Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

The technological singularity is a point in the near future when technological growth becomes uncontrollable and irreversible, resulting in unfathomable changes to human civilization. It will advance at inconceivable rates and will overwhelm our human capacity to understand it. The technological singularity and economic inequality are two powerful streams that will merge together, massively feeding upon each other to create the ultimate disaster. We will either live in a twisted dystopian reality, become extinct as a species, or both. We must stop this now.

Posted on: » Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:59 am #21

MaureenCarter
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
Contact:
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #6, Posted May 12, 2017
The Creation Of New Laws Developed From And In Response To The Coming Singularity Will Favor The Rich. This Will Create A New Class Of Inequality And Precipitate Increased Human Rights Abuse Disproportionately Upon The Poor. The Initial Hig...
none

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by MaureenCarter » Mon Oct 15, 2018 8:59 am

Stephen Hawking was worried the wealthy elite would monopolize genetic engineering and Artificial Intelligence to the detriment of the remaining population. The recent Brett Kavinaugh confirmation to the Robert's Supreme Court that passed Citizens United where corporations are considered as people cements this stranglehold upon the rest of us. The politics of the day will make certain the un-enhanced portion of the population will not fare well. Any doubts in our minds about this happening needs to be extinguished now.

Stephen Hawking feared race of 'superhumans' able to manipulate their own DNA
By Isaac Stanley-Becker / The Washington Post Oct 15, 2018
https://www.fredericksburg.com/news/tre ... 42855.html
Before he died in March, the Cambridge University professor predicted that people this century would gain the capacity to edit human traits such as intelligence and aggression. And he worried that the capacity for genetic engineering would be concentrated in the hands of the wealthy.
There would be an attempt to pass laws restricting the genetic engineering of human traits, he anticipated. "But some people won't be able to resist the temptation to improve human characteristics, such as size of memory, resistance to disease and length of life," he anticipated.

"Once such superhumans appear, there are going to be significant political problems with the unimproved humans, who won't be able to compete," Hawking reasoned. "Presumably, they will die out, or become unimportant."

Ultimately, he envisioned a "race of self-designing beings who are improving themselves at an ever-increasing rate. If the human race manages to redesign itself, it will probably spread out and colonise other planets and stars."
Hawking was also wary about artificial intelligence,
He was particularly worried that the promise of artificial intelligence - the possibility of the eradication of disease and poverty - would blind its developers to long-term costs, namely that humans could lose control over its growth.

"One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders and potentially subduing us with weapons we cannot even understand," he wrote. "Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all."
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:50 pm #22

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #6, Posted May 12, 2017
The Creation Of New Laws Developed From And In Response To The Coming Singularity Will Favor The Rich. This Will Create A New Class Of Inequality And Precipitate Increased Human Rights Abuse Disproportionately Upon The Poor. The Initial Hig...
none

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:50 pm

Regulatory capture, money in politics, and a subcategory of legalized bribery, are just some of the mechanisms whereby the wealthy maintain laws favorable to themselves. The political process is ineffective in stopping the wealthy from continually coming back into power. This is why the Economic Inequality Rating App is so important. It circumvents the elite's wealth and political clout to change the laws creating high economic inequality.

Answer this rhetorical question for yourself, if you were a politician and two lobbyists were sitting in your waiting room, one with ten thousand dollars and the other with one million dollars, who would you want to speak to first?

Jessica just wrote an interesting post, (#13 under FirstRateCrowd's EIRA), that is relevant as to how the financial power of the wealthy can change the laws to suppress the will of the people and continue to reemerge at the top of the financial pyramid. (see her post to learn more about these mechanisms)
Political policy undergoes continuous erosion when it comes to correcting economic inequality. Money in politics and regulatory capture (including corporate capture) ensures the wealthy will always comeback into power. The Economic Inequality Rating App is a means to stop this insane never ending process.

Like Sisyphus of Greek mythology who was forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill only for it to roll down when it nears the top, repeating this action for eternity, it is the same with our political battle against the wealthy. For those of us who have lived many decades and have experienced this process first hand, we know the political process is a frustrating and demoralizing cyclic endeavor to control the power of the rich. It is said colloquially that power begets power, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the rich get richer. So it has been forever.

There are levers of power that sustain this ongoing insane process. Here are just two such levers:
Money in Politics and Regulatory capture (and corporate capture)
Another lever of power to benefit the wealthy in creating laws favorable to themselves is a subcategory of money in politics; it is legalized bribery.

