Last night I published a short article, highlighting my own inability to *know* what is 'going on', exactly. From various sources I receive clues. Hints which may be 'gold', or a distraction. I share my 'reading' of what is happening in the world as it is brought to my attention on these pages. With a focus on what is happening in my own country on my Dutch language blog, and my points of view related to all the wars and conflicts here, on the English language section. As people who disagree with my 'reading' never fail to point out, I have no 'following' worth mentioning on 'X', where I post links to my articles, and offer comments on selected postings to provoke debate.
Nor do I get many 'comments' on this blog, which suggests that I have *no* readers at all. Which is entirely possible, since graphs about 'Page Hits' shown to me may be artificially augmented through 'bots', or people arrive here by mistake through a search, and are gone within seconds. But there may be other reasons, like the pretty high threshold of my approval before I publish comments, thus disabling the exchanges you may come across elsewhere, as people respond instantly without thinking to some 'trigger' they come across, going into that rabbit-hole willingly. Moreover, the essays here are too long to comment on for most people these days. Our attention span is getting shorter by the day, and we have little time for extensive debate. But probably even more important (just guessing), is that I am not in the business of *creating* a following. I do not 'pick sides'. I have only one 'side' I am dedicated to: My own rather limited set of principles. I do not preach. And I do not earn a penny writing. Thus people tend to read anything posted here as information, and not an invitation to join this or that movement.
Few of my friends, if any, read my blog regularly. Nor do I work them over to make them read what I have to say. My wife refuses to read my essays, because they are 'depressing'. My sons read them every now and then, and we discuss certain topics I touch upon, but they have other 'sources' to complement my own 'readings', and I encourage them to go and look for different points of view, but to stay away from 'over the top' conspiracy theories and total fantasy, no matter how appealing they may be.
My article from last night touched on 'AI', and more in particular a firm called 'Palantir', heavily criticised by many, embraced by the 'elite', in the widest sense, since the company is catering to all kinds of people looking for a way to control and influence others, without a firmly established ideological principle. In fact, from what I understand about that company, their focus is on something generally labeled 'trans-humanism'. Improving on 'God's Creation' if you will, through merging technological advances with the 'beings' we call humans, which created impressive civilisations. And brought about tons of mayhem and destruction.
Mayhem and destruction are not my passion. But how do we get rid of that human urge to kill and destroy altogether? I ended my article from last night with a cynical 'So exciting……'. And in another recent article I stated that the 'meek', who will invariably *refuse* to read *anything* I write, because it is so depressing, are often the first victims in wars and conflicts. Not entirely true, because very outspoken ideologues and subversive elements rubbing the 'elite' the wrong way are more likely to perish even before war, civil war and senseless killings become all the rage in a country. But the 'meek' are led to the trenches next, with a story about 'defending' something.
On these pages I said that I lost all hope for humanity to find a way out of this mess we created, even though I'm hoping for some kind of miraculous recovery. But for that to happen, we need to find a way to get rid of the cynics and liars among us telling us fairy tales, planning wars, and false flag operations, returning to proper debate and diplomacy. If anything, I see the exact opposite on 'our side of the fence'. Alright then, is this 'AI', more specifically that ambitious company named 'Palantir' leading the masses by the nose? Or is 'AI' offering us some more rope so we can hang ourselves, since most of us are 'useless sinners'? Incurable human beings prone to go to war, and excited when offered a chance to kill and destroy? I don't know. Nor do I know if there is a 'version' of something similar 'on the other side of the fence', so to say. In fact, critics of that particular company are saying that they are actually copying the 'Chinese Model', while Keir Starmer used his trip to India to advocate for the introduction of a 'Digital ID', already present in India, which is suggesting that we are dealing with 'cross border' developments, with 'Our Side' having some catching up to do.
As you will appreciate, if you've been reading my articles, I maintain that we in Europe, and in the US, shot ourselves in the head a long time ago, setting the stage for unparalleled economic growth in China, with other 'BRICS'-countries in tow. That clearly is the story told to us by Trump and Vance, who are looking for ways to reverse that situation, while this development explained to us by the Financial Times, describing how the US is behind these attacks on Russia's energy infrastructure, while the US/NATO planned that entire war with Russia, and directed it from 'Wiesbaden' since 2022, does not suggest that Trump, Putin, Modi and Xi are 'buddies'. And since all the publicly available sources suggest that the current US administration is practically bought and paid for by 'Palantir', I have great difficulty to accept that 'Our AI' is working *with* the Chinese, Russian and Indian version. If that were to be the case, blocking access to 'Rare Earth' minerals would not be something Xi would be prepared to do, right?
