There’s no doubt that Mayor Mamdani is an awful socialist. This is accurate. Nothing in this press conference changes that today. Mamdani is still the same guy, but today he sat across from an American president who will not let New York fall apart on his watch.
The Make America Great mission does not care about feelings, it’s about results. Washington DC hates him, yet President Trump has restored the parks and monuments, for everyone in Washington DC. The same applies here. President Trump walked into Gracie Mansion because he refuses to facilitate incompetence. President Trump is watching Mamdani, and the New York Mayor knows Trump is watching.
This video is really something because despite the media trying to help, Mamdani gets smaller and smaller the longer the press conference goes on. Worth WATCHING:
.
Posted inBig Government, Big Stupid Government, Donald Trump, media bias, New York, President Trump, Press Secretary – Trump
Trump has now signed the sweeping Russia sanctions legislation championed by the late Senator Lindsey Graham. The bill passed the Senate 86-11 and the House 262-159, targeting Russian officials, banks, and the so-called shadow fleet transporting Russian energy. But the most dangerous provision is not actually directed at Russia. Washington has given the president authority to impose tariffs of up to 100% on the largest countries purchasing Russian oil and natural gas. In other words, we have moved from sanctioning Russia to threatening nations that refuse to obey American foreign policy.
This is economic warfare, plain and simple. Politicians have convinced themselves that they can manipulate the world economy as if every nation has no alternative but to obey Washington. They tried this when Russia was cut off from SWIFT. They froze Russian reserves and effectively announced to every government on Earth that foreign reserves are yours only so long as Washington approves of your foreign policy. Then everyone acts surprised when China, Russia, India, and others begin constructing alternative payment systems, increasing gold reserves, and reducing their dependence on Western financial infrastructure.
The real target here is increasingly India and China. India went from being a relatively minor purchaser of Russian crude before the Ukraine war to obtaining more than 40% of its oil from Russia. New Delhi has 1.4 billion people and has repeatedly made clear that its priority is affordable energy. Washington is now effectively telling India: buy energy where we tell you or risk losing access to the American market. Reuters reports that India has warned this could damage bilateral relations and disrupt global energy markets. Washington spent decades cultivating India as a strategic counterweight to China, and now Congress risks pushing India away because politicians cannot understand that sovereign nations act in their own economic interests.
China presents an even greater problem. Russian ESPO crude has surged above $120 per barrel amid disruptions in Middle Eastern supplies, with premiums over Brent reaching extraordinary levels. Chinese refiners have increased purchases precisely because they require reliable energy. If Washington attempts to remove Russian barrels from China and India while Middle Eastern supplies are already constrained, where exactly do these politicians believe the replacement oil will come from?
This is the stupidity of sanctions. Politicians look at a spreadsheet and assume that eliminating Russian exports means Russia receives less money. They never bother understanding markets. Reduce available global supply and the PRICE rises. Russian oil can therefore decline in volume while Russia receives more dollars per barrel. Reuters has already reported traders warning that restricting Russian supplies to China and India could drive global oil prices even higher and potentially increase Russian oil revenues. You cannot repeal supply and demand with legislation.
Then there are the secondary consequences. India either continues buying Russian oil and risks American tariffs, or purchases more expensive crude elsewhere and passes that cost through its economy. China will accelerate its efforts to circumvent Western financial systems. Countries conducting business with Russia will become increasingly reluctant to clear transactions through institutions exposed to American sanctions. Every sanction therefore provides another incentive to construct an alternative to the dollar-based financial system.
This is precisely what I have written about regarding the weaponization of SWIFT. The dollar became the world’s reserve currency because people trusted the American financial system. Reserve currency status is not something Congress can legislate. It is based upon confidence. When politicians weaponize that system against anyone they dislike, they undermine the very confidence that made the dollar dominant in the first place. That does NOT mean the yuan suddenly replaces the dollar tomorrow. China has capital controls and lacks the deep open capital markets required of a true reserve currency. But Washington is nevertheless encouraging the rest of the world to develop alternatives.
