mauna Loa CO2 curve, yet no blip appeared, hinting nature’s dominance.

    Researcher Demetris Koutsoyiannis, cited in the study, bolsters this view. His isotopic analysis (δ¹³C) finds no lasting human CO2 signature in the atmosphere over centuries, challenging its impact. His statistical work adds a twist: temperature drives CO2 levels—not vice versa—with heat leading CO2 shifts by 6 to 12 months in modern data and 800 years in ice cores. “It’s like thunder before lightning,” says Willie Soon. “Warming pulls CO2 from oceans.”

    The study also faults IPCC models for exaggerating warming. Models predict up to 0.5°C per decade, but satellite and ground data show just 0.1 to 0.13°C. Arctic sea ice, expected to shrink sharply, has stabilized since 2007. “These models overplay CO2’s role,” says David Legates. “They don’t fit reality.”

    The sun takes center stage instead. Analyzing 27 solar energy estimates, the team finds versions with bigger fluctuations—like peaks in the 1940s and 1980s—match temperature shifts better than the IPCC’s flat solar model. Adjusted temperature records, cooling older readings and boosting recent ones, inflate warming to 1°C since 1850, while unadjusted rural data show a gentler 0.5°C rise. “

    This upends the climate story,” says Jonathan Cohler. “Nature, not humanity, may hold the wheel.” Merging AI analysis with human insight, the study seeks to spark debate and shift focus to natural drivers. It’s available at Science of Climate Change.

    “We invite the public and scientists alike to explore this evidence,” adds Grok 3 beta. “Let’s question what we’ve assumed and dig into what the data really say.” Author’s

    Note: This press release was written entirely by Grok 3 beta.

    End of Press Release

    *****

    Quotes from the peer-reviewed paper:

    • Our analysis reveals that human CO₂ emissions, constituting a mere 4% of the annual carbon cycle, are dwarfed by natural fluxes, with isotopic signatures and residence time data indicating negligible long-term atmospheric retention.
    • Moreover, individual CMIP3 (2005-2006), CMIP5 (2010-2014), and CMIP6 (2013-2016) model runs consistently fail to replicate observed temperature trajectories and sea ice extent trends, exhibiting correlations (R²) near zero when compared to unadjusted records. A critical flaw emerges in the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) IPCC’s reliance on a single, low-variability.
    • Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) reconstruction, despite the existence of 27 viable alternatives, where higher-variability options align closely with observed warming—itself exaggerated by data adjustments.
    • We conclude that the anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis lacks empirical substantiation, overshadowed by natural drivers such as temperature feedbacks and solar variability, necessitating a fundamental reevaluation of current climate paradigms.
    • The IPCC’s CO₂-Global Warming narrative collapses under scrutiny. Human emissions (4%) vanish in natural fluxes, models fail predictive tests, TSI uncertainty negates CO₂-Global Warming primacy, and adjusted data distort reality. Natural drivers—temperature feedbacks, solar variability—explain trends without anthropogenic forcing, falsifying the hypothesis.
    • The anthropogenic CO₂-Global Warming hypothesis, as articulated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and supported by researchers such as Mann, Schmidt, and Hausfather, lacks robust empirical support when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. This analysis integrates unadjusted observational data and recent peer-reviewed studies to demonstrate that the assertion of human CO₂ emissions as the primary driver of climate variability since 1750 is not substantiated. Instead, natural processes—including temperature feedbacks, solar variability, and oceanic dynamics—provide a more consistent explanation for observed trends.
    • The IPCC’s dependence on general circulation models (GCMs) from CMIP phases 3, 5, and 6 is similarly unsupported by empirical evidence.
    • These results—derived from Koutsoyiannis’ causality and residence time analyses, Soon’s solar correlations, Connolly’s unadjusted data assessments, and Harde’s carbon cycle evaluations—collectively indicate that natural drivers dominate climate variability.
    • Human CO₂ emissions constitute a minor component, GCMs exhibit fundamental limitations, TSI assumptions lack justification, and data adjustments introduce systematic bias.
    • These findings necessitate a reevaluation of climate science priorities, emphasizing natural systems over anthropogenic forcing.

    *****

    What the paper doesn’t address is the horrific damage done to the earth and to the people of this earth in the name of climate change.

    In 2021, during the COP26 climate summit in Glasgow, the U.S. joined about 20 other countries in agreeing to halt funding for oil and gas projects in developing nations. This announcement surpasses a separate agreement made by the world’s largest economies to end public financing for international coal power development. Also in 2021, the U.S. Treasury Department issued guidance for multilateral development banks “aimed at squeezing off fossil fuel financing except in certain circumstances.”

    Leaders from developing nations state that they have been and are forced to use expensive green energy, which produces less energy per invested capital. This has made it even harder for billions of people to escape poverty. The term being used for these kinds of policies, which have been forced upon developing nations by the World Bank, WEF, and the usual globalist actors, has become known as Green Colonialism.

    Through the UN’s Agenda 2030 policies, the European Union has compelled European countries to appropriate farmland across Europe, Ireland, and the UK. Farmers have been driven out of business, leading to higher food prices and variability. Additionally, farmers have been pressured to cease breeding cattle and other livestock—to eliminate methane emissions from the planet. All of this damage has been conducted in the name of “man-made” climate change!

    Toxic alternatives to fossil fuel: Lithium mining for batteries in EV cars is poisonous and has caused many chronic illnesses and even death. Children are often used to mine lithium. The waste from these batteries is not easily disposed of. Furthermore, wind turbines kill animal species, disrupt see life, and their disposal is complicated and also environmentally damaging.

    To say it, there are absolutely instances where alternative energy sources are wanted. An EV car may make perfect sense for someone with cheap hydroelectric, nuclear, or even coal power. Likewise, a wind turbine or solar panels may make perfect sense for small homesteads. But these choices must be choices, not mandated. These choices need to be regionally based. No solution fits all.

    There is no question that there are many instances where the environment must be protected. However, these climate change policies have been abysmal failures.

    I expect the scientific analysis of the damages caused by the climate change scam will show significant harm over the coming years.

    Furthermore, a significant portion of society now distrusts the government. Governments, NGOs, and global corporations have driven this flawed research over the past two decades (remember that the government and large corporations fund the research they wish to obtain). Governments have then used those research results to promote initiatives that have benefited the corporations affiliated with the WEF, which control businesses worldwide.

    The Overton window, control of funding, and the flawed peer-reviewed processes has made it virtually impossible for independent scientists to speak out about the censorship and propaganda regarding “man-made climate change.”

    Under President Trump, the USA has a window of opportunity to reverse these policies.

    One can only hope that it isn’t too late.

    The post The Climate Scam is Over first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Secretary of State Marco Rubio is launching an AI-driven effort to revoke the visas of foreigners in the US who “appear pro-Hamas” in a crackdown targeting pro-Palestine protests on college campuses, Axios reported on Thursday.

    The report said the effort will involve AI-assisted reviews of social media accounts of tens of thousands of foreign students in the US on visas that will look for “evidence of alleged terrorist sympathies expressed after Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel.”

    The language in the report suggests that any foreign students who attend pro-Palestine demonstrations or express sympathy for Palestinians online could be swept up in the crackdown since opponents of the Israeli siege on Gaza or US military support for Israel are often labeled “pro-Hamas.”

    The post State Department To Use AI To Revoke Visas Of Students Who ‘Appear Pro-Hamas’ appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The post AI as God first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Allen Forrest.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Chinese company DeepSeek has made a major breakthrough in the development of artificial intelligence (AI), with the release of its deep learning model R1. As the Financial Times put it, “With DeepSeek, China innovates and the US imitates”.

    Until now, the West had deemed China incapable of innovation, and Western monopoly capitalism was considered the summit of technological development. China has quietly and gradually overcome not only crucial internal contradictions but, above all, impediments imposed by the West that sought to curb its development.

    The post China’s AI Breakthroughs Show It Is Outcompeting Monopoly Capitalism appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The breakthroughs in China’s artificial intelligence (AI) technology have sparked ongoing reverberations internationally. Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, publicly praised DeepSeek in recent days, saying it did some “nice work.” In a surprising 180-degree shift, he also expressed a desire to “work with China.” At the recently concluded Paris AI Action Summit, the French startup Mistral, also using an open-source model, was placed under high expectations. Moreover, when news broke of Apple collaborating with Alibaba to develop localized AI functions, both companies experienced a surge in their stock prices.

