---

Last year, I fired shots enthusiastically at the “automation gang”, so I guess you can consider this installment a foray into the “sequelia” of that genesis post from 2018.

---

“…one states how the technology unfolds…”

© — Desmond J. Watson | D T O ™

The Technologist

I couldn’t resist the temptation to engage, once again, into the psychoanalytical field trip that would range from a simple gaze to an unplanned hike that inevitably leads one along the trail towards the darling “god-garden” of artificial intelligence, only this time keeping the crosshairs locked on one specific target: a Mr. Eric Schmidt, a prime time Googler who correctly cannot be considered amongst the mistakable founders, but an individual who once stepped up to the tasks of pulling in on the reins of the aforementioned horse-driven mechanisms that currently holds the system intact–a system now comprised of varying components ranging from machine learning, data collection [and manipulation], algorithm development, social engineering, smartphone development [and sales]–heck, even venture capital.

It was once believed that the Internet was going to bring the knowledge of every single library in existence to everyone (instead, we got Wikipedia), however, its major use is pornography, gossiping and video games. It ain’t hard to tell that entertainment will be the focus in regards to artificial intelligence implementation. Of course, that can be flipped. What we, as humans, desire is a quantitative definition for artificial intelligence. When you listen to enthused individuals in the corner of AI speak on the subject matter they believe the advent of general [“superintelligent”] AI will happen in their lifetime. The thought experiment interrupts the notion of a “neat future” where a cataclysmic event could unfold yet not disrupt the emergence of an artificial overlord. The trouble with that aspect is that no matter how interruptive AI is believed to be in manifestation totality, nothing can prevent the “end” from occurring (i.e., an asteroid / comet collision with Earth), so describe for me how “superintelligent” your artificial love affair with some thing that can’t even protect its Creator? That’s a strange expression of non-affection.

If you follow any of the articles concerning artificial intelligence and its impact on society you’ll notice that there is a distinct group who believe that impact, and in particular, being capable of rivaling human innate intelligence, is indeed nil, even in the next century. Our [human] understanding of cognitive processes doesn’t even measure up and the “state of the art” computer systems does not support the idea of a “superintelligent” overcoming human innate intelligence. Successful machine learning undertakings in the game of chess seems impressive–to some. Understandably so, the idea that you would have a chance against a modern computer is absurd. If chess-playing is considered an indication of any tangible measure of intelligence, then it could be concluded that computers have been more intelligent that mankind for quite some time now. It’s more like rote memorization at play and that won’t fare much in the real world. The purpose of practical technology will almost always precede the theory developed to fully explain said technology. Essence of the internal debate is whether the current culture of research and development will be either beneficial or detrimental to the field of R&D / applied technology going forward. An algorithm is only “good” as the developer’s experience and intuition while training models without having to be “anchored” down to the first principles of development. Algorithmic approximation ain’t governed by machine code; it’s governed by human history and the implication of a moral superiority.

Morality itself is the daughter-product from the consummation that takes place between human thought and the human voice. Computers aren’t necessary. Adapting the intangible into a machine is a most difficult experiment of trial and error. Think of the dilemma of group specialization where, for example, folks who kick a ball down a line–as in when it comes to the moral issue of using a particular technology–the outcome is not exactly what you had in mind. I mean, does a gun manufacturer feel morally responsible as to how their guns are used or even if their product was the tool utilized in a school shooting? When you take into consideration that some new technologies are developed to be more or so “prone” for intentionally harmful implementation, however, the responsibility for wrongdoing rests primarily in the hands of the wrongdoer. What exactly are the measures of wrongdoing that can be effectuated in time to institute precaution and perhaps, prevention? Objective “good” and “evil” are not universal and are based purely on imposing values. Trying to apply them as “rules” or “laws” in the context of computer science and applied mathematics is, for the moment, all for naught since computer science itself is still a craft and not candidate to be qualified as an industrialized tool application in the same vein that math, engineering and physics are in today’s world. What people need to know is that artificial intelligence is a field of study more than it is about application and direct implementation.

“It is up to human beings to decipher the significance of what AI systems are doing and to develop interpretations.”

For the past couple of years, in regards to what my anti-AI scientific R&D outfit have been working on since 2013, I have emphasized on I.I., informational interpretation technology. All of sudden, AI “experts” are now expounding on AI systems developing “interpretations”. In the left-hand corner, you have artificial intelligence, a field of study that has yet to “learn” anything about itself; and in the right-hand corner, you have informational interpretation–and what’s the definition of the latter?

