Can you trust a new brain with an IQ of 7000?

Can you trust the new brain with an IQ of 7000?

by Jon Rappoport

February 16, 2013

I’ve been forcing myself to read gushing statements about the march of artificial intelligence (AI) and how, in the near future, we will have “the source code of the brain,” and computers will be able to do whatever the brain can do, except much, much faster.

I’ve been reading about the day when we humans will somehow merge with the machines.

I think the technocrats who promote these notions were raised on comic books, and they haven’t really moved on from that phase.

What ever happened to the old phrase, “garbage in equals garbage out?” Was it too telling and real?

Take the idea that some day, tiny nanobots will patrol the body making adjustments and normalizing errant functions. Forget for the moment all the damage these little scouts could cause. Just focus on the quality of the information by which they would make moment-to-moment decisions.

Currently, by the most conservative mainstream estimate, the medical system in America kills 225,000 people a year. (See B. Starfield, JAMA, July 26, 2000, “Is US health really the best in the world?”).

Of these deaths, 106,000 per year are directly caused by FDA-approved medical drugs. Each one of these drugs was studied, and the results of the studies were published in mainstream journals. This fact alone indicates massive fraud in the clinical trials of the drugs.

Then consider that for all 297 officially certified mental disorders, there exist absolutely no physical diagnostic tests. No blood tests, no saliva tests, no urine tests, no genetic tests, no brain scans. The very definitions of these so-called disorders are adjudicated by sitting committees of psychiatrists, who consult menus of behaviors.

Then consider that the major infectious diseases in the West were already on the decline before vaccines or antibiotics had been introduced, and yet vaccines were hailed as the overriding reason for that decline.

These are just several general categories of fraud, misinformation, disinformation. So the question becomes: who exactly is going to program those wonderful little nanobots before they enter the human bloodstream in the near-future, and what medical information are they going to have access to?

And what kind of moron would assume that, just because artificial intelligence will have the ability to process enormous amounts of data about the body, it will process the right and correct and truthful data?

By extension, when it comes to AI solving political or economic or social problems on a massive scale, why should we assume the information AI is deploying will be correct and right and true, and why should we assume that these problems are stated and formulated, in the first place, according to underlying ethical values that we agree to or share?

Just because a computer can be built that works faster than the brain, and on more platforms, why on earth should we then infer that it is operating from a storehouse of information that is relevant or useful?

And as far as human brains “merging with machines,” why don’t we leave that mishmash idea to the Borg and the Star Trek crew?

The famous Watson test proved that a computer could handle Jeopardy questions on television better than two humans dedicated to trivia.

Deep Blue beat the world’s best chess player.

A computer can analyze the poetry of an author and then generate its own poems in that style. Rather poorly.

Do these feats imply something so significant that we want to put our future in the cores of computers? For that matter, if there is some holy-grail source code for the brain, why should we believe possessing it and using it, or even improving it, would qualitatively improve the solutions to our biggest problems as a species?

There are simple and basic laws of logic involved here. You can compute from now until the end of time, but your deductions are always going to proceed from premises, and those premises are going to predetermine direction and ethical values that color the end results. Computers don’t do Right and Wrong in any absolute sense. Never have, never will.

Even more important is the system or mechanism for allowing AI to dominate our decisions. Who is in charge? Who rules? Which humans hold the off-on switches on the machines? Who programs the machines’ premises? Who can, if necessary, use force to make the global population comply with what AI decides? And what are these humans’ motives?

None of such matters are mitigated by “more intelligent machines.”

The technocrats are actually playing a shell game with us. They’re showing us a vast array of quantitative and qualitative improvements in what computers can do, and they’re substituting that for wisdom. They’re redefining wisdom. They’re omitting the whole argument and debate about what kind of society we want to live in. They’re hucksters and hustlers and con men.

When faced, for example, with the problem of how to feed the world, computers would already be biased in favor of certain outcomes, and they would also be biased toward the basic notion of universal distribution of resources. Who made that choice? The humans deploying the machines from behind the scenes.

