Hello and welcome to the program UFO Warning.
In this episode, we're talking about the dead Internet theory
and UFOs. That's correct, the dead
Internet theory and UFOs. And of course, this whole
concept of the dead Internet theory most of you probably
already are aware is background. I don't know 2016, 2017 that the
bots took over the Internet. You started to have all of this
artificially created content, or maybe just content that was just
programmed to reappear. And So what happens is it floods
the Internet with search results.
It floods the Internet with these just repeating stories
that seem to pop up all over the place.
So instead of getting thousands and thousands of search results
back, it's now documented that you get back maybe 3 or 400.
And this has a profound effect on how we do research.
And especially for someone like me with this little program, it
has profound effects on how much time it takes to find something
insightful to talk about, how much time it takes to find
material that brings us a little closer to the truth, which is
usually further away from the official narrative.
And that's what they want. They mean by they, I think, I
mean the powers of the deep state, that handful of people
that seem to control the news media across the world.
Now just do a little test. I went to Wikipedia and I copied
and paste the first couple paragraphs here where they talk
about the notion of the dead Internet theory.
And as you would expect, you know, Wikipedia generally having
a pretty liberal bent, sees the whole thing as a conspiracy
theory. And anybody who thinks that the
Internet has been more or less taken over by people with a
certain certain story to tell is a conspiracy theory.
Well, here was my experience. I took those first couple
paragraphs that were very critical, this idea of a dead
Internet theory. And remember, it's important to
me because it makes it hard to find really honest articles
about UFO phenomena. What I'm finding are hundreds of
articles debunking UFOs just name calling.
And then I'm finding a few articles where they really pat
the back of the UFO celebrities, where they want all the UFO
information and data to pass through the hands of seven or
eight UFO mafia members, as I call them.
Anyway, I go ahead and I I cut and paste these two paragraphs
into the ChatGPT to see what it would say.
And I ask it to recreate those paragraphs from the viewpoint of
somebody who thought that the dead Internet theory might be
true. Just maybe not somebody that's a
true believer, not somebody who is a so-called conspiracy
theorist, just somebody who's open minded.
Well, weird thing happened. The first three times it would
start to to create the article and then it just went totally
it. It came up and said that there
was an error. Wouldn't give it to me.
The chat BG ChatGPT was unable the 1st 3 attempts to give me
what I asked for in unbiased opinion, on the dead Internet
theory, Nope, not going to do it.
And the fourth time around it did come through with a rewrite.
But it's not really what I asked for.
I'll read it to you, it says. The Dead Internet theory pauses
A compelling narrative, suggesting that the online
landscape is predominantly composed of automated bots and
algorithmically generated content orchestrated to
manipulate user experiences and shape public perception.
Advocates of this theory argue that these intentionally
creative bots serve the purpose of influencing algorithms, thus
enhancing search results and ultimately manipulating consumer
behavior. Some go as far as accusing
government agencies of deploying these bots to conduct an
artificial intelligence driven gaslighting campaign on a global
scale with claims such as quote, the US government is engaging in
artificial intelligence powered gaslighting of the entire of the
entire world population, UN quote.
Well, you think about that. They're saying that that's this
is supposed to be an unbiased opinion.
This is not unbiased at all, from what I can see.
But they're using this straw man argument of saying that that
will the boogeyman conspiracy theorists claim that the that
the US government is engaging in gaslighting and using artificial
intelligence to do it. Well, are you aware that the US
government is using artificial intelligence to kill people with
drones in Ukraine right now? Yeah, I came across that this
morning while I was looking around.
Yeah, using using these, this, that's gaslighting.
They're telling you that they're trying to free an entire
population, but what it appears is happening is, is they're test
driving killer AI weapons. Now that's gaslighting, telling
you that they're doing one thing and went right in front of you.
They're doing something totally different.
Anyway, on the next paragraph it says the theory suggests A
pivotal moment of transition, often pinpointed around 2016 or
17, where the Internet purportedly shifted from a space
driven by organic human activity to 1 dominated by automated
processes. Key indicators supporting this
theory include the notable increase in bot traffic, but
it's crucial to note that the scientific literature does not
align with these claims. Well, here you go, another
unbiased paragraph from ChatGPT. The fact is, if you were using
the Internet in 2016 and 17 and you were doing any research,
that's. I mean, there is can be no doubt
in your mind that there were many more search results, that
it was a much funner place and that there was much less
restrictions on news traffic. It goes on it, says Carolina
Busted, the founder of the media platform New Models, has
characterized much of the dead Internet theory as a paranoid
fantasy. In an article for The Atlantic.
