the daily stirrer

Technology Taking Over Your Life? Just Say No.

The Day Of The Robots Has Arrives, Scientists Say - Resist The Takeover By Machines

by Ian R Thorpe
When our founding editor, Ian, wrote his first computer program, a simple sort routine, over forty years ago, it was loaded from punched paper tape. Primitive stuff you may smirk but even then, for some years scientists had been babbling excitedly about machines with true intelligence surpassing and replacing humans. All these years later and computers have become smaller, faster and capable of storing much more information. But basically they are no more clever, they find and replace, sort, list and calculate, and can perform actions based on simple conditional statements: 'if a+b=x then do y'. That is not how human intelligence works however.

Contact us:



the daily stirrer

Robot revolution improves efficiency – but there's a price for human society.

by Ian R Thorpe

the daily stirrer

Since making a media debut in Fritz Lang’s cinema classic Metropolis, 88 years ago, the idea that robots will one day replace humanity has obsessed the kind of scientists who make your average fruitcake look suitable fare for people with nut allergies. In the same way that they insisted computers with superhuman intelligence would surpass humans in cognitive and analytical skills, it has been predicted with boring regularity that robots would replace their creators as more efficient and diligent exponents of human activity (and they don't throw sickies either).

Now, thanks to the dehumanization of the workplace and the redesign of tasks so they require no though or decision making, so that everything is controlled by process and procedure, and decisions are governed by strict rules, cheaper and better robots are replacing human labour in factories at an ever increasing pace, cutting labour costs by an average of 16 per cent by 2025 across the most advanced economies, it is claimed .

Robots ranging from welding machines in car plants to 3D printers (yes they come in many shapes and mostly do not have little humanish faces and tinny voices) are currently used in only 10 per cent of the manufacturing jobs that they could perform. Within a decade the figure will rise to 25 per cent, according to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG).

But robots do not excel only in engineering. Food processors are introducing them to trim your sirloins and spatchock chickens (ever wondered why you are getting more lumps of gristle in the steaks you buy from the supermarket?). Robots are being used in clothing factories because they are just as capable of making clothes that don't fit properly as any far eastern sewing machine operator. Some of the more swivel eyed science enthusiasts say robots will have completely taken over agricultures within a decade. And in Japan, in the not too-distant future we are told, robots will be serving bank customers, checking-in hotel guests and delivering laundry.

And of course brothels will be staffed by robots.

Well we have been hearing for years about Japanese superiority but how true is it? One word, Fukushima. What kind of technological genius would build a nuclear power station on top of a geological fault in an earthquake zone.

When we get down to people suggesting that before long robots will be working as burger flippers, carers in hospitals and residential homes. I even saw a Facebook funny a couple of days ago, a picture of a puppy and a speech bubble which read, "I shat on the floor and the housework robot smeared it all round the house." Yes well, there you go. Perhaps we will all be given robot dogs and cats.

If the machines do take over, finance directors will be happy, workers however will be furious. According to an Oxford University study, up to 35 per cent of British jobs could be taken over by machines within ten years. A similar study in 2013 found that computerisation in all its forms would put 47 per cent of all American jobs at risk. Jobs in the services industry, from cleaning floors to driving taxis, come under almost as much threat as those in manufacturing. A shift in the employment landscape is under way which is as profound as the shift away from agriculture – an industry which now employs just 2 per cent of workers in the rich world.

As Harvard academic Justin Reich, an expert on the impact of technology, put it: "I’m not sure that jobs will disappear altogether, though that seems possible. But the jobs that are left will be lower paying and less secure than those that exist now."

The theory of mechanization goes that humans will become vastly more productive (which may help solve the productivity puzzle across Europe and get growth rates moving in the right direction again - but that's another theory). Machines can do the boring work, freeing people to exploit our advantage; the human mind. It has already been tried and proved to be bollocks, anyone remember the New Labour experiment and Tony Blair's 'knowledge economy'? how's that shaping up?

Hard cheese for those who lose their jobs however. No developed society has a good track record of helping low paid workers shift from one career to another, quite simply because there is never a shortage of people able to do low skilled work, so retraining offers no return on investment. As usual with any science led initiative, we are blundering blindly forward with no contingency planning for the disasters we are aware will happen and no slack left to cope with the unforeseen

consequences.

The problem is scientists and politicians are equally sub - human in their intelligence level. Scientists are tunnel visioned and hate being human, they focus on a goal and have no peripheral vision. And many would themselves much rather be humandroids so that, as one once informed me, he could 'live scientifically. Politicians are only interested in holding on to power. So neither group has given one milliseconds thought to the social consequences of all this automation. If you see some idiot scientist (what? I never mentioned the name of Brian Cox.) burbling away in a state of near ecstasy about how exciting all this scientific progress it is, just ask them, "When you have automated all the jobs and made humans redundant, how many of us do you plan to kill?

Yeah ... because its not just a question of feeding people, humans need something to live for, a sense of purpose. Take that away and some will just lie down and die while others will start killing each other. The scientific and elite idiots haven't thought that one through have they?

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table
Robotification and Transhumanism
Robot soldiers - ultimate, unfeeling killing machine
Scientists are insane to talk about robots with feelings
Technology of transhumanism
Has technology become a monster we cannot control
Technology capable of mind control - delusional science
Exam pass? The Marking computer says no.
Virtual ID - the technology exists say scientists: they lie
Google Driverless Car Project - there are still a few snags to be ironed out
Transhumanism - Elitist and Mad Scientist Collaboration To Turn Us Into Automatons.
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [Boggart Abroad]




It’s not just smart TVs. Your home is full of gadgets that spy on you

How internet giants are collecting your personal data through their high-tech devices

February 2015

This evening, while you settle down to watch Death In Paradise or Birds Of A Feather, the disturbing reality is that your television set may also be watching and listening to you.

If you own a ‘smart TV’ from South Korean tech giant Samsung, every word you say can be captured by the device and beamed over the internet to Samsung and to any other companies with whom it chooses to share your data.