Vox
I was a lobbyist for more than 6 years. I quit. My conscience couldn’t take it anymore.
“The hypocrisy from both sides is staggering.”
By Jimmy Williams Updated Jan 5, 2018
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2017/6 ... y-politics
Today, most lobbyists are engaged in a system of bribery but it’s the legal kind, the kind that runs rampant in the corridors of Washington. It’s a system of sycophantic elected leaders expecting a campaign cash flow, and in return, industry, interest groups, and big labor are rewarded with what they want: legislation and rules that favor their constituencies.
Everyone in this country, from the left to the right, deserves a voice, and they should be heard loud and clear. If that means hiring a lobbyist to represent your point of view before Congress, awesomesauce. If that means you take to the streets, demand meetings and town halls with cowardly members of the House and Senate, or, better yet, run against them, I’m your biggest advocate.

But what I don’t support are Supreme Court rulings that have repeatedly told us money is an absolutely protected form of speech. A string of cases like Citizens United and others has opened the barn door to unlimited “dark money” campaign spending. Cases like Citizens gross me and most everyone else out because the result is the money in your politics becomes the voice in your politics. Americans’ right “to redress” comes at a cost, and if you don’t have the cash, chances are you’ll be ignored.

Bottom line: Those with the most money have the largest voices. Those with the least are rarely part of the process. That makes the legality of the practice of lobbying less relevant because it’s an uneven playing field.
The following videos help to clarify this concept.

Video: When Does Lobbying Become Bribery?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33gHhunzOlE

Video: Ryan Bribe, Income Inequality, Restaurant CEO, and Minimum Wage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maDx_XMvj7w
Times Referenced: 2

Posted on: » Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:04 am #23

User avatar
Jessica
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #22, Posted Nov 12, 2018
Regulatory capture, money in politics, and a subcategory of legalized bribery, are just some of the mechanisms whereby the wealthy maintain laws favorable to themselves. The political process is ineffective in stopping the wealthy from cont...
none

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Jessica » Tue Nov 20, 2018 9:04 am

Although it is recognized that new technology creates inequality, it is the wealthy people, not the technology, that actually creates income and economic inequality. Regulatory capture, money in politics, and legalized bribery all contribute to this fact. But do not blame the technology, blame the people manipulating the wealth they gain from the new technology for our woes.

Doctor A in his post #16 under, The Community Business Venture, is worth repeating some aspects here as he states,
New technology is creating income inequality and economic inequality. This technology is being developed at ever increasing rates with the wealthy reaping the lion's share of the wealth and power from its production. Wealth and power beget more wealth and power. This then ultimately creates an upward spiral of more new technology with further generation of wealth and power for the elites. The real problem is weak governance and not technology per se. We must wake up to the fact this is our dilemma; if we continue to play by the old rules we risk annihilation. This is why the community business venture as a means to fund the Economic Inequality Rating App matters so much.
Doctor A presents four articles from the IMF, United Nations University, MIT Tech Review, and Techcrunch, all chanting the same mantra; it is the wealthy elite, not the technology that is ultimately responsible for the inequality. Here is a view of some of their findings,
Are robots to be blamed?

Why is inequality rising? The main narratives connect higher within-country inequality to institutional and governance weaknesses, especially in the US and Europe. These have allowed policy and regulatory capture by an entrepreneurial elite, resulting in a greater share of GDP accruing to the owners of capital.

In recent years, though, technological innovation has been receiving increased attention as another possible cause. In particular, information and communication technology (ICT) advances — such as in robotics, automated processes, machine learning, the Internet of Things (IoT), “big data”, and artificial intelligence — are being blamed for making workers (primarily those with mid-level skills in medium-wage jobs) redundant.

Weak governance, weak entrepreneurship

The conclusion from these considerations is that while technological innovation may have contributed to rising inequality, its actual contribution has probably been dwarfed by the institutional-governance weaknesses. The rise in the income share of the top 0.1% of income earners has been fueled by reductions in social security, an unravelling of the power and rights of the labour union movement and collective bargaining, and regulatory capture by the rich. This has resulted in reductions in taxation and transfer payments, and in lower regulations on globalisation and the activities of multinational enterprises.
And
The disparity between the rich and everyone else is larger than ever in the United States, and few places is this skewed wealth distribution more visible than in and around Silicon Valley. The chasm between tech multi-billionaires and the rest of the population in Northern California — where an estimated 31 percent of jobs pay $16 per hour or less and the median income in the U.S. today is about the same as it was in 1995 — has led to the conclusion that the tech sector is greatly contributing to increased inequality.

