Developing Ethical Intelligence

In this week's episode of Mind Hack, Jeff DeRiso investigates the story of a family caught in the crossfire of government disinformation.  He discusses artificial intelligence as an application for conservation, and the distinction between strategy and implementation.  Finally he explains why Elon Musk’s recent announcement of a new venture seems to clash with the ethos of his public persona.

*Follow us here at Newsbud Twitter

**Subscribe here at BFP-Newsbud YouTube Channel

Show notes

Family of C.I.A. Consultant Sues Iran Over His Disappearance

Book - Missing Man: The American Spy Who Vanished in Iran

Flashback - Edward G. Lansdale’s memoir

Artificial Intelligence: The Park Rangers of the Anthropocene

Elon Musk launches Neuralink, a venture to merge the human brain with AI

FB Like

Share This

This site depends….

This site depends exclusively on readers’ support. Please help us continue by SUBSCRIBING and/or DONATING.

Comments

  1. VoiceOfArabi says:

    Hello Jeff,

    Fantastic reporting… I absolutely love your style, the energy you bring and the drive to get people on Newsbud to interact with one another (and therefore creating a real community 🙂 ).

    Keep up the excellent work….

    with regards to your question. Like you, i can not see any positive outcome of enabling “a super GOD” to control or decided the human race. We are complex creatures with many conflicting issues, and logic does not work for all (it does for some, which we seem to call “odd people”)

    I also don’t believe “effing” with the balance of nature helps in any way what-so-ever. i suggest members of this community research the work of James Lovelock to understand what i am driving at.

    “James Ephraim Lovelock is an independent scientist, environmentalist and futurist who lives in Devon, England. He is best known for proposing the Gaia hypothesis, which postulates that the Earth functions as a self-regulating system.”

    I can’t wait for next week’s episode 🙂

  2. victor friese says:

    Could I ask why my comment was deleted?

  3. victor friese says:

    Jeff Deriso, since this is up your alley, could you cover gas lighting? You know that thing where they do things like splice a few seconds of child porn into a y-tube video you are watching, alter your report button to say “chlling effect”, hijack your DNS server to give you all sorts of weird screwed up search results both in your search engine and in individual website searches, go into a 9-11 forum thread your are participating in and literally say nothing more then “hey, I think you should go to this “such and such” forum” with a name that infers it is a forum about conspiracy theories, but of course when you get there it is not a forum about conspiracy theories but instead a forum full of child porn, with the only indication being a byline which will be worded in a way that will appear cryptic to people not familiar with the lingo or you may think is just part of an article on the site, or that thing where they post something that looks like its out of playboy but in reality leads to something rather creepy, or that thing where they try to get you to look up a medical condition which will lead you to some rather undesirable images, or that thing where they try to get you to apply for jobs that will either raise perv or terrorist red flags… or any number of other tricks. I also think there is a more subtle form where they populate your web experience with stuff that makes you wonder if what you are looking at is really something unsavory, or maybe you are just imagining it, but that wonderment of whether or not you are imagining it does happen with the more extreme form noted above as well to an extent, especially if you happen to wander into a fugue state because of it. When I look at the design of such gas lighting it occurrs to me that it is designed for efficiency and stealth. For one, no one it going to talk about it because they fear being called crazy or being blamed for the situation themselves, so the modus operandi is well hidden in this way. Furthermore, who would actually believe it? This further conceals the modus operandi. The effect will inevitably be to isolate the subject and make them less likely to speak out, which is of course the main goal, and if particularly effective the subject may even kill themselves. If dealing with a particularly defiant subject they can just be outright framed and jailed, which would be too expensive, time consuming, and raise too much suspicion to do with the entire range of targets. In this way gaslighting appears to be a very economical shut up pill. So, please cover gaslighting. I haven’t seen anyone cover it and it is about time that changed. Furthermore, could you cover things like scientists whose inventions threaten the status quo? I have read that many end up murdered or their patents are bought out and shut down. Does that really happen? Also, pleaee cover the monopolization of choice. Like with phone carriers or farm tractors.