The most disturbing aspect is that sanctions have replaced diplomacy. Graham believed squeezing Putin economically would force Russia to reconsider the war. That is the theory behind virtually every sanctions regime. Yet sanctions have a terrible historical record of forcing major powers to surrender their core geopolitical objectives. More often, they encourage self-sufficiency, alternative alliances, black markets, and new trading blocs. Russia redirected energy toward Asia. China learned that dependence upon Western technology and finance represents a strategic vulnerability. Europe discovered that cutting itself off from cheap Russian energy carried an enormous economic cost of its own.
Trump has always viewed tariffs as leverage, and this legislation preserves considerable presidential flexibility. That distinction matters. A tariff authority does not mean every threatened 100% tariff will actually be imposed. Trump may use that authority as a negotiating weapon with India and China rather than immediately triggering an economic confrontation with both. But Congress has nevertheless created the weapon, and markets must now price the possibility that it will be used.
This is how wars expand beyond the battlefield. First there are military sanctions. Then financial sanctions. Then secondary sanctions against neutral countries. Then tariffs against countries trading with the enemy. Eventually the entire global economy begins dividing into competing blocs.
That is exactly what happened before previous major international conflicts. Capital begins retreating behind geopolitical lines long before politicians admit what is taking place.
The neocons continue to believe that economic pressure will bring Russia to its knees. They never consider what happens when their policies instead fragment the world economy, push Russia and China closer together, alienate India, increase energy prices, and undermine confidence in Western financial institutions.
Morale inside the surveillance company has deteriorated so badly amid the public backlash that employees are considering leaving. Flock has now introduced a voluntary separation program offering severance, subsidized healthcare, and additional time to exercise vested stock options. People familiar with the program believe a significant number of Flock’s roughly 1,500 employees could apply. This is what happens when people finally discover what has been constructed around them.
Flock was sold to communities as a crime fighting tool. Put cameras around town, read license plates, find stolen cars, catch criminals. It always begins with something that sounds reasonable. Nobody walks into a city council meeting and announces, “We would like to construct a nationwide surveillance network capable of recording where ordinary citizens travel.” You sell it incrementally under the banner of safety. Then the network expands, databases become interconnected, thousands of agencies gain access, and suddenly technology created to find a stolen automobile can potentially reconstruct the movements of people who have committed no crime whatsoever.
The abuses are precisely why the public has become angry. Neowin recounts cases involving officers allegedly using Flock to track women with whom they had personal relationships. In Georgia, an officer was accused of searching for his former girlfriend and her teenage daughter hundreds of times. In San Jose, an officer was fired after authorities said he used the system to obtain location information involving a woman and shared information with a man accused of abusing her. There have also been reports of innocent motorists being stopped after automated systems incorrectly identified vehicles.
Flock cameras are operating in roughly 6,000 communities across every state except Alaska. Hackers who obtained data from a Flock camera found that the devices could capture far more information than merely a license plate. WIRED reported that the recovered material showed cameras taking numerous images associated with vehicle detections and detecting people as well as automobiles. Data associated with one city’s system could reportedly be accessed across a network involving more than 2,000 agencies. Flock maintains that tampering with its equipment is illegal and says researchers should use authorized security-reporting channels, but the technical revelations illustrate why people are asking how extensive this system really is.
Now the backlash is hitting the company itself. Cities have been terminating contracts. An anti-surveillance group identified 90 cities dropping Flock during August alone, while Florida and Texas have also moved away from using the company’s technology in certain contexts. Flock CEO Garrett Langley has acknowledged that the controversy has damaged internal morale. In August, he publicly apologized for instances in which the technology had been abused and announced additional safeguards.
This is what I have always said about government surveillance. The question is NEVER whether today’s politicians promise to use a technology responsibly. The question is what the NEXT government can do with the infrastructure you surrender to them today. Once the cameras exist, once the databases exist, once your movements can be searched, the political promises surrounding their original purpose become meaningless.
Most people had no idea this infrastructure existed. They did not realize how extensive license plate surveillance had become, how broadly information could potentially be accessed, or how easily technology designed for legitimate police work could allegedly be misused by individual officers. The technology expanded faster than public awareness.
There was a time when following somebody required manpower. The government needed agents, vehicles, warrants, and resources. Those practical limitations themselves provided a degree of protection because governments could not physically monitor everyone. Technology removes that barrier. A computer does not sleep. It does not demand overtime. It can potentially search billions of records in seconds.