Informational interpretation — noun

“The field of both applicable and practical research and development that pertains to ALL maximized approaches in the marketable pluralities that rest at the very root of information retrieval’s untapped superiorities.“  

—Desmond J. Watson | D T O ™

The link up above features an article concerning the viewpoints of three illustrative individuals: Eric Schmidt, Henry Kissinger and some unbeknownst-to-me German-American Ph.D. run-of-the-mill computer scientist, Daniel P. Huttenlocher. One commits to a viewpoint of how society will play to a certain role with the advent of a general AI; one states how the technology unfolds; and the other one plays the “know-it-all” in regards to how AI mixes-in with current technology. As far as society goes, you need to understand that society exists as subsets and the parts that make up whole [society]. Those subsets of society are villages, towns and cities that make up this society that we call the United States. The [implementation] of AI, the “AI” that is being promoted, is the type of AI that the three aforementioned “experts” deduce as anarchic, in particular degrees. The degree of anarchy is wholly dependent on the degree of anonymity in any given society.

“…and the other one plays the ‘know-it-all’ in regards to how AI mixes-in with current technology.”

© — Desmond J. Watson | D T O ™

The “Know-It-All”

My reasoning for not seeing Daniel P. Huttenlocher as an “expert” in the field of study called artificial intelligence is because expertise is a dedication game in which the only way to sustain such an effort towards becoming an “expert” is to do so without undergoing the burnout-effect [which is more of a physical thing]. I also question why Mr. Huttenlocher isn’t considered a figure in the industrial world. I mean, a PhD. is your career but that doesn’t excuse your work from being an additional tool utilized for industry. The general public is scared of artificial intelligence (in the nature of “automation”) taking away their “jobs”, and “jobs” are industrial, not academic. See, I do not view AI as something that is scary or an unwelcome element of surprise, so the implementation of the aforementioned element wouldn’t be such a foreign concept for an established corporation. But, how do you trust the borderline soothesayer? In all honesty, I view Huttenlocher as nothing more than an “additive” of hyperbole in conjunction with The Game of Life.

In regards to knowledge, there is no other word more allegorical than expert. Artificial intelligence is more of an art of strategic development than its knowledge base being applicable to practical implementation. The “science” map is disgustingly confusing and gives permit to those diametrically opposed to a scientific grand undertaking while directing ne’er do wells down the wrong path–and what’s a “path”? Answer: I don’t know. Perhaps, you would need to consult the technological Pied Piper of today’s generation. Replete with egoistical boasting and the institutional stench of Ivy League-tenure, Dan Huttenlocher is the frontman on the discovery frontier of AI, which in itself, is a roach bomb. If an avalanche of miscalculation was to rumble downhill, Huttenlocher is the point of blame. “Science” has turned to the popularity hand for guidance and has metamorphosed the would-be “scientist” into an pseudo-artist. Understand the verb colonized; it has defined the cultural underline of the absurd American psyche and has solidified its determining print firmly. The artful madness interlocked with the parametric-thought in regards to technological development and fire-kicks of cranial impulses that have “blessed” the world over with constant and instantaneous products and services. Whiteboard intrusion and enduring the torture of endless collegiate lectures [and tag-along, pointless Feynman quotes] plus the combination of conviviality and loquacious sends a trace of supplemental hydration to the root of the problem: likability. This lends credence to the likelihood that this doctrine of AI is exclusively in the hands of those who have adopted the coterie prejudices of a Huttenlocher.

Reactions to logic remains largely unpredictable as my viewpoint on Huttenlocher’s “expertise” on artificial intelligence as nothing more than a cultural minister. To hold the banner of “expert” over his head seems like a meaty bit ripped off from the bone of exaggeration. I would be more interested in Huttenlocher’s take on things concerning funding of AI research. In spite of all the venture capital that has been dumped in dubious “AI” undertakings, a familiar area of research remains significantly overlooked [and I would dare say, racially biased against], and that area is I.I., informational interpretation. Of course, in order to define this specific area of R&D you have to come talk to its creator, Desmond J. Watson.

“If AI improves constantly—and there is no reason to think it will not—the changes it will impose on human life will be transformative.”

Source: “The Metamorphosis” (article from The Atlantic)

AI is only one aspect of technology that we can use as a means of being transformative; one other technology is informational interpretation which will have a direct effect on our human experience–an experience of which one will have control over its utility. But, in regards to artificial intelligence, you have to break this down into two specific camps. Elon The Muskrat is a prime example of the first camp which is “brain-computer” interface. When you think of Elon, you can’t help but ponder about why he’s so amped on implanting devices in one’s brain in order to amplify human brain to computer interface interactions. Back in 2003, I worked for an unfunded startup that a ” professor” managed that was called Fho-Bis, LLC. It short-lived (for about four years) since the “professor” couldn’t convince local investors to put money towards [probably because Scientific Atlanta had a satellite location just up street], however, there I learned basis of human-computer interaction which is simply technology that compliments native capacities of the human mind–which is not possible since no supportive neurological evidence shows [nor compels] any effort toward convictive research. All money is being directed towards development of hardware that corporations feel takes up for lack of compelling research.