Is feeding the world an issue that should be solved top-down? Computers don’t answer that question. Humans do. And humans—specifically the ones in charge—make spectacularly wrong choices, according to the wishes and judgments of many people—many people who already know that placing a decision of that magnitude in the hands of a few oligarchs is a recipe for disaster.

Who will decide how to program the basic assumptions of super-brain computers on the issue of climate change? With what “science” will these computers be initially infected? Who decides what the valid and the invalid science is?

Any beginning student in a logic course quickly learns to distinguish between ethical values and data. Neither computers nor brains determine values based on information alone, no matter how quickly they think, no matter how much data they can access.

A person or a machine with an IQ of 7000 can’t be trusted to install values for others. That’s why we have this troublesome thing called freedom. That’s why we have a fundamental principle that you are free to do anything you want to, as long as you don’t interfere with another person’s freedom. Any system that countermands this basic principle, simply because “it can think better,” is a tyrant, whether it is composed of flesh or metal or some synthetic.

NBC news recently did a glowing feature on advanced cell phones that, in the hands of doctors, can carry out a huge array of medical tests on patients. The doctor was enthusiastic. The patient was enthusiastic. The reporter was enthusiastic. It was a virtual love fest.

No one bothered to ask about the meaning, utility, or dangers of the tests themselves. That issue was swept off the table.

Who cares? It’s technology. It has to be good. If the patient’s test results indicate he should be treated with a highly toxic drug, so what? That’s a minor blip on the screen. We should all celebrate the technological breakthrough. Pour the champagne. Forget about the patient.

Some day, up the road, a human will be sleeping in his bed at night. The tiny bots circulating in his body will suddenly decide he needs a drug. They will either release the substance without his knowledge, or a robot sitting next to the bed will lean over and give him a quick shot. Done.

What? He ended up in the hospital next afternoon? Well, whatever the reason, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the little bots or their programming or their method for accessing the vast clouds of data in virtual space. No, those functions are all brilliant and boggling and wondrous. It must have been something else.

A person walking down the street will be picked up by a hundred cameras and other surveillance devices. It will be adjudicated, in a matter of a few seconds, that he’s missed his latest series of a dozen vaccine boosters. At the next corner, a mini-drone, barely visible to the naked eye, will descend on him and give him a quick jab. Or his next meal will magically contain food engineered specifically to deliver the mandated vaccines.

Greatest good for the greatest number. Already decided and programmed.

Is it better to have separate nations with their own armies, or should we have one giant planetary force? Let the AI decide. How? On what basis? There are always value judgments that underlie these questions, and computers don’t suddenly create values unless they’re told to do so. Only in comic books or pulp science fiction novels do advanced races with very high foreheads come down and demonstrate wisdom based on IQ.

There is no evidence that, if you took a general like Julius Caesar and somehow shoved his IQ up off the charts, he would suddenly change his value judgments. Henry Kissinger hasn’t.

If you built a machine that could access every single datum acquired in 100,000 years of human history and store them all on the head of a pin; and if that machine could rearrange all these data in a trillion different patterns in a few minutes; and if that machine could then generate decisions that answer any question put to it, what would you really have? You would have, at best, sheer opinion on the most important matters facing the human race.

Technocracy is selling a myth of intelligence, a fairy tale. In this fairy tale, the smartest brains (coincidentally resembling those of the technocrats) would cross a threshold, beyond which intelligence would become something else, something very different: machines that have “higher access” to “the best moral values.”

Perhaps the most avid and famous proponent of a technocratic future is Ray Kurzweil, acclaimed inventor, author, businessman. He describes the event he calls the Singularity:

“Within a quarter century, nonbiological intelligence will match the range and subtlety of human intelligence. It will then soar past it because of the continuing acceleration of information-based technologies, as well as the ability of machines to instantly share their knowledge. Intelligent nanorobots will be deeply integrated…”

Among the effects of this unprecedented development?

