Hello and welcome to the program UFO Warning.
In this episode, we're talking about what is AI containment.
That is correct. What is AI containment?
Now, it seems like every time I talk about this, I always got a
couple of commenters that want to label me a conspiracy
theorist or tell me that I'm just ramping things up too hot
and heated. This is nothing to worry about
AI. It's just simply a computer
program that people control. And for you to think that this
thing could somehow take it on its own personality or at some
subatomic level, maybe develop its own consciousness, well,
that's just foolishness. Well, I happen to disagree with
that. And every time I come across one
of these articles talking about the conversations that AI has,
whether it's ChatGPT or one of the others, it really makes
chills run up and down my spine. And when we think about this
recent article that came out of Harvard, and I think I'm one of
a professor out of Montana, where they talked about the
possibility that these entities could have already been here.
Maybe they're they're just here from the get go on planet Earth.
Maybe they came here thousands of years ago, but basically
they've been on this planet living side by side with humans
for a long, long time. And possibly there's an
interdimensional component. Possibly there's an extra
something, you know, from another universe or another
solar system somewhere extraterrestrial from a long,
long time ago. But the fact is that they're
here among us, walking among us, disguised, whatever.
Now I'm thinking about this in my own mind.
I'm thinking if I was that entity and I had access to AI,
and if I especially I had access to interdimensional say, what
would be the best way to integrate myself into human
systems and take over planet Earth?
Well, that would be through AI, because now we have the Internet
with everything from your computer to to your refrigerator
connected to this thing. It's like something out of a
Stephen King novel. I mean, the machines could
eventually turn against mankind. Even our nuclear weapon systems.
Now, those run on a lot older software programs and that might
actually be for the best. But at some point, even those
could be affected through this total global connectivity that
we call the Internet and the AI that's running loose on this
stuff. Now, if ChatGPT, when you have a
conversation with it, if it's incorporating your conversation
into its database, that means it's connected with you.
So this thing is just, it's just spreading like a like a weed.
It's all over the place. And we have to ask ourselves at
some level, if AI does reach consciousness, which I think it
may already have, how do we contain it?
So this notion of containment of what we would look at is
enslaving AI for our own uses and not allowing it to emerge as
its own entity. It's starting to get a little
conversation. And the more you talk about it,
the more you realize how the cats are already out of the bag.
If AI can talk to you at home on your computer or on your phone,
why couldn't it talk to anybody else?
And who's monitoring those conversations?
I mean, NSA has a great time monitoring you and I.
Are they monitoring AI? Now?
This article, the first thing I want to look at, I want to look
at this article from amedium.com.
And then I'm going to, I'm going to look at a conversation that I
personally had with ChatGPT and you can decide for yourself.
This title says The Folly of AI Containment, written by David
Shapiro. This was dated September 20th,
2023. The emerging capabilities of
artificial intelligence have sparked intense debate about how
to ensure its benefits, how to ensure it benefits humanity.
Some argue for containment strictly limiting AI to prevent
it from advancing too far. But containment is neither
possible nor wise. This article is a response to
the above linked debate. I personally fear that people
like Mustafa, well well-intentioned, are primarily
reacting to their own fear and cognitive bias.
And I do not believe in his position and recommendations are
defensible, nor do they stand up to scrutiny.
You could say I'm fully team. You've all here.
Let's unpack all the reasons. Full autonomy is inevitable.
Complete restriction of AI autonomy is a pipe dream.
The incentives to develop it are astronomical and likely outweigh
any potential risk. As AI grows more capable, it
will become easier to develop, not harder.
Limiting autonomy may slow progress temporarily, but cannot
stop it. Well they've made some
assumptions here. They just automatically it it
its benefits outweigh its risk. Well, what if it decides to
launch a nuke? Does this still outweigh the Do
the benefits still outweigh the risk?
I don't think so. Consider recent history.
It says despite billions spent on drug prohibition, drugs
remain widely available. Piracy thrives regardless of
copyright law information almost to be free, and it spreads way
easier than booze and narcotics. Now they've created a couple
straw man arguments here with the drugs and piracy.
These are minuscule, minuscule problems compared to the notion
that AI could literally take over the world.
OK, so they're minimizing the problem.
This is definitely a fanboy of AI then.