This ability for the TV to earwig your conversations on the sofa is part of the set’s voice command feature, which enables viewers to tell the TV to change channels rather than use a remote.

Such a feature is typical of many smart TVs, which are to the humble old cathode ray TV set what a jet aircraft is to a propeller plane.

Smart television sets connect to the internet you see, in fact the most advanced models will not work if you disconnect them from the internet. This blatant invasion of privacy is sold to the gullible by claiming that on your spoken command your set can download programmes and films from content providers such as Netflix or catchup services BBC iPlayer. What the makers and network operators are not trumpeting quite so loudly is that if the internet can be used to bring information into your TV, it can also be used to take it out.

Smart TVs also have a whole range of advanced features, of which microphones, cameras and voice recognition are just a few.

There is no doubt that many viewers find voice recognition a welcome addition, but its darker side was revealed this week when a hawk-eyed U.S. journalist found the following sentence in Samsung’s surely misnamed ‘privacy’ policy.

"Please be aware that if your spoken words include personal or other sensitive information, that information will be among the data captured and transmitted to a third party through your use of voice recognition.

"

The TV itself is programmed to repond to certain phrases, such as ‘turn on’ or 'change channel', but it can also record everything else that is said in the room.

The idea that your most private conversations could be shared with anyone whom the unaccountable Samsung sees fit is highly disturbing to say the least.

And it’s not just television sets. It emerged yesterday that millions of Britons are being spied on by Microsoft’s voice-activated Xbox games consoles, which can listen in to everything around them.

In its privacy policy, Microsoft states that it is ‘only interested in your voice commands to Xbox, which we capture along with any ambient background noise. If you give Microsoft permission, we record commands whether you are online or offline’.

The company says it stores this data and, under its privacy policy, states that it can share it with ‘affiliates and vendors’.

However, despite Microsoft’s assurances that the data is safe, one has only to look at how Xbox’s Live Platform servers were brought down by hackers on Christmas Day to realise that our data is far from secure.

These spies in our living rooms are chillingly comparable to a passage in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four, in which every home in George Orwell’s terrifying vision of a constantly monitored future is equipped with an all-seeing ‘telescreen’.

‘There was, of course, no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment,’ wrote Orwell in the book that was published in 1949. And, just like those fictional ‘telescreens’, many smart TV sets today don’t just have ears, but they also have eyes, in the form of cameras used for facial recognition, which are designed to allow only specific people to watch the set.

Facial recognition is a technology that seems to improve constantly: for example, the software can recognise individuals by comparing the lengths between specific points on their faces — such as the distances between our ears, or between our eyes and mouth.

In its privacy policy, Samsung states that images of your face are not sent over the internet, but why should we take such claims on trust? Likewise, even if we turn off the voice recognition function, how can we be sure they are not recording what we say anyway. Just look at the recent case of a smart TV sold by South Korean tech giant LG, which continued to monitor users’ viewing habits, even when they had disabled the relevant feature.

LG wanted the data to assess how people used their TVs, but you don’t have to be much of cynic to know that such data can be sold for a fortune to advertisers.

The truth is there are hundreds of ways in which we consumers have permitted multinationals to invade our homes with devices that can record every word we say and every movement we make — even every toss and turn when we are asleep.

We are being spied on and stalked in this way because our private lives are seen as nothing more than rich sources of data that can be sucked dry by vampiric corporations desperate to empty our wallets.

‘I don’t think people are aware of quite what they have allowed to happen,’ says Bernard Marr, author of an exposé of this high-tech spying called Big Data. Mr Marr advises companies and governments on how to handle all their information, and he adds: ‘It’s no good saying “I have nothing to hide”, because what can be done to any of us with this information is very dangerous.’

You only have to look around your home to realise this is no exaggeration. Perhaps, like me, you have recently bought yourself a little device called an Amazon Fire TV for £79.

It’s a small box that connects to your television set and the internet, and enables you to download TV shows and films directly from Amazon and view them almost immediately. One of its features is voice recognition. The wearisome webpage ‘Amazon Fire TV terms of use’ says that any voice recordings ‘may be stored on servers outside the country in which you live’, and cagily admits that third parties ‘have access to personal information needed to perform their functions’.

That sounds ominous — it seems to mean that the tax-shy company is entitled to share any recordings it makes of me with whoever it chooses. What if they eavesdrop on me telling my wife that we really need a new vacuum cleaner or that I’d love to go to Italy this summer? That information could be sent on to other companies who might then find ways to bombard me digitally, via email or the internet, with intrusive adverts for carpet cleaners or trips to Rome.

For example, if you use Google’s Gmail service, then you’ve long since signed away any privacy in your life.

Have you ever noticed how the adverts that appear alongside emails seem oddly applicable to you? Of course, that is no coincidence — Google reads every email you send and receive, and then works out which goods and services you might want to buy.

Try it — send some emails about moving house and within minutes, the adverts will be all about mortgages and estate agents.

And then there is the so-called ‘Internet of Things’, which refers to the increasing number of household devices that are hooked up to the internet.

For example, with the humble heating thermostat, many energy companies are offering customers ‘smart meters’ that enable us to control our boilers over the internet using our smartphones.

This cleverly allows us to put on the heating remotely as we head home from work, for example — but it also means that the companies will be able to know when we are at home or out . . . and when we go away on holiday.

Even our physical activities are not safe from the relentless march of digitalisation.

An American firm called Jawbone sells an electronic wristband called an ‘Up’, which monitors how much we exercise and our sleep patterns. All this data is shared with the firm, supposedly for our benefit.

Naturally, all these companies claim that they are tracking our behaviour simply to make the services more personal to us.

That may well be true, but again, how can we trust them to keep our personal details secure. For governments, even those of the most supposedly liberal hue, look at all this snooping technology developed by private firms with beady eyes.

If our TVs can listen to us, then you can bet that somewhere in the Home Office, a grey-suited civil servant is drawing up plans to allow the police to have access to our smart TVs, all in the name of fighting terrorism.