    With phone carriers they all have crap service, there is no real challenger to that status quo, and they use it to charge stupid amounts for crap service. Or, as is the case with tractors and likely cars too soon, that thing where all the companies install systems disallowing anyone but highly paid company service techs to work on the vehicles.

  4. victor friese says:

    Reposting due to spacing issues. Sorry.

    Jeff Deriso, since this is up your alley, could you cover gas lighting? You know that thing where they do things like splice a few seconds of child porn into a y-tube video you are watching, alter your report button to say “chlling effect”, hijack your DNS server to give you all sorts of weird screwed up search results both in your search engine and in individual website searches, go into a 9-11 forum thread your are participating in and literally say nothing more then “hey, I think you should go to this “such and such” forum” with a name that infers it is a forum about conspiracy theories, but of course when you get there it is not a forum about conspiracy theories but instead a forum full of child porn, with the only indication being a byline which will be worded in a way that will appear cryptic to people not familiar with the lingo or you may think is just part of an article on the site, or that thing where they post something that looks like its out of playboy but in reality leads to something rather creepy, or that thing where they try to get you to look up a medical condition which will lead you to some rather undesirable images, or that thing where they try to get you to apply for jobs that will either raise perv or terrorist red flags… or any number of other tricks.

    I also think there is a more subtle form where they populate your web experience with stuff that makes you wonder if what you are looking at is really something unsavory, or maybe you are just imagining it, but that wonderment of whether or not you are imagining it does happen with the more extreme form noted above as well to an extent, especially if you happen to wander into a fugue state because of it.

    When I look at the design of such gas lighting it occurrs to me that it is designed for efficiency and stealth. For one, no one it going to talk about it because they fear being called crazy or being blamed for the situation themselves, so the modus operandi is well hidden in this way. Furthermore, who would actually believe it? This further conceals the modus operandi. The effect will inevitably be to isolate the subject and make them less likely to speak out, which is of course the main goal, and if particularly effective the subject may even kill themselves. If dealing with a particularly defiant subject they can just be outright framed and jailed, which would be too expensive, time consuming, and raise too much suspicion to do with the entire range of targets. In this way gaslighting appears to be a very economical shut up pill.

    So, please cover gaslighting. I haven’t seen anyone cover it and it is about time that changed.

    Furthermore, could you cover things like scientists whose inventions threaten the status quo? I have read that many end up murdered or their patents are bought out and shut down. Does that really happen?

    Also, please cover the monopolization of choice. Like with phone carriers or farm tractors. With phone carriers they all have crap service, there is no real challenger to that status quo, and they use it to charge stupid amounts for crap service. Or, as is the case with tractors and likely cars too soon, that thing where all the companies install systems disallowing anyone but highly paid company service techs to work on the vehicles.

    • Jeff DeRiso says:

      Victor you raise some really interesting points here that I will further investigate, thank you. I will be sure to include the interesting subject of “gaslighting” in a future episode that highlights the parallels between an abuser-victim relationship and the relationship between governments and citizens.

      Your line of thinking is very similar to mine and I appreciate your contribution to the show!

  5. victor friese says:

    Also, for the gaslighting, please cover who is doing it. Is it a private contractor? An intelligence unit? Who?

    • victor friese says:

      To Ralph, what is the website address? Do you know anyone who has had that happen to them? I saw someone else on this site mention it once, which is how I figured it out. I used to think it was all about framing. We need to develop ways to counter it, but how? Especially when it is especially subtle.

      And to Deriso, also, while you should definately cover the gaslighting I was referring to in depth, you should also look into altered perception of reality, because that is the main subject in which gaslighting fits, and it will be a very, and is a very, big thing. Notably with this google glass and likely the first crude brain chips will merely be easier to “wear” versions of google glass. Just imagine looking at something and being given some opinion on its legitamacy… like maybe the glass will say something is safe, or maybe it will read the article on GMO’s you are looking at and “debunk” it if it says GMO isn’t safe… Now imagine you grow up with this tech in your head. Mass Effect 4 is pushing this concept, but apparently very poorly as it seems to irritate players per the rockpapershotgun article.

