Current Affairs

It really is quite a paradox Trump is arguing in Ireland today for an end to Britain in the Falklands and Northern Ireland and at the same time adding Canada to the United States, which is all a bit weird. So what is Trump’s beef with Britain, personally this really is something that I am not to sure about, but I do know the soft underbelly of Wall Street has been exposed through a repackaging of AI in the form of a pyramid scheme. 

Just market forces – some would argue -, but this is different, really different, the potential of a quick return has disipated with the realisation that the numbers the brolarchy are quoting are extreme. It is a question of we have your trust whether you like it or not, we have all the cards – but just a thought – what do they own? 

Do the brolarchy own the intellectual property of every science paper, theoretical physics argument, Banking stratagems or even Winnie the Pooh ( I think Disney would have a few choice phrases for the Brolarchy). There really is an argument coming to the fore and that is copyright, who owns it? Do the Bro’s payout for every theoretical argument or is there a theory that the builders of principles, arguments and theorems are just gullible plonkers. 

We have a lovely argument in Britain on the 5^th November every year, “Penny for the Guy”, it is a strange type of ritual – we celebrate the theoretical blowing up of parliament. Bonfires are set alight and fireworks splash through the air in celebration of the end of democracy. Maybe that is it, the fireworks in Wall Street are just numbers burning holes in suit pockets and copyright is just a splash of colour in a kaleidoscope tinged with a hope that artists, scientists, mathematicians, bankers and musicians will just roll over as their copyright, arguments and ideas are given freely to AI systems, while the drivers of these vehicles are paid trillions of dollars.

So what exactly are the brolarchy selling, is it the system, which I guess they would argue? Is it the potential of the system easing into different industries with costs hitting the floor, or is it these systems hoovering up information and repackaging it as an answer to someones question? I am not sure what they are offering, is it the miracle of a machine learning the principles of life, the architecture of life and the intelligence of identity. I am still unsure what these systems are meant to represent as an argument. 

Before my research into parameters, arguments and the theoretical identity of systems management, I learnt that the AI argument is about percentages within defined parameters set by the programmer or self generating AI programs. It is really as simple as tossing a coin into the air and a thousand theoreticians working out the parameters, chance, likelihood and defining set of theoretical equations in this field and coming to a conclusion that 98 percent of the respondents believe it to be A or heads.

A smile comes to my lips here, the mathematicians who are hooked on Wall Street, dog racing, horse racing or arguments of chance will be licking their lips on an easy dollar in using AI, but it is not that simple. Take for example when the market is going up, AI follows, but a downward spiral will hold markets at a 2 percent loss until someone releases the program to continue trading. At minus 7 percent there is another intervention and at minus thirteen percent the system turns off before the data crashes the market, so is it a conventional trader following trends?

The stories told of AI include arguments of danger and voices arguing that this is really the end of civilization as we know it. But is it, that is the two trillion dollar question – is it really. There are so many questions – even with this computer, it asks if it can write the next line, is it predictive or is it following the pattern of my arguments? 

MY experience of AI is not good…. I got into a conversation with a chat-bot about canceling my car insurance, it wouldn’t, until I begged, got stern and finally an invective laden post begging the damn thing to cancel my insurance finally got the message through. Of course the insurance companies don’t want you to leave, but it could not compete and didn’t understand why my insurance is so much cheaper. And as the AI bots become more confident will the argument be that there is no way out of a contract and in many ways this is what is happening. 

OK, so to the crux of the argument….. What are the bros’ selling and what are they building?

The marketing tools going crazy around the world is that this tool means the end of civilization, forty percent unemployment and as in ‘Wally’ a fatuous world of empty lives just demanding food, cleaning robots and trust in automated transport. Strangely, the world already had this, but maybe we are a bit more gullible even with the self driving taxi with a placid participant in the driving seat acting as a safety device being a reality in London today.

But these are systems -they are systems that already could have been automated yesterday, maybe it is coca cola without cocaine – demanded after the public became so addicted to the product that the US government stepped in. OK fatuous, but this is as big a claim made of AI that it is the b-all and end-all in life. So is China producing the Pepsi of AI – can you see what I am getting at – this is a marketing ploy – ‘it is the real thing’ teenagers smiling, blonde blue eyed teens running in a sun filled valley of a utopian ideal – just marketing that caused teeth to rot and an explosion of diabetes and obesity.

OK, so I have gone a bit over the top or have I….. A statement today read “I am leaving Anthropic because there are no safety systems being put into AI and all life can be extinguished…. this is the end of civilization.” Coca Cola sold the perfect world, it was the catalyst to peace, harmony and a world of many cultures – though the US was fighting ‘gooks’ in Vietnam.

Is this the biggest con since the invention of sugar water, that is a question I am trying to work out. I am not sure whether it is as great an invention as the telephone, the internet, mobile phone or the industrial revolution, all mentioned when selling AI to investors. Governments are arguing that like anything – employment will adapt and evolve and people will have jobs. Precision will no longer be in the surgeons hands or be part of the watchmakers skill – but this has been an argument that has been around since Henry Ford industrialized the production line and Toyota perfected it.

Is the consumer being sold snake oil – that is the question? (I am not sure)….

So why is Trump angry with Britain, the answer of course is copyright, copyright protection and arguments of what the courts can do to AI companies stealing the copyright of authors, journalists, artists, scientist and the state. Could this really be the argument Trump is having with the state, or should I just assume it is that his Bag Men haven’t been paid off. All I know is that the UK has a very different perspective to copyright protection than America, but there will be huge layoffs once the programme for medicine, civil service etc have been adapted to meet the needs of the state. 

But when the President of the United States growls at a nation, it means he wants something and anyone with any knowledge of AI and its potential will know that they are being sold a building with a mass of computers running the latest data sets, but in reality – it is a used argument – with very visually significant parameters…. and like anything sold with this much publicity it is SNAKE OIL…