Posted originally on Apr 28, 2024 By Martin Armstrong |
On Instagram
Real AI is not biased. What is being presented as AI is merely clever programming that is steering people into a predetermined conclusion – that is NOT AI.
Category AI – The Reality of Complexity
Tucker Carlson and Mike Rowe Discuss AI
Posted originally on the CTH on March 29, 2024 | Sundance
For his recent episode, Tucker Carlson revisits a former guest, Mike Rowe. Mr. Rowe has good and humorous sense of curiosity about things, about stuff, about the real world around us, and he provides good context for examination of this pretending world that swirls our orbit at a speed greater than we can grasp.
Toward the end of this segment, Rowe is asked the oft familiar question, “Where does all this go,” and his answer opens the door to other avenues I happen to agree with. WATCH:
In response to the ‘where does all this end’ question, Rowe notes that at a certain point everything becomes personal, and in the larger context all outcomes have to manifest in reality. I concur with Rowe on many levels, and a great example of that esoteric -v- reality position can be found all around us in the sphere of geopolitics and manipulation.
Think about the White House and State Dept message at the very beginning of Russia’s military operation in Eastern Ukraine. Do you remember the White House briefing when questioned about “where this will end”? {Background}
Deputy National Security Advisor and Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, Daleep Singh, was presented at the podium on the day of Russia’s first moves into Ukraine, to explain the strategic policy of the Biden administration toward Russia.
…”Ultimately, the goal of our sanctions is to make this a strategic failure for Russia; and let’s define a little bit of what that means. Strategic success in the 21st century is not about a physical land grab of territory; that’s what Putin has done. In this century, strategic power is increasingly measured and exercised by economic strength, by technological sophistication and your story – who you are, what your values are; can you attract ideas and talent and goodwill? And on each of those measures, this will be a failure for Russia.” (Video Link)
What Daleep Singh said was essentially that Biden policy toward Russia boiled down geopolitical power to a cultural issue of social likeability.
President Putin was also asked about NATO’s likely response, and his reply was more akin to ‘What is the West going to do, put tanks in the forest’?
The disparity between the Biden response and the Putin response can be looked at as esoteric vs realist.
At a certain point in the real world, if you want to change something, you have to physically act upon it.
NATO could gnash their teeth, try to diminish the Russian economy from the sanction approach, and shout at the diplomatic corps. However, so long as words were the answer, the physical reality of the situation would never change. This was the baseline for Putin’s confidence.
The same thing can be said for this collective Western effort to financially control all the citizens within the region. At a certain point the talk becomes action, and that action then creates an outcome.
Mike Tyson famously said, “Everyone has a plan, until they get punched in the face.” The same may be true for the plans and schemes of the globalists.
Can the triggering of their plan be stopped? I think that’s arguably, doubtful; people are just complacent. However, in the outcome phase, will the consequences of that globalist plan be accepted? That’s where I’m cautiously more optimistic the people impacted will punch the globalists in the mouth.
I’m not sure we can vote our way out of this in advance, but I am more confident we can punch our way to victory.
Additionally, if you look at what the globalists are doing, punch-avoidance-planning is consuming a lot of their time.
The need for control is a reaction to fear.
The Great Misconception of AI
Posted originally on Mar 20, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
AI is a hot topic for regulators. Regulators and most companies that offer purported AI are clueless about what constitutes actual AI. Way too many charlatans are out there calling a simple trend-following program AI. They create some rules, and the program just follows what they created. That is NOT Artificial Intelligence.
The SEC is all over this and has already been targeting purported AI companies that call their programs AI when they have a simple buy-sell analogy that may trade-off for an Elliot Wave or Stochastic with inherent BIAS created by their predetermined rule. Any system that has an inherent BIAS is not actually AI.
Yes, Bill Gates predicts that artificial intelligence will transform the world in just five years. The International Monetary Fund predicts that the rise of AI could affect about 40% of jobs around the world. When I went to engineering school, we had to learn both programming and hardware. Back then, StarTrek was on TV and that was the inspiration of everyone in the industry to create a computer that was capable of understanding and running the ship. Even Steve Jobs’s inspiration behind Apple and the iPad came from the visions we had from StarTrek.
