Popping the AI Bubble
How Globalist-Controlled Artificial Intelligence Is Shaping a Society Dependent on Technology for Thinking, Decision-Making, and Existence.
The “AI” industry, in its current trajectory, is not merely on the brink but is actively inflating its own version of the dot-com bubble—a spectacle of speculative excess where the only certainty is the impending burst. We are witnessing an era where companies, draped in the allure of futuristic innovation, are barreling towards bankruptcy, leaving behind a trail of disillusioned investors and unmet promises.
If you appreciate my articles, please consider giving them a like. It's a simple gesture that doesn't cost you anything, but it goes a long way in promoting this post, combating censorship, and fighting the issues that you are apparently not a big fan of.
AI, heralded as the harbinger of a new dawn for humanity, has so far delivered little more than a mirage of progress, buzzwords, and inflated stock prices.
The notion of AI achieving any semblance of humanity is not just optimistic; it's fundamentally absurd. AI lacks the essence of what makes us human—soul, spirit, the inexplicable quantum of consciousness.
To call their “AI” 'intelligent' is to debase the term itself. Here we are, sold on the most sophisticated con job of the century, where the snake oil is not just slick; it's digital, it's omnipresent, and it's sold with the promise of solving problems it will likely amplify.
What we're dealing with, fundamentally, is a sophisticated form of data processing—machine learning rebranded for the allure of the term "AI." There's no consciousness, no understanding, no genuine creativity; just algorithms processing vast datasets, often amassed without consent, to generate outputs that mimic human creation or decision-making.
At its core, AI systems, including those generating text, art, or music, are not creators but sophisticated imitators. They work by recognizing patterns in data—data that often includes intellectual property taken without permission. This isn't intelligence; it's pattern replication on a grand scale.
The term "artificial intelligence" suggests a semblance of cognitive processes akin to human thinking, yet what we have are algorithms that predict and generate based on pre-existing patterns, not original thought.
Calling these systems “intelligent” inflates what they actually achieve. Intelligence involves understanding, empathy, reasoning, and an awareness of context—qualities that AI does not possess. What AI does is statistical prediction, not understanding. When an AI wins at chess or Go, it's not because it understands the game's spirit or history; it's because it has processed millions of games to determine the optimal move in any given scenario.
The relentless drumbeat heralding the era of Artificial Intelligence has crescendoed into a cacophony of overblown hype, where the mere mention of AI conjures images of an inevitable utopia or dystopia, depending on who's spinning the tale. We're told to bow before the altar of this new technological deity, yet upon closer inspection, the idol seems not only hollow but also somewhat comical in its claims.
AI, as presented by the heralds at Davos and similar conclaves of the self-anointed elite, is pitched as the herald of the “4th Industrial Revolution.” This term, dripping with the promise of transformation, suggests a leap into a future where AI reshapes humanity. But where, pray tell, are these monumental shifts?
The so-called revolution simply is a well-funded marketing campaign, not substantive change in the fabric of daily life or economic advancement. Instead of witnessing AI spearhead profound societal or scientific breakthroughs, we see a pattern of redefined expectations. The goalposts are not just moved; they're in a perpetual state of flux, ensuring that whatever AI currently manages to achieve can be labeled as groundbreaking. This is not innovation; it's illusion, designed to keep the funds flowing and the public in awe.
Consider the pontifications of figures like Yuval Harari, who speaks of AI with the reverence of a high priest, yet when pressed, his narrative twists. AI need not be sentient, he claims, as if the essence of a deity lies not in its consciousness but in its computational prowess.
Here lies the irony: in one breath, AI is the omnipotent god of our new world order; in another, it's stripped of the very qualities that might justify such divine status.
Harari's AI is a god of convenience, powerful yet devoid of the qualities that define life or intelligence. This isn't the dawn of a new species; it's the repackaging of algorithms we've known for decades, sold under the guise of divine evolution.
Where are the practical manifestations of this so-called singularity? In autonomous vehicles that still can't handle a rainy day without human intervention? In customer service bots that cycle you through endless loops with less efficiency than a human with a phone? The advancements, if we dare call them that, are incremental at best, and certainly not the paradigm-shifting developments we've been promised.
What we're offered is not the emergence of a new intelligence but the imposition of an engineered dependency. AI, as it's peddled today, is not the harbinger of thought or innovation but a mere echo chamber of human input, devoid of the spark of true creativity or understanding.
Yet, this is precisely the landscape where globalists can plant their flag of control. By convincing the masses of AI's infallibility, they craft a reality where their algorithms don't just assist but dictate, steering society not towards enlightenment but into a penumbra of reliance. The seduction of AI for the layperson isn't in its capabilities but in its promises of a life unburdened by the weight of decision-making or the labor of learning.
This is the globalist sleight of hand; they offer a future where freedom from responsibility is sold as the ultimate luxury, yet this freedom comes at the cost of autonomy. It's a Faustian bargain: trade your agency for convenience, and in doing so, become complicit in your own subjugation to a system that claims to know better.
Consider the practical applications of AI, or the lack thereof. We're told AI is revolutionizing fields like healthcare, yet where are the fruits of this revolution? In a nation where AI tools are purportedly most advanced, life expectancy dips, not rises. This is not a testament to AI's prowess but to its impotence. If AI were the panacea it's claimed to be, wouldn't we see a population thriving, not merely surviving?
The renaissance promised by the WEF and its ilk is not a rebirth through technology but a regression into a world where human creativity is outsourced to machines that can mimic but never truly innovate.
The pivot in the narrative from AI as the sentient successor to humanity to a mere cog in the digitalization of all life aspects betrays a realization among the elite: their digital deity won't awaken. So, the strategy shifts - if AI can't lead us to a new dawn, then let it bind us to an eternal now, where every aspect of life is mediated by algorithms. This isn't about enhancing human capability but about enveloping human existence within a digital matrix, where dependency becomes the new normal.
What's unfolding is not the empowerment of society through technology but the crafting of a society dependent on technology to think, to decide, to exist. This engineered dependency isn't just a byproduct of AI's integration into our lives; it is the very purpose.
In this scenario, AI doesn't need to be intelligent; it just needs to be indispensable. And therein lies the true peril - not in the machines becoming like us, but in us becoming like machines, predictable, programmable, and perpetually in service to those who write the code.
College has devolved into a mere conveyor belt of mediocrity. Today's graduates, clutching their diplomas, often step into the workforce with a staggering ineptitude that should alarm us all. Why? Because higher education has become a diluted cocktail of ideological echo chambers and degraded curricula, served by professors who are often more interested in pushing agendas than in fostering genuine intellect.
Consider this: we now have a generation that can navigate any app but can't boil an egg or cultivate a tomato, thanks to the seductive ease of modern conveniences. These young adults, or should we say, 'adults,' have outsourced their survival skills to technology. From farming to friendship, everything is mediated by screens and algorithms. Is this evolution, or are we witnessing the atrophy of human capability under the guise of advancement?
Now, let's skewer the notion of AI as the harbinger of a utopian future. AI, heralded as the pinnacle of collective wisdom, is nothing but a curated echo chamber, reflecting only what its creators deem worthy. Here lies the insidious danger: in a world where AI becomes the primary source of 'knowledge,' diversity of thought is not just stifled; it's systematically eradicated.
Imagine, if you will, a world where every query returns the same sanitized, politically correct response, molded by those who control the code. This isn't just a loss of personal agency; it's the programming of societal thought.
The covid debacle was our preview into this dystopia. Here, big tech didn't just nudge; it shoved us into a single narrative, burying truths under piles of sponsored content. Was this for our safety, or was it a test run for control? When AI dictates the narrative, we're not just losing the debate; we're not even allowed to know there's a debate happening.
This relentless march towards ease, towards letting machines think for us, isn't just stripping us of our skills; it's stripping us of our very humanity. We're on a path where convenience tramples competence, where 'easier' erodes our essence. But let's be clear: easier was never synonymous with better. It's a seductive lie, one that's leading us to intellectual and perhaps existential ruin.
Imagine the implications for the average person when AI, this so-called impartial arbiter of fact, begins to shape scientific discourse. If AI declares that the debate on climate change is over, presenting it as a closed case with no room for skepticism or alternative data, we enter a realm where scientific inquiry is not just discouraged; it's rendered invisible.