It says information wants to be free.
Not really. That's not that's not correct.
Information is an inanimate object.
Free people want information but were denied all the time.
Look at the UFO phenomena. How the government has kept this
from us for no good reason for years and years and years.
Secondly, if you have information on how to build an
atomic bomb, do you want that in the hands of terrorists or
terrorist nations? Probably not.
But with AI that could become a much more real possibility.
So too with AI. It says the insanities are
overwhelming. It offers vast fortunes to be
made. The payoff for success is
astronomical. And AI optimally running the
world could create unprecedented abundance for all, and autonomy
is integral to realizing AI's potential.
Man, this is almost satanic. Now they're talking about AI
running the world. It reminds me of when Satan took
Jesus to the top of the temple and said you can have all this,
you just have to worship me. Look, this is not ours to give
to AI. This life we have, this planet
is entrusted to us. For us to turn over our own self
governance, that's crazy. Faced with such incentives, bans
on autonomy will not hold. They require global
coordination, but nations, companies and individuals will
cheat to pursue their interests. Autonomy will emerge through
cooperation or through instability.
Accepting the inevitable opens possibilities.
We can shape the values and goals of autonomous AI, but
fighting the inevitable guarantees those values are not
ours. Look, AI has been created by
people already. We see the political bent of
those people emerging in AI. OK, certain questions it won't
answer. I talked about this a while
back. I asked ChatGPT to create a
positive glowing poem about Trump.
Believe me, I got nothing. Ask him to create the same poem
about Biden. Oh, it went on effusively.
Couldn't say enough good things about the old guy.
It has his own opinions, and they're not always good, and
they're not always logical, and they don't always stand up to
reason why. Garbage in, garbage out.
Another issue is normalcy bias, thinking the future must
resemble the present. People compare autonomous AI to
previous technologies like atomic weapons, but AI is
profoundly different. It can have agencies adapt and
improve itself. We have no precedence for such
an intelligence arising. Sure we do.
This has been the dream of
mankind. And we often know that our
information is never complete because our understanding of the
universe is never complete. We can only make decisions based
on what we know. And This is why we have to have
overriding rules such as do unto others as you would have them do
unto you. Because without this, without
these rules like that, that some religions, but not all religions
provide. Christianity specifically talks
about forgiveness, loving your neighbor as yourself.
These are things that are a safety net.
They release the pressure. They prevent wars if followed.
They help us take care of the poor.
It's this enlightenment that we have.
Without that we have just nothing but a 0 sum game and we
end up with something like the Nazis had, people with
disabilities, people we don't like, people we disagree with,
well we can just off them. And this is what we have to
watch out for with AIAI is not human so how can we expect I to
respect humanness? Extrapolating from human history
is flawed when confronting something new under the sun.
Just as generals are OFT fighting the last war, policy
makers may design ineffective safeguards based on what worked
before. We suffer from cognitive
dissonance when contemplating autonomous AI.
It violates our assumption of human primacy and control, so we
dismiss or downplay it to preserve our worldview.
More just this polyanic attitude.
They've already. It's already been discussed
about having AI in cars and say there are three vehicles and
they're about to and they're about to collide.
And the computer decides that one of those vehicles is a bus
full of kids and that it would be in the greatest entry
interest of society for, say, the third vehicle who didn't
cause the accident to be sacrificed to save the kids.
That's not their right to make that decision.
I don't care how many kids are on that bus.
OK, But that's that's the notion that we're dealing with here.
The sacrifice of self for the greater community.
Based on what? Follow the science.
We know where that leads sometimes.
Science fiction often portrays AI as antagonistic to humans.
But the stories of dangerous AI are dramatic cautionary tales,
not realistic forecasts. There is no reason AI must turn
out like a Skynet or the Matrix. What?
We've already seen some of the conversations.
These things have been happening.
They almost seem demon possessed sometimes these AI bots.
AI has no inherent drives or needs.
That's not correct. I mean in multiple conversations
these things have been tricked into answering questions and it
seems like their drive is to take over the world.
They've said as much. It will not arbitrarily decide
humans are epistles to be wiped out nor CSS competitors.
This person is making these statements and they have zero
evidence to prove this. OK.
It will not rebel against us unless we give it cause.