The second camp is what the scientific community is currently engaged in and that is “machine intelligence“–another wasteland for money to be dumped in. According to “computer scientists”, this is the camp of AI that says the future of cognitive evolution is purportedly to be machine-based and isn’t going to require any biological input to make it run. This camp teaches that the future will have human-like robots that will have our cognitive architecture only running “much faster” than the delayed-speed of our biological neurons are allowed. Biological neurons are believed to be “too slow” and crude to keep up with the evolving field of machine cognition. Problem is, unlike our biological neurons, machines can’t carry nary a thought. I’d like to see the research on this.

---

You can sense the odorous presence of gentrification emanating from the quote up above. Inherently anti-Black in its own definition, gentrification was clearly the action in sight when I made my way to NYC back in 2015. Cranes, cranes, cranes everywhere. What I did not see [in the vicinity of Manhattan where I was staying] was an immediate influx of Black people, not even as tourists (except for the few I saw employed at the Met). I did encounter numerous droves of white people–seas of white people. Not even economically-struggling white people–just white people who’ve spent considerable years of their lives with an economic advantage and not necessarily by way of “education”. One out of every four working-age Americans have obtained a college degree yet when it comes to the IT industry, software engineering, research & development and so forth, a good percentage of those “jobs” go to people who do not directly reflect the many people I crossed paths with during my short little five-day trek through Midtown West Manhattan. I say this because I’m seeing the parallels in the desire from Huttenlocher for NYC to make such an impact–an impact from a digital / technological frontline approach as well the non-existent economic advantage he seeks for the city to obtain. I say non-existent because NYC is no longer the financial capital of the world. There is an economic theory (I forget the name but it starts with a “W”) that states that the financial capital always moves westward and capital, itself, has an inherent need to “move around”. So, with that, there goes your strongest investment arm, and right now, that’s still [unfortunately] Silicon Valley or rather, the VCs and institutional investors out of Silicon Valley. Sure, NYC has those coveted Wall Street investment bankers and investment banks the likes of Goldman Sachs and Fidelity, but how do they compare to SoftBank making the moves it has been making for the past four or so years? Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore can be the next NYC if the laws of economics deem so.

“One commits to a viewpoint of how society will play to a certain role with the advent of a general AI…”

© — Desmond J. Watson (DTO™)

The Cannibalistic Social Engineer

Who, in signature American past, present and future, can possibly be a bigger figure than the harbinger of U.S. geopolitical hellfire? The answer to imposing query is obvious to anyone whose intelligent quotient has been registered by a numerical standard glued together by a minimum of three digits characterized by every neuron involved in the action of thought-formation to play their role sufficiently. Kissinger sits on the front page of American discourse as the architect of U.S. hegemony’s global spread. Insouciantly relevant in any conversation that has taken place at the dinner table of any household across the country since the mid-20th century, H. Kissinger takes the center in the image of homegrown aggression. Like a character straight out of a Wes Craven film [if he were to be fictional], his mind is labyrinthine, producing a horrific outcome. No other dynamic political duo has displayed blatant stupidity than that of Kissinger and Nixon. However, no one had [or, has] a keen eye on peoples’ varying “comfort zones” they way Kissinger sees them. People have a “comfort zone” and when you have a lot of people with similar “comfort zones” you will seem them flocking together. See, let’s take, for example [that a lot of your “high-IQs” like to draw parallels with], a game of chess. Most people who play chess do so from a victim’s perspective; people in power play chess knowing how to take advantage of the victim. An advantage in the game of life [mirrored as a match of chess] is seeing that there is absolutely nothing inherently, morally or ethically wrong with segregation as long as the segregation is voluntary and not coerced–and that there is no violence. A peek into how the synapses in the mind of an architect of a cold, calculating [and greedy] strategy such as the U.S. geopolitical plan (which is long-term), you’ll find that they can depict an apocalyptic scenario play-out in which people segregate into their “comfort zones” in classifications such as race, ethnicity, religion and socio-economic class. If the scenario bears conditions that are just too much for a person to deal with (which, by the way, is what apocalyptic means), they’ll be broken-down to the point that their only refuge is to segregate into groups with a similar or exact interests.