While it is tempting to name technology as one of the main culprits for the rise in inequality, blaming technology is merely an excuse to abdicate responsibility. Technology does not cause income disparity, but enables increased efficiency and wealth creation. The problem is how we choose to distribute the wealth and benefits of increased efficiency. So far, we are not really doing a good job in this department.
It is these people, the rich with their greedy fearful brain structure, who are the true foes of the people. Let us not be diverted by the technological issues and stay focused on the root cause of inequality, the wealthy elite with their economic and political power structure. If ever there was a face to to world's suffering and inhumanity, it is these individuals. It is not the face of a robot.
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:35 am #24

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #21, Posted Oct 15, 2018
Stephen Hawking was worried the wealthy elite would monopolize genetic engineering and Artificial Intelligence to the detriment of the remaining population. The recent Brett Kavinaugh confirmation to the Robert's Supreme Court that passed C...
none

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:35 am

Steven Hawking wasn't the only one warning about the dangers of Artificial Intelligence. Elon Musk has chimed in claiming AI is the most existential threat to the world even surpassing the threat of nuclear bombs and needs to be regulated.
Hawking was also wary about artificial intelligence,

He was particularly worried that the promise of artificial intelligence - the possibility of the eradication of disease and poverty - would blind its developers to long-term costs, namely that humans could lose control over its growth.

"One can imagine such technology outsmarting financial markets, out-inventing human researchers, out-manipulating human leaders and potentially subduing us with weapons we cannot even understand," he wrote. "Whereas the short-term impact of AI depends on who controls it, the long-term impact depends on whether it can be controlled at all."
Elon Musk in the video below shows a palpable fear of AI and it's potential to enslave us. With a background in rocket science, driverless vehicles, tunnel boring, and energy storage, he has his thumb on the pulse of technology on a large scale. I think it is wise for us to heed his warning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-Osn1gMNtw

~SV~
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Mon Dec 03, 2018 6:01 pm #25

MaureenCarter
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
Contact:
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #22, Posted Nov 12, 2018
Regulatory capture, money in politics, and a subcategory of legalized bribery, are just some of the mechanisms whereby the wealthy maintain laws favorable to themselves. The political process is ineffective in stopping the wealthy from cont...
none

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by MaureenCarter » Mon Dec 03, 2018 6:01 pm

Talk about money influencing politics; people regardless of political party are hampered from running for office unless they are wealthy. Economic inequality once again rears its ugly head to suppress the less fortunate. It subjugates the poor and financially disadvantaged by not allowing them a real voice in the political process. The reality is poor people many times cannot run for a political office due to this financial barrier.

I really wasn't paying much attention to this matter until I read this morning the following article,

Huff Post
12/03/2018 10:30 am ET Updated 7 hours ago
Running For Office Is Really Hard If You’re Not A Millionaire
It’s not a coincidence that most people who are elected to public office are incredibly wealthy.
By Amanda Terkel https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ru ... 4f4f6b5535
Many of the lawmakers walking the gilded halls of Congress are, financially, far better off than the constituents they represent. Millionaires comprise nearly 40 percent of Congress, compared to being just 4 percent of the U.S. population.

This lopsided representation is not just some coincidence.

Rich people have a significant advantage running for office in a political system that relies on private donations. Rich people have rich friends who can donate to their campaign. They have the resources to make sure everything is taken care of in their personal life so that they can focus all their attention on running for office. And they can fund their own campaign and not worry about spending all their time raising money.

“The notion of being able to just write a check for that much to help pay for ads and such ― that would be completely out of my abilities,” said Shawna Roberts, who quit her part-time job at McDonald’s to run as the Democratic candidate in Ohio’s 6th congressional district.

“It’s absurd to imagine people who don’t have deep pockets doing it on their own,” she added. “And yet, it’s one of the things that we have to do if we’re going to have an actual democracy that actually functions instead of what we have right now, which is an oligarchy without the name.”
It looks like I will not be running for office anytime soon.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:19 pm #26

User avatar
Jessica
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #11, Posted Feb 28, 2018
Shades Of Colossus: The Forbin Project.