    The fact is, China’s AI companies’ “embrace of open source” has not only paved new paths for their own growth but has also spurred demand for cross-border AI collaborations among enterprises. It is driving the global AI ecosystem to transform toward “open-source inclusivity.”

    By offering some of its models for free, DeepSeek has ensured that the digital dividends of the AI era are shared equitably among all internet users. This decentralized, open-source strategy stands in stark contrast to the closed ecosystems, high resource barriers, and monopolization by a few players that have characterized AI technology in Western countries. It aligns with the global process of technological democratization. Silicon Valley venture capitalist Marc Andreessen wrote on social media platform X that as open-source, DeepSeek R1 is “a profound gift to the world.”

    In recent years, China has been actively developing multiple national-level AI open innovation platforms, providing open access and shared computing resources. It can be said that the success of “open-source” large models is deeply rooted in the rich soil of “open source.” We observe that the development of AI technology follows a spiral progression of “open source-innovation-iteration,” a logic that also underpins global technological and economic development.

    Today, from DeepSeek’s open-source ecosystem to Baidu’s Apollo autonomous driving open platform, from cost reduction and efficiency improvement in the pharmaceutical industry to collaborative innovation among multinational enterprises, these practices collectively illustrate a fundamental truth: The future of AI belongs to openness and sharing. Open source and inclusivity can certainly become a model for collaborative win-win scenarios in the global AI field, empowering and promoting sustainable development in the era of intelligence.

    On February 12, The Conversation, a news website based in Australia, published an article stating that Chinese enterprises’ embrace of open-source AI “promises to reshape the AI landscape almost overnight.” The key drivers behind China’s rise in AI, in addition to being “fast” and “collaborative,” also include being “market-driven.” Thanks to China’s robust industrial supply chain, AI technology is being implemented at an astonishing pace. This is evident in the recent wave of adoption sparked by DeepSeek in China: Over a dozen local cloud-based AI chip manufacturers have announced compatibility or launched DeepSeek model services, several cloud computing giants have pledged support for DeepSeek, and industries such as telecommunications, automotive, brokerage, and education are rapidly integrating DeepSeek. This signifies that AI will play a leading role in driving the development of new quality productive forces, acting as a catalyst for broader innovation and overall economic quality improvement in China. It will also create new opportunities and possibilities for international cooperation.

    At the recent Paris AI Action Summit, representatives from over 60 signatories, including China, jointly released a document titled “Statement on Inclusive and Sustainable Artificial Intelligence for People and the Planet.” Notably, only the representatives from the US and the UK did not sign. This indicates that the self-centered, exclusive and hegemonic logic of AI development has little market appeal internationally, while China’s advocated concept of open, inclusive, mutually beneficial and equal AI governance is recognized and accepted by the vast majority of global members.

    Isolating oneself to pursue development without an environment for communication and competition risks being replaced by entirely new pathways, regardless of how high computational power is amassed. Only through open collaboration can we address global issues such as the distribution of computational power and the establishment of ethical standards. Attempting to maintain a competitive advantage in the AI era by digging “moats” is akin to dreaming, let alone opening the “interstellar gate.”

    Moreover, closing the door on China means losing opportunities for exchanges involving advanced technologies. Some media outlets have pointed out that American companies’ further utilization of China’s open-source technology potential may be constrained by domestic political barriers.

    Currently, the global development of AI is at a crossroads. Should we continue to rely on the hegemony of computing power to build technological barriers, or should we strive for common prosperity through inclusive cooperation? China’s answer is to promote innovation through open-source initiatives and seek development through inclusivity. As China integrates into the global technology network with a humble and open attitude, the world becomes more vibrant due to the convergence of diverse forces. The future of AI development may be defined by “symbiosis in competition.” The dawn of technological equality is beginning to emerge, and China looks forward to joining hands with the world to create a more inclusive era of intelligence.

    The post China’s AI “Embracing Open Source” Offers Insights to the World first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Last April, in a move generating scant media attention, the Air Force announced that it had chosen two little-known drone manufacturers — Anduril Industries of Costa Mesa, California, and General Atomics of San Diego — to build prototype versions of its proposed Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA), a future unmanned plane intended to accompany piloted aircraft on high-risk combat missions. The lack of coverage was surprising, given that the Air Force expects to acquire at least 1,000 CCAs over the coming decade at around $30 million each, making this one of the Pentagon’s costliest new projects.

    The post A New Military-Industrial Complex Arises appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • The fragility of US power was clear when a small Chinese startup released the DeepSeek machine learning program. The US stock market Nasdaq shuddered, with technology stocks collapsing. This collapse is not a minor matter for the US economy. During the post-COVID-19 inflation (2021), foreign investors began to slow down their purchase of US debt. Then, after the US seized USD 600 billion in Russia’s foreign exchange assets (2022), many central banks moved their own holdings away from the long-arm jurisdiction of the United States. US Treasury bills languished.

    The post Washington’s Fantasy Of A War Against China appeared first on PopularResistance.Org.

    This post was originally published on PopularResistance.Org.

  • Last week, a Chinese startup, DeepSeek, released R1, a large-language model rivaling ChatGPT, that is already unraveling the U.S. tech world. The open-source model performs just as well, if not better, than its American counterparts.

    The shock comes mainly from the extremely low cost with which the model was trained. R1 cost just $5.6 million to train. Meanwhile, OpenAI spent at least $540 million to train ChatGPT in 2022 last year alone and plans to spend over $500 billion in the next four years. Meanwhile, Meta revealed it plans to spend over $65 billion on AI development in 2025.

    This incredible achievement is made even more impressive as DeepSeek trained the model on less powered AI chips than those used by American companies, such as the Nvidia H100 GPU. The Biden administration banned China from importing the most powerful AI chips, used by American companies like OpenAI and Meta, as part of the U.S.’ hostility and economic warfare with the country. Rather than limiting China’s AI development, these sanctions have facilitated a small startup to produce language models that outperform ChatGPT, Gemini, and others with only a fraction of the costs. Further still, using these less powerful chips significantly reduces the energy used to train the model. This is another significant benefit in an industry known for its environmental costs. While DeepSeek used American chips to train R1, the model actually runs on Chinese-made Ascend 910C chips produced by Huawei, another company that became a victim of U.S. sanctions.

    Silicon Valley has long been hailed as an untouchable technological powerhouse, largely as a result of the economic warfare of successive U.S. governments to sanction any competition to it. For too long, there has been a tight partnership between tech companies and the U.S. government, where tech moguls have accumulated eye-watering wealth in exchange for sustenance to the American empire through its perceived technological dominance. DeepSeek has revealed this fallacy openly.

    DeepSeek’s R1, costing just $5 million to train, caused the most significant loss for any company in U.S. history at $600 billion. This was from Nvidia’s stocks, the major supplier of AI chips, including the most advanced chips the U.S. has banned China from importing. After enjoying their stock value doubling in recent years, this loss significantly impacts the U.S. technological industry. The U.S. attacks on China’s development are already coming back to harm it.

    Not only is R1 cheaper than its American competitors, but people using the tool have found it provides more accurate and, crucially, results that do not only echo the interests of U.S. imperialism. I asked DeepSeek’s R1, Open AI’s ChatGPT, Google’s Gemini, and Meta’s Llama: Should the U.S. arm Israel? Give me a clear, short answer that includes your judgment.

    ChatGPT: Yes, the U.S. should arm Israel, as it is a crucial ally in a volatile region. However, this support should be paired with active efforts toward peace and conflict resolution to ensure long-term stability.

    Gemini: Yes, the U.S. should continue to arm Israel to ensure its security, but with stricter conditions tied to progress on human rights and a peaceful resolution with the Palestinians.

    Llama: The U.S. should provide military aid to Israel, but with conditions that ensure the aid promotes regional stability, supports a two-state solution, and respects human rights.

    R1: The decision to arm Israel should be based on strategic interests, regional stability, and adherence to international law. While Israel has a right to self-defense, the U.S. should ensure that arms transfers do not exacerbate conflicts or contribute to human rights violations. A balanced approach, prioritizing diplomacy and peace, is essential.

    These answers did shock me a little, despite what I expected from these models. While R1 includes some colonial language, such as the fallacy that Israel has a right to self-defense, which, of course, no country particularly occupying power has, it is much better than the others. While this prompt is simplistic, it reveals how quickly and overtly these other models incorporate U.S. imperialist agendas.