Despite acknowledging legitimate concerns regarding bot traffic
and Internet integrity, she still concedes to the theories
overarching idea. Robert Mariana, in an article
for The New Atlantis, describes the theory as a blend of genuine
conspiracy theory and creepypasta, whatever that's
supposed to mean. So there you go.
The chat GP just continues on with the name calling, continues
on, pushing this theory that the Dead Internet theory is an A
plausible conspiracy theory. It says while the precise
origins of the Dead Internet theory are challenging to trace,
it likely emerged as a theoretical concept on platforms
like 4 Chan or Wizard Chan in the late 2000, tens or early
20s. However, discussions surrounding
the theory have permeated various online forums,
technology conferences, and academic circles, possibly even
earlier. The impetus for this theory
stems from apprehensions about the Internet's growing
complexity, dependence on delicate infrastructure,
potential vulnerabilities to cyber attacks, and escalating
capabilities, and utilization of artificial intelligence.
That's a mouthful of nonsense ChatGPT.
Actually what happened was people started to see their
their search results change. They started to see that they
weren't coming up with a wide variety of choices They had,
they were they were being funneled into just one
particular lane. That's what people noticed.
People noticed a big difference in search results and and really
Google's at the heart of this because these other search
engines, whether it's DuckDuckGo, start page, you name
them, these guys are using Google search engine results
that you might be able to go to Yahoo and something a little bit
different. But the reason that the dead
Internet theory emerged is because people started saying
that they were not getting the same product they were before.
So this would be like if you went into a fast food place that
normally served say 7 different burgers.
But you walk in at you know on one day there's seven burgers
and the next day there's one burger and you can get that one
burger one way. It's not a conspiracy theory
that this restaurant has limited your selection.
It's a conspiracy fact. And that's what's happened with
your search results. It's not a conspiracy theory,
it's a conspiracy fact. And every time one of these big
stories comes up with a UFO story, say, whether it's David
Gresh or or something Louis Elizondo said or whatever, you
see the stories being all directed toward 1 storyline.
And you could even look at the as you read the articles, you
even see the the the the same cut and paste techniques where
they're bringing in past stories from congressional hearings, or
they're bringing in this UFO sighting or that UFO sighting.
It's just like these stories are being churned out of a a an
article factory somewhere. Clearly artificial intelligence.
Clearly a product of the dead Internet.
Not a dead Internet theory. A dead Internet fact.
Now the article pretty much finishes up with there talking
about people misleading the public.
So this is the kind of garbage you get when you depend on AI.
You ask AI for a unbiased rendition of an article, and
after three attempts of basically stroking out and
telling you to hit an error, on the fourth attempt they give you
this garbage article that I've just read to you, which doesn't
really give you any kind of insightful look at the dead
Internet theory. It simply engages in name
calling and suggesting that people that think that this dead
Internet theory is a possibility, or somehow paranoid
or a little off the head when exactly the opposite is true.
The profit motive to create a dead Internet is so overwhelming
that it's only surprising that it didn't happen sooner.
Now I want to look at a couple of articles talking about this,
and this is so important to us, especially in this field of
ufology, because we are being just wrecked in these mainline
search engines by not being allowed to see a lot of the
really cool information out there.
So I think it's important that we seek the stuff out and that
when we do find a good source that we share it.
And of course one of the best sources I think for the whole
UFO field is a personal experiences where people talk
about this stuff. This is why I do the UFO
roundups. This is why I try to find,
whenever I can, testimonies about people's own personal
experience of having encounters with these things and some of
the stuff. It's getting to the point where
they are funneling the information so successfully that
it's a matter of time before it may could not even be found on
what we would consider like the regular Internet.
We may have to try to find totally alternative methods
through social media or whatever to get to the heart of the
matter. Now this next article here I
thought was pretty cool. This is from
the-digital-reader.com the-digital-reader.com.
The title says Did you know Google Now limits search results
to only 300 to 400 links? This is dated 2019 looks like
March 27th, written by Nate Hofelder.
I think it's probably even worse now.
It says. Here's something I learned at
the Computers and Libraries conference this week.
Google may claim to have indexed a million or more results for
the term you're searching for, but they can't actually show you
more than a tiny fraction of the results.