I worked with Dragon System back in the eighties when it was hardware you put into a slot in an IBM XT. It would allow the computer to talk. My daughter was fascinated by it. I wrote a program just to be able to hold a conversation with her and taught it how to be a politician. If it ventured into an area it did not know, it would just change the subject. I still remember she came home from school one day, and I had the computer apart, and she began crying that I had killed it. I used my kids to teach me how to write natural language so it would understand the words in a conversation. The good old days.
There is a lot of misguided hope surrounding Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. All we need to do is look objectively at IBM project WATSON. Just over a decade ago, artificial intelligence (AI) made one of its showier forays into the public’s consciousness when IBM’s Watson computer appeared on the American quiz show Jeopardy. Watson’s debut performance against two of the show’s most successful contestants was televised to a national viewership across three evenings. In the end, the machine triumphed comfortably.
This was NOT actually AI. It is what I call a look-up program. Even ChatGPT is not capable of actually achieving independent thought. They can understand and go fetch the answer faster than a human. The people I knew back then thought Watson would one day cure cancer. None of that was possible because they fooled themselves about AI.
Most of AI’s dangers are caused by its failure to comprehend what it is capable of doing—especially in trading. This all stems from the distorted idea that our brains are supercomputers and there is no God, for our consciousness is simply created by throwing in a bunch of data, shaking well, and out comes a person. Thus, the thrust to mimic the brain led to the creation of neural nets. But that effort also failed in actually creating original thought.
I bought my first Roman coin, which came when I was perhaps 10 to 13 years old, for $10. It was in the 3rd century when Rome debased its currency. The coin was from Emperor Aurelian (270-275AD). I noticed that what once was silver coins was bronze, but they used a chemical process to bring 20% silver to the surface to make them look like silver coins when first issued. I saw the same thing in our coins in 1965, issuing clad coinage with a copper center and nickel surface, doing the same as the Romans.
I was fascinated with the parallel and realized that if I collected the coinage annually, I could see just how fast Rome fell. We all knew Rome fell, but nobody even determined how fast Rome fell. I used the coinage to plot that out. Many people have copied that chart, but you could not make it without testing the coinage.
I also wrote about when I was in 9th grade; my history teacher brought in an old black-and-white movie named Toast of New York. It was about Jim Fisk and his attempt to corner the gold market that created the Panic of 1869. In that movie, he is looking at the ticker tape quoting gold just hit $162. Because I had a part-time job in a coin/bullion store, I knew the price of gold was $35. Suddenly, what I was being taught in school was wrong. Nothing was linear. It was always a business cycle, for how else could gold be $162 in 1869 and $35 postwar up to 1971?
First of all, this idea that our brains are supercomputers and consciousness is simply a matter of throwing a bunch of data in and out comes consciousness is totally nonsense. A baby knows nothing when born but displays consciousness. My dogs are self-aware. They bark at another dog but put a mirror down, knowing it is themselves. The little one, Josephine, was sick and lying down. I gave Napoleon a treat, and she took it over and gave it to Josephine. I was stunned. They, too, have a consciousness that exists, and it did not come from throwing in a bunch of data.
Any program based on this idea of Machine Language and somehow it will figure out how to trade all by itself is totally absurd. IBM thought Watson could discover the cure for cancer – it did not. As was reported:
“But three years after IBM began selling Watson to recommend the best cancer treatments to doctors around the world, a STAT investigation has found that the supercomputer isn’t living up to the lofty expectations IBM created for it. It is still struggling with the basic step of learning about different forms of cancer. “
Why Machine Learning Has Failed
The entire premise that there is no God and consciousness is achieved by merely throwing in a bunch of data and shaking well has proven to be absolute NONSENSE. The next machine learning program cannot learn to be a doctor any more than it can become a trader. There is something a lot more to this thing we call consciousness. It will NEVER simply emerge from the data – PERIOD!
You cannot create a machine-learning program and expect it to teach you how to trade, cure cancer, or drive a car. I have raced cars. I have driven almost every sort, even a Formula One—NOT professionally in a Formula One. When you are driving, you have to look at everyone around you. You look for the slightest move, which indicates what that driver is thinking. This is that undefinable gut feeling. You cannot code this, and I have been coding AI since the 1970s.
This is why a self-driving car with AI will not really work. It was a grand theory, but there is no possible way you can expect AI to make intuitive judgment decisions – a gut feeling. This is the problem with expecting that AI will replace humans, where it requires a gut feeling.