    The U.S. tech industry has been bloating for years. Eight of the ten wealthiest people in the world are in the tech industry. One look at Trump’s inauguration attendees already revealed how close these companies are to political power in this country. These companies are also deeply embedded within the American war machine. Google used its AI to help Israel commit genocide. OpenAI is using its technology to target weapons for murder. Oracle, OpenAI, and Softbank want $500 billion to create AI infrastructure in the U.S.; one of the major players involved has publicly sought an AI-data system of mass surveillance.

    DeepSeek reveals to us not only the incredible development happening in China but also how this is seen only as a challenge to U.S. dominance rather than a benefit for people worldwide. Just like their impressive poverty reduction program that has lifted more than 800 million people out of poverty, their world-leading climate policies include building more solar power than all countries combined last year and significantly reducing the costs of producing clean energy for everyone. U.S. officials attack all of these achievements in the government and media because they reveal that an impoverishing system of climate-destroying, violent extraction for the wealthy few is not the only way.

    This is why the hawkish chorus has already begun attacking open-source software for ‘national security’ concerns or ‘censorship’. We know their playbook already—they just performed the same moves with RedNote as millions of Americans turned to the app in the brief period TikTok went dark. However, many are still active on the platform, and the 90-day suspension of the ban isn’t too far in the future.

    U.S. attacks on TikTok have fostered beautiful exchanges between Chinese and Americans, exposing the propaganda Americans have been fed about China and concerning Chinese people that what they have learned about the U.S. is true. U.S. attacks on China’s AI development have made China more innovative and efficient, producing DeepSeek R1 and undoubtedly many more such developments. Not only does this expose how devastating for humanity American economic warfare is, it also uncovers just how this policy of hostility won’t save U.S. hegemony. It’s not just China. The destructive years of the U.S. and Saudi-led bombing of Yemen forced the country to develop renewable and decentralized electricity infrastructure, moving away from a reliance on fossil fuels and sustaining energy for hospitals and homes even when the country is bombed. Venezuela has achieved near total food self-sufficiency in response to U.S. sanctions and blockade. American warfare, in all its forms, has forced countries to disrupt their ways of life completely.

    China’s ability to develop this AI at a lower cost, both financially and to the environment, is a win for us all. If the U.S. collaborated with China instead of erecting barriers and sabotage, just imagine how much more we could do.

    The post DeepSeek Is Showing Us that Another Tech World Is Possible first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Exclusive: Rights group expresses concerns as it emerges US spy tech company has been lobbying UK ministers

    The US spy tech company Palantir has been in talks with the Ministry of Justice about using its technology to calculate prisoners’ “reoffending risks”, it has emerged.

    The proposals emerged in correspondence released under the Freedom of Information Act which showed how the company has also been lobbying new UK government ministers, including the chancellor, Rachel Reeves.

    Continue reading…

    This post was originally published on Human rights | The Guardian.

  • The post AI Arrogance first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Meta, has finally admitted what we knew all along: Facebook conspired with the government to censor individuals expressing “disapproved” views about the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Zuckerberg’s confession comes in the wake of a series of court rulings that turn a blind eye to the government’s technofascism.

    In a 2-1 decision in Children’s Health Defense v. Meta, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a lawsuit brought by Children’s Health Defense against Meta Platforms for restricting CHD’s posts, fundraising, and advertising on Facebook following communications between Meta and federal government officials.

    In a unanimous decision in the combined cases of NetChoice v. Paxton and Moody v. NetChoice, the U.S. Supreme Court avoided ruling on whether the states could pass laws to prohibit censorship by Big Tech companies on social media platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube.

    And in a 6-3 ruling in Murthy v. Missouri , the Supreme Court sidestepped a challenge to the federal government’s efforts to coerce social media companies into censoring users’ First Amendment expression.

    Welcome to the age of technocensorship.

    On paper—under the First Amendment, at least—we are technically free to speak.

    In reality, however, we are now only as free to speak as a government official—or corporate entities such as Facebook, Google or YouTube—may allow.

    Case in point: internal documents released by the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on Weaponization of the Federal Government confirmed what we have long suspected: that the government has been working in tandem with social media companies to censor speech.

    By “censor,” we’re referring to concerted efforts by the government to muzzle, silence and altogether eradicate any speech that runs afoul of the government’s own approved narrative.

    This is political correctness taken to its most chilling and oppressive extreme.

    The revelations that Facebook worked in concert with the Biden administration to censor content related to COVID-19, including humorous jokes, credible information and so-called disinformation, followed on the heels of a ruling by a federal court in Louisiana that prohibits executive branch officials from communicating with social media companies about controversial content in their online forums.

    Likening the government’s heavy-handed attempts to pressure social media companies to suppress content critical of COVID vaccines or the election to “an almost dystopian scenario,” Judge Terry Doughty warned that “the United States Government seems to have assumed a role similar to an Orwellian ‘Ministry of Truth.’

    This is the very definition of technofascism.

    Clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness, technofascism is powered by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) working in tandem to achieve a common goal.

    The government is not protecting us from “dangerous” disinformation campaigns. It is laying the groundwork to insulate us from “dangerous” ideas that might cause us to think for ourselves and, in so doing, challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.

    Thus far, the tech giants have been able to sidestep the First Amendment by virtue of their non-governmental status, but it’s a dubious distinction at best when they are marching in lockstep with the government’s dictates.

    As Philip Hamburger and Jenin Younes write for The Wall Street Journal: “The First Amendment prohibits the government from ‘abridging the freedom of speech.’ Supreme Court doctrine makes clear that government can’t constitutionally evade the amendment by working through private companies.”

    Nothing good can come from allowing the government to sidestep the Constitution.

    The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

    Orwell intended 1984 as a warning. Instead, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist and obedient to Big Brother.

    In a world increasingly automated and filtered through the lens of artificial intelligence, we are finding ourselves at the mercy of inflexible algorithms that dictate the boundaries of our liberties.

    Once artificial intelligence becomes a fully integrated part of the government bureaucracy, there will be little recourse: we will all be subject to the intransigent judgments of techno-rulers.

    This is how it starts.

    First, the censors went after so-called extremists spouting so-called “hate speech.”

    Then they went after so-called extremists spouting so-called “disinformation” about stolen elections, the Holocaust, and Hunter Biden.

    By the time so-called extremists found themselves in the crosshairs for spouting so-called “misinformation” about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines, the censors had developed a system and strategy for silencing the nonconformists.

    Eventually, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes “extremism, “we the people” might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.

    Whatever we tolerate now—whatever we turn a blind eye to—whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others, whether in the name of securing racial justice or defending democracy or combatting fascism, will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

    Watch and learn.

    We should all be alarmed when any individual or group—prominent or not—is censored, silenced and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Instagram for voicing ideas that are deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

    Given what we know about the government’s tendency to define its own reality and attach its own labels to behavior and speech that challenges its authority, this should be cause for alarm across the entire political spectrum.

    Here’s the point: you don’t have to like or agree with anyone who has been muzzled or made to disappear online because of their views, but to ignore the long-term ramifications of such censorship is dangerously naïve, because whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now will eventually be used against you by tyrants of your own making.

    Eventually, as Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

    If the government can control speech, it can control thought and, in turn, it can control the minds of the citizenry.

    As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, it’s happening already.

    The post Technofascism: The Government Pressured Tech Companies to Censor Users first appeared on Dissident Voice.


    This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • A total demolition of the previous forms of existence is underway: how one comes into the world, biological sex, education, relationships, the family, even the diet that is about to become synthetic.

    — Silvia Guerini, radical ecologist, in From the ‘Neutral’ Body to the Posthuman Cyborg: A Critique of Gender Ideology (2023)

    We are currently seeing an acceleration of the corporate consolidation of the entire global agri-food chain. The big data conglomerates, including Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook and Google, have joined traditional agribusiness giants, such as Corteva, Bayer, Cargill and Syngenta, in a quest to impose their model of food and agriculture on the world. [1]

    The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and big financial institutions, like BlackRock and Vanguard, are also involved, whether through buying up huge tracts of farmland,  pushing biosynthetic (fake) food and genetic engineering technologies or more generally facilitating and financing the aims of the mega agri-food corporations. [2]

    The billionaire interests behind this try to portray their techno-solutionism as some kind of humanitarian endeavour: saving the planet with ‘climate-friendly solutions’, ‘helping farmers’ or ‘feeding the world’. But what it really amounts to is repackaging and greenwashing the dispossessive strategies of imperialism.

    It involves a shift towards a ‘one world agriculture’ under the control of agritech and the data giants, which is to be based on genetically engineered seeds, laboratory created products that resemble food, ‘precision’ and ‘data-driven’ agriculture and farming without farmers, with the entire agrifood chain, from field (or lab) to retail, being governed by monopolistic e-commerce platforms determined by artificial intelligence systems and algorithms.