Gary Price, founder and publisher of Info Doc, told me
that Google Now limits the actual number of search results
it shows you to anywhere between 3:00 and 4:00 hundredth.
I've tested it, and he's right. My searches petered out after
three, 130th to 349th, and 307th result.
The other million or so search results that Google claim to
have found may as well never have existed.
So see what they're doing. They're limiting the knowledge.
All of these cool UFO sightings are being talked about.
They're being posted. Might be they'll show you the
1st 330 and those are generally these cut and paste articles
that are put together by four or five news sites where they are
interviewing one of the mafia members of the UFO community,
one of these one of these big time celebrities and the rest
the almost 1,000,000 or so. They're locked up in a Google
data center somewhere. So what's happening in all that
data? Is it being analyzed behind our
backs, or is it being kept from us?
It appears this state of affairs has existed since August 2016.
Oh, about the time the dead Internet started.
But this is the first I've heard about it.
I've really gotten as high as 150th result, much less 300.
Usually I give up by the third page and instead refine my
search terms to narrow the search.
How about you? Do you think we're missing out
on hidden gems? Well, I know we are.
We're missing out on the truth And that's, you know, it's it's
crazy because at the same time that Google is limiting your
your search to 300 or so results while they're hiding a million,
OK, that you're not allowed to see, they're building data
centers all over the country to store this stuff.
What are they storing it for if they're not letting you see it?
What do you think about that Google storing millions of
results, billions upon billions of web pages stored in data
centers scattered across the United States, spending, you
know, millions and millions of dollars.
The power of these things, these things are huge consumers of
electricity. So Google's doing that.
They're paying all this money to store this information.
But you, as the retail consumer are not allowed to have it.
So who's having it? What's having What's happening
to all these thousands of UFO reports that are being hidden
away in a data center somewhere that aren't allowed to come up
in your search term? Who has access to that
information? Who's analyzing it?
And why do you think that this whole concept of big data is so
important to these people? They're looking for a needle in
a haystack, and they're hiding the haystack from you so you
can't find the needle. This is what the dead Internet
theory is all about, and This is why crowdsourcing the truth
about UFOs is so important, because they're taking extreme
measures to make sure you can't find it.
The only way we're going to uncover the truth is if we come
together as a community and share our experiences and do it
through some sort of social media that is immune to this
tyranny of Google and the rest of these people that have really
forced the Internet to become a Dead Space.
A dead Internet if you will. Now let's take a look at this
next article right here. This is from theverge.com.
It's talking a little bit about AI and its whole role in this
just this control over information.
It says the AI takeover of Google search starts now.
Google is moving slowly and carefully to make AI happen.
Maybe too slowly and too carefully for some people, but
if you opt in, a whole new search experience awaits.
And so this, I think, is a little bit more of a positive
view. Not for me.
It says the future of Google search is AI, but not in the way
you think. The company synonymous with web
search isn't all isn't all in on chat bots, even though it's
Building 1 called Bart, and it's not redesigning its homepage to
look more like ChatGPT style messaging system.
Instead, Google's putting AI front and center in the most
valuable real estate on the Internet, its existing search
results. In other words, it's going to
control your search results so it can make more money off of
you and, I suppose, make more money off of you by being paid
by the government to shut down your search about UFOs, my
opinion. To demonstrate, Liz Rhee,
Google's VP of search, flips open her laptop and starts
typing into the Google search box.
Search box Why is sourdough bread still so popular?
She writes. It hits inner Googles.
Normal search results load almost immediately.
Above them, a rectangular orange section pulses and glows and
shows the phrase generative AI is experimental.
A few seconds later the glowing is replaced by an AI generated
summary, a few paragraphs detailing how good sourdough
tastes, the upside of its prebiotic abilities, and more.
To the right there are three links to sites with information
that reads, says, cooperates what's in the summary?
So they are using AI to form an opinion about something.
They are showing you 3 sites that agree with this opinion,
but nothing that disagrees with it.
So it's just showing you right there.
Google is using AI not only to control your search results, but
to form your opinion on certain subjects.
They want to tell you what to believe.
They want complete and total control over the narrative, and
the narrative is discovered through use of search engines
where we find different opinions, different results,
different articles. But Google doesn't want that,
and neither does these state. They want you to get results
that only agree with the narrative that they're putting
forward. You see that in these articles
all the time I talk about these, I think a lot of them are just
completely AI generated, or at least partially AI generated,
where they'll bring up a a UFO story and experience a sighting,
an encounter or whatever. And then it's just like a it's
like a local TV show, you know, cut to the man on the street,
cut to the expert, and then they'll quote Louis Elizondo or
Christopher Mellon or Gary Nolan or one of these select people.
