Following an insightful post on "AI" by Francis Berger; in the comments, Laeth produced a simple and convincing re-conceptualization of what lies behind this global strategy
I have edited this excerpt.
Ahrimanic refers to a type of totalitarian/ bureaucratic/ systemic evil, that is materialistic in assumptions and seeks omni-surveillance and thought control. Sorathic refers to a more advanced, negative, and purely-destructive evil; that is motivated a spiteful hatred of humans, life, and all manifestations of divine creation.
**
(Laeth's comment, edited)...
When all this started my intuition was that the diabolic element here was mostly Ahrimanic, that is, the objective was pure control.
But more and more I think I was wrong about this (even if Ahrimanic forces were channelled to bring it to fruition).
It seems more likely to me now that 'AI' is actually pure Sorathic envious evil. A big fraud at all levels that won't really even be useful for control, only to debase and destroy everything - from its enormous consumption of earthly energy for its functioning to the consumption of human energy from the engagement of people. An all consuming strategy, really.
I try to avoid even seeing anything of AI or about it. I even try to avoid speaking too much against it, because I fear that too is me being sucked into its web. But it's now impossible to not find it: it's everywhere. Even normal, (and older) people, have started to talk about it (and in the exact terms the system wants them to).
Yet even my tangential acquaintance with AI is enough to see that it's terrible at its purported higher objectives. It will just jumble up things with no direction, no purpose and no coherence - and any minimally intelligent person can understand that it's all nonsense. it cannot 'manage' anything.
If given any power to manage a system, AI will just run it to the ground'; and I see now that that it its goal. To destroy any possibility of management, while consuming every possible resource that could be used to correct it.
I think Ahriman was tricked too, in other words. Full Sorathic destruction is its only route and possibility of it.
**
My Comment: This immediately struck me as correct.
The globalist totalitarian Establishment who sustain "The System" is being lied-to and tricked-into the Trillions-Dollar-Project of AI, by demonic beings whose purpose includes the destruction of The System.
Once pointed-out (but it needed pointing out!), the strategy seems clear.
Because (given the actuality of AI, of what it is, of how it works) this is the only possible outcome of widespread usage of, and therefore inevitable dependence upon, so-called AI.
AI is a kind of mind virus that has been introduced into the consciousness of managers, at almost every level - from national and multi-national leaders down to the multitudes of middling-myrmidons.
In the immediate short-term, all the institutional incentives are lined-up to focus upon introducing and developing and expanding AI - regardless of its effect on institutional functionality.
But in the medium to long term; AI will destroy management itself, in a very direct fashion; along with institutional functionality.
So the mind virus of AI functions like an addictive drug that rewards its user by short-term euphoria, at the cost of actively killing the user.
My reading of Western social trends is that the Sorathic agenda has been gaining ground since the summer of 2020; when the Ahrimanic-totalitarian global triumph of the Birdemic coup (with its international lockdowns); began to yield to the intrinsically socially destructive policies of combining multivalent institutional antiracism with a renewal and acceleration of mass immigration.
Since 2020; the Sorathic destructive agenda has been doubled-down-on by those who control the Western leadership class. Especially, it has caused/ sustained/ escalated war in Eastern Europe; then rolled-out to the Middle East; now (being attempted) in South Asia (also elsewhere).
All this gratuitous and self-annihilating destruction (eg "sanctions" that damage the sanctioner more than the sanctioned!) is "sold" to the managerial classes of the world as assisting their globalist totalitarian goals (Great Reset, Agenda 2030 etc.).
They are told that inducing societal chaos will create a desire for order, and thereby facilitate a further coup (on-top-of the successful early-2020 Birdemic coup) to enable a stable and lasting dictatorship of the Left.
Yet this was never possible; because the materialist Leftist ideology of the totalitarians is intrinsically negative, oppositional, hence destructive.
Even in its earliest and partly-good manifestations; Leftism always had Sorathic evil as its Secret Master. This canker of the heart was evident in that, whenever totalitarian control was (briefly) established, it was inevitably followed by accelerating disorder and destruction.