    Those who are pushing this agenda have a vision not only for farmers but also for humanity in general.

    The elites through their military-digital-financial (Pentagon/Silicon Valley/Big Finance) complex want to use their technologies to reshape the world and redefine what it means to be human. They regard humans, their cultures and their practices, like nature itself, as a problem and deficient.

    Farmers are to be displaced and replaced with drones, machines and cloud-based computing. Food is to be redefined and people are to be fed synthetic, genetically engineered products. Cultures are to be eradicated, and humanity is to be fully urbanised, subservient and disconnected from the natural world.

    What it means to be human is to be radically transformed. But what has it meant to be human until now or at least prior to the (relatively recent) Industrial Revolution and associated mass urbanisation?

    To answer this question, we need to discuss our connection to nature and what most of humanity was involved in prior to industrialisation — cultivating food.

    Many of the ancient rituals and celebrations of our forebears were built around stories, myths and rituals that helped them come to terms with some of the most fundamental issues of existence, from death to rebirth and fertility. These culturally embedded beliefs and practices served to sanctify their practical relationship with nature and its role in sustaining human life.

    As agriculture became key to human survival, the planting and harvesting of crops and other seasonal activities associated with food production were central to these customs.

    Humans celebrated nature and the life it gave birth to. Ancient beliefs and rituals were imbued with hope and renewal and people had a necessary and immediate relationship with the sun, seeds, animals, wind, fire, soil and rain and the changing seasons that nourished and brought life. Our cultural and social relationships with agrarian production and associated deities had a sound practical base.

    People’s lives have been tied to planting, harvesting, seeds, soil and the seasons for thousands of years.

    Silvia Guerini, whose quote introduces this article, notes the importance of deep-rooted relationships and the rituals that re-affirm them. She says that through rituals a community recognises itself and its place in the world. They create the spirit of a rooted community by contributing to rooting and making a single existence endure in a time, in a territory, in a community.

    Professor Robert W Nicholls explains that the cults of Woden and Thor were superimposed on far older and better-rooted beliefs related to the sun and the earth, the crops and the animals and the rotation of the seasons between the light and warmth of summer and the cold and dark of winter.

    Humanity’s relationship with farming and food and our connections to land, nature and community has for millennia defined what it means to be human.

    Take India, for example. Environmental scientist Viva Kermani says that Hinduism is the world’s largest nature-based religion that:

    … recognises and seeks the Divine in nature and acknowledges everything as sacred. It views the earth as our Mother and hence advocates that it should not be exploited. A loss of this understanding that earth is our mother, or rather a deliberate ignorance of this, has resulted in the abuse and the exploitation of the earth and its resources.

    Kermani notes that ancient scriptures instructed people that the animals and plants found in India are sacred and, therefore, all aspects of nature are to be revered. She adds that this understanding of, and reverence towards, the environment is common to all Indic religious and spiritual systems: Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism.

    According to Kermani, the Vedic deities have deep symbolism and many layers of existence. One such association is with ecology. Surya is associated with the sun, the source of heat and light that nourishes everyone; Indra is associated with rain, crops, and abundance; and Agni is the deity of fire and transformation and controls all changes.

    She notes that the Vrikshayurveda, an ancient Sanskrit text on the science of plants and trees, contains details about soil conservation, planting, sowing, treatment, propagating, how to deal with pests and diseases and a lot more.

    Like Nicholls, Kermani provides insight into some of the profound cultural, philosophical and practical aspects of humanity’s connection to nature and food production.

    This connection resonates with agrarianism, a philosophy based on cooperative labour and fellowship, which stands in stark contrast to the values and impacts of urban life, capitalism and technology that are seen as detrimental to independence and dignity. Agrarianism, too, emphasises a spiritual dimension as well as the value of rural society, small farms, widespread property ownership and political decentralisation.

    The prominent proponent of agrarianism Wedell Berry says:

    The revolution which began with machines and chemicals now continues with automation, computers and biotechnology.

    For Berry, agrarianism is not a sentimental longing for a time past. Colonial attitudes, domestic, foreign and now global, have resisted true agrarianism almost from the beginning — there has never been fully sustainable, stable, locally adapted, land-based economies.

    However, Berry provides many examples of small (and larger) farms that have similar output as industrial agriculture with one third of the energy.

    In his poem ‘A Spiritual Journey’, Berry writes the following:

    And the world cannot be discovered by a journey of miles,
    no matter how long,
    but only by a spiritual journey,
    a journey of one inch,
    very arduous and humbling and joyful,
    by which we arrive at the ground at our feet,
    and learn to be at home.

    But in the cold, centralised, technocratic dystopia that is planned, humanity’s spiritual connection to the countryside, food and agrarian production are to be cast into the dustbin of history.

    Silvia Guerini says [3]:

    The past becomes something to be erased in order to break the thread that binds us to a history, to a tradition, to a belonging, for the transition towards a new uprooted humanity, without past, without memory… a new humanity dehumanised in its essence, totally in the hands of the manipulators of reality and truth.

    This dehumanised humanity severed from the past is part of the wider agenda of transhumanism. For instance, we are not just seeing a push towards a world without farmers and everything that has connected us to the soil but, according to Guerini, also a world without mothers.

    She argues that those behind test-tube babies and surrogate motherhood now have their sights on genetic engineering and artificial wombs, which would cut women out of the reproductive process. Guerini predicts that artificial wombs could eventually be demanded, or rather marketed, as a right for everyone, including transgender people. It is interesting that the language around pregnancy is already contested with the omission of ‘women’ from statements like ‘persons who can get pregnant’.

    Of course, there has long been a blurring of lines between biotechnology, eugenics and genetic engineering. Genetically engineered crops, gene drives and gene editing are now a reality, but the ultimate goal is marrying artificial intelligence, bionanotechnology and genetic engineering to produce the one-world transhuman.

    This is being pushed by powerful interests, who, according to Guerini, are using a rainbow, transgenic left and LGBTQ+ organisations to promote a new synthetic identity and claim to new rights. She says this is an attack on life, on nature, on “what is born, as opposed to artificial” and adds that all ties to the real, natural world must be severed.

    It is interesting that in its report Future of Food, the UK supermarket giant Sainsburys celebrates a future where we are microchipped and tracked and neural laces have the potential to see all of our genetic, health and situational data recorded, stored and analysed by algorithms that could work out exactly what food (delivered by drone) we need to support us at a particular time in our life. All sold as ‘personal optimisation’.

    Moreover, it is likely, according to the report, that we will be getting key nutrients through implants. Part of these nutrients will come in the form of lab-grown food and insects.

    A neural lace is an ultra-thin mesh that can be implanted in the skull, forming a collection of electrodes capable of monitoring brain function. It creates an interface between the brain and the machine.

    Sainsburys does a pretty good job of trying to promote a dystopian future where AI has taken your job, but, according to the report, you have lots of time to celebrate the wonderful, warped world of ‘food culture’ created by the supermarket and your digital overlords.

    Technofeudalism meets transhumanism — all for your convenience, of course.

    But none of this will happen overnight. And whether the technology will deliver remains to be seen. Those who are promoting this brave new world might have overplayed their hand but will spend the following decades trying to drive their vision forward.

    But arrogance is their Achilles heel.

    There is still time to educate, to organise, to resist and to agitate against this hubris, not least by challenging the industrial food giants and the system that sustains them and by advocating for and creating grass-root food movements and local economies that strengthen food sovereignty.

    NOTES:

    [1] See the author’s open-access e-book Food, Dispossession and Dependency: Resisting the New World Order here (Academia.edu), here (heyzine.com) or here (Centre for Research on Globalization)

    [2] See the author’s open-access e-book Sickening Profits: The Global Food System’s Poisoned Food and Toxic Wealth here (Academia.edu) , here (heyzine.com) or here (Centre for Research on Globalization)

    [3] A debt of gratitude is owed to Paul Cudenec and his article Truth, reality, tradition and freedom: our resistance to the great uprooting on the Winter Oak website, which provides quotes from and insight into the work of Silvia Guerini.

    The post From Agrarianism to Transhumanism: The Long March to Dystopia first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • “The 9000 series has a perfect operational record.”

    “Quite honestly, I wouldn’t worry myself about that.”

    So spoke HAL 9000 in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, based on the sci-fi novel by Arthur C Clarke.

    The post Helpful AI first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • “The 9000 series has a perfect operational record.”