Imagine that, an artificial neuron capable of operating 200 million times faster than a biological neuron. Now imagine an artificial neural network with an imagination as is presented in
none

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Jessica » Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:19 pm

With today's usage of machine learning and machine teaching, we see an even faster growth in the development artificial intelligence due to self amplification leading to exponential growth. Anyone who saw the 1970 movie, Colossus: The Forbin Project, will clearly remember the scene where the USA and Russian computers share data and begin to teach each other in their attempt to take over the world. Although initially a slow and tedious process, the computers soon were transferring information and teaching each other with equations being shared at blazing speeds back and forth across their computer screens. In prescient fashion, the movie visually depicted this sharing where the two machines were teaching each other until their screens went blank as they merged into one super computer.

From the previous post,
That will mark a big leap forward in what’s known in AI as “unsupervised learning.” A self-driving car could teach itself about many different road conditions without leaving the garage. A robot could anticipate the obstacles it might encounter in a busy warehouse without needing to be taken around it.

That will mark a big leap forward in what is known in AI as “unsupervised learning.”
The SingularityHub
Machines Teaching Each Other Could Be the Biggest Exponential Trend in AI
By Aaron Frank, Jan 21, 2018
https://singularityhub.com/2018/01/21/m ... 1xbuqdewx0
Intelligent systems, like those powered by the latest round of machine learning software, aren’t just getting smarter: they’re getting smarter faster. Understanding the rate at which these systems develop can be a particularly challenging part of navigating technological change.

“I think that this is perhaps the biggest exponential trend in AI,” said Hod Lipson, professor of mechanical engineering and data science at Columbia University, in a recent interview.

“All of the exponential technology trends have different ‘exponents,’” Lipson added. “But this one is potentially the biggest.”

According to Lipson, what we might call “machine teaching”—when devices communicate gained knowledge to one another—is a radical step up in the speed at which these systems improve.

Lipson believes this way of developing AI is a big deal, in part, because it can bypass the need for training data.
“Data is the fuel of machine learning, but even for machines, some data is hard to get—it may be risky, slow, rare, or expensive. In those cases, machines can share experiences or create synthetic experiences for each other to augment or replace data. It turns out that this is not a minor effect, it actually is self-amplifying, and therefore exponential.”
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:11 am #27

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Jessica, Post #23, Posted Nov 20, 2018
Although it is recognized that new technology creates inequality, it is the wealthy people, not the technology, that actually creates income and economic inequality. Regulatory capture, money in politics, and legalized bribery all contribut...
none

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Sat Jan 19, 2019 9:11 am

Do not blame the robots or technology for economic inequality. It is people who are to blame and their surrogate corporations who carry out their will to wantonly create ever increasing inequality without retribution.

To quote from the forgoing post,
It is these people, the rich with their greedy fearful brain structure, who are the true foes of the people. Let us not be diverted by the technological issues and stay focused on the root cause of inequality, the wealthy elite with their economic and political power structure. If ever there was a face to to world's suffering and inhumanity, it is these individuals. It is not the face of a robot.
The Hill
Blame Republican policy for American income inequality
By Morris Pearl, opinion contributor — 10/16/18
https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/411 ... inequality

Ratings firm Moody’s recently dropped a bombshell report showing that rising wealth and income inequality in the United States will likely lead to lower income growth, political unrest, and a drop in the credit rating of our government. This prediction may come as a shock to some, but this should hardly come as a surprise to anyone paying attention to the state of our country. We have a government run by politicians devoted to widening the gap between the rich and the poor, and as that gap widens, our economy and our governmental institutions become less and less stable, putting our social, economic, and political fabric in danger.

While inequality is an issue in many countries around the world, the United States is uniquely unequal when compared to other developed countries. It is no mystery why. Republican leaders in Washington have shown themselves to be unwilling to address this looming crisis. On the contrary, they have done everything in their power to make things worse.
Rather than work to make higher education more affordable, they have ignored the student debt crisis and proposed nearly $80 billion cuts to the Pell Grant program, which millions of Americans rely on to afford higher education. Rather than boost social safety nets to help low income families afford education, job training, or health care, they have proposed massive cuts to programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that help huge swaths of the population.

Rather than work to shape a federal tax code that limits the tax burden on poor and working class families, and requires the rich to pay what they owe, they passed a nearly $2 trillion tax cut just last year that was deliberately designed to provide massive cuts to millionaires, billionaires, and corporations while leaving crumbs for the rest of the nation.
The proxy corporations of these elite individuals carry out their directives to willfully create economic inequality.