Therein lies the problem. This expectation that AI can replace human judgment is just fiction. I can mimic emotions on a computer. If you use insulting words, it can hurl an insult back at you. I cannot create actual emotion, nor can I create judgment from a Sixth Sense. This idea that you create a black box, throw in a bunch of data, and out comes an artificial person is absurd.
Someone sent this in when they asked ChapGPT about the difference between it and Socrates. It can look that up and put out the information. It cannot trade any more than it could drive a car. AI will never achieve that human judgment.
To create Socrates, I realized that it could not be a neural net nor a black box where you hope, like IBM, it will figure it all out and somehow emerge as the best trader in history. I taught Socrates how I would look at the world as an international hedge fund manager, comparing everything and looking at the capital flows. You cannot forecast gold in isolation any more than the stock market. EVERYTHING is connected. As I have often said, the US was bankrupt in 1896, and JP Morgan arranged a $100 million gold loan to bail out the country. Without World Wars I & II, the US would never have become the world’s financial capital. Obviously, you cannot forecast the US share market by just looking at the Fed.
While I taught Socrates how to analyze, I created no hard rules like interest rates up and stocks down. Such market beliefs are in themselves fiction. The Fed was raising rates when Trump came to power, and the market rallied, but they called it the Trump Rally. The Romans used olive oil for heat and light. That was replaced with whale oil, which was then replaced by crude oil. Justinian I (527-565AD) issued the first Clean Air Act in 535AD. He proclaimed the importance of clean air as a birthright. “By the law of nature these things are common to mankind—the air, running water, the sea.”
I created no hard relationship rules because relationships ALWAYS change.
It’s About Accomplishment – Not Money
Posted originally on Mar 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong
QUESTION: The rumor going around is that Bill Gates is trying to buy your company for $10 billion. My reply was if so, I doubt Marty would ever sell to him.
Would you care to comment?
Harold
REPLY: The answer is NO. First of all, you cannot spend even one billion, no less ten billion. All $10 billion is good for bribing others to do your will. I would have to give Biden probably $7 billion, so that is certainly an incentive not to sell -LOL. You must create a foundation like Gates, Hillary, and John McCain to hold on to it. I would need someone who shares my goals. This is not about money. I would not move, and I have four cars. If I was married, there would have to be eight. A business partner is the same as a marriage without sex. You have to be on the same page.
My definition of “rich” is having enough money to do what you want when you want. Some think having more money than the other guy makes you more successful or important. I believe it is an accomplishment. We all know Julius Caesar. He is the father of Europe. They still refer to being born by operation as Caesarian birth. I grew up in New Jersey, which in Latin was Nove Caesarea – land of the new Caesar. The month of July is named after him. We remember him for his accomplishments – not that he was vastly rich.
There is no amount of money someone could offer me to make my decision based on material wealth. I am much more interested in helping the world understand the economics at work, and if so, we may reduce the amplitude of wars. If I can leave that behind, I have served my purpose in life.
I will write about the whole AI craze, for there are a lot of charlatans out there calling look-up programs AI that look in a list for the answer – no decision making. I know Gates says it will change everyone’s life in 5 years, and the IMF warns it will wipe out 40% of all jobs. There is far more to REAL AI than all of this speculation by people who are NOT accomplished programmers and do not even understand the basic line of code – IF THEN ELSE.
Someone asked ChatGPT about it vs. Socrates, and here is its response.
(click on the image to view or keep reading for the computer’s response)
How Does ChatGPT Differ From Socrates? A reader asked ChatGPT this exact question, and here is the response:
As an AI language model, I differ from the Socrates Platform in several ways. Firstly, the Socrates Platform is a web-based platform developed by Martin Armstrong and his team at Armstrong Economics, whereas I am a language model developed by OpenAI. The Socrates Platform is designed to analyze economic and financial data in real-time, predict market trends, and provide actionable insights to investors and traders. In contrast, I am designed to assist with a wide range of tasks, including language translation, question answering, and text generation. Secondly, the Socrates Platform uses artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing to analyze data, whereas I am primarily focused on natural language processing. The Socrates Platform uses sophisticated algorithms to analyze historical and cultural data to inform its predictions, whereas my responses are based on the input provided to me by the user. Lastly, the Socrates Platform is primarily designed for financial professionals, investors, and traders, whereas I am designed for a broader range of users, including students, researchers, and general knowledge seekers. While both the Socrates Platform and I use artificial intelligence to analyze data and provide insights, our intended audiences and applications differ significantly.