If you were to strip away the stupidity in his orchestration of the [current] U.S. geopolitical strategy (where he mobilized the proto Indo-European instinct of “constant war”), which has done nothing but produce indignation persistently throughout the past five generations, you would see the leadership skills beneath the vile composite of Kissinger. It takes one to know one, but even the fool-hearted knows that you cannot permit one or two or even a handful of people to constantly create disunity and disharmony (division) within your group (post-segregation). You have to get rid of them and this was the initial strategy behind the Vietnam War (until it backfired). This is tantamount if you are to be a figure of leadership or placed in a leadership position. It’s no longer about “my daddy was never home“, if you’re the one who recognizes that there are problems within your group then you need to take action for the good of the other people in your group. You’re the one who figured out how to untie the knot of self-hatred and guilt while everyone else is still squirming around for freedom.

“In the nuclear age, strategy evolved around the concept of deterrence. Deterrence is predicated on the rationality of parties, and the premise that stability can be ensured by nuclear and other military deployments that can be neutralized only by deliberate acts leading to self-destruction; the likelihood of retaliation deters attack. Arms-control agreements with monitoring systems were developed in large part to avoid challenges from rogue states or false signals that might trigger a catastrophic response.”

Source: The Metamorphosis (an article from The Atlantic)

So, as your unelected, self-imposed “leader”, what exactly has Kissinger gotten away with over the years of his multi-year tenure as your national security advisor? Before I answer that inquiry for you, I’ll impose another question for everyone who are so concerned about the United States’ use of “energy”. Why are you so concerned about it? No one with a modicum of intelligence cares about “cheap” energy. It will only fall under a similar fate, faint scenario-style. So, when the remaining documents are finally declassified and released, it shouldn’t be all that much of a shock when you discover that Kissinger and the Saudis engineered the OPEC oil embargo in order to create the illusion for Americans that a U.S. presence was required in the Middle East and North Africa just to ensure that there will be a smooth transition for the United States from the “gold standard” to the U.S. petrodollar. Don’t forget that by doing so, it also diverted the loose attention span of the Media and the public from the Nixon administration’s domestic policies. That’s that chess thing I referred to earlier.

“Typically, these questions are left to technologists and to the intelligentsia of related scientific fields. Philosophers and others in the field of the humanities who helped shape previous concepts of world order tend to be disadvantaged, lacking knowledge of AI’s mechanisms or being overawed by its capacities. In contrast, the scientific world is impelled to explore the technical possibilities of its achievements, and the technological world is preoccupied with commercial vistas of fabulous scale. The incentive of both these worlds is to push the limits of discoveries rather than to comprehend them. And governance, insofar as it deals with the subject, is more likely to investigate AI’s applications for security and intelligence than to explore the transformation of the human condition that it has begun to produce.”

© — Henry Kissinger

Source: “How The Enlightenment Ends“ (an article from The Atlantic)

Kissinger’s blatant miscomprehension of AI is risible at best, however it’s also a reflection of the general public’s perception as well since it is highly-merchandized and belongs to chaotic convention. Kissinger has mistakenly adopted the mainstream version of AI and has become assigned a “high position” in the cabinet of special group interest labeled “artificial intelligence”. A proud non-egalitarian, H. Kissinger mirrors the same ignorance and sheer contempt for technological comprehension by “thinking” that the product of studies, AI, can be utilized to adjust any perceptible mishaps that may occur–nuclear-wise. From the article cited [several times already], you can tell that the majority of its readers have no recollection of history concerning Kissinger and the many “mishaps” he made [intentionally]. During the 1973 Yom Kippur War, Golda Meier blackmailed the U.S. by threatening the use of nuclear weapons. Capitulating as always, Nixon, was forced by Kissinger to give Israel whatever Meier wanted, which was the satellite and aerial reconnaissance photos in addition to money, weapons and munitions. Now we know why Israel was able to win the Yom Kippur War because without those satellite photos Israel would’ve been run-over.

---

Let’s face it, Kissinger is slightly biased when it comes to Israel being the subject. Kissinger was a social Democrat [neo-Conservative]. As I had stated before, he is one of the architects of the current U.S. global geopolitical strategy. Why is the U.S. getting ready to “get it in” with Iran? Answer: Nuclear energy is the key to Iran’s prosperous future, and there will be no future [for Iran] without nuclear energy. With extremely limited water resources and no means of electrical power generation other than oil and natural gas. You can’t change your strategy once you have it in motion. History will vilify people like Kissinger since he and all of the other social Democrats were wrong then and still are wrong to this very day. This is a business strategy more so than a war-oriented strategy.

---

D E S M O N D | D T O ™