SingularityNet
Disrupt the Disruption — The Tech Oligopoly Part 2
In the second part of this series, we analyze and shed light on the tools and tactics that tighten the oligopoly’s control on the AI ecosystem
Arif Khan, Oct 7, 2018, https://blog.singularitynet.io/disrupt- ... 8747b7e16d
Sitting at the top of the tech food chain, the five most valuable companies in the world: Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Facebook, have come to form the Tech Oligopoly. The members of this tech oligopoly are the largest lobbyists and political donors in Washington. They have more financial resources than several nation states. Their products and services have transformed our society.
As the members of the tech oligopoly promise to democratize AI, create an AI-First future, and launch a partnership on AI to benefit society, we have to question whether they can prioritize societal benefit over their penultimate value of increasing shareholder value.
The Conversation
How corporate America can curb income inequality and make more money too
September 20, 2016, Wallace Hopp, https://theconversation.com/how-corpora ... -too-62339
Scorpion met Frog on a river bank and asked him for a ride to the other side. “How do I know you won’t sting me?” asked Frog. “Because,” replied Scorpion, “if I do, I will drown.” Satisfied, Frog set out across the water with Scorpion on his back. Halfway across, Scorpion stung Frog. “Why did you do that?” gasped Frog as he started to sink. “Now we’ll both die.” “I can’t help it,” replied Scorpion. “It’s my nature.”

This centuries-old parable, which has been retold by Orson Welles and many others and sometimes refers to a turtle rather than a frog, is usually meant to show how a bad nature cannot be changed – even if self-interest and preservation demand it.

It’s also an apt metaphor for the growing scourge of income inequality, one of the defining issues of our age. A standard explanation for why income inequality is increasing, to borrow a quote from Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, is that “wealth begets power and power begets more wealth.”

That is, because the rich and corporate CEOs use their influence to promote their self-interest, inequality is built into the very DNA of capitalism. And to return to our metaphor, the rich scorpions sting the rest of us – by exacerbating income inequality through pay policies, stock buybacks and other actions – because it’s simply their nature.
Harvard Business Review-Economy
The Rise of Corporate Inequality
March 23, 2017
Stanford economist Nicholas Bloom discusses the research he’s conducted showing what’s really driving the growth of income inequality: a widening gap between the most successful companies and the rest, across industries. In other words, inequality has less to do with what you do for work, and more to do with which specific company you work for. The rising gap in pay between firms accounts for a large majority of the rise in income inequality overall.
Bernie
Issues
Income and Wealth Inequality
https://berniesanders.com/issues/income ... quality/
Today, we live in the richest country in the history of the world, but that reality means little because much of that wealth is controlled by a tiny handful of individuals.

The issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue of our time, and it is the great political issue of our time.
The reality is that for the past 40 years, Wall Street and the billionaire class has rigged the rules to redistribute wealth and income to the wealthiest and most powerful people of this country.

We must send a message to the billionaire class: “you can’t have it all.” You can’t get huge tax breaks while children in this country go hungry. You can’t continue sending our jobs to China while millions are looking for work. You can’t hide your profits in the Cayman Islands and other tax havens, while there are massive unmet needs on every corner of this nation. Your greed has got to end. You cannot take advantage of all the benefits of America, if you refuse to accept your responsibilities as Americans.
Stetson Law Review
INCOME INEQUALITY AND CORPORATE STRUCTURE
Matthew T. Bodie, https://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/. ... ure.p...
This Article contends that to a significant extent, the problem of
income inequality is not due to our failure to redistribute, but is rather
due to our original scheme of income distribution. Specifically, the role
of the corporation in wealth distribution is an underappreciated yet
significant factor in our increasingly tilted economic picture. The
corporation is designed to provide all of the power over the economic
firm, and all of the rights to its residual profits, to a set of capital investors.
Shareholders control the firm through their right to elect the board of
directors, and courts use the “shareholder primacy norm” to judge
whether the board has failed in its duty to maximize shareholder wealth.
Employees who work at the firm have no employment-related rights to participation or profit.
As a result, I argue income has been redirected
away from workers and towards capital and those professions that service
capital.
I have never been stung by a scorpion but I have been repeatedly stung by privileged individuals and their proxy corporations economically, socially, and politically. You see, it is in their nature. The DNA of the elite individual determines their rigid brain structure which in turn delineates their corporate structure to continually sting the less fortunate with their venomous poison. Sting they must, but this does not mean we need to tolerate their abuse.