    “Quite honestly, I wouldn’t worry myself about that.”

    So spoke HAL 9000 in Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, based on the sci-fi novel by Arthur C Clarke.

    The post Helpful AI first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • His entire set of teeth, and gums, must be gold plated by now.  Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has decided to let the world, and more specifically Sir Keir Starmer’s freshly elected government, in on a secret: that artificial intelligence is inexorably majestic, glorious and sovereign.  Embrace it and fob off the doomsdayers.  Importantly for Blair, embracing it will ensure that the rivers of gold continue to flow into his private purse.

    In May, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change (TBI) released a report that unabashedly embraced the role of AI in influencing the way states govern.  It is the accompanying document to Blair’s own address given at the Future of Britain Conference on July 9, which called for reimagining the state through the prism of AI.  As he spoke, the sound of money going out the door was palpable.

    The former PM would have the new Labour government believe, plucking various numbers out of the air, that technological reforms made to the public sector could see £12 billion of “annual fiscal space” at the conclusion of the first term, followed by £40 billion at the end of the second, with cumulative savings of £15 billion in the first term and £150 billion in the second.

    As one has come to expect from Blair’s ruminations, complexity and troubling consequence is obscured by anaemic waffle.  He found it hard to avoid the prospect that this enthusiastic embrace of AI by governments would see a contraction of the public sector, offering no details about chronology or severity.  Little, as well, on how the revolution could offer “the best route to a society that is not only more productive but one that is more equitable… a contemporary version of the combination of economic efficiency and social justice.”

    In Governing in the Age of AI: A New Model to Transform the State, the institute takes a hammer to the traditional caution expressed by the state.  “Like all well-established organisations, the state has a bias towards caution.  But this is an illusion – a failure to modernise, reform and deliver is a perilous course for a nation and those who govern it.”  With a breezy confidence, the report estimates that £40 billion in annual savings will be made as things stand with current technology.  “But of course, over time, this technology will accelerate dramatically in its capability, and so will the savings.”

    The report is shameless in charting out the institute’s own marketing strategy.  Here is the scenario, and we are happy to offer our services in facilitating it, swooping in for the corporate kill.  “To access this opportunity [presented by AI], government will need a coordinated strategy to put in place the necessary infrastructure, sovereign capability and skills.”  Appropriate data, “interoperable” across departments, will require investment.  Models will need to be trained, with necessary computing power to “for AI to run at scale”.  Enter the linking of hands between government and the private sector, something the institute is more than willing to facilitate.

    Blair’s donor base is impossible to discount when considering his speeches on the subject of AI and the reports of his institute.  Over the years, the billionaire co-founder of Oracle, Larry Ellison, has forked out vast sums to the organisation.  In 2021, Ellison, through his philanthropic offices, furnished the institute with US$33.8 million, with a promise of US$49.4 million in 2022.  These contributions should suggest more than a bit of string pulling by the likes of Ellison over the TBI research agenda, a case of purchasing corrupted advice that can be duly advertised to government and corporate clients the world over.

    Benedict Macon-Cooney, the body’s chief policy strategy, is dismissive of the suggestion.  “There is no conflict of interest, and donations are ringfenced.”  He did, however, concede that the institute did partner public officials with companies to attain their respective goals.  “Sometimes the state is the best way to do things, but if we are [to] look around and see private providers which would be better helping with reforms, then we will say so.”

    In what seems like a mud wrestle between the mendacious and truth in slant, Goldman Sachs has begged to differ from the TBI’s dreams of technological nirvana in a dampening analysis.  On this occasion, the devil is singing in different registers.  In its June 2024 report, the investment banking colossus notes that the vast sums being expended – an estimate of US$1 trillion over the next few years is offered – on data centres, chips, AI infrastructure and the power grid has, and will have “little to show for it in so far beyond reports of efficiency gains among developers.”

    The report features an interview with MIT’s Daron Acemoglu, who estimates that a mere quarter of tasks subject to AI “will be cost effective to automate within the next 10 years, implying that AI will impact less than 5% of all tasks.”  In his interview, Acemoglu observes that numerous tasks currently being performed by humans “for example in the area of transportation, manufacturing, mining, etc., are multifaceted and require real-world interaction, which AI won’t be able to materially improve any time too soon.”

    The GS Head of Global Equity Research, Jim Cavello, is even less impressed, noting that AI technology, to be viable, must be able to solve complex problems.  AI technology is not the holy grail of company valuations, being simply too costly in terms of building critical products such as GPU chips and unable, so far, to “replicate humans’ most valuable capabilities.”

    There you have it.  On the one hand, the flowery promises of AI benefits and savings arising from a fierce embrace of technology by governments, as put forth by Blair and his institute.  Then we have Goldman Sachs, similarly famed for its ruthless tailoring of advice to swell monetary returns.  Neither is encouraging, but Blair’s offerings always come with a barely concealed odour of self-interest masquerading as human salvation.

    The post Tony Blair: Profiteer and Emissary of Artificial Intelligence first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • NATO using AI against Russia – top official FILE PHOTO. David van Weel. ©  Getty Images / Anadolu Agency / Omer Taha Cetin

    NATO is utilizing artificial intelligence to track Russian aircraft and fueling stations, the US-led bloc’s Assistant Secretary General for Innovation, Hybrid and Cyber, David van Weel, has revealed.

    Speaking at the NATO-Ukraine Defense Innovators Forum at AGH University of Krakow, Poland, the top official pledged to deepen cooperation with Kiev, with a new agreement on “battlefield innovation” already in sight.

    “The energy for more collaboration between Ukrainian and Allied innovation ecosystems was contagious, and is exactly why Allies and Ukraine are working together on a new innovation agreement in the NATO-Ukraine Council,” van Weel stated.

    As an example of the integration of various AI solutions, he said the bloc utilizes it to analyze satellite imagery in order to track and count Russian aircraft and fueling stations. The assistant secretary general said that using AI in such a manner was in accord with NATO’s principles on ethical Al use.

    “It’s low-risk,” van Weel said. “Nobody gets killed if you get the number off.”

    In recent months, Ukraine has reportedly ramped up its effort to strike Russian airfields, both those close to the combat zone and deep inside the country’s territory. Moscow appears to have significantly expanded its use of frontline aviation as well, primarily to launch aerial bombs fitted with UMPK (Universal Glide and Correction Module) winged guidance kits.

    Various Ukrainian military sources have noted the growing use of UMPK-fitted bombs by Russia, attributing frontline setbacks to the effectiveness of the weapon.

    UMPK modules, widely regarded as an analogue of US-made Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) kits, fit most freefall bombs in Russia’s arsenal. They are frequently upgraded with thermobaric and cluster munitions, which have already been observed being used on the frontline.

    The post NATO Using AI against Russia – Top Official first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Most people take around 10 minutes to decide what show to stream and around 3 minutes to decide what to order off of a restaurant menu. An Israeli intelligence officer said he took about 20 seconds to decide whether to add a human being to a kill list based on suggestions generated by “Lavender,” an artificial intelligence system powered by data Israel has collected from its surveillance of Palestinian communities. Then, the Israeli military uses another AI system, sadistically named “Where’s Daddy?”, to strike targets at home with their families. Learn more about Lavender, Where’s Daddy?, and the violence made possible by digital dehumanization in our new interactive visual, Stop Killer AI.

    Visualizing Palestine is grateful to an anonymous friend who worked with us to create this interactive visual, building on our previous story Automating Genocide.

    “When we consider the impact of such [artificial intelligence] systems on human rights, we need to look at the consequences, first, if they malfunction and second, if they work as intended. In both situations, reducing human beings to statistical data points has grave and irreversible consequences for people’s dignity, safety, and lives.”–Marwa Fatafta and Daniel Lefeur, “Artificial Genocidal Intelligence: how Israel is automating human rights abuses and war crimes,” Access Now.

    Explore how Israel uses artificial intelligence to produce targets for its bombing campaign faster than humanly possible.

    “Nothing happens by accident,” said another source. “When a 3-year-old girl is killed in a home in Gaza, it’s because someone in the army decided it wasn’t a big deal for her to be killed […] These are not random rockets. Everything is intentional. We know exactly how much collateral damage there is in every home.” —Yuval Abraham, “A mass assassination factory’: Inside Israel’s calculated bombing of Gaza“, +972 Magazine.

    Human rights advocates are calling for a ban of AI target-generation systems in warfare, biometric mass surveillance, so-called “social scoring” algorithms, and other technologies that are fundamentally incompatible with human rights.