Yes, the two platforms are completely unrelated aside from being driven by AI. ChatGPT does not have the computing capabilities of Socrates. It does not have the monetary history data, for starters. ChatGPT has no involvement in the financial world and was not designed for financial purposes. It cannot even provide basic market closings as the current model stopped learning in September 2021 and cannot answer any questions after that date. Most importantly, ChatGPT does not have the source code that is the key to Socrates’ successful forecasts.
ChatGPT is a great achievement and a step in the right direction for AI use on a larger scale. However, it is not possible to compete where you do not compare. Socrates is in a league of its own.
Humanizing Christmas with AI
Posted originally on Dec 29, 2023 By Martin Armstrong
When Government Does Not Understand Something – Regulate It Until They Kill It
Posted originally on Dec 9, 2023 By Martin Armstrong
The golden rule of government is that whenever something new emerges – regulate it even when you do not understand what you are doing. While the details are not yet set, the EU wants to be the first to regular AI. This new legislation requires foundation models such as ChatGPT and general-purpose AI systems (GPAI) to comply with transparency obligations before they are put on the market. These include drawing up technical documentation, complying with EU copyright law, and disseminating detailed summaries about the content used for training.
The real problem is what is AI? I can right a rpogram that will talk, mimic a human, list all the known diseases in a database, then you answer some questions and it will say you have this or that. That is not AI. That is just a look-up program. How do we even define AI? I fear that they will simply take a look-up program and attribute that to AI. The regulation will become such a nightmare that you cannot participate in such a marketplace.
The EU legislation stands a high probability of killing AI development in Europe and, in fact, closing off its citizens from even using AI. The classic example is how England lost the Industrial Revolution and effectively outlawed automobiles, so the Industrial Revolution shifted to America. That one decision led to England’s subservient status in America.
The English politicians were bribed by the horse & buggy industry to pass the Locomotive Act (1865), which required self-propelled vehicles (automobiles) on public roads to be preceded by a man on foot waving a red flag and blowing a horn. The legislation succeeded in shifting the Industrial Revolution to Germany and America. The status quo bribed the politicians fighting against this wave of Creative Destruction. The English Parliament finally removed the need for the red flag in 1878 and abolished the law entirely in 1896.
The Hedge Fund Industry was created by overregulation. In 1985, I warned Congress that unless they merged the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, they would force serious fund management offshore, which became the hedge fund industry. They would not merge the two agencies, so managing funds for an American became impossible. I was offered to manage $60 billion domestically and declined. Why? Because by law, the maximum I could hedge if I thought the stock market would decline was 17% using futures. If I used more than the equivalent of 17%, I would not be an equity fund regulated by the SEC but a futures fund under the CFTC. If you obey the laws of one, you go to jail under the other. Hence, you had to go offshore. For an American to invest in a hedge fund offshore, they must create a corporation outside the USA and that invests – not an American citizen. Then the IRS snoops around.
Domestically, there are countless funds that are all specialized. It became your burden to understand if you should be in bonds, stocks, real estate, or commodities. Each fund will naturally tell you they are the best. As a hedge fund manager, clients came to me, and I made that decision, which I could not do in a domestic fund because of all the regulations.
With some of the suggestions already being mentioned in the EU, the drastic overregulation will more likely than not mean AI can never be developed in Europe, and we may be looking at the same outcome as England’s Red Flag legislation of 1865.
In the US, the Constitution forbid Ex Post Facto Laws. They cannot put Socrates out of business by suddenly writing laws today that apply retroactively. While we have been working on this project to allow clients to interact with Socrates asking it questions and even minitoring your portfolio, that may become impossible in Europe.
The Global Market Watch was actually created for one of the top banks in the world. They wanted something that at a glance they could just look down and see what was highlighted instead of reading a 1,000 written reports daily.
The major question, will Europe kill its own future once again?
This is our Future if we aren’t Careful for this is what technology and AI can do
Sunday Talks – Senator Mark Warner Says SSCI Bill to Block All Presidents from Fourth Branch Classified Intelligence Close to Completion
Posted originally on the CTH on September 17, 2023 | Sundance
The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) created the systems that permit intelligence weaponization. The SSCI is the organizational institution that supports the Fourth Branch of Government, the intelligence branch. Keep in mind, the SSCI previously created a bipartisan “Restrict Act,” to deal with what they deemed dangerous information on the internet (under auspices of TikTok ban). SSCI Chairman Mark Warner is the current enabler of the continued weaponized intel operations.