While there is an almost irresistible Schadenfreude induced by watching the managerial state enthusiastically implementing that self-destruct button which is AI; observers need to be mindful that evil does not cancel-out.
As totalitarianism is destroyed by spiteful sadism, the process yields no increase in net-good in the world.
Good comes from recognizing what is going on in the spiritual war of this world; rejecting it inwardly (i.e. repenting our complicity); and then spiritually affiliating to God and divine creation - by following Jesus Christ to that salvation which is resurrected eternal Heavenly Life.
10 comments:
If we work from the premise that the real basis behind all these developments is spiritual destruction, going beyond mere atheism up to and including the destruction of the spiritual component of our being which I believe is possible when we reach the point that we totally deny all that spirit is, then we can have a better idea of what AI's real purpose is.
As you say, it is only control as far as the second tier of evil is concerned. Laeth's remark that Ahriman was tricked and Sorathic destruction is the real agenda is right. Unfortunately, most people are terrified of being thought of as "Luddites" and out of date so they jump on board, even if they have reservations. A big test now is not to care what people think of you, i.e. your good name.
@William - "Unfortunately, most people are terrified of being thought of as "Luddites" and out of date so they jump on board, even if they have reservations. A big test now is not to care what people think of you, i.e. your good name."
That's very true. It also explains how we live in a totalitarian society without people noticing. A century ago, totalitarian societies needed to employ mass imprisonment and violence to keep citizens in line. Nowadays, the same is achieved with such minimal threats (mostly of a vague kind) that people don't recognize the tyranny.
What seems to have happened is that modern people have become Very easy to intimidate, compared with the past - to the point that the intimidation is denied and deniable.
Why this should be? Perhaps some combination of cowardice due to de-spiritualization and de-motivation - with the immersive and mind-controlling environment of mass-social media.
Dr. Charlton,
Thanks for your feedback on my comment in the AI thread from a few days ago. I of course agree with you on your assessment of AI from a civilizational / spiritual level.
From your response:
-----
You need to join up your knowledge: e.g.
"LLMs are genuinely useful in tasks such as summarization. They can with fairly good reliability (getting steadily better) ingest a 300 page legal brief and reduce it to a good 2 page summary"....
"LLMs can have no connection to Truth, in principle. "
Surely you can see that something that has no connection to truth Cannot provide a "good" summary?
-------
A summary was perhaps not the best example. A better example would be computer code. An LLM can be a useful tool in the sense that it can do things that have pragmatic utility. An LLM can generate source code that is verifiably correct (though it will often make mistakes, like a human will). This capability increases the productive capacity of software engineers if they know how to apply it. It may be that this is the *only* thing LLMs can do well, but they can do that much.
Also:
----
"A true database can have a connection to Truth "
Wrong. Data has zero connection to truth. Truth is in the interpretation of data, and only in that.
----
What I meant to say was that data (e.g., the words in your blogs, books, etc) insofar as they represent a connection to Truth on the page of a written book also represent the same connection of if those words are stored electronically. Provided the author's text is preserved faithfully in a database, then that value is not diminished solely because the text is in electronic form (otherwise, why use a blog?)
LLMs are not like this -- not at all. They are stochastic text generators that use complex probabilistic calculation together with an "attention mechanism" to render some approximation to text that the LLM was trained on. This process can be interfered with at a deep level my malefactors like Google in order to bend the model in whichever way they choose (which is always evil). Some day Google might re-write Dr. Charlton's blogger posts -- but for now I don't believe that is the case. Unmolested text in a database is no different from text on a page, whereas text emitted by an LLM is never the same as text on a page.
@Stephen
We are talking at different levels here. I am asking why trillions of dollars have been spent imposing "AI" all over the world, compulsorily, regardless of context and value.
AI engagement/ self-replacement (and indeed expressed enthusiasm about AI!) was near-instantly, and is currently, a mandatory part of the job for very large numbers of people.