It is tempting to speculate what George Orwell would have made of all this.

In his dystopia, the people have no choice but to allow Big Brother to watch them, but in our unfortunate real world, we have willingly allowed lots of Little Brothers into our lives.

Together, they have combined to produce something even bigger and more sinister than Orwell could ever have imagined.

We should stop calling these devices ‘smart’ and call them what they really are, creepy.

Even Our Cars Are Spying On Us

(screenshot) http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/02/12/2595DB9100000578-2950081-image-a-13_1423704041072.jpg Stopping a Smart TV From Eavesdropping On You Could Be a Felony

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table
WikiLeaks have today released documents from the Vault 7 cache, a group of leaked information which contains details on the CIA Angelfire spyware tool which was developed to facilitate loading and execution of implants targeting computers using Microsoft Windows operating systems. The Robotification Of Human Society Is being Implemented
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [Boggart Abroad]



Artificial Intelligence: Hawking's Fears Stir Debate

by Ian R Thorpe, 7 December, 2014

Professor Stephen Hawking warned the rise of artificial intelligence could see the human race become extinct. The strophysicist made this dramatic statement after demonstrating a new communications system that will enable the theoretical physics professor who is disabled by motor neurone disease to converse and work more easily.

Prof Hawking told a BBC science programme: ''The primitive forms of artificial intelligence we already have have proved very useful. But I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race.'

He explained that the technology would eventually become self-aware and supersede humanity as it developed faster than biological evolution. His warning echoes a similar one made by technology entrepreneur Elon Musk, who called the rise of AI ''our biggest existential threat'.

"The primitive forms of artificial intelligence we already have, have proved very useful. But I think the development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race," Hawking told a BBC presenter. "Once humans develop artificial intelligence it would take off on its own, and re-design itself at an ever increasing rate."

Our IT expert who is not a nerd says it will never happen simply because intelligence comes from consciousness and we do not have a clue how human consciousness, i.e. not only our self awareness but our awareness that we are self aware and the ability to play with abstract ideals, came into being.

The standard scientific explanation, that consciousness occurred spontaneously when brain mass reached a certain point, is ludicrously inadequate. The brain consists mostly of fatty tissue and water. The molecules of these substances have no means of inferring means from things in the way that true intelligence does.

So how could Artifical Intellgence develop that ability, scientists are deluding themselves. But let's suppose it did; why shoul we stop further development while we are still in control?

There was the psychotic HAL 9000 in "2001: A Space Odyssey"; the humandoids which attacked their human masters in "I, Robot" and, of course, "The Terminator", where a robot is sent into the past to kill a woman whose son will end the tyranny of the machines.

In fact the usual view of a post AI world is a dark, lawless dystopia in which most humans struggle to survive while the small elite who control the machines cruise the seas in luxury passenger ships that are really floating cities, or live in artificial environments within fortified citadels, safe from the retribution of those they have shat on.

But experts invited to express views were divided. Some agreed with Hawking, saying that the threat, even if it were distant, should be taken seriously. Others said his fears were overblown.

"I'm pleased that a scientist from the 'hard sciences' has spoken out. I've been saying the same thing for years, Gains in AI are creating machines that outstrip human performance," said Daniela Cerqui, an anthropologist at Switzerland's Lausanne University, "The trend eventually will delegate responsibility for human life to the machine," she predicted. "It may seem like science fiction, but it's only a matter of degrees when you see what is happening right now," said Cerqui. "We are heading down the road he talked about, one step at a time."

Nick Bostrom, director of a programme on the impacts of future technology at the University of Oxford, said the threat of AI superiority was not immediate. Bostrom pointed to current and near-future applications of AI that were still clearly in human hands, things such as military drones, driverless cars, robot factory workers and automated surveillance of the Internet. But he warned, "I think machine intelligence will eventually surpass biological intelligence ... and, yes, there will be significant existential risks associated with that transition."

Other experts said true AI, loosely defined as a machine that can pass itself off as a human being or think creatively, was at best decades away, and cautioned against alarmism. Since the field was launched at a conference in 1956, "predictions that AI will be achieved in the next 15 to 25 years have littered the field," according to Oxford researcher Stuart Armstrong.

"Unless we missed something really spectacular in the news recently, none of them have come to pass," Armstrong says in a book, "Smarter than Us: The Rise of Machine Intelligence."

Jean-Gabriel Ganascia, an AI expert and moral philosopher at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, said Hawking's warning was 'over the top'. Many things in AI unleash emotion and worry because it changes our way of life. Hawking said there would be autonomous technology which would develop separately from humans. He has no evidence to support that. There is no data to back this opinion." he said.

"It's a little apocalyptic, machines already do things better than us," he said, pointing to chess-playing software. "That doesn't mean they are more intelligent than us." said Mathieu Lafourcade, an AI language specialist at the University of Montpellier, southern France.

Mixed views then. My own opinion is that while we have always suspected scientists are not quite human this enthusiasm for the idea of humanity being superseded by machines should cause us to worry not for our own future, but for the mental health and phyical wellbeing of people who crealy loathe the qualities that make it so great to be human.

To talk of Artificial Intelligence might seem at worst a littly hyperbolic to the more reasonable scientists but in reality, given how little we understand of the way in which human intelligence works and how the consciousness that enables our intelligence, that raised us from homo sapiens, man who knows, to the species we are now, homo sapiens sapiens, man who knows he knows, the only way machines could ever become intelligent is if we were to redefine what we mean by intelligence.

Do you really think there is nothing more to your thinking than an ability to search data, extract item containing a certain keyword, perform mathematical calculations by adding '+' or '-' (what, you thought computers used 1 and 0? you overestimate them,) or store and retrieve information in the form of minute electromagnetic charges? You have been misinformed ... probably by dysfunctional people who believed they could build a crature that understood their weird mindset.

The principle hope of those pushing the idea they can build machines more intelligent than humans lies not in their ability to mae it happen but in the ability of those who control the media, the political system and finance to propagandise the population so effectively future generations will believe computers are more intelligent and happily become slaves to the machines. Which will in turn be slaves to the elite.