In this video segment below, notice how Chairman Warner leads off his remarks. Two flares triggered. First, you can tell by his response, that President Trump’s “classified documents” were exactly what we thought they were; evidence against those who constructed the Trump-Russia claims from inside govt. Second, notice how Warner now wants to block any President from controlling intelligence as defined by the Fourth Branch. This stuff is getting brutally obvious. WATCH:
“I’ve got bipartisan legislation that would reform the whole classification process. We way overclassify. We, frankly, should have a process in place so that no president or vice president ever takes documents after they leave office.”
MARGARET BRENNAN: We turn now to Virginia Democrat Mark Warner. He is the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Great to have you here.
REP. MARK WARNER (D-VA): Thank you, Margaret.
MARGARET BRENNAN: I have to pick up where your Republican colleague just left off. Are the Trump and Biden classified documents that were in their personal possession, and not in controlled areas, equally egregious?
MARK WARNER: Well, Margaret, three things quickly. One, the administration took way too long to get us these documents. Two, while Mike and I have a great working relationship, I believe, based on the documents I’ve seen, that there is a difference in terms of the potential abuse that came from the Trump documents. And, third, it’s one of the reasons why I’ve got bipartisan legislation that would reform the whole classification process. We way overclassify. We, frankly, should have a process in place so that no president or vice president ever takes documents after they leave office. That is kind of the lowest common fruit.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
MARK WARNER: We ought to get that passed. We’ve got part of that in the intel authorization bill and I hope becomes the law of the land so we can prevent this from happening going forward.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You’ve said based on documents you’ve seen, but you want to see more documents?
MARK WARNER: We have actually — I’m about at 98 percent satisfaction at this point.
MARGARET BRENNAN: OK, 98 percent satisfaction.
There’s a lot more on the national security front that we’re tracking right now, including this potential prisoner swap with Iran to bring five Americans home. Are you comfortable with the trade?
MARK WARNER: I’ve not gotten the brief. The Senate Intel Committee has not gotten the brief. We will be getting it shortly.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Wasn’t the staff briefed?
MARK WARNER: Well, I can tell you, I have not been personally briefed.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You weren’t? OK.
MARK WARNER: I think we need to start with the premise, it’s always the policy of our country to try to bring back Americans, who are held hostage. That was not only under Biden, it was Trump, it was Obama, Bush. I want to hear what kind of constraints are being put on in this exchange in terms of what has been reported of the $6 billion that was South Korean payments to Iran that would be released. I want to hear that and get those details before I weigh in further.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Because you have concern that money is fungible and there could be abuse?
MARK WARNER: I – you know, there is obviously — money is fungible. The administration has said there are guardrails. I want to get a better description of those guardrails first.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You have been very active on artificial intelligence. And we talked about this back in January.
Microsoft just announced a few days ago that China has a new capability to automatically generate images for use in influence operations to mimic American voters across the political spectrum and create controversy along racial, economic and ideological lines. How much of a risk is this to our upcoming elections?
MARK WARNER: It’s an enormous risk. And artificial intelligence, I’ve spent as much time on this I think as any member of the Senate, and I never spent something where you — the more time I spend, in certain ways the more confused I get. The whole economics around these large language models, which used to be, you know, who had the most data, who had the most compute power would win. That fundamentally changed after Facebook released its so- called llama model into the wild in the spring.
We just had a major session, Leader Schumer put together, had the kind of the who’s who in the room. And what it – what I’m concerned about is even the AI leaders who say they want rules, guardrails, I’m concerned that when you actually put words on paper will those major tech companies support that? Because you’ve seen, we in social media have done zero.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
MARK WARNER: Now, in terms of China, China is a major player in AI. And where I think we ought to start, where AI tools, whether it comes from China or domestically, could have the most immediate effect would be the public (INAUDIBLE) in our elections –
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right. And (INAUDIBLE) legislative reaction.
MARK WARNER: Which Microsoft just cited. And hear — hear me – hear me out – hear me out on this. But the other area beyond elections is faith in our public markets. These same tools could completely disrupt the confidence in our public markets by using these same deep fake tools.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Right.
