You can identify a great reset propagandist in one easy step.

When Karl Marx promoted communism, he would pretend that it was inevitable. He would pretend that he had perfect knowledge and that he knew that it was a process that couldn’t be stopped. And of course, he was wrong about the unstoppable process of communism. As time has passed, it has become ever clearer that communism is a way to destroy nations and it will do that inevitably wherever it is tried.

Buy a copy of Political Catsup with Economy Fries available at Amazon.com.

We see a similar attempt by propagandists for the great reset. These propagandists often seem fearful of an inevitable world takeover. They dolefully describe how your world is being destroyed by powerful forces behind the scenes. This reminds me a little of critical theory in support of socialism.

You can still find critical theory books that support socialism. Critical theory diatribes were used to promote socialism and they seem so very logical right up until the conclusion. The critical theory arguments don’t actually prove that socialism would work. In fact they prove the opposite. But the critical theorist would conclude after all that reasonable argument that socialism would work after all. They would fly that conclusion like a proud flag. The critical theorists showed us that logic could be used in an argument and then ignored. Critical theory was a fake effort at providing proof.

Don’t believe the great reset nonsense. Machiavelli, who lived a long time ago, knew that a king invading a nation couldn’t change people’s minds by using force. He can oppress them for a while but he can’t make them accept something that they don’t believe in.

Whatever people claim to know with regard to powerful and destructive technologies to take over your mind and body, don’t believe them. It appears to be mostly just fiction. There’s no evidence to prove it. It is propaganda.

Remember that whatever inevitable force is claimed, you should say “show me.” And meanwhile, keep track of lies and remember that they are propaganda. There is no inevitable force held by any governing power that can change your mind along with everyone else’s mind. People who claim this are liars.

Don’t be a dystopian apologist.

I read a Pew Research Center online publication over the last few days. A large number of people, many of them experts in computer science, social science, anthropology, directors or researchers at think tanks, doctoral candidates and professors, writers, and others (a few) not specified, were asked to answer specific questions about AI. I read every comment over several pages. They were writing on the topic of AI and its likely social effects ongoing and in the future for about 13 years until 2030.

To learn more about U.S. politics, economics and history, buy a copy of Political Catsup with Economy Fries, available at Amazon.com.

If you want to visit this online publication, here’s the link: https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/12/10/concerns-about-human-agency-evolution-and-survival. I would like to take a moment to thank the respondents and Pew for providing this written discussion to me and you.

The AI that currently exists isn’t really artificial intelligence like a person might be intelligent. Instead there are narrow applications for computer learning and computer moderated data processing. This narrow AI is unlike broad general intelligence. It is broad computer intelligence, fortunately not existing yet, that makes people the most fearful. That is what scared Stephen Hawking during his life. He warned that true general level artificial intelligence in a computer system could cause the end of human society.

We see changes all around us because of narrow applications of AI that are constantly altering the way human energy is channelled into human environments these days, whether the work environment, the home environment, education and other forms of training and learning and even marketing and entertainment. We are inside a changing environment that is being altered by AI algorithms.

There’s almost no accountability for the operation of these algorithms. If the AI algorithm caused you harm, you have no recourse even to discover how it harmed you. You can’t ask anyone to stop the algorithm or even to change it because no one is available to talk to you about it. This is causing tremendous pain and we have seen pain like this in the recent past but in chemistry instead of computer science.

An unfortunate thing about the idea of “better life through chemistry,” has been our historical willingness to assume that all new chemicals are harmless when a new chemical is created by chemists. There are numerous examples of chemicals that have caused harm to people’s health and to the environment. Only after much damage has been noticed and carefully traced to the chemical at fault is the harm finally limited by restrictions on the harmful chemical.

By the time the bad chemical is no longer sold, the company that created it has already profited and much of the harms caused by the chemical will not be paid by the producer. Instead, health problems will be absorbed by those exposed and harmed. The environment will need time to slowly recover from harms. And there’s no telling whether people or the environment will be able to carry on very well even after the harmful chemical is removed.

Sometimes huge expenditures are necessary to help those that are harmed from eagles to children. DDT is the one of the most ready examples that comes to mind but so are fluorocarbons like the ones that were in ScotchGuard and that are now known to endanger health even in tiny quantities and also unfortunately to persist for a long time in our environment.

We’re treating algorithms like they are harmless as a matter of course when we know that some algorithms create social harms and individual harm.

What surprised me about the experts in the Pew query, the people who know AI the best and that interact in the environment of discussions about AI was twofold.