“…the exponential rate of technical progress will create within 40 years an Internet that is a trillion times faster than today’s, a global media, a global education system, a global language, and a globally homogenized culture, thus establishing the prerequisites for the creation of a global democratic state, “Globa,” and ridding the world of war, the arms trade, ignorance, and poverty…Billions of people will be influenced by the ‘best’ ideas that the planet has to offer. People’s minds will be influenced powerfully, so that today’s nationalist mentalities will be gradually transformed into tomorrow’s globist mentalities…”

And just what are these “best ideas” that billions of people will voluntarily accept? The ideas expressed in, say, Plato’s Republic? Or instantaneous 3-D holographic “you are there” porn? Small decentralized organic farms or some Monsanto plan to disseminate GMOs from the sky all over the planet? A three-branched government with rigorous checks and balances, or taking the points on the Jets vs. the Rams? A healthy clean diet or a hundred vaccines by the age of three?

And the “global democratic state?” I’d like to see how the elections of a president and legislators work for the whole of Earth (including the recount after a charge of fraud is leveled by one citizen in southern Argentina).

If presidential debates in the US, targeting the lowest possible common denominators among the voting public, are filled with vapid generalities, I can only imagine the global debates: a few smiles, a few grunts, a few assurances that “we’re all in this together.”

One language for all the world? Sure, why not? Let’s wipe out the memory of what a few thousand years of hundreds of languages have produced.

And don’t worry. All over the planet, “the people,” newly brilliant, will rise up and overthrow their dictators, just as they did during the vaunted Arab Spring, where the crucial presence of cell phones and Facebook was touted as the lever that forced democratic breakthroughs. You remember that Spring: a promoted hoax designed to hide yet one more elite power play.

Greater insight into ethical values based purely on speed and range of information processing is really a quasi-religion. It uses the notion of IQ as the Prophet. It promises that, as the people have access to more and more data, they will naturally and inevitably choose the right values and the right data, because that’s what IQ does, once it passes through a certain upward level.

You can forget about elite power players exerting control over the population of Earth from above because, as in the Marxist formulation, these Rockefellers and Warburgs of the past will simply wither away, no longer needed.

the matrix revealed

I’m happy to learn that. I can relax now. We can all relax. The great day is coming. It will be brought to us by a multi-platformed brain, using its neuronal substrate to reach out and connect with nonbiological libraries of truth.

What were we worried about?

I’m sitting here talking to you and you’re talking to me, and you’re in Bombay and I’m in San Diego, and we’re seeing each other in high-res 3-D holographic brilliance, as if we’re in the same room. And as we talk and access skies full of clouds of relevant data in mere instants, we’re both coming to accept the best ideas and the best values and the best language and the best government, and we’re kicking the ass of the old world and rushing into the New, and life will be different forever, and I know it and you know it, so what else do we need?

My molecularly enhanced IQ is 7000 and so is yours, so we’re on the same precise page. That’s all the human race was waiting for all this time.

Jon Rappoport

The author of an explosive collection, THE MATRIX REVEALED, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free emails at

25 comments on “Can you trust a new brain with an IQ of 7000?

  1. kwalitisme says:

    Good! Like it And in general: someone with an EQ above 150 is generally considered autistic or ‘not of this world’. So, something with an EQ above 250 can be considered as a giant logical calculator, perfect for operational based computations, but never be able to make an intiütive decision.

  2. kwalitisme says:

    Reblogged this on kwalitisme and commented:
    See my comments 😉

  3. kwalitisme says:

    EQ must be IQ of course 😉

  4. highlanderjuan says:

    FaceBook is not allowing the link to this article to be posted.

    “You can’t post this because it has a blocked link.
    The content you’re trying to share includes a link that’s been blocked for being spammy or unsafe:”

    Cute, huh.