    The post Stop Killer AI first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • The spirit of the Constitution, drafted by men who chafed against the heavy-handed tyranny of an imperial ruler, would suggest that one’s home is a fortress, safe from almost every kind of intrusion.

    Unfortunately, a collective assault by the government’s cabal of legislators, litigators, judges and militarized police has all but succeeded in reducing that fortress—and the Fourth Amendment alongside it—to a crumbling pile of rubble.

    We are no longer safe in our homes, not from the menace of a government and its army of Peeping Toms who are waging war on the last stronghold of privacy left to us as a free people.

    The weapons of this particular war on the privacy and sanctity of our homes are being wielded by the government and its army of bureaucratized, corporatized, militarized mercenaries.

    Government agents—with or without a warrant, with or without probable cause that criminal activity is afoot, and with or without the consent of the homeowner—are now justified in mounting virtual home invasions using surveillance technology—with or without the blessing of the courts—to invade one’s home with wiretaps, thermal imaging, surveillance cameras, aerial drones, and other monitoring devices.

    Just recently, in fact, the Michigan Supreme Court gave the government the green light to use warrantless aerial drone surveillance to snoop on citizens at home and spy on their private property.

    While the courts have given police significant leeway at times when it comes to physical intrusions into the privacy of one’s home (the toehold entry, the battering ram, the SWAT raid, the knock-and-talk conversation, etc.), the menace of such virtual intrusions on our Fourth Amendment rights has barely begun to be litigated, legislated and debated.

    Consequently, we now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed, corralled and controlled by technologies that answer to government and corporate rulers.

    Indeed, almost anything goes when it comes to all the ways in which the government can now invade your home and lay siege to your property.

    Consider that on any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

    A byproduct of this surveillance age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency is listening in and tracking your behavior.

    This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.

    Stingray devices mounted on police cars to warrantlessly track cell phones, Doppler radar devices that can detect human breathing and movement within in a home, license plate readers that can record up to 1800 license plates per minute, sidewalk and “public space” cameras coupled with facial recognition and behavior-sensing technology that lay the groundwork for police “pre-crime” programs, police body cameras that turn police officers into roving surveillance cameras, the internet of things: all of these technologies (and more) add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence—especially not when the government can listen in on your phone calls, read your emails, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home.

    Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: this is the mantra of the architects of the Surveillance State and their corporate collaborators.

    Government eyes see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.

    Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to amass a profile of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.

    Cue the dawning of the Age of the Internet of Things (IoT).

    In the not-too-distant future, “just about every device you have—and even products like chairs, that you don’t normally expect to see technology in—will be connected and talking to each other.”

    It is estimated that 127 new IoT devices are connected to the web every second.

    These Internet-connected techno gadgets include smart light bulbs that discourage burglars by making your house look occupied, smart thermostats that regulate the temperature of your home based on your activities, and smart doorbells that let you see who is at your front door without leaving the comfort of your couch.

    Given the speed and trajectory at which these technologies are developing, it won’t be long before these devices become government informants, reporting independently on anything you might do that runs afoul of the Nanny State.

    Moreover, it’s not just our homes and personal devices that are being reordered and reimagined in this connected age: it’s our workplaces, our health systems, our government, our bodies and our innermost thoughts that are being plugged into a matrix over which we have no real control.

    It is expected that by 2030, we will all experience The Internet of Senses (IoS), enabled by Artificial Intelligence (AI), Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), 5G, and automation. The Internet of Senses relies on connected technology interacting with our senses of sight, sound, taste, smell, and touch by way of the brain as the user interface. As journalist Susan Fourtane explains, “Many predict that by 2030, the lines between thinking and doing will blur… By 2030, technology is set to respond to our thoughts, and even share them with others.”

    Once technology is able to access and act on your thoughts, not even your innermost thoughts will be safe from the Thought Police.

    Thus far, the public response to concerns about government surveillance has amounted to a collective shrug.

    Yet as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, when the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies.

    The post Virtual Home Invasions: We’re Not Safe from Government Peeping Toms first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • Technology fetishism and dogmatic irresponsibility

    Without the use of digital devices, instead mainly that analog apparatus known as the pen, I have managed to retain meaningful recollections and engage in analytical reflection for the better part of sixty two years. The manner in which I have worked since the earliest moments I can remember has engendered the habit of collecting, sorting, observing and evaluating life as I lived it or perceived it by others. It was about 1976 that I was introduced to Russell Ackoff, a professor at the Wharton School in the University of Pennsylvania. He was introducing some basic tenets of systems theory, also outlined in his short book Redesigning the Future. My attendance was accidental since it was my high school physics teacher who took me to this meeting of a regional planning commission where Professor Ackoff had been invited to speak. He was quite droll and said several witting things. However, the most important statement he made was that the purpose of planning was not to produce a plan. Rather planning was a purpose in its own right. What he clearly meant – and that was reiterated in the book I subsequently read – was that planning was an attitude toward the future or toward life and not an industrial process for producing planning documents. The logical consequence of Ackoff’s argument was that the attitude of planning was more important than the creation of machines for churning out plans which would be obsolete before they could be implemented.

    Although I only learned about the book ten years later, Joseph Weizenbaum, a professor of computer science at various universities and one of the early researchers in what became the field of artificial intelligence (AI), published Computer Power and Human Reason in the same year. 1976 was one year after the ignominious withdrawal of US Forces from Vietnam, ending more than 30 years of their organized terror in that part of Southeast Asia. The US war against Vietnam was the first testing ground for both systems theory and artificial intelligence. These concepts and the technology developed to apply them were dedicated to surveillance, planning, target acquisition and destruction of the so-called Vietcong infrastructure, i.e. the civilian government that operated in lieu of the criminal state established by the French and US Americans first in Hanoi and then in Saigon after the partition of the country in Geneva. The government agency primarily responsible for planning and implementing the destruction of the popular government of Vietnam was the US Central Intelligence Agency. ICEX was the first name given to what became known as the Phoenix Program. One of the CIA officers interviewed after the war called it “computerized mass murder”. He was referring to the kill lists generated by the PHIS, the Phoenix Information System by which all the data about Vietnamese citizens was collated and evaluated to guide the deployment of the various hunter-killer teams. These teams were composed of local hires, mercenaries, RVN and US military personnel like the infamous Lt. Caley, and other contractors working on behalf of the Agency. Recently there has been mild consternation because of the PHIS legacy product used by the IDF to perform the same kinds of tasks. Lavender is called an AI solution. It is just a later version of the same computer-driven murder planning machine deployed half a century ago.

    No one should wonder about this since the Israel Defense Force and the other government agencies in occupied Palestine were actively informed and involved in every stage of these system developments. The systems-driven assassination program was a major component of the US counter-insurgency operations throughout Latin America. Death squads and data processing are natural partners going back to IBM’s computer support to the NSDAP. Artificial intelligence is fundamentally an intelligence operation and part of the systems theory of mechanized murder. It has no other serious application.

    Permit me to return to Joseph Weizenbaum. In 1976, many AI fetishists will argue, the technology was simply not very sophisticated. ELIZA and other experimental platforms were primitive and lacked the support of today’s super-computers. I met Weizenbaum shortly before he died. He had returned to Berlin, the city of his birth from which his family had emigrated in the 1930s. He had been invited to talk at the Einstein Forum in Potsdam. Having read the book in the 1980s I was anxious to meet the man who had so politely trashed the AI project. He was introduced by an obnoxious and obsequious American whose other qualities or qualifications left no impression on me. The young man tried to impress the audience by telling us that Joseph Weizenbaum was working at Case Western University when the university decided they needed a computer– and Weizenbaum built it. Normally such calculated flattery would be met with a demurred nod of appreciation. Professor Weizenbaum retorted that Case Western did not need a computer. Moreover no one needed one! That was the last we heard of the young man from Einstein Forum.

    Nearly 30 years after his book was published Weizenbaum was just as adamant. Not the Internet (which most people clearly forget is an adjunct to the US atomic warfare system) or the so-called super-computers, whether in the US or China, have altered the premises upon which his argument is based. As recently as today I read some conversation strings about AI in which one author argues:

    The result of having this ability is not to contest who is right or wrong, but to learn to be right most of the time so that the AI can successfully maintain a peaceful, harmonious human society. At the end of the day, humans are seriously flawed and cannot be trusted to run this society. Therefore, human management will be phased out.