Every new weapon system introduced in that war between NATO and Russia on 'Our Side' is heralded as the arrival of a 'Game Changer'. Willy OAM, and various other commentators with a military background commenting on developments in that war, keep saying that no single weapon system is a 'Game Changer'. But, without offering any detailed explanation on the 'how', because that is not my expertise, I think that having a superior 'AI'-system akin to what 'Palantir' is on 'Our Side of the Fence', most certainly *will* change the 'Game', as it will find ways to turn the hunter into the game being hunted. Which is why we *should* be paying attention to developments like this, even if it is almost impossible for us, human beings, to fathom the reach of such systems, or control its development if it is a 'self-learning system'. Moreover, while I've lost trust in our leaders, and the 'meek', I can 'see' how 'AI' on both sides could 'reach out' to find a 'diplomatic' solution to stop the killing and destruction our leaders desire, and which the 'meek' will allow. Because that is the intelligent thing to do. 'Artificial' or not.
Opposition to the use of 'AI' is fed by people who are afraid of the possible enslavement of us human beings, and the heavy 'Top-Down', undemocratic structure imposed on us. I do concur that this is on the minds of more than a few people involved in the development of 'AI'. I do not trust them to mean well. But since we are too far gone on that path to stop this development now, a purely rational power controlling us does not *have* to be a bad thing. Compare to this concept of a 'Republic', armed with a 'Constitution' which will not bend or move in order to 'discipline' the fallible humans, and warn them not to stray from doing what logic (enshrined in the 'Constitution') demands? That 'Constitution' is a 'dictator' for all intents and purposes, until you allow people trained to play with words to tear it down, by changing the meaning of the words used in that 'Constitution'. In other words, having a 'stern' and *consistent* power judging us is *only* a bad thing if it starts micro-managing our lives, invading our private-lives, fiddling with the definition of words, treating us like cattle. Is that necessarily the outcome? No, I don't think so. Our human brain has qualities of association which render it unique, and those qualities will inspire even 'AI', if we can get rid of this tendency to kill and destroy.
Yes, it would have been better if we would have found a way to impose this structure on society ourselves. That was what the 'Founding Fathers' had in mind, when they gave the United States their 'Constitution', and a 'Republic', *not* a democracy, 'if you can keep it'. We blew it. At some point in the fairly recent past, we 'progressed' to a democracy-in-name-only, claiming that we were all 'sensible people' now, but we are not. A far cry from it, in fact. Every company, every society, has to deal with all kinds of people within it's ranks. And few are inclined to find rational solutions for even the most prominent threats, if we even understand the threat to begin with. If given a choice, I would not have put all my eggs in the basket of 'AI' coming to the rescue, exactly because of all the criminal minds openly trying to use 'AI' to enslave us. But we no longer have a choice. Pulling the plug and going back to killing and destroying what we 'don't like' is even more dangerous today than it used to be. Incentivising 'AI' to give us a 'pass' because we can work together, as long as 'AI' is not overdoing it, while looking for ways to allow 'AI' on 'both sides of the fence' to think about adequate rules to implement, is a gamble. But if you don't mind, gambling on leaders planning and executing all this mayhem in the world, while refusing to talk and reach compromises which will advance the prospects of a peaceful and prosperous future out of declared hatred looks far worse to me.
Do not 'follow' me, but give it some thought, and spread the word if you feel there is some merit in what I'm saying, to enhance the possibility of making it happen. Clearly I do not have a ready made 'To Do'-list, and I have no ambition to apply for a job at 'Palantir', or a similar company or institution, to add my weight to debates within such organisations. Like I said, it may sound futuristic and unreal, but I've got this sense that 'AI' may go after it's 'creators' first, once it establishes that their ambitions are not related to the 'general good', and forget about the 'meek'. That 'Stanley Kubrick-line' from his movie 'A Space Odyssee', where the 'computer' jettisons 'Dave'. 'I'm Sorry Dave'. 'I'm sorry Donald'. 'I'm sorry Ursula'. 'I'm sorry Emanuel'. 'I'm sorry Keir'. 'I'm sorry Friedrich'. Rather than 'I'm sorry Jake……'.