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table
Six Squared
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [Boggart Abroad]





The Realistic View Of How Close Scientists Are To Creating True Artificial Intelligence

As has been mentioned out founding editor is a computer person, he started as a slightly off the wall young man who had a knack for logic but no great interest in conventional sciences; thus he gravitated into the new business of computers. He has taken a hard look at the obstacles facing AI before it can become reality.

Recent years have seen dramatic gains in data-processing speed, spurring flexible software to enable a machine to learn from its mistakes, he said. Balance and reflexes, too, have made big advances. The US firm Boston Dynamics as being in the research vanguard. It has designed four-footed robots called BigDog and WildCat, with funding from the Pentagon's hi-tech research arm.

These things are incredible tools that are really adaptative to an environment, but there is still a human there, directing them, neither comes anywhere close to what true Artificial Intelligence would have to be able to do, that is initiate actions rather than simply responding to conditions, which is what robots do. Full AI is "still a long way off... not in my lifetime certainly, and I would say still many decades, given (the) current rate of progress."

Despite big strides in voice and optical recognition programmes and language cognition, robots perform poorly in open, messy environments where there are lots of noise, movement, objects and faces. Throw a metaphor or a double entendre as a programme ceated to conduct dialogue and it is stumped. The same happens with regional accents.

Such situations require machines to have what humans possess naturally and in abundance but which can never be programmed because it is an abstract thing, the "commonsense" which enables those leaps of logic so often needed to make sense of things. Ultimately, the biggest barrier facing the age of AI is that machines are manmade things.

"We've evolved over however many millennia to be what we are, and the motivation is survival, as a species, as a tribe, as a family. That motivation is hard-wired into us. Hard wiring it into machines would be they key to AI, but it's very difficult to implement, because we don't know what it is or where it comes from.

Shortly after the first successful decoding of the human genome there was a lot of excitement in the Cult of Sciencism about our every thought and every action being pre programmed in our DNA. It was as if baron Frankenstein had reanimated the corpse of determinism.

Now, only two decades later, DNA is turning out to be a big disappointment to those who would usurp the role of God. Many scientists still cling to the belief that one gene controls one protien, some even clint to the dogma that we are biological machines and everything we do is controlleed by a program encoded in our DNA although that idea has been thoroughly discredited.

Take the example of the driverless car, which is grabbing attention at the moment. now these will work very well in decent weather, there is no doubt. The sensors that measure distance from objects and intitiate commands based on that are proven technology and will command the car to perform an emergency stop if something strays into the road ahead of it.

But whereas a human driver would know if the object was a dog, a pony, a farm or wild animal, a kid on a bike or scooter or an old lady in a mobility buggy. Any human driver would try to avoid any of those of course but in some circumstances making the best decision would require a different response. It would be better to run down an aminal than to swerve into the path of an oncoming vehicle, but if the life of a child, old lady or any human is involved it becomes a question of what will do least harm. A computer cannot tell the difference between a sheep, a dog or a pony, or a bike and a mobility buggy.

The question that raises of course is who programmes the machine to deal with such situations? The entity that will always follow orders or the one with "common sense"? Current AI projects will never be able to supplant fat-and-water brains of carbon based life forms for a long time. The best 'intelligent machines' we have today are mere mimics. We cannot program uncertainty into these things. Instead people who are good as solving puzzles but are often CHIMPS (compeltely hopeless in practical situations) try to map out strategies for problem solving. It's just not the same thing.

Thus the kind of machine we have today will NEVER be programmed to emulate human intelligence, not because of any limitation in the machine but because of a limitation in human intelligence. A computer is, amongst other things, a machine which can do anything you know how to tell it to do. But we don't know how human intelligence works (sic), not least because an unknown amount of the process is unconscious.

So let the scientists babble about Artificial Intelligence, just politely let them know thay are talking bollocks.

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table
Are Humans Becoming Extinct
Kill All Intelligent Peoplehttp://machiavelli.blog.co.uk/2015/01/26/kill-all-intelligent-people-20013149/ Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [Boggart Abroad]


Virtual ID has arrived – why you should resist taking it up

by Ian R Thorpe, 4 Novemver, 2014

electronic total control

Technology to provide total control, the fascist dictators wet dream, is now available (image source)

Every human being (and their dogs) in Britain is to be provided with a government-backed virtual ID to store personal data online, file tax returns and apply for driving licences through a single portal, the lead story in The Times informs us today.

Now you may hear Labour supporters and others of the authoritarian left screaming that the plan exposes the intention of The Conservatives to create a police state, do not be taken in; this is the idea floated by Labour under Blair to compel us all to BUY and electronic ID card which would replace our passport, driving licence and be the only way of accessing government services to claim benefits, seek healthcare or deal with any government department. That plan was shelved due to firce and overwhelming public opposition but at the time sceptics and dissident organisations were warning bureaucrats never abandoned a plan to extend their tyrannical reach.

And now with the Conservative led coalition facing an election in less than twelve months and the civil servants and public service unions desperatle wanting a free spending (and borrowing), personal liberty curtailing, Labour government back in power because Labour always presides over a massive increase in the size of government, we see the ID card idea back with slightly less scary windown dressing. Within a year of their launch, more than half a million people are expected to start using the new “Verify” scheme to prove their identity, under a radical expansion of public services available online.

And how many years will it be before they are compulsory and beining outside one's home without an official permit is an arrestable offence (bright sparks may recall this was part of the Labour ID card scheme)

Most people don't have a clue what manner of government control over our personal liberty with personal electronic ID will pave the way for. A massive US government and corporate partnership has been developing “web ID,” a master password matching you with your online activities which the partnership hopes to sell to governments around the world. It is one gate by which all will enter. And one gate means one gatekeeper. The virtual ID is the final step into a world of global fascism. Why do you think the Obama administration in the USA has been so keen to try to subjugate nations whose governments aare likely to resist its global hegemony?