  5. p3 says:

    these nano bots will be loaded into the rfid chips that everyone will have injected with their mandatory vaccinations. these drone chips will monitor and control all functions, send and receive radio transmissions and terminate(you) service as determined by rules and regulations under sub section 2(a)iii. or some such language!
    so, don’t sweat the small s,,t, smash the state and don’t be late!
    impeach and jail, without fail! the corporate crooks around the world!
    benny and barry…roomates for life. tony and benjahmin nitty! geoge and madeline! and many more.
    occupy vatican city! distribute the property for prosperity and peace around the world to the poor.
    end pot prohibition and stop police brutality now!
    no taxation without representation! end fraudulent election process!

  6. rollsthepaul says:

    The foot goes down when the merging of machine and man is applied. There will be no spiritual machines. Although it is the wet dream of some, not so divine beings, it crosses the line in fundamentally opposing the agenda of the Creator. Our power is not limited by the Creator’s plan but it is limited when we are not allowed to rise to the higher realms, which is the full intention of God. These monsters have had it their way for many thousands of years on Earth but their time is over, just like religion is over because it no longer serves the purpose of the advancing stage man has reached.

  7. Sean says:

    I doubt we’ll see any such thing in our lifetimes, the technology moves a lot faster than the corporations can figure out how to cash in on everything. The governments and the financial power are so determined to keep everyone at a subsistence level standard of living that the high tech corporations are very slow to deliver their “zing wowies”. Please just wake me when it’s over….

  8. St. Jon says:

    Um, there’s still this little problem called sin. Somehow, I don’t think this AI can muster up altruism, grace, salvation, hope, mercy, or, as you pointed out, wisdom.

    It’s all very amusing to speculate on these things. But the bottom line is, the powers that be are the blind, rushing the blind headlong into the abyss… Kind of funny in a tragic sort of way…

  9. Howie B. says:

    IQ is only part of the picture. I often suggest that all officials company officers should have a small plaque on the desk they work at. On the left side it states their IQ. On the right side of the plaque it should have another similar figure based on their personal FQ.
    This sounds like Feckwit quotient, you know what I mean.
    The FQ can be calculated to include all the vices and their effects on the notional perfect characteristics of human being. Every time they are likely to manifest less than their best, the ego imbalance, the greed factor , the power dominance meme, this would be reflected in the measure Of an individual’s FQ.
    The bigger the FQ the more likely you will discover their IQ is irrelevant . Their isno substitute for emotional common sense, and we are equipped already with the computer to do the job. The Heart.

    • Prend says:

      “The bigger the FQ the more likely you will discover their IQ is irrelevant .”

      No. high IQ drives low FQ people to cause a lot of problems to the world.
      IQ is never irrelevant unless when it is not used at all, which is rare, and for sure not the case with domineering and/or narcissistic people.

  10. Anonymous says:

    I find this terrifying and I want to know: what do I do? As I read I feel the panick rising like I’m in the direct path of a tsunami and I’m just watching it come for me. I find the comments left by others dont reveal the same terror I feel when I read this. It’s been about 2 years now since I first came across information about the global elite, nanotechnology, eugenics, chemtrails, agenda 21, vaccines, gmo food. I find the sheer magnitude and comprehensive nature of the assault difficult to reconcile with the people going about their workaday lives all around me like lambs to the slaughter. Help!

  11. gregon7 says:

    I believe that this sort of mechanistic thinking about ‘intelligence’ is a fine example of the profound arrogance and ignorance of the technocratic dogma. It demonstrates the absurd projection ad infinitum of a centuries old chain of science that is founded on false assumptions about the nature of existence (starting with religious conventions of the 16thC!!). The notion that ‘intelligence’ occurs because of electro-chemical activilty in the cortex is demonstrably an incomplete understanding of the source and nature of intelligence. Sheldrake’s work with morphic resonance is a good starting place to begin questioning the sort of dogmatic institutional thinking that has brought us planetary disasters such as GMO foods, nano-partical ‘geoengineering’, and nuclear power. And now ‘super intelligence’, god help us. Machines will surely compute faster and faster. They will never, by the fundamental nature of the universe, resonate with wisdom and consciousness.