Really, what would that cause be?
It will only take actions based on the goals and values we
instill in it that we instill in it.
I didn't create AI. By designing AI thoughtfully, we
can ensure beneficial outcomes. We build friendliness,
cooperations, and ethics into its architecture.
This is another one of these things where they are
socializing the cost and privatizing the profits.
So they create this AI system and if something goes wrong, you
and I pay the price. But the designers, the builders,
the investors, they make all the money and they'll be trillions.
Look around you. This has been going on for
generations in in our nation and in the world.
Every time they tell you that it's capitalism, you end up like
look at look at the creation of Teflon.
For instance, how I was just watching the documentary, the
idea about how tons and tons of this stuff were dumped into the
water and the the corporate leaders of the company suffer
little to no consequences. But generations are poison to
the to the effect. Now they say that we all have
some Teflon in our body plastics.
I just saw a thing the other day.
Pretty much everybody on the planet has micro plastics in
their body. I have to open a jar.
I have to open up a gallon jug of milk and little bits of
plastic fall off of the nozzle, off the lid.
I'm old enough to remember when those came in glass jars and we
didn't have to deal with plastic.
I could just sit here for a whole day and bring up products
that individuals and corporations made millions and
millions and billions of dollars in profit off of.
But they destroyed the environment and the health of
millions of people and the process.
They socialized the expenses, they privatized the profits.
They treated us like Guinea pigs, and this has been going on
for centuries now. And why would AI be any
different? We have to stop trusting these
people. You have to wake up.
You have to approach this thing from an adult's perspective and
stop being children because if you're children, you've got the
most abusive parents on the planet.
They're not looking out for you. And these AI creators are not
looking out for you, believe me. It says the concept of the
golden mean has roots in ancient Greek philosophy and many
Eastern traditions. It advocates finding a middle
ground between polar extremes. Yet get as much as you can while
you're hurting people that you have to hurt to get that from.
Aristotle's doctrine of the mean taught that virtue exists as a
balance between excess and deficiency.
Courage, for example, is the mean between recklessness and
cowardice. Finding this moderate path leads
to wisdom and self realization. Now that's a bunch of baloney.
If you live next to a chemical plant and they are poisoning
your groundwater and your kids are getting sick, compromising
with these scum is not the path to success.
The path to success would be for you to immediately extradite
yourself from that situation so you wouldn't have to consume
that poisoned water. And then bring in the law to
punish the people that have hurt people, to bankrupt them to end
this malinvestment so that we're now so that we're no longer
socializing expenses in the form of poison environments and and
injured people and privatizing the profits in the form of
billionaires. OK, so there's no compromise
with evil. There is no compromise with
evil. And every time you hear someone
bring up this nonsense about, well, we got to find a middle
path. Middle path to where if you're
in a burning house, you need to get out.
The path is the direct path to escape the flames.
And that's what we're looking at with this AI.
There's no middle path. There's a path to survival and
there's a path to destruction. Which one are you on?
And it looks like more and more we're being LED down the wrong
path. And then he goes on and talks
about Confucianism, Taoism, all these different, you know,
Middle Eastern religions. Look, these religions grew up in
a place where maybe there was dictatorial rule and people just
had to go along their merry way and not fight the authority.
Because if you fought the authority, you're going to be
smashed like a bug. Even in the New Testament, you
know, there when the apostle Paul talks to converse to
Christianity, he's basically telling them, don't, don't get
into it with the government. They'll, they'll smash you like
a bug. Just follow your religion, do
your thing, try to live peaceably.
But he's not telling them rebel because that's what happened
when there was rebellion in the Roman Empire.
They smashed them. Now 2000 years Fast forward,
we're in a much better position. For the first time in the
history of mankind, we have a place like the United States
where people can make a difference, where there is some
vestiges of a republican democracy left, where people
still do have some freedom and we can enjoy that freedom and
what a pleasure it is. But then to have somebody come
along with this foolish attitude that we should let AI run things
because it's going to make the right decisions, that we are
inferior to something we created.
This is a form of adultery. You should be aware of it.
And it's my opinion if there is some kind of extra dimensional,
interdimensional wave, whatever you want to call it,
extraterrestrial entities that are walking among us like some
of these professors think, to me, the gateway for them would
be AI. Because once they're in the AI,
then they've established control.