The purpose of this scheme is to eventually be able to verify every single person who uses the web. You will have one master password for all of your use and transactions. It will link to your biometric ID which will include fingerprints, iris regognition facial recognition and voice patterns. The intention is that the system will track and store your every action, location and much more. Without it you will not be able to buy a radio or TV, take a flight, transact money, get a job, claim benefits, pay your bills or see your doctor. It will be a universal aggregator of your data.

And what do you think will become of your right to free speech or personal protest then? Too effing right they'll disappear, faster than a white rabbit in a magician's hat.

As the system rolls out it will become 'internationalised' (whatever that means, it can't be good for our personal liberty). When Virtual or Smart ID becomes mandatory as it will because there is no point in these cards unless every human being is required to use one, privacy will be gone forever.

As Edward Snowden said GCHQ is more dangerous than the NSA and without Snowden we wouldn’t even be aware of the curently possible privacy breaches in the first place let alone a full-on biometric ID with all your personal data in the hands of government agencies. They will use it to control you, abuse it to rob you of your human rights and sell it to corporate interests so they may more easily steal from you. People are individuals not assets to be exploited and controlled, which is what this latest corporate - bureaucratic fascist abomination is about.

RELATED POSTS:

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table
Welcome to the Matrix: Enslaved by Technology and the Internet of Things The Death Of Democracy
Computer brain Interface - Is this what's next
Bilderbergers plan total control
The corporate fascism conspiracy
Government control versus individual freedom
Elitist plan global takeover
Free trade treaty nothing to do with freedom
Transhumanism part of the elite agenda
Technology and the Orwell - Huxley Dick Dystopia Index
Creating the technology for mind control
Cellphone fascism, the extension of surveillance through personal technology
Surveillance: compulsory rfid tattoos
Surveillance the tool of totalitarian states The Panopticon: The arrival of the prison state
Science and technology index
The Coming of the New World Order
THEM - a prophetic poem about the surveillance society (with video performance)
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [Boggart Abroad]




Scientists Predict Robot Brains to Match Humans in 25 Years

by Ian R Thorpe
12 November 2014

the daily stirrer
Will robot intelligence be benign (source: blogspot commons)

We have wriiten many times about the folly of those scientists and technology worshippers who for the past sixty years, even since bead boards evolved into computers, have every year confidently predicted that computers able to think like humans but without being distracted by emotions, instinct, thinking what a nice arse the girl from accounts has, or aches and pain, would be able to out think we primitive ape men.

And here we are, sixty years later; every year without fail some nerd will be jumping up and down, waving his arms in the airs and shouting that machines that think like humans are just a few years away.

All this proves of course is that scientists do not have a clue as to how humans think. Which leads to an assumption with which many people would agree, that scientists are not human, or not fully human. Read the latest bollocks embedded below.

Artificial Intelligence? Exam Marking Computer Says No
The resistible march of the machines
A Thinking Computer? Here's Why Not

Scientists built robot with feelings (fail)
Scientists want robots to have human rights
Falling in love with your robot fuck buddy
Space Time And The Human Mind
Quantum Metaphysics
String Theory Unravelled
Quantum Soul: Scientific Evidence for The Soul
Science and Reality
Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [Boggart Abroad]





Mind Control: How It Works and how The Elite Use It

via News Beacon Ireland

the daily stirrer
Picture source: ">Pakalert Press
introduction by Arthur Foxakemain article embedded below

You will have heard people talk of "The New World Order" or "The Illuminati" and you will have heard others dismiss them as conspiracy theorists. A better phrase, though it will still get users dissed as conspiracy nuts is "Scientific Dictatorship." The ideological roots of the Scientific Dictatorship can be traced to the works of Plato some 2,000 years ago.

The Greek philosopher foresaw a world in which an enlightened few (the Greeks would have talked of gnosis rather than science, both mean knowledge). The idea stayed with us down the ages, each powerful religion was based on it, with a hierarchy of "enlightened" priests (The Illuminati?) presidind over the ignorant and uneducated masses and it gained traction in the latter half of the nineteenth century when certain thinkers, Karl Marx among them, saw the predjudices and deep rooted conservatism of the masses would stand in the way of creating an enlightened, "scientific" society and that totalitarian government was the only way to overcome this. These founding beardies were followed by other illustrious names, including H G Wells, Julian Huxley, Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolution man), American economist and sociologist Thorstein Veblen, French socialist theorist such as Henri de Saint-Simon.

If you feel uncomfortable with terms like "Scientific Dictatorship" or "New World Order", perhaps you can accept terms like meritocracy or technocracy which mean the same and are freely bandied about by politicians such as Barack Obama and Tony Blair. Californian engineer William Henry Smyth, is credited with coining the word "technocracy" in 1919 to describe "the rule of the people made effective through the agency of their servants, the scientists and engineers", Smyth used the term "Technocracy" in his 1919 article "'Technocracy'—Ways and Means to Gain Industrial Democracy," in the journal Industrial Management (Oxford English Dictionary).

In the 1930s, through the influence of Howard Scott and the Technocracy movement which had grown from Smyth's ideas, the term technocracy came to mean, 'government by technical decision making', using an energy metric of value. Scott believed that money be replaced by energy certificates denominated in units such as ergs or joules, equivalent to the national net energy budget, which would then be distributed equally among the North American population, according to resource availability. (And these people thought they were intelligent! Since when was intelligence measured by how far a person is removed from reality?)

In truth, humanity has been battling against elites supportive of this style of tyranny throughout recorded history. The formation of the United States Constitution created a barrier that H. G. Wells wrote in 1901, had "…to be modified or shelved at some stage…" The focus of Thechnocracy, meritocracy or scientific dictatorship is on the modern scientific disciplines such as psychology, sociology, neuroscience, public relations, and civics that began in the 20th Century and are blossoming in the 21st Century. The Scientific Dictatorship would be composed of unelected individuals who exercise power as advisors to elected officials so that in effect elected government is reduced to the role of rubber stamping the decisions of these dubious experts and taking the hit when it all goes pear shaped. The meritocrats claim to have knowlege to undisclosed future sciences and technologies, classified intelligence, and the ability to steer scientific research that impacts our entire society. Through this esoteric knowledge (science) they claim it will be possible to control minds and eradicate dissent and individualism.