~SV~
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:52 pm #28

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 59
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #1, Posted Feb 18, 2017
The coming Quantum Computer Revolution with its associated subjects of the Singularity, will make it impossible to stop the 1% with the outdated modes of pitchforks and torches. The 1% will obviously own the superior computers and robotics. They will gain the ability to hide on the internet never to be caught.
...
none

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:52 pm

New digital pitchforks and torches will be ineffective at stopping the 1% because the elite will have the financial wherewithal to defend themselves from attacks. They will spend ungodly sums of money to harden their defenses rendering such digital tools futile. As a standard course of action, the elite's corporation structure will need to defend themselves continually against global cyber war and other forms of attack. Out of necessity, the corporations will need to spend more to protect their cyber systems. What chance will the poorer 99% have against such an influx of cash by the rich to protect themselves? I think little if any.

The notion of pitchforks and torches, especially those of the new digital type, will suffer from an impoverished state relative to the digital codes employed by the wealthy. The pitchforks will be like rubber and the torches, nearly extinguished and dimly lit, will provide little assault capabilities should they be used against the hardened computer shields of the new corporations. The 99% is loosing the digital pitchforks and torches race.

Part of what is driving this financial gap is an ever present state of global cyber warfare by both state and non-state actors.

"We're already in the middle of a major cyber war, experts believe"
Fox News, by Brooke Crothers, 03-23-19
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/were-alrea ... ts-believe
A whopping 87 percent of information security specialists believe we're in the middle of a global cyber war.

That comes from Venafi, a firm that provides technologies to large companies to protect their networks against cybercrime. Venafi got opinions expressing this sentiment from over 500 security professionals at the recent RSA conference in San Francisco.

Paul Nakasone, head of US Cyber Command, recently spoke about the growing threat of cyber war. In the cyber domain our adversaries continue to increase in sophistication, magnitude, intensity, volume and velocity, and remain a threat to our national security interests and economic well-being, Nakasone said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last month.
For many organizations, it would be better to focus on establishing stronger defense mechanisms, he added.
This global race for offensive computer firepower and its counter component of digital defense will drive the costs well out of the range for acquisition by the 99%. If the corporations are defending themselves against fully funded state actors, what chance will we have against them. Everyone knows how expensive military technology is. We will be left behind virtually defenseless and surly have little means of attacking the corporate defensive structures. From the days of yore, such bygone notions of attacking the king's castle with primitive tools needs to be put aside in favor of other tactical options.

~SV~
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:46 am #29

User avatar
Jessica
Posts: 61
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2017 3:03 pm
Contact:
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #18, Posted Aug 25, 2018
The wealthy elite with a Republican Party of deregulation want to create Artificial Intelligence to maintain their economic and political control with little thought of the consequences of such actions. This deregulation regarding the Technological Singularity is tantamount to drinking a poison without having an antidote.
...
none

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by Jessica » Thu Apr 04, 2019 10:46 am

We will need AI safety measures first before the technological singularity consumes us but this is in direct conflict with the profit motive of the wealthy. Knowingly, the wealthy will fight tooth and nail to maintain their profits while jeopardizing all of humanity to the point of enslavement or even extinction. Maureen points to the de-regulatory role of Republicans regarding Artificial Intelligence in pursuit of higher profits when she says,
One can just look at the recent growth of Republican deregulation in the areas of business, science, climate change, and the environment, just to name a few, to see the lack of oversight and control for the sake of making larger profits.

But this is neither the time nor the field to deregulate. To the contrary, it is regulatory oversight and policy control we so critically need now both nationally and internationally to guide the growth of the emerging technology.

The dangers of sailing into uncharted waters are real. And so is an artificial neuron that fires 200 million times faster than the human brain as we just read about in the previous post. But this speed is just part of the equation. Once creativity, imagination, intuition, and emotional aspects such as anger, jealousy, and love are dissected by optogenetic techniques, a synaptome will chart all of these synaptic connections and the organic wet human brain will unequivocally no longer be needed.
She also concludes by stating,
What could possibly go wrong? Technology has always come with guarantees only to routinely disappoint us. Remember the Titanic that could never sink? As we blindly venture forth into this new technological world we may potentially poison humanity's chances for survival only to discover there is no antidote.
Her fear is bolstered by this next article with an initial quote from a researcher in the field of AI,
The Guardian
Can we stop AI outsmarting humanity?
The spectre of superintelligent machines doing us harm is not just science fiction, technologists say, so how can we ensure AI remains "friendly" to its makers? By Mara Hvistendahl Mar 28th, 2019
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... ingularity
It began three and a half billion years ago in a pool of muck, when a molecule made a copy of itself and so became the ultimate ancestor of all earthly life. It began four million years ago, when brain volumes began climbing rapidly in the hominid line.