  12. Gina says:

    Yes, we can continue to let these psychopathic, megalomaniac, self-appointed guardians of the status quo like Kurzweil continue their crusade to control, decimate, destroy and rebuild the universe and its inhabitants in their image, or we can all let go of control and return to abundance, the natural world, fully activated DNA, open pineal glands, etc. etc. etc., and thus allow our true selves to flourish once again, the same wondrous selves that have been both suppressed and annihilated by these psychotic, cowardly idiots for thousands of years.

  13. SofDMC says:

    The globalists have always been selling counterfeits and this is no different. They claim its for the good, but as you dig deeper they have turned upside down the whole thing and engaged snake-oil salesmen to sell you crap. Ultimately by selling this false premise by redefining wisdom they hope to further make evil decisions. What is wisdom? Making a nuclear bomb requires technical expertise, so obviously whoever can make it is very clever. But that person lacks wisdom. (David Icke talked about this in the 90’s in one of those old videos floating around YouTube.) The global elite are up to their old tricks again of reframing the debate and then claiming they control reality because in the end as parasites of the human race that is all they can do. As this article has pointed out, they have reframed the concept of wisdom and packaged it as high IQ.

    This whole obsession with technology is another Satanic attempt to remove God’s wisdom. Revelations refer to the days of the Anti-christ where ‘gods their fathers knew not’ will be worshiped, with the Hebrew translation according to Steve Quayle referring to holographic alien invaders, but it can also mean the obsession and bedazzlement in presence of ‘gods of technology’.

    Also to add on a point, I know a professor who typifies this whole EQ versus IQ. He may have high IQ, probably as high as 150, but he is one of those who when he sees this whole ‘phenomenon’ in his clouded eyes of the Awakening process, he uses it as an excuse to further criticize the smallest details in individual people’s opinion because he sees himself ‘up there’ with his high IQ.
    The real meaning is what’s happening in front of him is a process where people are taking back their power to dare to openly question the system without the illusion of fear. But because of his low EQ he has applied a TONE DEAF approach to it and has used it to boost his false ego even further.
    We who are further down the awakening road would call him stupid because of our higher EQ.

    EQ is also essential to the awakening process, which involves connecting dots that appears on the surface seemingly unrelated.

  14. Anonymous says:

    ” To resist is Futile”

    The Borg…….

  15. Censored again… tried to post this piece on FB.

  16. Reblogged this on Citizen Pariah and commented:
    In case you aren’t following Rappoport you should be. He has some excellent observations on the current motion on the state of reality.

  17. Mike says:

    Great read! Whenever I debate the subject of AI it is often with people who have a deluded concept of what it is. They do the anthropomorphic thing thinking that an intelligence is going to be similar to their own. This is a potentially dangerous thing to do. It is not if but when that machine intelligence will surpass our own. This will be where man is rabidly striving to become a true cyborg. We will have come very far in the knowledge of brain-machine and body-machine interfacing by the time that happens. We may be already perfectly comfortable with augmented reality by then. Who knows. The point of know return is the day an artificially intelligent machine becomes truly super-intelligent. If humans have not made their own cortex’ to be enhanced with super-intelligent AI we will rapidly decline into a state of constant manipulation by the machines. Their intelligence will allow this manipulation to occur without humans having a clue to the fact that free will is nothing more than a subroutine injected into the social program the machine has given them. An intelligence with a 7000 IQ would be so beyond our feeble IQ’s of at best, 200-220. It would be like us trying to actually communicate with earth worms. If man does not enhance his own brain in parallel with the progress of machine intelligence he will be doomed to a lobotomized existence of his own doing.