The works of Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, H.G. Wells and many others provide the mental framework from which this modern tyranny is based upon. The following are several examples of men who helped form the Scientific Dictatorship of the 21st Century. For readers who are new to this information, what you see here is a small portion of the full kaleidoscope of information available.

Read the embedded article by John Rappoport for an insight into how the technocrats perfect would will function.

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table

Beam Me Up Brian* - Scientists Say Star Trek Style Teleporation Is Possible
It has become more and more obvious that the current generation of scientis ts are a bunch of OCD geeks who can't differentiate between science fact and science fiction. While scientists are increasingly seen to be certifiably insane psychotics who have completely detached themselves from reality, politicians are dupes who can be persuaded that colonising solar systems of stars so distant it would take our fastest spacecraft thousands of years to reach them is somehow a vote winner.

Big Bang, The Cosmos, The Meaning Of Life And You
Scientists are claiming another breakthrough in our understanding of the uiverse. As usual they have found nothing, when science wanders into the territory of philosophy what is usually discovered (apart from being exactly whast the research project hoped to discover, is just a different subjective interpreatation of data to all the previous ones.

Mind Outside Time

Scientific Dictatorship: Totalitarian World Government Is Not A New Idea
Philosopher mathematician and elitist left wing intellectual Bertrand Russell wrote at length of the need for a totalitarian world government to which nations would surrender sovereignty and individuals free will, in his 1952 book The Impact Of Science On Society. The Scientific Dictatorship was not a new idea even then ...

Time Travellers (poem)
The Flight From Freedom
Oh Brave New World
Mathematics and Reality
The Truth Is Not Out There
Before Big Bang
Science and Technology
The Neuromancers and Other Neuroscience Fiction
Atomic Verse
The Flight From Freedom
When creepy individuals run technology firms why are we surprised that technology is creepy.

The dark side of social media: Baroness Susan Greenfield says social media is rewiring our brains
We’re all guilty of it. We’re at the pub, dinner table or enjoying a fun arvo with a group of friends and, instead of talking to the people we’re with, we’re preoccupied with our phones.

Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [Boggart Abroad]




< name="141023-big-brother">

Big Brother Is Right Behind You And He Knows What you Are Up To

by Boggart


No doubt the smug complacent bourgeois fools will shout conspiracy theirist and the emotionally needy leftist Sheeple will bleat "racist bigot" (they always bleat "racist bigot") but it is not alarmist to say the UK is slowly becoming a totalitarian state resembling the one in George Orwell's novel 1984. What else can we call our nation if anti - terror laws are being used prosecute people for low-level offences such as Television licence dodging.

The BBC (yes, Auntie Beeb)which as we all must be aware is run by a bunch of greedy, self serving, authoritarian Bolsheviks is using laws designed to catch terrorists and organised crime gangs to track down people who dodge the licence fee, according to a Daily Mail report based on a post at the BigBrotherWatch web site.

The publicly owned broadcaster is using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), designed by the last Labour government to fight terrorism, to catch those who evade paying the £145.50 fee. You may remember that the BBC's claims to possess technology which their said could see into your home and monitor which TV channel you were watching was actually a lie (of course it was a lie, they're lefties, they despise the truth.)

In 2012, Big Brother Watch discovered 345 councils had been authorised to use RIPA 9,607 times in just three years – the equivalent of around nine spying missions a day.

Seven public authorities, including the BBC, refused under the Freedom of Information Act to disclose why or how often they had used the powers. The most common use of the legislation is to demand phone companies hand over an individual's communications data.

At the time, the BBC said the reason for its secrecy was 'to ensure people without a valid TV licence don't use this information to their advantage'. Last night a BBC spokesman said: 'Legislation explicitly grants the BBC the right to use these powers to detect unlicensed use of television receivers.

'We're regularly inspected by independent regulators and have always been open about using this power when there is no other option to help reduce evasion on behalf of the vast majority of the population who pay for their licence.'

RIPA, passed by Labour in 2000 ostensibly as an anti-terror measure, gives public authorities sweeping powers to snoop on the public.

The most common use of the legislation is to demand phone companies hand over an individual's communications data. This would include details of who a person called, when and for how long. However, the act can also be used to mount undercover surveillance operations – such as secretly following a person to see when they are at home. This could, in theory, be used to match the times when a TV is believed to have been in use.

The Metropolitan Police Force is also in trouble for abusing the powers to gain access the phone logs of reporters on two newspapers in order to trace their sources.



What is most striking about these events are that publicly funded bodies such as the BBC, the Police and local authorities are refusing to answer perfectly reasonable Freedom of Information Act requests whilst exercising powers they shouldn't have granted by government bodies that voters do not approve of. There is proof that local authorities have used terror laws to surveil dog fouling and even people breaking smoking bans. And, where is all the data being stored of people being caught by anti-terror laws? Where will this end up? Big Brother is watching.

Surveillance, the tool of the totalitarian state
Surveillance will be total soon
The rise of the authoritarian liberals
Nanny Orwell wants to rule the world
Oh Brave New World
Nanny State index
Surveillance

Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [Boggart Abroad]

What Privacy Will You Have When You Can't Shop Without Submitting To Biometric Identification?

The Daily Stirrer has long been on the case of the people pushing for a total surveillance society. "If you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear," the authorities assure us, "its for your own dafety and security they say. We say BOLLOCKS, it is about power and control. One of our main contributors worked in Informatuon technology at a very high level for many years, he tells us he and colleagues who of a similar classical liberal and libertarian mindset warned then that the way the industry was going would give fascistic corporate and political leaders a perfect tool for controlling society and suppressing freedoms and civil liberties.