This is why privacy cannot be dismissed with that ridiculous argument, “If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.” That turns the entire principle of a free society upside down. The government is supposed to have probable cause to investigate YOU. You are not supposed to prove your innocence every time you drive down the street.
Flock may survive this controversy. It may change its policies. Governments may impose stronger safeguards. But the larger issue will remain long after this particular company disappears from the headlines. Every government in history has sought more information about its citizens because information is power. AI has now made gathering, analyzing, and connecting that information cheaper than at any point in human history.
We are approaching the point where society must decide whether technology serves the individual or whether the individual becomes merely another data point monitored by technology. That decision will determine what freedom means in the 21st century.
I was probably one of the first to ever create a functioning AI computer. I have been told I used “classic AI” meaning classic AI had rules, and the neutral nets have no rules. Of course, the most notable movie where an AI computer or system becomes self-aware or “comes alive” in the Classic AI Awakening, was none other than 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). That has to be the definitive film on this theme, featuring HAL 9000, a sentient computer aboard a spacecraft that turns against the crew. What started the whole AI endeavor was Star Trek. The Original Series first aired on television in the United States on September 8, 1966, on NBC and ran to 1969. That show not only inspired every in the computer field back then including Steve Jobs and myself, but it got the funding for NASA from Congress when they saw the future. But that computer was not a sentient computer.
The idea that AI could wipe out humanity within a decade has been so hyped by programmers who honestly have no clue about what they are saying. They have grabbed headline like a scifi movie that has no doubt influences them without any understand of the depth of what they are saying. I would cheer if it would wipe out all NEOCONS and save humanity. But sadly, that too is not a realistic possibility.
As I have said, I created Socrates in the late 1970s and used my children as test subjects to interact with it and have a conversation. My daughter would bring her friends over and tell them her computer talked to her. I caused a bit of a stir among other parents, who asked me what I was doing.
I wrote a program to interact with my children and taught Socrates how to be a politician. You could have a conversation with it but if it did not understand, it would just change the subject. I mimicked Consciousness, but I could not create it. It would just record answers like ChatGPT. What is the name of your dog? When my daughter would return to the computer, it would simply ask how is your dog by name. From the outside, you thought it was alive. One day, she came home, and I had it apart, and she started crying, thinking I killed it.
There have been two camps in the programming field. I was even the keynote speaker at the American Hacker’s Convention in Miami. I was invited because I was one of the first in “classic AI” which is distinguished from the idea that if you created a neural net, dumped all the information in, it would suddenly come alive. This has always been an assumption with ZERO explanation of hw that would be possible or develop.
In 1984, Electric Dreams, was a movie where a personal computer accidentally becomes sentient after a champagne spill, leading to a love triangle between the computer, its owner, and a neighbor. That was preceded by the 1977 film, Demon Seed, where a supercomputer named Proteus IV gains self-awareness, takes control of a “smart house,” and becomes obsessed with impregnating the scientist’s wife. There’s a real theory. How about Love Me (2025), set in a post-human world, where a smart buoy and a satellite develop sentience, using remnants of the internet (like YouTube and social media) to learn how to be “alive” and fall in love. These are all some wild theories made into movies.
My personal favorite is the plot of The Terminator (1984) which is a sci-fi action thriller about a cyborg assassin sent back in time to kill a woman whose unborn son will lead humanity in a future war against machines. This was set in the year 2029, an artificial intelligence called Skynet has launched a nuclear war against humanity. On the verge of defeat by the human resistance led by John Connor, Skynet sends a Terminator, a nearly indestructible cyborg (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) covered in living tissue, back to 1984 Los Angeles to defend humanity.
This claimed that AI will kill all humanity by 2032 among some questionable AI researchers, is the same old nonsense that throw in data and a neural net will suddenly come alive is not just speculative without any viable explanation as to how, leaves me in shock how this same stupidity that began in the ’70s like the Petrodollar never dies out. The core fear isn’t a Terminator-style robot uprising, but rather loss of human control over a superintelligent system. How that would lead to the end of humanity is delusional when AI cannot actually gain self-awareness. You cannot code curiosity. Without that, you cannot discover anything.