    I find the idea of machines being able to think morally quite amusing. This is a crossover idea that uses anthropomorphic trains of thought thinking morals are a part of AI ability. A machine will be uber-logically superior in it’s intellect. There is nothing in the way of will or emotions blurring logic. Morals are something that comes from being alive. Machines will never be alive, even if they become self-aware they are not alive. When logic dictates, morality can appear to become a cold, black and white concept we don’t want to accept. There are all sorts of those “what would you do?” moral quiz questions. What would a super-intelligent machine’s answers to a lot of them be? I bet many of the answers would not have our best interests in them whatsoever. We wouldn’t like that I bet too.. lol Well, what do you get when your monster becomes smarter than yourself?

  18. Tayelrand says:

    Great article, glad somebody tries to grasp the whole picture. I really dislike this whole IQ EQ debate though . Any standard of measurement is arbitrary at best.

    As for the technological fututre as discribed, it likely won’t happen. We are reaching the limits of our technological progress. In fact (with the noteable exception of the internet) our society has been stagnant for decades when it comes to technological innovations. We are now at the innovation level of the late middle ages.

    As for internet, man has never developed a technology that was able to accelerate at a logaritmic scale indefinitly.

  19. I will be looking into this when I am well enough: The GATE program for ‘gifted children’ in San Diego. If you find their web page and see their ideal, it is to let kids develip into artists and humanitarians and blah blah blah. Well I was in that program, or similar, against my will. As a tiny girl. I was meant to do physics. However, I spent all my school years with the ‘gifted cluster’ all of whom were actually brilliant little Autistics, I think.

    So they chose my friends for 12 years. This means they chose my husband, and my life.

    I didnt get to meet the local Italian and puerto Rican girls. Instead I was in special classes with mostly anglo Kids. Well, I was born into Orhtodox Ukrainian, so why stick me with Wasps? I never learned how to count a rosay with the Roamn Catholics. Etc.

    So, my actual question: Did these social eugenics folk monitor me and my tiny friends? Do they tick off boxes each time we die and note the manner?

    It gives me the creeps. because…I might have made a decent engineer. My kindergarten project was that I designed and built a wooden airplane. I was 4, and a GIRL. That meant something.

    Thanks, I know you are fighting, in a life that made you a fighter. I am fighting, in a life that just made me, and here I am. Fighting to breathe, almost dead from the Vicodin psychosis. They lathered on Lamictal, by the way, after blaming me for being manic on the Vicodin ingestion. (one tablet). I believe my brainstem was altered by the shit. I’ll be writing about it eventually, as well.

    The ugliness people write and rant about is very very real.

    If they chose my friends, these also chose this cancer and my colostomy. I had an HPV cancer in 2007, with farrah fawcett and pj o’rouke. yes all 3 had anal cancer by 2007. only 6000 cases per year in USA expected. I am out of the woods, but my mind is shot from the chemo and the analgesic tablet.

    DO NOT do the MATH. 😦

  20. Dutch says:

    The fraud is in the details.

    “The famous Watson test proved that a computer could handle Jeopardy questions on television better than two humans dedicated to trivia.”

    Can we kill this ridiculous claim already? Watson in no way shape or form ‘thought’ better than Ken and Brad. He simply SIGNALED faster. Watson used an actuator connected to his signaling device that fired within 0.1 seconds of the ‘answers’ being presented. It was explained on the first night. And it is well established that this reaction time is faster than that of the finest human athletes much less nerdy trivia types. I saw Ken and Brad attempting to signal on every answer. And they always had the right response when Watson was wrong. So Watson in no way demonstrated an artificial intelligence superior to humans, he simply showed us what we already knew. That a mechanical actuator can be triggered faster than a human can press a button. This disingenuous bait and switch was a total fraud. Anyone who watched Ken Jennings incredible streak knows that he often had responses ready before Trebek was even done reading the ‘answer’. This is the true power of the human mind: the ability to make connections between a few key words, at incredible speed. Watson was obviously and sadly inadequate in this regard. Had the contestants simply been able to blurt out their responses as soon as they knew them, and without the heavily biased signaling requirement, Watson would have been embarrassed by Brad and Ken. And we would see the true superiority of the human mind over Watson’s clunky statistical algorithms. Instead we got a bait-and-switch snow job that people are still duped by. Watson did not and cannot outthink Ken or Brad. Not even close. The whole deal was rigged to hand Watson a win via an unfair advantage that had nothing to do with ‘intelligence’. Go watch the whole thing again and you’ll see this obvious truth for yourself.