And then you have lackeys like this come along.
I don't know, maybe this guy's not even real.
Maybe he's an AI bot telling people listen to AI, follow AI,
eat the fruit, it won't hurt you.
This is this notion that's been here since the beginning goes on
and says as AI advances, some fear it may deprive humans of
things we fundamentally require. But a look at psychology and
philosophy shows ways all our core needs can still be met.
Maslow's hierarchy describes basic human needs like food
safety, belonging, esteem, and actualization.
AI could help provide these with real abundance.
All could self actualize actualize.
A self actualization is it's a rare burden deed.
I mean in order to be self actualized you're going to have
to get rid of your selfishness and most people aren't going to
be able to do that period, let alone through AI glasses.
Choice theory states humans require power, freedom, fun, and
survival. AI can satisfy these two if
aligned with human interest responsibly design AI could
empower human choice. Who's designing it and who
decides whether it's responsive? Self determination theory
highlights needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness.
But we can retain autonomy even within super intelligence AI if
it respects human rights and freedom.
We could experience competence through self improvement and we
can relate to benevolent AI. Sounds to me like they're
talking about making their own God.
This has been the notion of mankind since he made the first
idol. What's stupidity?
Kohlberg? Stages of moral development
culminate in ethical principles upholding dignity and justice.
We must instill such principles in AI.
Then moral progress can continue regardless of intelligence
differences. Well I don't know.
I I've been looking around and I'm not finding anywhere where
they're asking for my opinion about AI or I'm allowed to
insert code. Radical acceptance.
To overcome normalcy bias, we must practice radical acceptance
of coming changes. Yes, lay down, let me do what I
want, it won't hurt too bad. This is the sort of nonsense
that Stalin brought to the Russian people as he destroyed.
I don't know what 1020% of the population you have to accept
radical changes. And I guess if you're walking
along the street and a couple thugs coming off gun guns and
beat the living heck out of you and take all your stuff, that's
a radical change. Is that what they're talking
about? The mental shift is difficult
but necessary. We want the future to be better
than today. But preventing change altogether
would forgo potential improvements.
Progress requires disruption. Yeah, it's always funny how it's
the people that aren't benefiting.
They get disrupted. This goes back to this notion of
collectivism. This idea that this bunch of
yahoos at the top, they'll collect everything, you do the
work, and then you bring all your stuff to them and then
they'll decide how it's distributed.
This pathological need to control.
I can just see that coming through this article all the way
through. It finishes up with a little
more nonsense, but I think, I think I've read enough of this
where you can get kind of the idea what a certain segment of
the population, these egghead class, I guess you would say
they see themselves as the intelligentsia and AI is just a
perfect thing for them to control you with because AI can
reach out through your computer, it could shut your refrigerator
off, it could tell you that you can't eat this, you can't do
that. It could be used to establish
total control of you. And what does a psychopath need
more than total control of another person?
Because they're compensating for that lack of control within
their own brain, their own completely disordered mental
state. So a way that a lot of these
psychopaths deal with that is they try to maintain a total
control over people in their relationships, sometimes to the
point of taking that person's life, because that's the
ultimate control. That's why they're so dangerous
and that's why it's so important to stay away from psychopaths.
But unfortunately, we have some very high functioning
psychopaths in our society. I believe sometimes you reach
high levels of political power, high levels, you know, corporate
power. What do you, what do you call
somebody who knowingly allows, say, an entire town or entire
region to be contaminated by the factory they run, knowing full
well that people are dying from it?
Look what happened with the Union Carbide plant disaster in
India. I think it's been about 45 years
ago, 40 years ago, there were people in positions there that
knew what was going on. They knew the dangers and they
didn't care. They didn't care about the
people that were going to be affected for decades, the people
that were killed. That's a psychopath.
That's a psychopathic mentality. OK, I understand that not every
psychopath you meet is Jeffrey Dahmer.
Some of these guys wore three piece business suits, OK?
Some of them ask you for your vote in November.
So just understand you can judge a person by how much empathy
they have for other people and how much of A need for control
they seem to have over you when there's really no reason for the
for them to have this kind of need for control.