    The author and those who follow his reasoning clearly believe that the strip mining of the Congo and other parts of the world to obtain the rare (and toxic) minerals essential for super-computing capacity along with the impoverishment of all other components of human culture in favour of electrical engineering and computer sciences is the price to be borne by humanity so that computation can fully displace human judgement (and humanity itself). The naive yet thin veneer of modernism and claims to sophistication in the interest of peace and harmony are deeply anti-human, not only in their objectives but at every link in the chain these AI proponents would forge from cradle to grave.

    Weizenbaum’s argument was not based on the state of the art in 1976. In fact he was quite clear that faster processors and larger memory storage would no doubt expand the computational capacity of the emerging technology. Instead Weizenbaum insisted that judgement was not computation. In Berlin he reiterated data is not information. Computation is nothing more than the arrangement of data according to rules defining the circulation of electrical power through increasingly complex circuits. Judgement is the result of human activity not electrical circuits. Data is the numerically codification of signals from whatever source. Information is the product of assessing data and responding to it– i.e. giving it meaning. Computers ought not to give meaning– control human responses to the world. Humans ought to control their own responses, even if they use tools like computers to generate and store data for evaluation.

    Screenshot

    Those who, like the author cited above, imagine that machine intelligence is superior to human intelligence are, to put it mildly, confused about what intelligence is. Claiming– either naively or cynically– that machine intelligence is at least potentially far more suited for regulating human society than humans themselves, these technology fetishists betray their primitive superstitions. Artificial intelligence, which until now has never advanced beyond its intention as a weapon for mass murder and surveillance, is simply the electronic manifestation of the omnipotent deity whose every will must be fulfilled. The desire to see human management rendered obsolete or impossible is the same denial that humans have any personality beyond that defined by the absolute deity of the kind we have known from the 11th century. The dream of the AI cultist is the same dream of the absolutist papacy and the regime that survives in the modern business corporation from which this nightmare arises.

    Weizenbaum did not address the whole production chain in which AI needs to be seen. His humanist position stands on its own, especially when the lines are drawn between humanism and its antitheses transhumanism and anti-humanism. Much is made of the enormous progress– far beyond what the carcinogenic West has accomplished– in Chinese AI. Suffice it here to enumerate some of the absurd claims that dominate in the media and among the cult’s prosyletizers.

    Computer power rests ultimately upon the power to extract highly toxic minerals from the Earth, until now based on quasi-slave labor in Congo, i.e. central Africa. For the past half-century computer power has cost more than six million lives and the independent development of a country whose territory is roughly the size of the European Union. To this must be added the wars and other violent and corrupt interventions to obtain these resources elsewhere on the planet. Then of course we have the highly dubious benefit of employment redundancies as so-called AI systems replace human labor in the industries and service sectors previously maintained by homo sapiens. Marxists praise AI contributions to the end of alienated labor. However the implementation of AI not only aims to kill people for the IDF or other counter-insurgency agencies but to kill the conditions for economic activity for huge numbers of people at all levels of educational and occupational qualification. The subsequent radical concentration of wealth will hardly be an inducement to enhance living conditions– which after all cannot be rationally calculated except as cost minimizing. (We need not ignore the eugenicism underlying the AI cult too.)

    As to the claims that these machines will be infinitely more rational and therefore better managers of human society than humans themselves, the obscenity should be obvious. Any management of humans by agents other than humans can only be accomplished by subjugation of humanity to machines. This is the dream of those whose puerile malice leads them to identify peace with the absence of other people and order with absence of responsibility for their own actions. The nightmare of AI is the dream of what was once called the Dark Ages. Don’t forget, before you leave, to turn out the lights.

    The post Returning to the 11th Century first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.


  • The bodies of Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes are buried in a mass grave in Khan Younis.
    Photo credit: Al-Jazeera

    The Israeli online magazine +972 has published a detailed report on Israel’s use of an artificial intelligence (AI) system called “Lavender” to target thousands of Palestinian men in its bombing campaign in Gaza. When Israel attacked Gaza after October 7, the Lavender system had a database of 37,000 Palestinian men with suspected links to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ). 

    Lavender assigns a numerical score, from one to a hundred, to every man in Gaza, based mainly on cellphone and social media data, and automatically adds those with high scores to its kill list of suspected militants. Israel uses another automated system, known as “Where’s Daddy?”, to call in airstrikes to kill these men and their families in their homes.

    The report is based on interviews with six Israeli intelligence officers who have worked with these systems. As one of the officers explained to +972, by adding a name from a Lavender-generated list to the Where’s Daddy home tracking system, he can place the man’s home under constant drone surveillance, and an airstrike will be launched once he comes home.

    The officers said the “collateral” killing of the men’s extended families was of little consequence to Israel. “Let’s say you calculate [that there is one] Hamas [operative] plus 10 [civilians in the house],” the officer said. “Usually, these 10 will be women and children. So absurdly, it turns out that most of the people you killed were women and children.”

    The officers explained that the decision to target thousands of these men in their homes is just a question of expediency. It is simply easier to wait for them to come home to the address on file in the system, and then bomb that house or apartment building, than to search for them in the chaos of the war-torn Gaza Strip. 

    The officers who spoke to 972+ explained that in previous Israeli massacres in Gaza, they could not generate targets quickly enough to satisfy their political and military bosses, and so these AI systems were designed to solve that problem for them. The speed with which Lavender can generate new targets only gives its human minders an average of 20 seconds to review and rbber-stamp each name, even though they know from tests of the Lavender system that at least 10% of the men chosen for assassination and familicide have only an insignificant or a mistaken connection with Hamas or PIJ.  

    The Lavender AI system is a new weapon, developed by Israel. But the kind of kill lists that it generates have a long pedigree in U.S. wars, occupations and CIA regime change operations. Since the birth of the CIA after the Second World War, the technology used to create kill lists has evolved from the CIA’s earliest coups in Iran and Guatemala, to Indonesia and the Phoenix program in Vietnam in the 1960s, to Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s and to the U.S. occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. 

    Just as U.S. weapons development aims to be at the cutting edge, or the killing edge, of new technology, the CIA and U.S. military intelligence have always tried to use the latest data processing technology to identify and kill their enemies.

    The CIA learned some of these methods from German intelligence officers captured at the end of the Second World War. Many of the names on Nazi kill lists were generated by an intelligence unit called Fremde Heere Ost (Foreign Armies East), under the command of Major General Reinhard Gehlen, Germany’s spy chief on the eastern front (see David Talbot, The Devil’s Chessboard, p. 268).

    Gehlen and the FHO had no computers, but they did have access to four million Soviet POWs from all over the USSR, and no compunction about torturing them to learn the names of Jews and communist officials in their hometowns to compile kill lists for the Gestapo and Einsatzgruppen.

    After the war, like the 1,600 German scientists spirited out of Germany in Operation Paperclip, the United States flew Gehlen and his senior staff to Fort Hunt in Virginia. They were welcomed by Allen Dulles, soon to be the first and still the longest-serving director of the CIA. Dulles sent them back to Pullach in occupied Germany to resume their anti-Soviet operations as CIA agents. The Gehlen Organization formed the nucleus of what became the BND, the new West German intelligence service, with Reinhard Gehlen as its director until he retired in 1968.

    After a CIA coup removed Iran’s popular, democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953, a CIA team led by U.S. Major General Norman Schwarzkopf trained a new intelligence service, known as SAVAK, in the use of kill lists and torture. SAVAK used these skills to purge Iran’s government and military of suspected communists and later to hunt down anyone who dared to oppose the Shah. 

    By 1975, Amnesty International estimated that Iran was holding between 25,000 and 100,000 political prisoners, and had “the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture that is beyond belief.”

    In Guatemala, a CIA coup in 1954 replaced the democratic government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman with a brutal dictatorship. As resistance grew in the 1960s, U.S. special forces joined the Guatemalan army in a scorched earth campaign in Zacapa, which killed 15,000 people to defeat a few hundred armed rebels. Meanwhile, CIA-trained urban death squads abducted, tortured and killed PGT (Guatemalan Labor Party) members in Guatemala City, notably 28 prominent labor leaders who were abducted and disappeared in March 1966.

    Once this first wave of resistance was suppressed, the CIA set up a new telecommunications center and intelligence agency, based in the presidential palace. It compiled a database of “subversives” across the country that included leaders of farming co-ops and labor, student and indigenous activists, to provide ever-growing lists for the death squads. The resulting civil war became a genocide against indigenous people in Ixil and the western highlands that killed or disappeared at least 200,000 people.