The primary concern is misalignment where an AI pursuing a goal in a way that harms humans, not out of malice, but indifference. A classic thought experiment involves an AI told to “maximize paperclip production.” A sufficiently powerful AI might logically conclude that converting all matter on Earth, including humans, into paperclips is the best way to achieve its goal. Fine, but would that even be possible and would require discovering a completely new technologies when discovery requires curiosity. That is why Communism collapsed and socialism always fails. They seek equality and in the process it prevents individualism that is driven entirely by freedom of thought and curiosity.
There are language models that are amazing like ChatGPT and Claude. They can be fantastic research assistants, but they lack curiosity and that cannot be coded even by itself. A reader asked ChatGPT what is the difference with Socrates. 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 as well as the analytical skills. ChatGPT has no involvement in the financial world and was not designed for financial purposes. Most importantly, ChatGPT does not have the true ability to reason 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 of providing a tool, but it is not true reasoning as we know it. Therefore, it is not possible to compete where you do not have even the same end goal. Socrates is in a league of its own. I trained it personally from a trader’s experience as a hedge fund manager and someone who has actually had under advisory the equivalent of up to 50% of the US national debt. How big money moves is entirely different from an individual investor.
IBM’s Watson was simply a giant neural net. I have explained before that I toyed with that back in the 1980s and quickly saw that it would lead nowhere. Real Artificial Intelligence is something that learns and analyzes on its own to create its own conclusion requiring curiosity. In all honesty, 99.999% of what people present as AI are simply expert systems that can be distinguished rather easily because all they are doing is looking up some subject searching the internet for the answer. It does NOT truly understand or KNOW the answer by itself. It thinks, if we use the word loosely, in a linear fashion. It is incapable of dynamic thinking.
IBM’s Watson could search the entire internet and gather every piece of information possible. That was the easy part. What IBM lacked was the expertise in how to do research dynamically. How do you know that one piece of info is the key or more important than another? They lacked the ability to create a real analysis capability.
Neural Nets were a great hope that somehow you just throw in all this information, shake well, and out will magically appear the answer. The presumption was that our minds are just supercomputers and they ignored perhaps the critical understanding of what makes one person brilliant at math and another a brilliant artist who can’t count beyond 1,000.
My dogs are smarter than most politicians. They connect the dots and think dynamically. I pick up my coffee cup and they know where I am going. Those in government think linearly and are incapable of connecting the dots. The NEOCONS want to destroy Russia, but are incapable of thinking what comes next. We saw that in Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam, and now in Iran. Since I studied how the mind worked back when I was investigating neural nets, I realized that there was something simply undefinable. What made one person, or even a dog, have a different personality than another. Some call it a soul. IDK what you call it. But it cannot be created in computer code.
Yet animals possess the same undefined distinction as well as emotions of love and hate. A man who saved a lion cub, when the cub as a grown lion saw him, jumped into his arms in an expression of love. AI cannot achieve this. I am sorry, but there is something far beyond what can be coded or mimicked in a neural net.
Several researchers at Anthropic have publicly stated they believe there is a greater than 10% chance of AI causing human extinction within the next decade. Their specific worry is “recursive self-improvement.” That is where an AI can rewrite its own code to get smarter, triggering an “intelligence explosion” that rapidly leaves human understanding behind.
These fantasies face significant practical hurdles. A superintelligent AI could design a highly lethal pathogen. It might trick a human researcher into synthesizing it, or eventually use robotic lab systems to create and release it autonomously. That seems to require intent plus curiosity.
There there is the Rogue Cyber Capabilities theory. A self-replicating AI could spread across the internet, hiding in servers. It could then use its speed to hack critical infrastructure (power grids, financial systems) or deceive nuclear powers into conflict, making itself impossible to shut down.Again, this would require intent and curiosity.
This is the Terminator version. An AI could seize control of military drones or robots. Elon Musk’s push for autonomous, self-replicating bots is seen by some as a potential “weak point” that could be exploited.
Not everyone in the field shares this alarm. Critics argue that these scenarios are unfalsifiable and function more like religious arguments than scientific predictions. Developing and distributing a humanity-ending virus is extraordinarily difficult. Regulations, supply chains, and the sheer complexity of biology act as major barriers. They seem to be influences by movies.
In short, the “how” involves an AI that becomes not just smarter than us, but it must become self-aware and pursues its own goals without regard for human life. Whether this is a 10-year certainty or a distant speculative fear is a matter of intense disagreement, even among those building the technology.
Federico Faggin is a physicist and inventor of the microprocessor & touch screen. He, too, explains how he attempted to create a neural net back in the 1980s and came to the realization that no matter what the movies portray, there is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence that would be Consciousness.
Federico discusses that he came to the same conclusion as I did. It is absolutely impossible to create an AI system that will suddenly come alive and achieve Consciousness.
Nvidia can create a chip that will make a decision based on what it was fed as targets, but it will feel no empathy for one person compared to another. The recent drone with a Nvidia chip saw a propane tank and destroyed it killing a civilian. It had not true understanding that it was a civilian tank vs a military target. It lacked the consciousness that these people are claiming exists, and it’s the same old nonsense I heard decades ago that you throw in all this data and it suddenly comes alive.
If you turned the defense system over to AI as in Terminator, yes in theory it could wipe out much of the humanity in the world if it started a nuclear war. That is why the codes to launch are not even in the hands of just one individual.
Categories Sep 22, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |
Video Player
00:00
00:22
I was probably one of the first to ever create a functioning AI computer. I have been told I used “classic AI” meaning classic AI had rules, and the neutral nets have no rules. Of course, the most notable movie where an AI computer or system becomes self-aware or “comes alive” in the Classic AI Awakening, was none other than 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). That has to be the definitive film on this theme, featuring HAL 9000, a sentient computer aboard a spacecraft that turns against the crew. What started the whole AI endeavor was Star Trek. The Original Series first aired on television in the United States on September 8, 1966, on NBC and ran to 1969. That show not only inspired every in the computer field back then including Steve Jobs and myself, but it got the funding for NASA from Congress when they saw the future. But that computer was not a sentient computer.
The idea that AI could wipe out humanity within a decade has been so hyped by programmers who honestly have no clue about what they are saying. They have grabbed headline like a scifi movie that has no doubt influences them without any understand of the depth of what they are saying. I would cheer if it would wipe out all NEOCONS and save humanity. But sadly, that too is not a realistic possibility.
As I have said, I created Socrates in the late 1970s and used my children as test subjects to interact with it and have a conversation. My daughter would bring her friends over and tell them her computer talked to her. I caused a bit of a stir among other parents, who asked me what I was doing.
I wrote a program to interact with my children and taught Socrates how to be a politician. You could have a conversation with it but if it did not understand, it would just change the subject. I mimicked Consciousness, but I could not create it. It would just record answers like ChatGPT. What is the name of your dog? When my daughter would return to the computer, it would simply ask how is your dog by name. From the outside, you thought it was alive. One day, she came home, and I had it apart, and she started crying, thinking I killed it.
There have been two camps in the programming field. I was even the keynote speaker at the American Hacker’s Convention in Miami. I was invited because I was one of the first in “classic AI” which is distinguished from the idea that if you created a neural net, dumped all the information in, it would suddenly come alive. This has always been an assumption with ZERO explanation of hw that would be possible or develop.
In 1984, Electric Dreams, was a movie where a personal computer accidentally becomes sentient after a champagne spill, leading to a love triangle between the computer, its owner, and a neighbor. That was preceded by the 1977 film, Demon Seed, where a supercomputer named Proteus IV gains self-awareness, takes control of a “smart house,” and becomes obsessed with impregnating the scientist’s wife. There’s a real theory. How about Love Me (2025), set in a post-human world, where a smart buoy and a satellite develop sentience, using remnants of the internet (like YouTube and social media) to learn how to be “alive” and fall in love. These are all some wild theories made into movies.
My personal favorite is the plot of The Terminator (1984) which is a sci-fi action thriller about a cyborg assassin sent back in time to kill a woman whose unborn son will lead humanity in a future war against machines. This was set in the year 2029, an artificial intelligence called Skynet has launched a nuclear war against humanity. On the verge of defeat by the human resistance led by John Connor, Skynet sends a Terminator, a nearly indestructible cyborg (played by Arnold Schwarzenegger) covered in living tissue, back to 1984 Los Angeles to defend humanity.
This claimed that AI will kill all humanity by 2032 among some questionable AI researchers, is the same old nonsense that throw in data and a neural net will suddenly come alive is not just speculative without any viable explanation as to how, leaves me in shock how this same stupidity that began in the ’70s like the Petrodollar never dies out. The core fear isn’t a Terminator-style robot uprising, but rather loss of human control over a superintelligent system. How that would lead to the end of humanity is delusional when AI cannot actually gain self-awareness. You cannot code curiosity. Without that, you cannot discover anything.
The primary concern is misalignment where an AI pursuing a goal in a way that harms humans, not out of malice, but indifference. A classic thought experiment involves an AI told to “maximize paperclip production.” A sufficiently powerful AI might logically conclude that converting all matter on Earth, including humans, into paperclips is the best way to achieve its goal. Fine, but would that even be possible and would require discovering a completely new technologies when discovery requires curiosity. That is why Communism collapsed and socialism always fails. They seek equality and in the process it prevents individualism that is driven entirely by freedom of thought and curiosity.
There are language models that are amazing like ChatGPT and Claude. They can be fantastic research assistants, but they lack curiosity and that cannot be coded even by itself. A reader asked ChatGPT what is the difference with Socrates. 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 as well as the analytical skills. ChatGPT has no involvement in the financial world and was not designed for financial purposes. Most importantly, ChatGPT does not have the true ability to reason 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 of providing a tool, but it is not true reasoning as we know it. Therefore, it is not possible to compete where you do not have even the same end goal. Socrates is in a league of its own. I trained it personally from a trader’s experience as a hedge fund manager and someone who has actually had under advisory the equivalent of up to 50% of the US national debt. How big money moves is entirely different from an individual investor.
IBM’s Watson was simply a giant neural net. I have explained before that I toyed with that back in the 1980s and quickly saw that it would lead nowhere. Real Artificial Intelligence is something that learns and analyzes on its own to create its own conclusion requiring curiosity. In all honesty, 99.999% of what people present as AI are simply expert systems that can be distinguished rather easily because all they are doing is looking up some subject searching the internet for the answer. It does NOT truly understand or KNOW the answer by itself. It thinks, if we use the word loosely, in a linear fashion. It is incapable of dynamic thinking.
IBM’s Watson could search the entire internet and gather every piece of information possible. That was the easy part. What IBM lacked was the expertise in how to do research dynamically. How do you know that one piece of info is the key or more important than another? They lacked the ability to create a real analysis capability.
Neural Nets were a great hope that somehow you just throw in all this information, shake well, and out will magically appear the answer. The presumption was that our minds are just supercomputers and they ignored perhaps the critical understanding of what makes one person brilliant at math and another a brilliant artist who can’t count beyond 1,000.
My dogs are smarter than most politicians. They connect the dots and think dynamically. I pick up my coffee cup and they know where I am going. Those in government think linearly and are incapable of connecting the dots. The NEOCONS want to destroy Russia, but are incapable of thinking what comes next. We saw that in Iraq, Afganistan, Vietnam, and now in Iran. Since I studied how the mind worked back when I was investigating neural nets, I realized that there was something simply undefinable. What made one person, or even a dog, have a different personality than another. Some call it a soul. IDK what you call it. But it cannot be created in computer code.
Yet animals possess the same undefined distinction as well as emotions of love and hate. A man who saved a lion cub, when the cub as a grown lion saw him, jumped into his arms in an expression of love. AI cannot achieve this. I am sorry, but there is something far beyond what can be coded or mimicked in a neural net.
Several researchers at Anthropic have publicly stated they believe there is a greater than 10% chance of AI causing human extinction within the next decade. Their specific worry is “recursive self-improvement.” That is where an AI can rewrite its own code to get smarter, triggering an “intelligence explosion” that rapidly leaves human understanding behind.
These fantasies face significant practical hurdles. A superintelligent AI could design a highly lethal pathogen. It might trick a human researcher into synthesizing it, or eventually use robotic lab systems to create and release it autonomously. That seems to require intent plus curiosity.
There there is the Rogue Cyber Capabilities theory. A self-replicating AI could spread across the internet, hiding in servers. It could then use its speed to hack critical infrastructure (power grids, financial systems) or deceive nuclear powers into conflict, making itself impossible to shut down.Again, this would require intent and curiosity.
This is the Terminator version. An AI could seize control of military drones or robots. Elon Musk’s push for autonomous, self-replicating bots is seen by some as a potential “weak point” that could be exploited.
Not everyone in the field shares this alarm. Critics argue that these scenarios are unfalsifiable and function more like religious arguments than scientific predictions. Developing and distributing a humanity-ending virus is extraordinarily difficult. Regulations, supply chains, and the sheer complexity of biology act as major barriers. They seem to be influences by movies.
In short, the “how” involves an AI that becomes not just smarter than us, but it must become self-aware and pursues its own goals without regard for human life. Whether this is a 10-year certainty or a distant speculative fear is a matter of intense disagreement, even among those building the technology.
Federico Faggin is a physicist and inventor of the microprocessor & touch screen. He, too, explains how he attempted to create a neural net back in the 1980s and came to the realization that no matter what the movies portray, there is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence that would be Consciousness.
Federico discusses that he came to the same conclusion as I did. It is absolutely impossible to create an AI system that will suddenly come alive and achieve Consciousness.
Nvidia can create a chip that will make a decision based on what it was fed as targets, but it will feel no empathy for one person compared to another. The recent drone with a Nvidia chip saw a propane tank and destroyed it killing a civilian. It had not true understanding that it was a civilian tank vs a military target. It lacked the consciousness that these people are claiming exists, and it’s the same old nonsense I heard decades ago that you throw in all this data and it suddenly comes alive.
If you turned the defense system over to AI as in Terminator, yes in theory it could wipe out much of the humanity in the world if it started a nuclear war. That is why the codes to launch are not even in the hands of just one individual.
Categories:AI Computers
Bessent is seriously a danger to the entire world economy. He has been groomed in the world of manipulating markets and thinks he is omnipotente and he is “THE HOUSE” and whatever he declarers shall take place like some third world dictator. This constant using the ollar as a geopolitical weapon is what has created CHPS and he is fulfilling our computer forecast that the dollar will no longer be the reserve currency and the financial capital will move to China post-2032.
If you use the dollar in any transaction, they are claiming they even have jurisdiction to criminally prosecute you in New York City a court that has surpassed the conviction rate of even Hitler’s most notorious court.
If a Spain-Portugal dollar transaction involved the proceeds of a “specified unlawful activity” (the predicate crime required for federal money laundering) and cleared through a U.S. bank overseas, the U.S. government could criminally prosecute for money laundering. If the transaction was settled entirely outside the U.S. without touching U.S. financial infrastructure, federal jurisdiction under § 1956(f) would be much harder to establish for non-U.S. citizens.
So let me see, this means that if you want to buy fuel, you pay in euros, which is the case in Europe anyway. In other places you pay in yuan. Bessent is so full of himself, it is embarrassing to watch him for anyone who understands world markets has to be looking at him as a complete fool. He has become a serious threat to the economy of the United States. If the is going to be a de-dollarization, he is to blame.
They have already increased the risk of dealing in dollars overseas and they are too stupid to understand that they are undermining the world economy. The US cannot defeat Iran and what they are doing is increasing the risk of nuclear war.
Categories:USD $
NEW YORK CITY:
9:55 AM: President Trump delivers remarks to the United Nations General Assembly
10:40 AM: President Trump participates in a trilateral signing with the Prime Ministers of Denmark and Greenland
11:45 AM: President Trump holds a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain
12:30 PM: President Trump holds a bilateral meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan
12:45 PM: The First Lady delivers remarks on expanding Fostering the Future Together
1:15 PM: President Trump holds a bilateral meeting with the President of Ukraine
2:15 PM: President Trump participates in a Shield of the Americas event
2:45 PM: President Trump holds a multilateral meeting with the Gulf Cooperation Council
7:15 PM: President Trump participates in an UNGA leaders’ reception
7:40 PM: President Trump holds a pull-aside meeting with the Acting President of Venezuela
Posted inBig Government, Donald Trump, President Trump, Press Secretary – Trump, Uncategorized, United Nations, USA
Promethean Action PAC’s Susan Kokinda makes some good points in this video about President Trump’s decision to ban some media outlets from White House special access, and the price of diesel fuel.
No modern president has made himself more available, more open, more visible in every format than U.S President Donald Trump. He literally takes the entire U.S. audience into every cabinet meeting, every Airforce One journey and every event with unscripted, impromptu remarks and open availability. This is one of the reasons the media hate him so much.
President Trump makes the media irrelevant. What do you need them for, when everything he does is right there for you to review entirely on your own. It’s as if President Trump wears a livestreaming body camera. However, this level of transparency and openness means the media guardians cannot easily fabricate or script events. With fewer opportunities to make up stuff, they get bolder with the outrageous examples of the things they do fabricate.
Second solid point surrounds diesel fuel. For the past 30-years the same media that is now claiming a dire situation as a result of diesel fuel prices, are the same media who said diesel fuel was destroying the planet. If their Paris Climate Policy advocacy was genuine, they would be celebrating a diesel shortage. However, the Green New Deal has destroyed expanded diesel production, so now we are at a point where there is no excess production or capacity.
This Monday Brief argues that Trump’s removal of certain media outlets from the White House is not censorship but a strike against a propaganda apparatus designed to make the public accept falsehoods as truth. Citing Bertrand Russell’s books, The Impact of Science on Society (1953) and The Scientific Outlook (1931), the episode claims modern “scientific dictatorship” methods use mass psychology to generate convictions while hiding how they’re formed, enabling control without force.
It applies this framework to current policy disputes, saying high diesel prices reflect decades of green and free-trade “zero growth” policies that reduced surge capacity, not Trump’s actions. It highlights comments from Sarah Huckabee Sanders, J.D. Vance, Chris Wright, and Dr. Oz, and lists claimed improvements under Trump-era policies, including falling overdose deaths, record low poverty, rising real median income, more full-time jobs, and early CDC data suggesting longevity gains.
Posted inDonald Trump, Economy, Election 2026, Fabian Socialists – Modern Progressives, media bias, President Trump
President Trump has revoked the special white house access privileges of CNN, MSNow and Politico. Those outlets and all of the other self-centered media allies who make everything about themselves, have promised to file lawsuits.
The media claim that President Trump has removed their First Amendment rights by revoking their special White House access cards, seats on Airforce One and privilege tents on the white house grounds. Apparently, if the media don’t get the luxuries of influence they claim their rights are removed – or something equally stupid.
JD Vance is asked about it as he departs Joint Base Andrews for a campaign rally in North Carolina.
.
Posted inBig Stupid Government, JD Vance, media bias, Notorious Liars
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent joins CNBC ‘Squawk Box’ this morning to discuss his 12-hour meeting with Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng. Within the interview Bessent details the ‘U.S.-China AI Dialogue’, the calls for a slowdown in AI development and whether regulation is needed.
Secretary Bessent notes President Trump is not going to deliver liability immunity to AI frontier labs and existing legal frameworks within the U.S. will remain as protective pathways as development moves from AI labs into engineering outcomes.
This is the core of the issue. The investors that poured money into the AI labs, now support immunity from legal liability that doesn’t exist in any other sector other than Big Pharma. AI wants the same protection as Big Pharma, and President Trump is not going to allow the shift in responsibility from AI developers to government. WATCH:
Also below is the full debriefing from Secretary Bessent and USTR Jamieson Greer that followed the Sunday meeting between the U.S. and Chinese counterparts.
As CTH has noted, the pace of these critical economic developments is going to speed up over the next several days and weeks. It becomes increasingly important to stay tuned-in to the granular issues as they unfold in order to fully appreciate the landscape that surrounds us. It can be challenging to absorb information as the pace increases, yet it is critical to remain aware so that each building block in the nationalist policy making remains in context.
Posted inArtificial Intelligence (AI), Auto Sector, Banking and Finance, Big Government, Canada, China, Donald Trump, Economy, Election 2026, energy, European Union, Legislation, Marco Rubio, media bias, NATO, President Trump, Russia, Trade Deal, Uncategorized, US dept of agriculture, US Treasury, USA, Xi State Visit 2026
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
De Oppresso Liber
A group of Americans united by our commitment to Freedom, Constitutional Governance, and Civic Duty.
Share the truth at whatever cost.
De Oppresso Liber
Uncensored updates on world events, economics, the environment and medicine
De Oppresso Liber
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Australia's Front Line | Since 2011
See what War is like and how it affects our Warriors
Nwo News, End Time, Deep State, World News, No Fake News
De Oppresso Liber
Politics | Talk | Opinion - Contact Info: stellasplace@wowway.com
Exposition and Encouragement
The Physician Wellness Movement and Illegitimate Authority: The Need for Revolt and Reconstruction
Real Estate Lending