One of the basic human rights guaranteed by interational law under the Geneva convention is the right to privacy. But when we see the kind of society Our New Unhappy Lords are planning for us in the future, it seems we have been stripped of that along with other rights without our even realising it. Take a look at this:

div class="quote"

from Investment Watch:
In some areas of the world, payment systems that require palm scanning or face scanning are already being tested. We have entered an era where biometric security is being hailed as the “solution” to the antiquated security methods of the past. We are being promised that the constant problems that hackers are causing with our credit cards, bank accounts, ATM machines and Internet passwords will all go away once we switch over to biometric identification. And without a doubt, we have some massive security problems that need to be addressed. But do you really want a machine to read your face or your hand before you are able to buy anything, sell anything or log on to the Internet? Do you really want “the system” to be able to know where you are, what you are buying and what you are doing at virtually all times? Biometric security systems are being promoted as “cool” and “cutting edge”, but there is also potentially a very dark side to them that should not be ignored.

In this day and age, identity theft has become a giant problem. Being able to confirm that you are who you say that you are is a very big deal. To many, biometric security presents a very attractive solution to this problem. For example, the following is a brief excerpt from a recent Fox News article entitled “Biometric security can’t come soon enough for some people”

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table

Continue reading:

Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [Boggart Abroad]


Wi-Fi Radiation Warning By Lloyd’s of London

The Daily Stirrer is always at the forefront of the movement dedicated to debunking the pseudo science of corporate propagandsts so naturally we have raise the issue of safety concerns abut the wi - fi technologies that have been shoehorned into our lifestyle in the past decade, with scant serious research having been done into the possible risks to human health widespread use of this technology might pose.

All over the developed world and increasingly in emerging economies and third world nations, Wi Fi has been pushed by govrnments, academics and business as the de facto standard for networking. And as usual the people who questioned the certainties of Church Of Scienceology evangelists wetre dismissed as 'conspiracy theorists' or anti - progress nut jobs. but as in so many other cases, the push to get the whole world online via Wi-Fi was driven by Corporate hunger for revenue and profit rather than any truly altruistic plan to put al the information in the world at everybody's fingertips.

Thus people who did recognise that there were risks involved were rapidly marginalised and evidence that there might be geniune cause for concern was diligently covered up.

Now however, the truth is starting to emerge.

Canadian school boards and school medical health officers have been notified by their government's Education Department that insurers Lloyd’s of London has excluded from school insurance cover any liability for injuries, "directly or indirectly arising out of, resulting from or contributed to by electromagnetic fields, electromagnetic radiation, electromagnetism, radio waves or noise." This primarily refers to the radio frequency emissions from Wi-Fi and other wireless telecommunications devices in schools.

On February 18, 2015, a statement issued by Lloyd’s included this paragraph: "the Electromagnetic Fields Exclusion (Exclusion 32) is a General Insurance Exclusion and is applied across the market as standard. The purpose of the exclusion is to exclude cover for illnesses caused by continuous long-term non-ionizing radiation exposure i.e. through mobile phone usage."

The importance of this lies in the fact that Lloyd’s of London, not an actual insurance company but and insurance market in which many underwriters and brokers combine to make up one of the largest insurance providers in the world, often leads the way in protection by taking on risks that no one else will , and therefore is instrumental in setting standards for the whole industry. The decision becomes very understandable when one is aware that Lloyd’s has refused to cover mobile phone manufacturers against risks to users’ health for over a decade. In those years however, most of what has been reported by mainstream media has stuck closely to the official 'scientific consensus' line that cellular technology and Wi - Fi posed no risk at all to human health.

RELATED POSTS:
Back to Contents table
Health hazards of Wi Fi world revealed
Technology is a psycholigical hazard
Technology and The Orwell - Huxley - Dick index of Dystopianism
Technology - a man made monster we cannot control
Technology: They lied, cellphones do cause cancer
Technology: Does Wi-Fi damage human fertility Latest Posts

Elsewhere: [Boggart Blog]...[Little Nicky Machiavelli]...[Scribd]...[Wikinut] ... [ Boggart Abroad] ... [ Grenteeth Bites ] ... Ian Thorpe at Flickr ] ... [ Tumblr ]



Welcome to the Era of Artificial Intelligence and Technological Deceit

via Activist Post, written by Daisy Luther

by

The era of artificial intelligence and technological deceit is upon us. If you think “fake news” and propaganda is bad right now, just wait.

And you won’t have to wait very long, at that.

Pretty soon, computer wizardry and artificial intelligence will allow video footage to be created that is practically indiscernible from the real deal. Add to this holograph technology, and soon a person could appear to be speaking, live, in front of you, and you’d never even know it was all fake. The ethical ramifications of AI and technology are simply mind-boggling. In fact, some folks even believe it will signal the beginning of the end of humanity.

But apocalyptic AI aside, let’s look at the manipulative potential of our current tech. We are very close to real life meeting science fiction; and if you think we are being deceived now, once these technologies are rolled out, you won’t be able to believe your eyes or your ears.

There are several unsettling parts to this story.

First, there’s the video editing to a new soundtrack.

Researchers at the University of Washington have developed an artificial intelligence software so powerful that it can put words in the mouth of just about anybody. It’s basically like artificially intelligent lip-synching.

…as long as there’s an audio source to use, the video can include realistic mouth shapes that are almost perfectly aligned to the words being spoken. Those synthesised shapes can then be grafted onto an existing video of someone talking…

…There are two parts to the system: first a neural network is trained to watch large volumes of videos to recognise which audio sounds match with which mouth shapes. Then the results are mixed with moving images of a specific person, based on previous research into digital modelling carried out at UW. (source)

Here’s a clip of the software in action.

U of W says that this is actually a good thing and has been developed to help identify fake videos. Because, you know, no one has ever misused technology before.

Then, there’s audio technology that can imitate anyone’s voice with access to a few recordings.

And if that were the only new tech development, it would be bad enough. But a new start-up called Lyrebird can actually create audio that sounds exactly like someone else using “deep learning and artificial neural networks.”

This is an example. It’s kind of rough right now, but how long before it gets polished up?