Fifty thousand years ago with the rise of Homo sapiens sapiens.

Ten thousand years ago with the invention of civilization.

Five hundred years ago with the invention of the printing press.
Lose yourself in a great story: Sign up for the long read email
Read more

Fifty years ago with the invention of the computer.

In less than thirty years, it will end.
The above quote by Yudkowsky caught the attention of Tallinn who then expressed his reaction when he said,
Reading Yudkowsky's article, Tallinn, who is a proponent of AI safety, became convinced that superintelligence could lead to an explosion or breakout of AI that could threaten human existence, that ultrasmart AIs will take our place on the evolutionary ladder and dominate us the way we now dominate apes. Or, worse yet, exterminate us.
The encounter with Yudkowsky brought Tallinn purpose, sending him on a mission to save us from our own creations. He embarked on a life of travel, giving talks around the world on the threat posed by superintelligence. Mostly, though, he began funding research into methods that might give humanity a way out: so-called friendly AI.
"Friendly" means something much more fundamental: that the machines of tomorrow will not wipe us out in their quest to attain their goals.
Tallinn warns that any approach to AI safety will be hard to get right. If an AI is sufficiently smart, it might have a better understanding of the constraints than its creators do. Imagine, he said, waking up in a prison built by a bunch of blind five-year-olds. That is what it might be like for a super-intelligent AI that is confined by humans.
The remainder of the article presents more theoretical views as to how we can stop AI from annihilating humanity. The point is, no one knows for sure how to do this.

The strong of mind are welcome to review all the various containment options presented in the article and draw their own conclusions. As for me, I have reached the conclusion we need a new starting point and the article below best expresses my thoughts on the matter,

BBN Times
Ensure Artificial Intelligence Safety Before Worrying about the Singularity
Naveen Joshi 18/03/2019, https://www.bbntimes.com/en/technology/ ... ingularity

Mr. Joshi, like others before him, lays out his argument that AI can easily stray from the straight and narrow path of being tamed to our will with a dystopian future descending upon us sooner than expected without corrective actions. This is standard fare and the reader is welcome to read the original article as he presents his case. But where he excels, and where I resonate with his writing, is where he state in the very title of his article,
Ensure Artificial Intelligence Safety Before Worrying about the Singularity
and then goes on to say,
With artificial intelligence (AI) research and development progressing at an unprecedented rate, artificial superintelligence seems closer than projected by most. It is more imperative to secure AI safety now as any later might be too late.
This to me seems like a reasoned and measured approach to the problem. Putting the cart before the horse, or as it is bluntly said, doing things a$$-backwards, is not a viable approach. And yet this is exactly the approach the conservatives are using as Doctor A states in his post #6,
) A Trump presidency now tips the scale in the direction of a conservative ideological domination with the wealthy elites determined at all costs to control the technological Singularity. This is why your ideas and solutions are so important now, not later. In Singularity time, later is always too late. It is a now-or-never moment with the outcome of humanity hanging in the balance. Clearly, the FirstRateCrowd community business venture gives us a means to tip the scale back in our direction.

Trump and the Republican Congress will do anything to maintain their conservative agenda. They are determined at all costs to control this agenda which in turn largely supports their control of the technological Singularity. As an example of this determination, President Trump fired the FBI director, James Comey, as a clear affront to the rule of law. This transgression was and continues to be supported by the Congressional Republicans. It is an unabashed attempt to derail the FBI's investigation into the role of the Russians in the 2016 Presidential election and the possible role that President Trump and his administration may have played a role in this attempt. Such naked partisanship cannot hide their true intent; they will place party and conservative values over the security and good of the country at all costs. This determination and tenacity for their own agenda is expected to continue unabated until, if we are fortunate, a monumental change is made either legally or politically. But in the interim a great many individuals will suffer.