  6. AI state of the art as of now is nothing more than rudimentary task-specific algorithms. That said, it will still take decades, if not centuries, to have enough AI tech smart enough to conclude that “humans are the problem” – which we are by the way 🙂
    Cheers

  7. Dear Jeff,

    Thank you for the vivid contribution. In any case, you brain that appears to be on steroids will be on the end of the queue in need of an implant.

    Your question on a separation between strategy and implementation could also be posed as a separation between fundamental research and developing applied technologies, as this question may direct us towards an answer and it leads to the question how real science disappeared.
    Science, or fundamental research as it used to be with the academia, does not have the ultimate aim of releasing its results without any checks or balances into the living layer on our joint planet for the sole reason of power and profit. The aim of fundamental research is to explore our knowledge of things in an ethical, undisruptive and prudent manner. However, over the last decades, fundamental research has vanished to make place for mere developing commercially applicable technologies. Musk, Sundar Pichai and Bill gates are no scientists. Avicenne, John Beard, T.C. Campbell and Alan Bloom are.
    Influential minority shareholders behind corporations successfully achieved this shift through clearing scientific research from previous public spending under a parliamentary government. Patriot act, Lisbon treaty and Brussels without a parliamentary function firmly supported this move. We know that the Brussels EU came from coal/chemicals industry collusion schemes.
    Before the shift, the main sources of research funding were the ‘Ministries of Education & Science’. Second source of funding was with ‘public organizations for scientific research’. Third source of funding was project related, often private/corporate mixed with public (PPP).
    Under corporate funding, the result needs to be net positive in the overall scheme of industry affairs, which is beyond an entity’s accounting statement that explains how revenue and margin, the two products of any corp, were generated. The easy way for managers to move towards and explain the benefits of research is reductionist research: eliminating context and pretend the world is composed of the easily explainable linear dependencies that support their case. This way of working is comparable with white, gray and black propaganda. The result is launching power/profit generating applied technology into nature and society, over which the wisdom as present in the people has nothing to say. The powerful minority shareholders with limited liability for the consequences of what their corporations leave behind reside in the back seat, often calling themselves ‘enlightened’.
    To add scope and impact beyond the brain, science is unable to explain how enzymes function and even change functionality. Not even all enzymes are discovered. In spite of this, nutrition is mixed with chemicals and genetic material unknown to nature for the benefit of monopolist power over the food chain. Another typical example is the marketing of statins by pretending is only reduces ‘bad’ cholesterol through a linear mechanism that simply does not exist in metabolic charts. In the brain case, ‘science’ now pretends to improve the brain while not knowing a lot about it. We know the brain with its neuron pathways is not static, can be trained and suppressed (by mass education, media, chemicals but luckily also by Newsbud and natural substances). You carefully indicate where technology is on crash-course with life. In spite of this, we are made to believe that adding tech to our brain, controlled by an undisclosed limited liability corp, is the way to go.
    Apart from the brain, our decisions are not made by only the brain. For example your food preferences are influenced by your mood and by the microbiome in your gut. The decision-making of humans and their habits are determined by the entire endocrine system.
    Without restoring science as ‘fundamental research’ from the current position of marketing tool the result will certainly be that AI will do away with brains because AI is marketed as the easy opt-out of the mentality, stamina and ethics creating learning curves that has supported humanity and our planet for millions of years. It is a way out for people who always want at face value more than what their neighbor has, if you will emotions a bit similar to the created desire for bigger cars and silicon boobs.
    Strategy is the easy part of business and an endless discussion on an unforeseeable future that may pacify; it will certainly not lead to material influence before the masses are made to believe that AI realizes their dreams. Oppositely, prudence, responsibility for future generations and ethical values may be a framework of reference we could agree to protect.

  8. victor friese says:

    I keep trying to post this one thing but it won’t post for some reason, but anyway, could you also do a show about paid internet trolls, the tech they use, and the way they are used by government and companies to manipulate opinion?

  9. victor friese says:

    Who exactly is George Webb? I skimmed through some of day 109. I think this does not cover all the motivations for what they do. Do they sometimes pull the gaslighting just for fun? Particularly with unimportant targets?

Speak Your Mind