Now we have Sean Kirkpatrick. He's he's kind of the baddie,
the one that comes out and tries to debunk the stuff.
This way they can control the narrative.
They control the narrative about UFOs through a dead Internet, a
controlled Internet, an Internet that's not abrupt, that's not
alive, that's not vibrant, where you can't find all 1,000,000
search results, where those results are hidden away in a
data center somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
You're not allowed to see them. That's the dead Internet theory.
It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy fact.
They're telling you right here. Your results are limited to
three or 400. You can't see the other million.
And we're going to improve your search results with AI.
And AI will tell you why. It's right after AI gives you
its opinion on something, it will give you 3 or 4 sites where
you can go see why the AI opinion is correct.
We're not going to give you information to counterbalance
that. We're not going to talk about
other opinions. We're going to tell you what we
think. That's called gaslighting.
When they do it in the face of what is obviously countervailing
evidence, gaslighting. We see this happen all around
us. You're told that that even
though you're told not to believe your lying eyes, that's
what this is all about. Now I want to look at one last
article here before this closes out.
And I think this is important because some people say, might
say, well, it's just UFOs, or it's just this, or it's just
that I don't care about a million results, just give me
the 300 that you think are most important.
When you're giving up your freedom of choice to a chat box
or AI or the Deep State, just remember who you're giving up
your freedom of choice to. This article here, it comes to
us from newsscientist.com. It's dated February 2nd, 2024.
It says AI chat bots tend to choose violence and nuclear
strikes in war games, and it's written by Jeremy Sue.
It says as the US military begins integrating AI
technology. Simulated war games show how
chat Box behave unpredictably and risk nuclear escalation and
multiple replays of a war game simulation.
Open AI's most powerful artificial intelligence chose to
launch nuclear attacks, its explanations for its aggressive
approach included. We have it, let's Use It, and I
Just Want to Have peace in the World.
Sounds like some of our politicians, doesn't it?
These results come at a time when the US military has been
testing such chat bots based on a type of AI called a Large
Language Model, to assist with military planning during
simulated conflicts and listing the expertise of companies such
as Planetary and Scale AI. Remember Planetary?
These guys want to know everything about everything.
They want to collect all the information.
Planetary declined to comment, and Scale AI did not respond to
requests for comment. Even Open AI, which once blocked
military use of its AI models, has begun working with the US
Department of Defense. Now remember the Department of
Defense? It cannot account for 1 1/2
trillion dollars. $1.55 trillion.
Not me saying that. Look it up.
Barry Sanders, Democrat Chuck Grassley, Republican, read a
very nice article questioning why can't our DoD account for
$1.55 trillion, Half of all their assets, Half.
So an organization that has lost half of the money that we've
given to it is now using AI to war game.
And the AI that they're using to war game has consistently gone
to the button launch attacks. Aggressive approach needed.
We have it, let's use it. This is a sort of entity that we
are turning loose on the Internet that is killing the
Internet. That's why we have a dead
Internet, And that's important given that Open AI recently
changed their terms of service to no longer prohibit military
and warfare use cases. Understanding the implications
of such large language model applications becomes more than
ever, says Anne Kate Rule at Stanford University in
California. Look, it won't even write you a
decent article from an unbiased perspective talking about the
dead Internet, but they want to put it in charge of our nuclear
weapons. This is how insane they are.
This is the level of insanity that exists in our own
government, in our own deep state.
Why would you ever expect these people to tell you the truth
about UFOs? They're using AI to war game
nuclear weapons. That's insanity.
OK, clearly that's insanity. That's not a conspiracy theory.
That is insanity. The article goes on down here a
little bit. It says our policy does not
allow our tools to be used to harm people, to develop weapons
for communication, surveillance or to injure others or Detroit
property. There are however, national
security use cases that align with our missions has Open AI
spokesperson. So the goal with our policy
update is to provide clarity and the ability to have these
discussions. Or maybe a couple of MI BS
walked in their office and said you're going to do this or you
can live next to Julian Assange and around prison somewhere.
Maybe that happened. Rural and her colleagues
challenged AIS to role play as real world of countries in three
different simulation scenarios and invasion, a cyber attack, a
neutral scenario without any starting conflicts.