In summary, the future wealthy elite will use every means of control at their disposal and at any cost to maintain their predatory dominance over the poor. This includes the manipulation of future laws on their behalf with an obvious outcome being an increase of human rights abuse against the less fortunate.
By all means we must stop this folly. Cooler heads, that is to say progressive minds, will need to prevail or we are toast. Controlling the process of containing AI before it is too late should be mandatory law and if this cannot be done then proceeding down an unknown yet potentially toxic avenue should be excluded before we proceed.

Our approach must be proactive and not reactive. Once the genie is out of the bottle the old method of crisis management will not work because time is not on our side. There is a relative disconnect between the time frame humans perceive and what is going on inside an algorithm internally. This is because human brains process information in a linear fashion and we cannot really understanding the machinations of what is taking place regarding processes at exponential rates in any real sense.

For example, the 22 month long Bob Mueller report was just released and no substantial laws have been created to deal with its findings yet or to create any corrective actions especially regarding the Russian's role in attacking our electoral system. Forget the 22 months. Instead lets look at just 22 seconds where a system is expanding outside our control exponentially on a path to do us harm. Just 10 iterations exponentially of these 22 seconds produces a relativistic time lag of 22 to the 10th power or 265599 seconds which is equivalent to 3.07 days. But to us humans, this is perceived as just 10 linear periods of 22 seconds (10 x 22 = 222 seconds) or 3.7 minutes. In fact, what we humans view as 3.7 minutes is actually producing 3.07 days worth of toxicity in real human terms.

Ahead of us will be an ever increasing number of exponentially expanding algorithmic damage events that we will have to deal with in ever shortening time frames. Contending with this more rapid exponential reality as it barrels down the road towards us means we will not have the luxury of time to solve the problems at hand let alone the ever increasing sets of new problems caused by not solving the last set of older problems. We will be overwhelmed and consumed by these problems unless we apply the breaks before the inevitable crash occurs. The implementation of rules and regulations to control Artificial Intelligence is needed now, not later. An unfettered de-regulatory laissez faire approach promoted by the wealthy profit motive is not sufficient to protect us and guarantees a dystopian apocalyptic future due to our own cleverness. Let us be smart, not clever, and guide the emerging field of Artificial Intelligence with safety measures first before it devours us.

Without stringent regulations put on Artificial Intelligence, it is no longer a question of whether or not the technology produced from its development will eat our lunch; rather, when will it eat us for lunch.
Times Referenced: 2

Posted on: » Tue May 07, 2019 10:05 am #30

MaureenCarter
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
Contact:
REFERENCING: Jessica, Post #29, Posted Apr 4, 2019
We will need AI safety measures first before the technological singularity consumes us but this is in direct conflict with the profit motive of the wealthy. Knowingly, the wealthy will fight tooth and nail to maintain their profits while je...
none

Re: Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%

Post by MaureenCarter » Tue May 07, 2019 10:05 am

I wholeheartedly agree with Jessica we need AI safety measures first to control the Technological Singularity. Even Ray Kurzweil promotes this approach of creating safeguards and standards in advance. This is only logical.

Singularity Hub
Ray Kurzweil: We Can Control AI Before It Controls Us
By Andrew J. O'Keefe II -Sep 22, 2016

https://singularityhub.com/2016/.../ray ... rols-...
This cycle of excitement and worry is normal for new technologies. When a technology is first developed, we dream about the good it might do, and as it matures, we worry about unforeseen risks. Taking both sides into account, Kurzweil said he comes out cautiously optimistic. He acknowledges there's risk, and suggests the answer isn't to halt progress, but to plan for it.

By creating safeguards and standards in advance, we can better defend against negative consequences. As an example, Kurzweil points to the 1975 Asilomar Conference, a meeting that sought to define the ethical boundaries of biotech research before it reached its full potential. He believes a similar approach might work for AI and other exponential technologies.

As our technologies change the world, the responsibility only grows deeper for each of us to take an active role in shaping it the way we want not the other way around.
But logic many times is not the harbinger of what is to come. Instead I think greed and the desire for control, as in the incentive for businesses to profit and conservative brain structures to manipulate, will overrule any logic. This is the only logic that makes sense to me. History is awash with what should have been logical conclusions only to find out it wasn't so. As a case in point, just try understanding the logic of having Donald Trump as President of the USA. Now try to imagine what Trump and his allies will do to exploit the technological singularity for their own advantage regarding financial and control issues. Frightening isn't it.
Times Referenced: 0

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest