My last post was a bit of a rant. It wasn't entirely spur of the moment. It was a long time coming.
There have been a number of items in the news which have been weighing on my mind for some time.
I included a few at the end of aforementioned rant, on the topic of nefarious people using technology to stalk and harm their victims, of heinous attacks on free speech.
I included an article about the discovery that Microsoft is reading your emails:
[Microsoft is scanning the inside of password-protected zip files for malware | Ars Technica]
Not JUST reading. They are hacking your emails, looking for passwords and using them to open and read encrypted content. (They also look at your Word, Excel and PowerPoint documents, by the way, even the ones you retain locally, on your computer)
Sure, they claim this is only to stop malware and child pornography. But, how do we know? They didn't disclose what they were doing, what assurance do we have they aren't profiling for psychological manipulation via targeted ad-campaigns and misinformation? How do we know they aren't stealing the works of others? Using information gleaned for insider trading? Abuse of monopoly powers?
(I've asked various information security professionals if they have concerns, or are taking precautions. I get either, the deer in headlights look, or the foolishly confident (naive?) claim that the paid enterprise version of Microsoft services is different from the consumer version, or the shrugging "everybody else is using them so... it must be okay...")
Also, I really don't mean to single out Microsoft. Google's stack and behavior is no different.
And then you have the data brokers, the businesses who scour the internet, collecting every last scrap of information about you, and making it available to anybody who wishes to pay for it. Extortionists, Predators, Scammers, Unhinged governments... You are a commodity to be used, abused, manipulated, scammed, extorted... enslaved...
The next news item of concern to me has been AI:
To begin with, AI is worrisome because people trust the word 'Intelligence', of which there actually is none. AI is just a computer scouring large quantities of data and pulling out certain parts based on a weighting algorithm (frequency, popularity, etc...).
I don't mean to imply this isn't useful, in fact I prefixed my rant with an example of a useful function AI could serve.
But here's the problem- Pulling from my exploration of reasoning, and focusing on 'our greatest enemy', we humans are naturally greedy and lazy (that's a meaner, less nuanced way to say it than I do in the post, but also less verbose).
People gravitate toward that which is more easily and rapidly profitable. Which generally involves controlling, manipulating and exploiting other people. IT is the dark side of our unchecked, natural state.
With that lens, I look at some of the news about AI:
[CGI 'Influencers' Like Lil Miquela Are About to Flood Your Feed | WIRED]
This short youtube video also:
[AI Influencers are taking over]
Now, lilmiquela is relatively easy to identify as 'artificial'.
But what about Milla Sophia?
It will get harder over time. These AI influencers are created using AI. An AI art program scours the ba-jillions of images on the internet, and then, using the information it has gathered regarding what characteristics do and do not appeal to the target audience, it in essence 'randomly' generates a 'person' who matches the target 'ideal' with near perfection (You just thought competing with surgically enhanced, photo-shopped supermodels was bad).
(I'm ignoring for now, the potential negative effects this could have on art as a human economic and creative endeavor. \[ i.e. Someone with no artistic talent whatsoever, using the right AI tools, could conceivably, with very little personal effort, create thousands of unique art pieces, or spam amazon and other retail sites with books, songs, etc... flooding the market, and crowding out legitimate artists who have sacrificed years perfecting their craft].)
It's more than just the physical image though. These AI 'people' have a 'backstory', affiliations with organizations. The AI algorithm (with human assistance) develops them to be someone with whom you feel a deep and personal connection, someone who you trust, someone who can influence (manipulate) your decisions.
It's bad enough that the social media feeds are inundated with stories and comments derived from half-truths, misinformation, and outright lies, generally founded on fear (I am just finally getting to some of this in parts 8 and 9 of "The Art of Reasoning"). Now individuals and organizations can feasibly crank out an army of highly influential, personal, and 'trusted' virtual voices to steer narratives and manipulate opinions, or to simply scam the most vulnerable)
(An additional, related headline I will not post, due to the graphic nature of the material, but in short, several real female influencers were victimized by an individual who used their likeness in deep-fake, pornographic films. These poor girls are dealing with the trauma and embarrassment of their families, their friends \[not to mention themselves] seeing themselves engaged in lewd behaviors, which never actually happened. It will be increasingly difficult to distinguish reality from fiction, from what someone actually said or did versus what some threat-actor invented. Further still, there are now sites where, for a few dollars, you can take images of someone and have movies created of them as victims of heinous acts of violence. Consider the impact this could have on the psyche of young men, the potential consequences, when the fantasy is no longer sufficient to feed their addiction... )
But how will anyone know for sure what is real and what is not? Of course, people are working on AI systems to detect deep-fakes and AI generated entities, which will likely be a perpetual game of cat-and-mouse. And of course the large corporate minds are calling for strict government regulation, which is unlikely to be enforceable in any meaningful way, but ultimately what that does is strengthen the technological monopolies of said corporate and government institutions, allowing them and their allies to control and manipulate the narratives. Not a desirable outcome at all. Imagine hundreds, thousands, millions of carefully crafted, personalized AI entities, designed specifically to appeal to and manipulate individuals, all controlled by a small handful of people in positions of financial or political power...
But beyond these potentialities, there seems a real madness descending on the world.
First, this one caught my attention:
[‘Sound of Freedom’: Box Office Triumph for QAnon Believers – Rolling Stone]
There is no need to invoke conspiratorial speculations that wealthy elitist pedophiles/serial-child-abusers were trying to kill the show in order to protect their evil behaviors. I have seen little in the way of sound evidence to support such a claim. It may or may not be true, but in this case, it doesn't even matter.
The more likely case (given the tone of the writing); the writers of these detracting articles don't like Jim Caviezel, because of conspiracies he has promoted in the past. Or perhaps they don't like Trump (ironically/hypocritically for conspiratorial reasons), or possibly Glenn Beck, or other high-profile figures whose names have been connected to this due to their open support for Operation Underground Railroad. Perhaps they don't like Tim Ballard because "...he's a Mormon..." (That is literally the justification more than one commentor has given for why people shouldn't see the show or support the organizations behind it, presumably for 'Christian' reasons - in response, please refer to Mark 9:38-39 and Luke 9:49-50), or ... who knows what else? There are any number of explanations, based on simple, fundamental human behaviors, which don't require any sort of highly organized, deep-state or Hollywood elitist conspiracy.
(Though there is still that nagging question in the back of my mind - this was a low-budget, independent film, with no big industry backing, and no 'big-draw' actors. If nothing shady is going on, why then did these folks not simply ignore the film? Why did they feel the need to pile on with desperate-sounding, ad hominem attacks?)
Even more disturbing are derogatory comments from other anti-trafficking organizations who have called the film out for being 'unrealistic', or for not addressing more common avenues in which trafficking occurs (i.e. family members trafficking family members). Now, I get they would want to note these other vectors for trafficking, sure. But by siding with detractors? That seems petty, jealous and self-serving.
They could have just as easily gotten behind the show, given their support, shown even the smallest semblance of unity regarding the fundamental issue being addressed - that slavery is STILL VERY MUCH A REAL PROBLEM TODAY, and that we need to do more to actually abolish it. I can think of few topics that should more easily cross political, cultural, social and economic boundaries than this one.
But no. Instead we were subjected to yet more division, greed, pride... Those, I would argue, are no less damning reasons than the alleged conspiracy theories.
That was, perhaps, a bit of a lengthy, rambly rant to observe that something so seemingly unifying as a film decrying human trafficking - especially child-trafficking, became a point of polarization and contention, its salient point nearly swallowed whole in the pointless conflict.
And there there is this headline:
[Young woman who survived Brussels airport terror attack 'euthanised' after struggling with PTSD - World News - Mirror Online]
It is an older headline, but one which has been weighing on me. There is an implication here that I am struggling to wrap my brain around
You see, Belgium - like many other places - has eliminated the Death penalty.
This means that we have become... what... so civilized?... that we - mercifully - do not execute the individuals who planned and executed the attack which ended the lives of over thirty people, but we will -mercifully- execute the surviving victims.
And I don't begrudge the young woman for wanting to 'check-out', after such a harrowing experience. I just find myself... at a loss. Am I the only one who feels like our priorities are a complete mess? that our culture has gone completely sideways? That our mental and social care systems are an utter disaster?
It is further 'interesting' to note that the individuals who planned and executed this attack, also planned and executed an attack in Paris a year earlier. One of the individuals had been engaged in violent criminal activities for over 15 years prior to this incident, and in fact had just been released from prison after serving four years of a ten year sentence, one year before the Paris attack. So we mercifully keep violent criminals alive, and then mercifully kill their victims. It is utterly, mind-bogglingly insane.
It is an absurd madness, fueled by those who profit from fear and division (and I don't necessarily think they do so knowingly. Many likely don't understand the implications of their actions on the grand scale, they simply are seeking to. participate in the attention economy, trying to grab influence, to garner followers, to gain sponsors, or to promote an idea which is important to them. And so, they try ideas, and repeat that which works to garner attention. And - as I have noted in my essays on reasoning. Fear works.)
This rise of chaos has lead me to think on the topic of revolution of late, for it seems we are daily on the brink of yet another one. There have certainly been a few of various sizes and relative degrees of success of late (mostly small, localized to a single city or neighborhood, and inconsequential.)
But I've been thinking a bit about revolutions of late - reading about past revolutions,the circumstances, catalyst, and outcomes.
Most don't end well for the revolters.
In 209 BC Cheng Shen and Wu Gang were ordered to march their army of commoners to assist in the defense of YuYang. They were delayed by floodwaters. The Qin laws of the time mandated execution for those who showed up late for government laws regardless of the reason. With nothing to lose, they led their soldiers in a revolt. They were no match for the emperor's trained soldiers, and ultimately their revolt failed, and Cheng and Wu were assassinated by their own men.
The Trung Sisters, who attempted to free Vietnam from Chinese rule in 42 AD were beheaded.
The Transylvanian Peasant revolt of 1437 Lasted a year before the rebel forces were starved out or otherwise decimated.
The 1381 German Peasants revolt fared no better.
The Celts revolted on many occasions against the Romans, the last official conflict being the war of Numantine, they fought for twenty years, but in 134 BC they were ultimately overpowered and the Numantine revolters committed suicide, rather than surrender.
Not all end so badly for those who instigate them.
in AD 17 Mother Lu, a wealthy Landowner in China, whose son - a minor official - was executed by the local magistrate for a minor offense, sold her property and used her wealth to raise an army. She stormed the county seat and killed the magistrate to avenge her son's death. She died of an illness shortly thereafter, and admittedly the peasant revolt she inspired ultimately was quashed. So, okay for her, not so much for those who followed her.
Still others fared even better.
The American Revolution for instance. The United State revolted against British rule, and created a nation which has lasted for a quarter of a millennia to date, and whose existence has had far reaching influence (some good, some bad) on the entire globe.
It is curious to me that farmers are frequently at the middle of these revolts. The Dutch farmers have recently made the news. It isn't the first time for them though. They have risen to the occasion to protest government action against agriculture before; once in 1963 and again 1989.
And while there are the few odd cases of a revolt by a military official seeking greater power, or an individual or group seeking revenge over a specific incident, most instances occur when someone or some group who perceives themselves to be oppressed reaches some breaking point. That last tax hike, that last oppressive law, that unwarranted abuse or death of just the wrong individual at just the wrong time. That one day when the bus driver threatens to arrest an individual for not moving out of the arbitrarily designated seats for people of a particular race, and that individual is just tired of playing that stupid game (Rosa Parks).
One could argue that WWII began as a revolution. The German people were subjected to severe economic hardship by the victors of WWI, to the point that enough was enough. Unfortunately, a madman ended up in charge of that 'revolt'.
Most of the time a revolution occurs when one group of a society uses their position of authority over another group in a way the other group deems oppressive. Their reasons may or may not be justified, or justifiable to them. It often starts with just one or two malcontents. It has been building over time, but today... something about today pushes them over the edge, and they fight back.
(It is interesting to note that generally both sides - the oppressor and the oppressed, when examined under the lens of reasoning, are at some level, seeking the same visionary end - Utopia. They have some grand vision of a 'perfect society' which they are seeking to achieve, or some path toward a perceived future utopia they are trying to maintain. But what all fail to comprehend is that - since each person is unique, with unique preferences and perspectives - their vision of utopia is inevitably someone else's dystopia.)
In most instances, that is where it ends. They bluster, and are either ignored, silenced, eliminated, or in some other way subdued and made irrelevant. In some instances, that one moment of individual rebellion is the spark that ignites others, and a group revolt occurs, either spontaneously or after careful planning. In some vary rare instances, these revolts gain sufficient momentum to effect meaningful and sometimes lasting change.
Only rarely.
It becomes clear then, that one should carefully and deliberately consider their decision to revolt. The cost is usually quite high, and the probability of success abysmal. But, when you hit that breaking point, it can be hard to be deliberate.
I think the two revolts which I find most interesting are the Plebian revolts and Gandhi's revolt.
The Roman lower class plebians, through a series of five revolts against the upper class patricians won equal status. Theirs was a non-violent revolt. They simply packed up and left, and the patricians, realizing the discomfort they would inevitably face, made concessions to convince the plebians (primarily farmers) to return.
Imagine! An entire sector of society packing their bags and moving out of the city(/country) all at once. There doesn't appear - in any writings I have read at least - to be any charismatic figure who instigated the action either. Just a collective decision. It is hard to imagine something like that ever occurring (though I suppose one might be inclined to compare it to a union strike, and perhaps it has been romanticized in my mind as something more virtuous than it really was...).
Perhaps my favorite non-violent revolutionary was Mahatma Gandhi, who managed to bully the Hindus and Muslims into peace by threatening to starve himself to death (how did that work exactly? I am pretty sure if I went on a hunger strike, I could count on my fingers and toes the people who would even take notice), and who secured India's independence from Britain through peaceful non-cooperation (though it should be noted, many of those peaceful protesters suffered horrific violence at the hands of their oppressors before victory was achieved). His determination and commitment to non-violence is absolutely inspiring.
So, what then of our future? Does yet another great revolution lie ahead for us? Will it be violent, or peaceful? Can it be avoided? Perhaps revolution is simply part of the human experience. One of the definitions of the world itself implies the turning of the wheel, coming full circle.
But with rising division, and a sort of chaos overriding human reasoning, what will the next great revolution look like? How will it end? What will be the cost?