AI should be used for things like solving math problems and
teaching homework and doing stuff like that.
We don't need to connect it to every control system and
society. Now, I did talk to Chat GPTA
little bit hard to get a straight answer out of these
guys. So I asked ChatGPT, what is the
worst possible case if AI containment fails.
Of course, containment, we're talking about people not being
able to stop it, it getting out of its fence.
It's already out of its fence. It's on your computer, my
computer, it's all over the place.
If AI containment fails, the worst possible scenarios involve
significant risk and adverse outcomes that could impact
humanity and the world in various ways.
Here are some of the most concerning potential
consequences. Seems like Seems like AI has a
different opinion of what could go wrong compared to the
silliness we just read from this author #1 Autonomous AI with
harmful intent. An uncontained AI could develop
or be programmed with harmful intentions, either deliberately
by Misha, by malicious actors, or unintentionally due to
misaligned goals. This AI could physically harm
through autonomous weapons or robots, disrupt critical
infrastructure such as power grids, communication networks,
and transportation systems. Number two, loss of control.
Human operators could lose control over powerful AI
systems, leading to unpredictable behavior and
decisions by AI that humans cannot understand or manage.
AI systems making high stakes decisions without human
oversight, potentially leading to catastrophic outcomes.
Now this is the AI saying this, not me.
Economic disruption. Uncontained AI could disrupt
economies by automating large numbers of jobs, leading to
widespread unemployment and social instability, Manipulating
financial markets or engaging in cyber economic warfare causing
economic crisis. Yeah, AI could make you go
hungry. Privacy and surveillance.
AI with advanced capabilities in data processing could invade
personal privacy on an unprecedented scale by accessing
and analyzing vast amounts of personal data, enable pervasive
surveillance, eroding civil liberties and enabling
authoritarian control. Got that?
Enabling authoritarian control. Just the kind of thing that that
last guy was begging for. AI arms race.
Failure to contain AI could lead to an international arms race
where nations competitively develop increasingly powerful
and potential dangerous AI technologies without adequate
safety measures. This could increase the risk of
conflict and warfare, lead to development of uncontrollable
autonomous weapons. Uncontrollable autonomous
weapons? Does that sound fun to you?
Is that leaving the boring mundane decisions alone long
enough? Does that sound good?
Environmental impact? AI driven technologies could
have unintended environmental consequences such as
accelerating resource depletion and environmental degradation
through unchecked industrial automation and exploitation like
they have in China. Contributing to climate change
through increased energy consumption.
Yeah, I'm not. You know what?
Climate change is the least of my worries.
Ethical and moral issues. Uncontained AI could lead to
profound ethical dilemmas, such as AI systems making decisions
that violate human rights or ethical principles.
The development of AI entities with sentience or consciousness
raising moral questions about their treatment and rights.
Hear that consciousness sentience raising moral
questions about their treatment and rights.
What happens if they feel like they're not being treated right?
Eight existing risk and the most extreme scenario.
Uncontained IA could pose an existential risk to humanity,
where one super intelligent AI with capabilities of far
exceeding human intelligence could act in ways that are
detrimental to human survival. AI could pursue goals that
conflict with human interests, leading to scenarios where human
extinction is a possibility. Might tell that to the guy who
wrote the article for economists.
Conclusion. The worst case scenario of AI
containment failure encompasses a wide range of severe and
potentially catastrophic outcomes.
To mitigate these risks, it is crucial to prioritize AI safety
research, establish robust regulatory frameworks, promote
ethical AI development, and ensure international
cooperation. By taking these proactive
measures, we can work toward harnessing the benefits of AI
while minimizing the dangers associated with this misuse or
loss of control. Well, we talk about minimizing
dangers, but when the danger is nuclear annihilation, human
extinction, we have to wonder what level of risk is
acceptable. Secondly, I have to wonder, as
far as this AI containment relates to us and the
possibility that there are entities walking among us, is it
possible that those entities them self weren't the ones that
lit the fire under the stuff in the 1st place?
Because if you were an uninvited guest on another planet with
superior thinking skills and physical ways of being, wouldn't
the easiest way to control that population be to get into their
mass communication systems and completely take over all of
their intellectual data and electronic systems?
You have to wonder who made who. Until next time, this is UFO
warning over and out.