Tis is Not a matter of usefulness and value - it is a System imposition.
You are scouring these myriad situations to find some in which AI is not necessarily bad, and may be helpful.
What worries me is whether you really grasp the difference between (what might be called) knowledge and data.
The example of making a summary of knowledge from a larger body is something that AI cannot do - it is, indeed, something that requires the highest levels of human ability. People seem to have forgotten this.
As a real example, why do people in the UK employ (if they can afford it) a KC (King's Counsel) barrister to argue their case in a law court? Because these are (if honestly appointed) expert at extracting the best legal argument applicable to the case in hand from the mass of laws and possible arguments that exist. This expertise is not capture-able by any algorithm - it is a form of creative ability.
Making a summary from a mass of data is analogous - it is one of the most difficult of human tasks to do validly. (I did this as part of a part-time bureaucratic job in the NHS) To be done well we need to know what is important; and that is a top-level evaluation.
A further example is theoretical science. Francis Crick said that a good new theory was Not something that explained all the empirical data; because most of it would be wrong. A good theory ignored most (sometimes nearly-all) of the "data" and was built only from relevant and valid prior results. The skill was to know what to focus upon, and what to ignore.
AI is (from the manager's POV) just another step in implementing a false theory of knowledge, as being derived algorithmically from data. This has failed and failed again in all social functions - as would be even more obvious if management had not also captured the processes of evaluation.
It is only because we inhabit a totalitarian bureaucracy that such evil nonsense is not obviously wrong - but because we do inhabit such a society, failure is declared a success by diktat - and money, professional rewards, and status markers (also captured by the system) are deployed to make it so - within the System.
We are a long way down this path by now.
@William,
i think you're right about the 'luddite' thing, and it's not new. i resisted getting a smartphone for years, and i remember that word being used derisively by friends and colleagues. that led me to read about the luddites, the original ones, and i found much kinship with them. they were opposing the machines for christian reasons. there is a wonderful (though very sad) book about them by Kirkpatrick Sale, Rebels Against the Future. highly recommended. although they lost the war, their example is still an inspiration to me.
@Laeth - I too have sympathy for Luddites - and wrote about them in my Addicted to Distraction concluding: "Ned Ludd for King!.
I don't see why it should be regarded as an outrage if ordinary people refuse to collude in their own annihilation.
...Meanwhile, probably millions of middle class people are at present conscientiously engaged in "training" so-called AI systems to replace themselves, on a daily basis.
Ah yes, Ned Ludd has A Lot to teach us.
Alas, nobody wants to be thought 'uncool'. It's the modern version of conformism.
@William "Alas, nobody wants to be thought 'uncool'."
And The System - especially the mass media - controls what counts as cool.
"It's the modern version of conformism." - This is true to an amazing extent.
Some recent mainstream movie and TV narratives have the cool characters defending some kind of Woke Establishment, and lame/ loser baddies are depicted as anti-social rebel "conspiracy theorists".
Pretty much a 180 degree inversion from the stereotypical stories of 1960s counter-culture.
Ah those protean Leftists...
@Bruce,
'wrote about them in my Addicted to Distraction concluding: "Ned Ludd for King!.'
- i haven't picked that one yet, but this is the kind of push i respond to!
Speaking of Luddites, people are worried about being "left behind" because of this whole idea of inevitably advancing technology. But is it?
I've heard that horses are expensive and "AI" is cheap. But are they? Horses can eat grass, which only needs sunlight and soil to grow, while "AI" needs constant infusion of electricity along with a vast infrastructure of manufacturing, natural resource gathering, and workers. In terms of money, one is cheaper because of an unnatural economy that has stacked the deck in favor of it, but in terms of actual resources, it's not even a comparison.
This idea of inevitability (at least of whatever is currently being promoted) has been highly influential, but there are also many signs that it just isn't true.
And so that means that all the rest of the things we're supposed to believe based on inevitability aren't true either.
Post a Comment