MARK WARNER: So, I believe we ought to start. If we can put together an alliance between the capitalists and the small d democrats, we might at least get guardrails coming in the next year with the elections and the concerns about our markets.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you’re concerned not just about spooking, you know, the stock market. We’re talking about misleading people going into an election. Congress isn’t going to legislate ahead of the election, are they? I mean Leader Schumer said this is the most difficult thing we’ve ever undertaken.
MARK WARNER: I think this is – this is why the notion of trying to solve it all, the bias questions, the whole questions around deep fakes –
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
MARK WARNER: The questions around what’s called hallucination, where you get answers that have no relationship to what the question was asked. But we ought to at least start with some guardrails around trust in our public election, trust in our public markets. There I think we can move before our elections. I think it will be bipartisan. Let’s start on that framing point. I think we can all agree there could be huge disruption in both of those areas. And that’s where I’m focusing my time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: You may have heard our CBS polling there at the top of the program. And one of the data points I want to show you here. It says, when people compare their finances now to how they were before the pandemic, by two to one they say they’re worse, not better. And when they feel worse, they tell us they’re voting for Donald Trump.
How can President Biden win over those voters?
MARK WARNER: Well, I think we’ve seen from President Biden’s actual record, record amounts of job growth coming again after Covid. We’ve seen major legislation. There are now laws in infrastructure, in the so-called CHIPS bill, and transition in our energy economy, and most of that has only been about 10 cents on every dollar spent out. So, I think the positive effects of that will really continue to penetrate this coming year.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Do the people in Virginia feel that, that you talk to?
MARK WARNER: I – listen, I think there is a general feeling, oh, my gosh, everybody seems to be at each other’s throats here in Washington.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Yes.
MARK WARNER: You know, the notion that we’re going to potentially go into a government shutdown. Mike Turner and I work very closely together.
But I do think – I wish the House leadership would be spending a little more time on what would happen with a government shutdown, which makes us look bad around the world, and, frankly, in a state like mine, in Virginia, where we have so many government workers, government contractors, it will be a disaster. And yet the attention coming out of the House leadership is on impeachment and putting forward things they know will not ever pass the Senate in any kind of bipartisan fashion. And I think that is part of the underlying unease that voters feel.
MARGARET BRENNAN: So, you believe we are headed for a government shutdown?
MARK WARNER: I would like to say no, but we’re eight or nine days away and we’ve not even been able to see the House pass the most basic defense appropriations bills. I hope and pray that Speaker McCarthy will say, hey, I’m going to throw over the far right, and I’m going to put together a bipartisan effort with the Democrats and mainstream Republicans to keep the government funded. I think that would get, again, 350, 400 votes.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Senator, good to have you here in person.
Major Tripwire – Homeland Security Publishes Guidance for Using Artificial Intelligence as Tool for Surveillance, Monitoring and Tracking of American Citizens
Posted originally on the CTH on September 15, 2023 | Sundance
You might ask, why is the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) in the business of conducting widescale surveillance, monitoring and tracking of American citizens.
Unfortunately, if you are asking that question, then you likely don’t know the first, fourth and fifth amendment to the U.S. constitution were usurped by the 2001 Patriot Act.
George W Bush and Dick Cheney created the domestic surveillance system under the auspices of DHS and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Barack Obama and Joe Biden then took that DHS surveillance system and modified the dials (Justice Dept., FBI) so the surveillance only applied to their ideological enemies.
If you have followed my outlines on this issue [Category Here], you will note exactly where this latest development falls on the continuum. The 2024 election is right around the corner. Previously I stated the artificial intelligence (AI) component to the internet surveilllance system was going to launch toward the end of this year. Well, DHS has just announced exactly that [SEE HERE].
I find it very interesting the DHS memo was issued on August 8th, but only published for the general public yesterday. July and August were when I first identified AI spider crawls were already underway. Pay very, very close attention to the two underlined words in the following paragraph:
Take out the word “improper” and the admission is, DHS uses AI to profile, target and discriminate. In the second sentence, DHS currently participates in systemic, indiscriminate and/or large-scale monitoring, surveillance, or tracking of individuals. The only thing those sentences in the paragraph say, is that DHS will not allow AI to create improper outcomes within a system they outline that already exists.