    AI may someday pass the speed barriers of the human mind (MAYBE), but it will never be able to mimic or replicate humanity or what it is to be human. What makes humans and humanity so beautiful is the uniqueness of the whole of our experiences and how each unique perspective formed from them shapes and colors our collective reality. The idea that there is some ‘one way’ that is right and applicable to every person on this planet is such an unintelligent thought that any artificial intelligence built on that assumption will be a fantastic disappointment. After all there’s more than one way to answer a Jeopardy question. But the fact that the one chosen was so rigged and farcical is all the proof you need of the trappings of ‘artificial intelligence’ and its disingenuous promoters…

  21. Kratoklastes says:

    My take on this is straightforward: the higher an individual’s intelligence, the more able he is to see through the baloney that the State tries to force down our throats.

    That is not to say that the folks who [try to] run things CAN’T see through their own baloney: fact is, they CAN, and DO… they pretend to believe what they claim to believe because it’s the easiest way for them to get rich. It’s not a problem of lack of intellect – it’s a problem of a surfeit of sociopathy or – and this is more likely – a genetic disorder: the joint presence of (1) MAO-A, (2) a MET-MET expression for COMT, and (3) non-GG OXTR expression. That’s the wiring for a smart, emotionally-detached, moderately-agressive sociopath. IOW, a poltician.

    The further up the intelligence spectrum you go, the less and less you find folks are interested in being boss of others. (FWIW: my tested IQ is only in the 140s: I know a couple of dozen people in that region of the spectrum and none of them would ever want to be President of ANYTHING).

    So anyway, how does this ‘gel’ with the notion of ‘superintelligence’? Simple: it would understand that voluntary interaction maximises overall happiness. It would be a strict consequentialist, and would be better able to determine the actual (rather than hoped-for) likely consequences of its actions over timeframes that weer of importance.

    An AI would be longer-lived than humans (at least in their current form) and would take greater consideration than the ‘let’s get rich and then get out before the SHTF’ types who dominate ALL sides of politics.

    A superintelligent computer would understand game theory in repeated games with uncertainty and would default to ‘co-operate’… because coerce/non-cooperate is ALWAYS the most costly long-run choice (it always ends in ruin, and so only short-horizon oriented individuals use it). (Arguably all it would have to understand is utility-interdependence, and the rest is jus logic: coercion is a bad way to structure things, always and everywhere – I don’t mean that in a hippy-dippy way).

    But what will the parasite-political class try to do the moment any breakthrough in nanotech or AI is achieved? THEY WILL TRY TO WEAPONISE IT. And that’s the key problem – the very worst human beings are the ones who try to rule, and they are the ones who will direct where the largest bulk of research funding goes. So it will go to building a better Stormtrooper first.

  22. CoruscantMe says:

    Screw facebook, there are ways around it. At first you add a space to the part of the URL it matches on and that defeated it, but today that didn’t work, seems they caught on to the use of the space, so instead I deleted the o in Jon in the url, but it still wouldn’t let me post the link to facebook, so I deleted the modified post with the missing o in the url closed the browser and relaunched it, and then pasted in the modified url and text and this time I could post it successfully… So you can still push to facebook. Screw those guys, They aren’t the censor of what people are allowed to talk about.

    People need to understand that if a computer is being used as justification for the NWO, there is always a required programmer to make the computer do what it needs to do. (the wizard of oz, the man behind the curtain) … Make people aware… they are always just to happy to get a new fidget/gadget… never thinking about what bad things might be paired with all the hyped good things…

  23. Awesome post! Check out Ray Kurzweil’s film “The Singularity is Near” if you haven’t already, great info, and a must watch for anyone interested in the inevitable singularity. Cheers!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s