First, I noticed that the Pew group of experts were mostly providing negative judgements about likely harms that they expect from AI that will harm some individuals in every society. The pervasive negativity of their judgements was daunting to me. Secondly, these leaders in understanding AI acted mostly like powerless observers who felt unable to change the flow of harms in the context of today’s and tomorrow’s algorithms toward a more positive outcome for more people.

I’m reminded of the Genesis song, “Land of Confusion,” words and music by Tony Banks, Phil Collins and Mike Rutherford from the 1986 Invisible Touch CD/album. The lyric I have in mind is,

“Ooh Superman where are you now
When everything’s gone wrong somehow
The men of steel, the men of power
Are losing control by the hour”

In the shambles being caused around us by algorithms, we all have to be like Superman to right the wrongs that are tearing apart our society. That means that algorithms can’t be assumed to be harmless. A lack of accountability to harms is itself harmful. Lack of accountability makes wrongs more pervasive and long lasting.

Instead of thinking that we are all helpless, let’s assume that we have the power to stop harming our societies by paying attention to harms being caused by algorithms. We can take steps in our society’s politics through legislation to right algorithmic wrongs. We can start by making algorithm creators accountable and people who use algorithms accountable for harms that they cause to others. We don’t have to remain helpless in the face of this technological change.

Harms caused by AI continue in the meantime. Examples are increasing. In my community, I’m seeing help wanted signs outside businesses. I think the reason these job advertisements are appearing is that people have little confidence in online job services. One employer told me that these services don’t produce the promised perfect candidate. Others have found that some of the online job services have poor security.

Another example is 35 cycle testing PCR for virus. The inventor of PCR technology said that PCR can’t be used to detect a virus accurately: it will produce false positives (even with a lower threshold than 35 cycles). The idea that we must continue with what isn’t working is an example of letting an algorithm linked to a faulty PCR test produce false positives without end–as though that policy decision never needs to be evaluated.

Both of these examples show a failure of accountability and a failure to fix a problem. This failure is costly in many ways and it should be addressed.

Finally, whenever an expert gives you their opinion that humankind may be doomed by technologies as they unfold, don’t believe them when they bemoan this as an inevitability. We can choose a better future for ourselves and for our society.

Reset agenda fails

A lot of people aren’t going along with the total reset. Who can blame them?

There’s no meritocracy, nor competency nor stability nor real wealth building under the great reset.

Endless capital creation is overwhelming sounder economic policies of the past that were based on the idea of real scarcity. We still have real scarcity but now we have more capital and with every additional dollar created the dollar represents less value. Money that doesn’t represent value can lose the chance to do what needs doing. It can lose the ability to hold value over time, or to be useful in exchanges for goods and services. Overprinting is bad for the strength of the dollar. Yesterday, I heard someone claim that as long as every nation devalues their currency at the same rate, no one nation’s currency will fall relative to others and therefore there won’t be runaway inflation that destroys nations. But money that doesn’t represent value can’t be traded for value. It becomes underpowered or even powerless.

Today’s inflation is severely understated. It impoverishes the least powerful. Ordinary people don’t have access to unlimited capital and many are deeply indebted. They can’t take on even more debt.

We all once enjoyed better opportunities that were more stable under sounder banking policies. A full or a partial gold standard limited money printing. Banks hated it and governments hated it because it put a ceiling over their ambitions to grow endlessly. But it worked better for society, even though the economy recognized scarcity. Scarcity made people wish for more, but more money with scarce reality doesn’t satisfy in terms of solving the problems of scarcity. More money is just more noise in the system and it makes social problems harder to solve.

Today’s monopolies limit supply and fix prices and that can resemble a scarcity based price under a real world limited supply. Controlling prices to make them higher is what monopolies can accomplish even when something people want isn’t really scarce. Every extra dollar that is paid to a monopolist’s fixed higher price is money that can’t be used to develop something new. Those higher prices also make people poorer than they would be in a more natural market situation. Monopolies limit competition of rivals that might bring on a cheaper price. They slow change and slow improvements.

All that the great reset is creating is a morass of endless failed companies and failed projects.

I’m ready to shove the whole great reset agenda into the trash where it belongs from social media, to fake news, to fake votes, to fake medicine and fake food. Inflation is eating up our economy for a media hyped epidemic that some are trying to prolong. It’s not right.

To learn more about U.S. history through political and economic policies over time and the changes that accompanied those policies, get a copy of Political Catsup with Economy Fries available at Amazon.com. It will help you to understand how we got where we are today.