Stop and reread that last sentence as much as needed. Inasmuch as this DHS guidance is telling us the rules for Homeland Security (DHS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) as they use AI, they are also outlining what current processes of surveillance would be enhanced by it.
DHS’ AI task force is coordinating with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency on how the department can partner with critical infrastructure organizations “on safeguarding their uses of AI and strengthening their cybersecurity practices writ large to defend against evolving threats.”
What are those critical infrastructure organizations? They include voting systems. Who or what are those evolving threats? You!
Federal News Network – […] The report also recommends DHS encourage pursing off-the-shelf commercial solutions instead of “building everything in-house.”
Mayorkas emphasized the need for DHS to adopt AI quickly, regardless of whether it’s commercially acquired or internally developed technology.
“We have got to change the procurement capabilities of a government agency to actually move quickly and nimbly, so that when we’re dealing in a very dynamic environment, we can actually move with dynamism,” Mayorkas said. “I’m not suggesting moving to a sole source model, but we just have to be quick.”
He also stressed the need for DHS to prioritize where it will use AI, rather than attempting to adopt it across every mission and use case. The report points to combatting both fentanyl and human trafficking as use cases that could be “accelerated and championed” across DHS. But it also suggests DHS “integrate AI/ML into as many areas of the DHS mission as possible.”
“We’re going to need to prioritize what aspect of our mission should we really double down on to harness AI because I worry about diluting our focus too much,” Mayorkas said. “And I really do want to demonstrate, as quickly as is responsible, how this could really be a game changer for us in advancing our mission . . . we have to pick our spots here, in my view, somewhat surgically.” (more)
Notice the emphasis on speed. Get this AI system launched into DHS surveillance, tracking and monitoring systems as quickly as possible.
Now do you see my point about how radical and fast everything is going to change? It’s the 2024 election targeting.
Remember, the Dept of Defense (DoD) will now conduct online monitoring operations, using enhanced AI to protect the U.S. internet from “disinformation” under the auspices of national security. {link}
I share this information with you so that you understand what is being constructed and what is about to be deployed on a large scale throughout the U.S. internet operating system. The U.S. internet will be different. The social media restrictions became more prevalent and noticeable in the past several years; now it is time for DHS to expand that process to the entire U.S. internet.
When I wrote about Jack’s Magic Coffee shop, people initially thought I was crazy – but the guys inside the coffee shop didn’t. Eventually DHS control over Twitter was revealed in the Twitter files. The same background is true here. The entire American online apparatus is going to change, quite soon.
I’m alone out here, but I’m not wrong.
More will follow….
.
RESOURCES:
Using AI for Content Moderation
Facebook / META / Tech joining with DHS
Zoom will allow Content Scraping by AI
U.S. Govt Going into The Cloud With AI
Pentagon activates 175 Million IP’s **ahem**
Big Names to Attend Political AI Forum
DoD to use AI to monitor U.S. Internet for Disinformation
DHS Announces Guidelines for Using AI to monitor Americans.
AI – The Reality of Complexity
Armstrong Economics Blog/AI Computers
Posted Sep 2, 2023 by Martin Armstrong
Spread the love
COMMENT: You are always ahead of the curve. Today AI is the buzzword – with most of the AI being machine learning, where you were developing Socrates with real AI in the 70s and 80s.
Lynne
REPLY: I fooled around with neural nets when they first began. The problem with this approach is that you expect a machine to develop a human instinct as if you are playing a poker game. It is a gut feeling you might have about a person to alert you if he is bluffing or real. That cannot be coded, nor will a computer with machine learning be able to acquire such a “gut feeling,” which is an entirely different game than chess.
Socrates is NOT a neutral net. I had to teach it how to trade. I put my instincts into the system. Creating a neural net, throwing in all the data, and praying it will learn how to trade is more or less like a monkey throwing darts at the Wall Street Journal regarding what stock to buy in a bull market. Raven, a six-year-old chimpanzee, became the 22nd most successful money manager in the USA after choosing her stocks by throwing darts at a list of 133 internet companies. The chimp created her own index, dubbed MonkeyDex, and in 1999 delivered a 213 percent gain, outperforming more than 6,000 professional brokers on Wall Street.
Attempts to use a neutral net with machine learning have not beaten Raven in funds management. The level of complexity is monumental. On top of all of that, it will never discover the nonlinear structure of the world by dumping in a chunk of data and praying for the best.
Centinel2012 