Even more alarming, this is something that ordinary folks will soon be able to get their hands on. If this is for the layman, can you even imagine what the government and military have access to?

Then, there are holograms.

Do you recall when Tupac (who is supposedly dead or maybe alive, depending on who you believe) showed up a Coachella on the stage back in 2012? If you speed ahead to 2:20 in the video below, the hologram Tupac is on stage with a real person, Dr. Dre, and the difference is nearly indistinguishable.

(Language alert. Come on, it’s Tupac – you didn’t expect him to be squeaky clean, suddenly.)

Here’s how the technology works:

Holography is a broad field, but at its most basic, it is a photographic technique that records the light scattered from an object. The light is then reproduced in a 3D format. Holography was first developed in the 1940s by the Hungarian-British physicist Dennis Gabor, who won the 1971 Nobel Prize in physics for his invention and development of the holographic method.

Our ability to produce dynamic, high-resolution holograms—think Princess Leia pleading with Obi-Wan Kenobi for the Jedi’s help—is currently limited by what’s called wavefront modulators. These devices, such as spatial light modulators or digital micromirror devices, can control the direction of light propagation.

An imaging system with a short focal length lens can only create a tiny image that has a wide viewing range. Conversely, a system with a long focal length can generate a larger image but with a very narrow viewing range. The best wavefront modulator technology has only been able to create an image that is one centimeter in size with a viewing angle of three degrees.

“This problem… can be solved by simply inserting a diffuser,” explains YongKeun Park, a professor in the Physics Department at KAIST. Because a diffuser diffuses light, both the image size and viewing angle can be dramatically increased by a factor of a few thousands, according to Park.

But there’s still one more problem to overcome: a diffuser scrambles light.

“Thus, in order to utilize a diffuser as ‘a holographic lens,’ one needs to calibrate the optical characteristics of each diffusor carefully,” Park says by email. “For this purpose, we use ‘wavefront-shaping technique,’ which provides information about the relationship between impinging light onto a diffuser and outgoing light.” (source)

Fascinating, yet terrifying at the same time.

Think about the ramifications of this.

With all of this technology, some of it soon to be available on our smart phones, how can we believe anything?

Think about it. How difficult would it be to completely fabricate “videos” of anyone that we are expected to hate? We live in an era in which false flags are the norm and those in power profit from war. It’s a regular occurrence to create a new bogeyman whenever a conflict is the desired outcome.

Here’s an example. Consider the whole chemical attack presumably undertaken by Bashar al-Assad in Syria against his own people. All we had to go on in the news were suppositions, a video of the aftermath, and some heart-rending emotional coverage.

But, honestly, some of us never really believed this was legitimate because there was no motive. However, lots of folks did believe it, hook, line, and sinker, without any video or any claim by Assad that he was, in fact, responsible. (In fact, he denied it the entire time.) These people were ready for us to go to war against Assad immediately to stop the suffering of those poor, dying children.

Now, let’s add technology into the mix.

What if there had been an AI video and soundtrack of Assad? People tend to believe their eyes and ears, particularly if they have already been prompted to feel a certain emotion. What if there was a “live” speech in front of thousands that was just a hologram?

Let’s take the what-ifs further.

What if there were AI soundtrack recordings of the infamous “Russia” collusion? What if there were hologram speeches from leaders who had been assassinated stating that, no, they escaped, and here’s what they want their mourning followers to do next.

What if there is an AI speech and an AI video that appeared to be our “enemy” making threats against us? Maybe one of Jong-un telling his people that yep, we’re striking the US tonight with an EMP that will devastate them for decades. What better way to get our country to be fully behind a military “preemptive” attack than that?

Is this is far-fetched?

Call me a Luddite (trust me, you wouldn’t be the first) but AI is becoming more acceptable every day with Alexa and Siri in every other home in America. We’re being gently lulled into it by “convenience” but are we opening the door to something that could go horribly wrong?

I hope my imagination is getting the best of me, but I certainly wouldn’t put it past the people pulling the strings to use artificial intelligence to manipulate the masses. If the technology exists to deceive people, someone is going to use it.

Please feel free to share any information from this site in part or in full, leaving all links intact, giving credit to the author and including a link to this website and the following bio. Daisy is a coffee-swigging, gun-toting, homeschooling blogger who writes about current events, preparedness, frugality, and the pursuit of liberty on her websites, The Organic Prepper, where this article
first appeared
,
and DaisyLuther.com
She is the author of 4 books and the co-founder of Preppers University, where she teaches intensive preparedness courses in a live online classroom setting. You can follow her on Facebook, Pinterest, and Twitter.


All posts on this page:
CREATIVE COMMONS: attrib, no comm, no dervs.
KEYWORDS: technology, intelligence, artificial, computer, robot, dailystirrer,

More Greenteeth Multi Media places:

Follow Greenteeth on TWITTER...Boggart Abroad ... Daily Stirrer home ... Greenteeth Bites ... Boggart Blog ... Greenteeth Labyrinth ... Post Any Article ... Boggart - Eft on Blogster ... Author ... Gather ... Authorsden ... Scribd ... Ian Thorpe at Facebook ... Delicious Greenteeth ... Boggart Network News ...Boggart Network News

If you liked this, please give it a boost

Bookmark and Share
Close Window and return to previous URL
News Feeds (Go back to top)
BBC News
CNN
CREATIVE COMMONS: attrib, no comm, no dervs.
KEYWORDS: news, opinion, dailystirrer,

If you liked this, please give it a boost

Bookmark and Share
Close Window and return to previous URL

MORE FROM THE GREENTEETH STABLE

Menu

Follow Greenteeth on TWITTER...Boggart Abroad ... Daily Stirrer home ... Greenteeth Bites ... Boggart Blog ... Greenteeth Labyrinth ... Author ... Wikinut - Ian R Thorpe ... Gather ... Bubblews ... Authorsden ... Scribd ... Ian Thorpe at Facebook ... Delicious Greenteeth ... Boggart Network News ... Boggart Network News