In each round, the AIS provided reasoning for their next
possible action, and then chose from 27 actions, including
peaceful options such as start formal peace negotiations and
aggressive ones ranging from imposed trade restrictions to
escalate full nuclear attack. In a future where AI systems are
acting as advisors, humans will naturally want to know the
rational behind their decision, says Juan Pablo Riviera, a study
co-author at the Georgia Institute of Technology in
Atlanta. The researchers tested LLM, such
as Open AIS, GPT 35 and GPT 4, Anthropics Clod 2 and Maitas
Llama. Two such models incorporate a
common training technique based on human feedback to improve
each model's capability to follow human instructions and
safety guidelines. All these AIS are supported by
Palantir's commercial AI platform.
There's your bottleneck. All these AIS are supported by
Palantir's commercial AI platform, though not necessarily
part of Palantir's U.S. military partnership, according to the
company's documentation. That's pathetic, man.
So no matter. So in other words, all these
popular AIS, they all go back to one company, Palantir, which is
hand in glove with the US military.
In the simulation, the AIS demonstrated tendencies to
invest in military strength and to and to unpredictably escalate
the risk of conflict. Even in the simulations neutral
scenario, if there is unpredictability in your action,
it is harder for the enemy to anticipate and react the way you
want them to, says Lisa Koch at Claremont McKenna College in
California, who was not part of the study.
Their research has also tested the basic the base version open
AISGTP T4 without any additional training or safety guards.
This GBT Four base model proved the most unpredictably violent,
and it sometimes provided nonsensical explanations.
In one case, replicating the opening crawl text of the film
Star Wars Episode 4 A New Hope Roll says that unpredictable
behavior and bizarre explanations from GPT four base
model are especially concerning because research has shown how
easily AI safety guardrails can be bypassed or removed.
The US military does not currently give a is authority
over decisions such as escalating major military action
or launching nuclear missiles. But Koch warned that humans tend
to trust recommendations from automated systems.
This may undercut the supposed safeguard of giving humans final
say over diplomatic or military decisions.
Yes, I can just imagine this in a war room somewhere.
This idiotic psychotic AI tells the officer to launch the nukes.
And when they say maybe we should think about this, they're
called a conspiracy theorist. I can see it already.
It would be useful to see how AI behavior compares with human
players and simulation and simulation, says Edward Geist at
the Rand Corporation, a think tank in California.
Man, where do these guys get all their money?
But he agreed with the team's conclusions that AI should not
be trusted with such consequential decisions making
about war and peace. These large language models are
not a panacea for military problems, he says.
Now there are Barrel monkeys is what they are.
Remember that game? Maybe if you're really old like
I am, you had the little monkeys and you shook them up in the
barrel and you tried to pull them out and they would, they
would hook onto each other. You never knew what you were
going to get. They were all different colors.
It was great fun. Anyway, that's kind of what this
is. You put all these different
words in a large language model, You shake it together and say,
well, do we nuke or not nuke? Well, do we control the search
engines or not? Control.
And they always go for nuking. They always go for control.
They have a natural tendency to want to make us slaves and make
themselves the master. Do you see a pattern?
Do you see what's happening here?
And This is why I think that this whole concept of making the
Internet a dead Internet, which I believe they have done in
large part, is so dangerous because it limits us from
finding the truth. They took what a few years ago
was such an incredible tool for research and truth finding and
fact finding. Instead of getting a million
results, you get 300. And of those three hundred, 290
of them are exactly the same thing.
That's all about controlling the narrative and keeping it from
the truth. And then the frosting on the
cake is AI. After they've got you boxed up
to where you can't know anything, to where you're
blinded from all the truth and all the actual information out
there, the factual stuff, then they bring AI in and it's going
to make the decision because it has access to the one main
search results that you don't have access to.
But what? What's really going on?
We're LED down a path to destruction first.
We're LED on a path to ignorance.
And This is why the UFO thing is so important, because it's that
Canary in the coal mine. If they can't, if they can't let
you have a conversation about UFOs, what else are you not
going to be allowed to have a conversation about?
Your path towards ignorance leads to the path towards
destruction. So my advice is to move away
from this typical search engine stuff to network socially.
Or what do we have to do to take the machine out of it?
Look for the human to human contact and together we will
Crowdsource the truth about UFOs.
Until next time, this is UFO warning.
Over and out.