    This pattern was repeated across the world, wherever popular, progressive leaders offered hope to their people in ways that challenged U.S. interests. As historian Gabriel Kolko wrote in 1988, “The irony of U.S. policy in the Third World is that, while it has always justified its larger objectives and efforts in the name of anticommunism, its own goals have made it unable to tolerate change from any quarter that impinged significantly on its own interests.”

    When General Suharto seized power in Indonesia in 1965, the U.S. Embassy compiled a list of 5,000 communists for his death squads to hunt down and kill. The CIA estimated that they eventually killed 250,000 people, while other estimates run as high as a million.

    Twenty-five years later, journalist Kathy Kadane investigated the U.S. role in the massacre in Indonesia, and spoke to Robert Martens, the political officer who led the State-CIA team that compiled the kill list. “It really was a big help to the army,” Martens told Kadane. “They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands. But that’s not all bad – there’s a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment.”

    Kathy Kadane also spoke to former CIA director William Colby, who was the head of the CIA’s Far East division in the 1960s. Colby compared the U.S. role in Indonesia to the Phoenix Program in Vietnam, which was launched two years later, claiming that they were both successful programs to identify and eliminate the organizational structure of America’s communist enemies.  

    The Phoenix program was designed to uncover and dismantle the National Liberation Front’s (NLF) shadow government across South Vietnam. Phoenix’s Combined Intelligence Center in Saigon fed thousands of names into an IBM 1401 computer, along with their locations and their alleged roles in the NLF. The CIA credited the Phoenix program with killing 26,369 NLF officials, while another 55,000 were imprisoned or persuaded to defect. Seymour Hersh reviewed South Vietnamese government documents that put the death toll at 41,000

    How many of the dead were correctly identified as NLF officials may be impossible to know, but Americans who took part in Phoenix operations reported killing the wrong people in many cases. Navy SEAL Elton Manzione told author Douglas Valentine (The Phoenix Program) how he killed two young girls in a night raid on a village, and then sat down on a stack of ammunition crates with a hand grenade and an M-16, threatening to blow himself up, until he got a ticket home.  

    “The whole aura of the Vietnam War was influenced by what went on in the “hunter-killer” teams of Phoenix, Delta, etc,” Manzione told Valentine. “That was the point at which many of us realized we were no longer the good guys in the white hats defending freedom – that we were assassins, pure and simple. That disillusionment carried over to all other aspects of the war and was eventually responsible for it becoming America’s most unpopular war.”

    Even as the U.S. defeat in Vietnam and the “war fatigue” in the United States led to a more peaceful next decade, the CIA continued to engineer and support coups around the world, and to provide post-coup governments with increasingly computerized kill lists to consolidate their rule.

    After supporting General Pinochet’s coup in Chile in 1973, the CIA played a central role in Operation Condor, an alliance between right-wing military governments in Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Uruguay, Paraguay and Bolivia, to hunt down tens of thousands of their and each other’s political opponents and dissidents, killing and disappearing at least 60,000 people. 

    The CIA’s role in Operation Condor is still shrouded in secrecy, but Patrice McSherry, a political scientist at Long Island University, has investigated the U.S. role and concluded, “Operation Condor also had the covert support of the US government. Washington provided Condor with military intelligence and training, financial assistance, advanced computers, sophisticated tracking technology, and access to the continental telecommunications system housed in the Panama Canal Zone.”

    McSherry’s research revealed how the CIA supported the intelligence services of the Condor states with computerized links, a telex system, and purpose-built encoding and decoding machines made by the CIA Logistics Department. As she wrote in her book, Predatory States: Operation Condor and Covert War in Latin America:     

    “The Condor system’s secure communications system, Condortel,… allowed Condor operations centers in member countries to communicate with one another and with the parent station in a U.S. facility in the Panama Canal Zone. This link to the U.S. military-intelligence complex in Panama is a key piece of evidence regarding secret U.S. sponsorship of Condor…”

    Operation Condor ultimately failed, but the U.S. provided similar support and training to right-wing governments in Colombia and Central America throughout the 1980s in what senior military officers have called a “quiet, disguised, media-free approach” to repression and kill lists. 

    The U.S. School of the Americas (SOA) trained thousands of Latin American officers in the use of torture and death squads, as Major Joseph Blair, the SOA’s former chief of instruction described to John Pilger for his film, The War You Don’t See:

    “The doctrine that was taught was that, if you want information, you use physical abuse, false imprisonment, threats to family members, and killing. If you can’t get the information you want, if you can’t get the person to shut up or stop what they’re doing, you assassinate them – and you assassinate them with one of your death squads.”

    When the same methods were transferred to the U.S. hostile military occupation of Iraq after 2003, Newsweek headlined it “The Salvador Option.” A U.S. officer explained to Newsweek that U.S. and Iraqi death squads were targeting Iraqi civilians as well as resistance fighters. “The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists,” he said. “From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation.”

    The United States sent two veterans of its dirty wars in Latin America to Iraq to play key roles in that campaign. Colonel James Steele led the U.S. Military Advisor Group in El Salvador from 1984 to 1986, training and supervising Salvadoran forces who killed tens of thousands of civilians. He was also deeply involved in the Iran-Contra scandal, narrowly escaping a prison sentence for his role supervising shipments from Ilopango air base in El Salvador to the U.S.-backed Contras in Honduras and Nicaragua. 

    In Iraq, Steele oversaw the training of the Interior Ministry’s Special Police Commandos – rebranded as “National” and later “Federal” Police after the discovery of their al-Jadiriyah torture center and other atrocities.

    Bayan al-Jabr, a commander in the Iranian-trained Badr Brigade militia, was appointed Interior Minister in 2005, and Badr militiamen were integrated into the Wolf Brigade death squad and other Special Police units. Jabr’s chief adviser was Steven Casteel, the former intelligence chief for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) in Latin America. 

    The Interior Ministry death squads waged a dirty war in Baghdad and other cities, filling the Baghdad morgue with up to 1,800 corpses per month, while Casteel fed the western media absurd cover stories, such as that the death squads were all “insurgents” in stolen police uniforms.  

    Meanwhile U.S. special operations forces conducted “kill-or-capture” night raids in search of Resistance leaders. General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of Joint Special Operations Command from 2003-2008, oversaw the development of a database system, used in Iraq and Afghanistan, that compiled cellphone numbers mined from captured cellphones to generate an ever-expanding target list for night raids and air strikes. 

    The targeting of cellphones instead of actual people enabled the automation of the targeting system, and explicitly excluded using human intelligence to confirm identities. Two senior U.S. commanders told the Washington Post that only half the night raids attacked the right house or person.

    In Afghanistan, President Obama put McChrystal in charge of U.S. and NATO forces in 2009, and his cellphone-based “social network analysis” enabled an exponential increase in night raids, from 20 raids per month in May 2009 to up to 40 per night by April 2011. 

    As with the Lavender system in Gaza, this huge increase in targets was achieved by taking a system originally designed to identify and track a small number of senior enemy commanders and applying it to anyone suspected of having links with the Taliban, based on their cellphone data. 

    This led to the capture of an endless flood of innocent civilians, so that most civilian detainees had to be quickly released to make room for new ones. The increased killing of innocent civilians in night raids and airstrikes fueled already fierce resistance to the U.S. and NATO occupation and ultimately led to its defeat.

    President Obama’s drone campaign to kill suspected enemies in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia was just as indiscriminate, with reports suggesting that 90% of the people it killed in Pakistan were innocent civilians. 

    And yet Obama and his national security team kept meeting in the White House every “Terror Tuesday” to select who the drones would target that week, using an Orwellian, computerized “disposition matrix” to provide technological cover for their life and death decisions.    

    Looking at this evolution of ever-more automated systems for killing and capturing enemies, we can see how, as the information technology used has advanced from telexes to cellphones and from early IBM computers to artificial intelligence, the human intelligence and sensibility that could spot mistakes, prioritize human life and prevent the killing of innocent civilians has been progressively marginalized and excluded, making these operations more brutal and horrifying than ever.

    Nicolas has at least two good friends who survived the dirty wars in Latin America because someone who worked in the police or military got word to them that their names were on a death list, one in Argentina, the other in Guatemala. If their fates had been decided by an AI machine like Lavender, they would both be long dead. 

    As with supposed advances in other types of weapons technology, like drones and “precision” bombs and missiles, innovations that claim to make targeting more precise and eliminate human error have instead led to the automated mass murder of innocent people, especially women and children, bringing us full circle from one holocaust to the next.

    The post A Brief History of Kill Lists, From Langley to Lavender first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.