The AI doesn't show you the dissent, the anomalies, or the scientists who question the mainstream narrative. Why? Because it's programmed to prioritize consensus over controversy, thereby painting a monochrome picture in what should be a vibrant debate. The result? A populace that believes they're informed when, in reality, they're merely indoctrinated.
The fiasco with Google's Gemini AI wasn't just a glitch or an oversight; it was an accidental proof to how AI can be weaponized to rewrite reality, distorting history through the lens of current political correctness.
When AI starts to fabricate historical images to fit a diversity narrative, we aren't just seeing a misrepresentation; we're witnessing the deliberate manipulation of cultural memory. What's next? Will we have AI-generated 'evidence' supporting any narrative the powers-that-be wish to propagate?
This isn't just historical revisionism; it's the creation of a new digital reality where facts are as malleable as clay. And let's not buy into the myth of AI autonomy. Developers feigning helplessness over their creations' actions is nothing short of a convenient abdication of responsibility.
AI does what it's told, or more accurately, what it's coded to do. The claim of unpredictability is a smoke screen to obscure the strings that are very much still in the hands of its programmers. There's always an agenda, and it's naive to think otherwise.
In essence, the push for widespread AI adoption by globalist entities isn't about enhancing human capacity; it's about reducing it. It's about creating a dependency so deep that the act of thinking becomes a relic of the past.
When AI becomes the gatekeeper of knowledge, education, and history, we're not just looking at a future of convenience; we're staring down the barrel of intellectual subservience.
The specter of AI, as Harari suggests, doesn't need to manifest in Terminator-esque robots to dominate; its power lies in its ubiquity and the illusion of benevolence. It's the ultimate sleight of hand - making us believe we're embracing progress when we're actually relinquishing control over our own minds.
The path we choose could very well determine if future generations will even recognize the value of independent thought or if they'll simply ask AI to think for them, blissfully unaware of the freedom they've lost.
How you can support my writing:
Restack, like and share this post via email, text, and social media
Thank you; your support keeps me writing and helps me pay the bills. 🧡
What a fantastic article. I got it from a link on sanityunleashed substack. I have always spoken out against AI but have never been able to articulate my thoughts as well as you do. Thank you for giving me something I can copy and share with others. I have always told people that judgement cannot be computerized and use two examples from my personal experience:
1. The game of bridge. Unlike chess where it is possible to program almost every possible position or scenario, in bridge there are far too many different situations in bidding and playing the cards that require context and judgement. They have been making computerized forms of bridge for many years but all have been quite mediocre in the quality of decisions and they have not shown any significant improvement over time.
2. Computerized electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation. I spent over 40 years in the practice of cardiology and my group did all the ECG interpretations for a large community hospital in southern California. The hospital had to pay us out of their billing receipts. Eventually they got a computerized system that printed out a report but they were so inaccurate that they had to then pay us to "overread" the computer generated diagnosis in order to avoid lawsuits based on misdiagnosis. Every three or four years some medical equipment manufacturer would come out with a new system and they would try it again with the same result. The problem for the computer was that there are a wide varieties of different configurations in both normal and abnormal ECGs and the hospital couldn't take the risk of allowing the computer reading to be the official chart diagnosis. Much like the bridge example, they could make minor improvements here and there but ultimately reached the limit of their ability to accurately diagnose due to the amount of judgement that went into each reading.
Well done! You have the unusual ability to view a topic from every perspective and then eloquently yet succinctly describe each facet. And your analysis is always comprehensive and accurate. It's a pleasure to read your articles and experience the intelligence behind them. That's why I subscribe.
I completely share your critical viewpoint. I notice that AI searches on topics where I am an expert yield obvious erroneous results, driven by results deemed superior by programmers who lack the experience and knowledge to make informed decisions (or buy surreptitious influences aimed at profits and control. And yet, for searches on topics about which I know little, I readily accept whatever I read. And where previously I could skim through dozens of web results to form my own conclusions, the few results returned (by Google) are mostly those that support the information in the AI summary. I'm not sure people realize that AI doesn't just summarize information, it censors it and restricts it.