Reacting to THE WAR: Debunking 'AI' - Part 3.1

Intro

Last year I had a brief exchange with @lighteye, who mentioned me in his article Mate in 19!? In the comments he invited me to examine a series of posts he has previously published that he entitled THE WAR: Debunking 'AI'. The title is partially self-explanatory, but it is only after reading the text that one better understands his views. Hence I invite you to read his posts and contrast your opinion on the matter.

I've already accepted LightEye's invitation and I have reacted to his second article. You can find my latest response here. The current post is going to address his third part, which you can find here here and it is entitled THE WAR: Debunking ‘AI’ – True Danger (Part III of III).

I hope that with this reaction the curious readers can learn a little more, clear their doubts and continue to form an educated opinion on the topic. Let's begin.

---

"THE WAR: Debunking ‘AI’ – True Danger" Debunked - Part 1

So, we proved that there is no artificial intelligence. But the fact that it does not exist does not mean that there is no danger from the existing, developed expert systems over which the label with the name ‘artificial intelligence’ is pasted… (LightEye.)

First and foremost, it's incorrect to claim that the non-existence of AI has been proven. What has actually been demonstrated is a great deal of confusion and misinterpretation about what AI truly entails, as well as logical fallacies from its detractors.

The term "Artificial Intelligence" has taken root and become popular over more than half a century, originating from the academic realm. It's not a whimsical trend set by politicians or businessmen with dark intentions.

But if artificial intelligence does not exist, why does the corporate media insist on that title? Or rather, why does the Empire need to introduce the false term ‘artificial intelligence’? I’ll give you a few basic reasons, and you can explore further, and share your reasons in the comments.

Okay, let's analyze those reasons. However, AI is a reality, a solid discipline within engineering and computer science, and its existence doesn't fade in the face of personal disbelief.

Maintaining the appearance of the Empire’s power
The first reason is more than obvious: A good part of its power the Empire owes to the propaganda about its own power. The crumbling Empire must maintain the semblance of power at all costs. The lie about ‘artificial intelligence’ in this sense serves to suppress that part of human intelligence that could be directed towards exposing the lie. (LightEye.)

This is why I don't enjoy this post. It doesn't provide many real arguments but resorts to conspiratorial narratives. The reference to 'the empire' and its supposed propaganda is a cliché of the most extreme conspiracy theories.

The Coronavirus Hoax was a kind of intelligence test: Those who did not pass it, who listened to TV advice, suffered severe consequences, including death. (LightEye.)

The coronavirus is a real virus, verifiable by any competent laboratory. Don't you have a relative who studied microbiology? A lab analyst?

And the scam with ‘AI’ is also a test of intelligence: If you think that a ‘superior intelligence’ can command you, and you allow it, you are a slave with all the consequences of that choice. If you think that implanting a chip in the body and connecting to that ‘intelligence’ is a good idea – you are already dead! (LightEye.)

The notion of superior intelligence is debatable. No one has claimed that current AI is a superior intelligence. It's not even general-purpose or superintelligence yet. It's expected to be one day. In any case, the argument has a double standard, since some believers in God think that this being possesses superior intelligence. Isn't it supposed that submitting to a superior intelligence is wrong?

Regarding the chip, yes, it's a controversial topic. But if it proves to be useful and well-controlled, it will likely be adopted. Otherwise, why would anyone get a pacemaker? Don't tell me that pacemakers are also part of the big lie! Cell phones and almost all current gadgets are considered extensions of our limbs. Why should we use a cell phone if they are malevolent products meant to control us? The same goes for desktop and laptop computers. Surely they are products of a satanic businessman who wants to control us. Why should we use them to write articles on the internet?

The point is that the quality and type of device interface can vary and evolve over time. It's a double standard to claim that some are wrong when in the past the same was said about the devices we now use normally.

As I said, it's a controversial topic but, if the use of chips proves to be useful and safe, it could be accepted, just like pacemakers and other medical devices.

And that’s exactly what the World Economic Forum team led by Yuval Noah Harari and Klaus Schwab is preparing for you. They even prepared an ‘AI’ version of Jesus Christ, and openly express their ambition to write the ‘real’ Holy Bible, since the previous one was not valid… (LightEye.)

Claims without credible sources cannot be taken seriously. One of the sources cited in the post is literally a Twitter gossip. Speculation and unfounded theories do not constitute evidence. I did a fact-check and found nothing about projects to rewrite the bible as stated here.

Besides, what does that matter? Most believers don't know that the biblical text they read is not the original. To begin with, almost no one speaks ancient Hebrew, ancient Greek, and Aramaic. The many translations of the bible have major and minor variations and also depend on the manuscripts used to create them. Most believers don't even read the bible, even if they have it in their language and open on a table in their living room.

Moreover, what does it matter if the bible is rewritten? The current versions will not be lost. It's a text considered sacred by many people and is culturally important, but it's not a divine work, it's a human book; it's not that no one has the right to touch it.

The same with Jesus. What does it matter if they make him an avatar? They have made all sorts of things out of him, including a white European with straight hair, blue eyes, and no one cares about that. But they would probably consider a more faithful reconstruction of the historical Jesus as something profane. If Jesus of Nazareth existed, he was probably a dark-skinned man, not a delicate white supermodel. What a problem for white supremacists and conservatives; also what a problem for those who defend the lie believing they present the truth.

^{⬆️ Two versions of Jesus. The one offered by tradition, the one offered by science and common sense (pictures: Wikimedia and Richard Neave)}

The reinterpretation of sacred texts and religious figures has been a constant throughout history, and it should not surprise us that it continues to evolve with technology.

That’s how the Satanic Empire works. (LightEye.)

What does that matter? Satan, like Jesus Christ, are hypothetical supernatural characters. Based on the evidence we have for them, praying to one or the other will do no harm or good. If, on the contrary, you are a religious believer, then why would you believe you have the right to impose your religious belief on others, believing that your god is the good one and the other's is bad?

Ultimately, they simply call others Satanists to insult them, similarly to how politicians call each other communists and neoliberals. Most believers don't really know who Satan is. I've verified this dozens of times.

The reference to a 'Satanic Empire' is a defamation tactic with no basis in reality. Therefore, neither the insult nor the accusation of profanity constitute arguments.

Bringing insecurity to the working class
On Feb. 26, 1997, in a testimony before the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, FED Chairman Alan Greenspan said this: “The performance of the U.S. economy over the past year has been quite favorable. … Continued low levels of inflation and inflation expectations have been a key support for healthy economic performance. … Atypical restraint on compensation increases has been evident for a few years now, and appears to be mainly the consequence of greater worker insecurity. The willingness of workers in recent years to trade off smaller increases in wages for greater job security seems to be reasonably well documented. The unanswered question is why this insecurity persisted even as the labor market, by all objective measures, tightened considerably.” (LightEye.)

Finally, something factual. The quote reflects Alan Greenspan's observation on the atypical restraint in compensation increases, which he largely attributed to increased worker insecurity. However, I'm curious about LightEye's interpretation:

So ‘AI’ is necessary for the capitalist leeches to scare the workers by threatening to replace them with robots. All this has been already seen in history – in the 19th century, workers blamed the machines for losing their jobs, and they were destroyed by organized in the so-called The Luddite movement. (LightEye.)

Greenspan wasn't talking about AI. That was in 1997, and the boom of AI as a service and consumer product hadn't happened yet. This is like quoting a biblical verse or a phrase from Nostradamus and taking them out of context to support a recent event, which is an apologist juggling act.

Similarly, although history saw some workers complain about machines and even destroy them in protest, history also shows how global productivity has greatly improved with industrialization and technological diversity. The world economy is more booming than ever. Again, the critic here suffers from confirmation bias by only focusing on the data that suits him, while ignoring the rest.

^{⬆️ The exponential rate of human economic growth that occurred over the last century according to IMF (picture: IMF)}

Finally, it's true that there have been concerns about how AI will threaten many types of jobs, but it's also true that it has created new opportunities and diversity in the labor market. For many professions, it's not about replacing but enriching them with AI, in the same way that they have already been enriched with the simple use of a computer, the internet, and cell phones. We'll have to wait and see how everything evolves, but history has already shown us that technological progress translates into greater productivity.

Of course, no ‘smart machines’ can replace human work. In his brilliant critique of capitalism, Karl Marx mathematically proved that the profit rate of capital declines with the introduction of technology, and that it is highest on human labor. Simply put – no machine can work cheaper than a scared and exploited human! (LightEye.)

Oh, of course, machines, whether smart or dumb, can replace human labor. Otherwise, we wouldn't be blogging on the net; we'd be writing articles by hand for a manual newspaper.

Regarding Karl Marx, that's not a mathematical proof. It's more of an economic model grounded in mathematics, but not a proof. Just as with the cheerful comments about AI, when it comes to economics and mathematics, one must respect the concepts and technicalities. Moreover, Marx's theory on the tendency of the rate of profit to fall is not the only or definitive one; it has been subject to criticism and is far from being unanimously accepted by economists.

You have another simple proof in support of this claim: If machines could replace people, the retirement age would be lowered, not raised! (LightEye.)

It's more complicated than that. The retirement age might decrease for some professions but not for others. We have to wait and see how it all develops.

For now, I'll leave it here. There are only two more reasons provided by LightEye for why supposedly evil, powerful rich people want to use the name AI: 1) Military purposes and 2) Satanic propaganda about superhuman intelligence in order to avoid responsibility. The first sounds more interesting, but the latter is suspiciously absurd with that reference to the "satanic."

---

Notes

• Most of the sources used for this article have been referenced between the lines.
• Unless otherwise noted, the images in this article are in the public domain or are mine.