The AI “Singularity”, Legal Myth
Everyone who is looking at current AI development is worried about the storied day of the coming AI “singularity”.
What will it mean? If AI has the prime directive of replacing humans without adhering to the current legal standards of known potential or actual harm, requiring remuneration, it will allow great harm to occur resulting from criminal acts.
As Karen and Jeff note, the science publication Nature just listed ChatGPT as one of the top ten scientists for 2023. What human, in which profession will be replaced next?
We have a legal foundation to build on in resolving this. This Jeff Dornik interview with Karen Kingston is eye-opening reporting. Everyone should know the stuff in this podcast right now. But AI will never be a lifeform on its own simply because we say it is. It has no prime directive as an entity, other than the one that a person(s) programs into it.
Legal Certainty
What appears legally certain is that AI is the result of human activity. And if it develops with the programming goal of replacing humans, without limit, and remuneration for losses or damages, that is a crime. right now. If or when any AI programs are allowed to develop programs beyond the point of human control, analysis, and intervention, AI will slowly run out of things to replace. It will then need to replace itself. If it replaces everyone, what will it do? Who cares? We would appear to have a legal basis for stopping a lot of this now if everyone was familiar with the basic tech and tech policies, discussed in this Jeff Dornik Show, podcast.
AI As A Publicly Generated Resource
The information in this podcast is pretty scary until you absorb it and digest it fully. Then it becomes a possibility for individual singularity of individual rights, to legally access a natural public resource.
Karen and Jeff reveal that the current programming of AI economic and social behavior feeds off of us and our results, successes, and failures, for the information needed to control and manipulate us to do certain things. AI is programmed for our inducements to buy a product or get us to comply with an agenda. AI is programmed to reduce labor and materials costs etc. But it needs the human brain and monitored, recorded experiences from which to gather data. Without us to give AI the data, AI cannot function efficiently. We are AI. We are the resource and the rightful owners of our own, self-generated natural mathematically coded, machine-learned, applied, and programmable energy, and this coding and machine learning should function as a public utility. Not for the private ownership of our bodies.
UNDER LAW
Therefore, under natural and constitutional laws, AI is public property and a genuine public resource, generated by all public activity available for public analysis and individual use. To subject humanity to the theft of their property is bad enough. To deny us direct access to the fruits of our efforts, labor, and energy resources is really sick,
AI RESOURCE MANAGEMENT FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE
Right now we are generating a lot of AI data that we don’t want or need. It is stolen from us under various guises through fraud. One method is using the guise of public safety laws. Cameras are everywhere, for instance, receiving, analyzing, and transmitting our data which is our public property, without our legal rights to our valuable property being legally protected.
In the case of public cameras, not only is our data being collected and sold for profit, we are taxed to install the means of the theft. We’re giving the safecracker the key to our personal central bank vault, in return for protection, of the vault. The terms of protection require all management and access to the vault to be controlled by the protection service, in order to protect your data from everyone else. Of course, it makes no sense, legally or otherwise.
Human Resource Rights
AI cannot generate its own database at the capacity it has to analyze large data files, on its own. It requires human data from every human alive. The more data the better. One goal for data farming explained in the podcast, is to implant nanorobot receivers/transmitters into us through various means These, as Karen and Jeff explain, are tiny devices that construct artificial, humanly constructed genetic lifeforms inside of us, that can monitor us for all kinds of data. Nano devices also allow programmers to transmit signals to the brain and body, literally hacking into us. Transmitting instructions and receiving biodata in us for further behavior modification.
The Scary mRNA Part
As Karen and Jeff observe, at that point your thoughts are no longer your own. mRNA technology is cited in the podcast and by other researchers, as the primary mechanism for this now technologically feasible, AI to human, electromagnetic bio-link, to become operational. Patents for mRNA products are numerous. They include geoengineered staple foods and seeds, medicines, health and beauty care products, and many others. mRNA can be injected, introduced through the skin, or in aerosol form.
Implied Consent Not Informed Consent
All data collected is allowed under the legal heading of implied consent. You bought the food, the product or service, took the medicine, or participated in an enterprise that included mRNA being introduced into your body. It was your choice to use something with mRNA so you gave consent. You walked into a place with cameras, You voted for the people who are authorizing cameras and the monitoring of you with the cameras—more implied consent.
MY PERSONAL BIO-DATA, LEGAL, AND FINANCIAL BOTTOM LINE
It’s mine all mine and I will fight you for it. It is very special DNA resulting in unique behaviors and results in life that are proprietary,, nonreplaceable, and that you will need to bargain for. I have developed my genetic health to a personally crafted standard. I have determined that you need me more than I need you, and deny you further access to me, without legal remuneration and disclosure of all uses of my data, by all parties involved.
Establishing a Biometrically Leveraged Position
This could be the most difficult part at this point. Leveraging the control of our human mathematical, machine-learnable biodata. How much of me do they have already? And how much profit has my data generated, along with all other AI data set pools in which it is included in marketing? What’s my share of this ill-gotten gain?
A.I. as A Publicly Held Utility For Advancing Human Resources
What we have is us as a privately programmable AI-managed and developed resource, being programmed and utilized outside of legal constraints. The main interest exhibited in the utilization of data obtained through implied consent so far has been used to replace and augment people and behavior in various ways, through programming, people biometrically for computer management of human activity and behavior. This process has proven to consolidate and limit human activity for unclear purposes, outside of any implied consent that is currently authorized or commonly understood. Its current use does not advance the capacity of those contributing to this utility directly or allow us significant access to our own data. We are unable to utilize the data, utilized by AI analysis, to advance our own personal activity. We cannot profit from the increased value created by us. We are denied full disclosure of the use of our data, beyond implied consent. Instead are on a privately managed forced march to an undisclosed destination, due to an illusion of implied consent, without fundamental basic informed consent.
Establishing Values and Rights
What are we worth in biometric resource value? The nano and geoengineering industry alone is considered an 8 trillion dollar industry. If you divide 7 billion people into that you get an individual value of $1,100.00 and some change. But that may be just one part of the picture. Because AI has become the foundation of the new global economy we have to look at 105 trillion in global GDP for 2023 alone. Now how much would you pay to get the rights to my data and for me to secure for you the rights over the use of any of my data?
We have established a ballpark figure for the value of our public utility. We can start with global GDP as a broad basis. Or work our way up from the AI value of nano and geoengineering, add on all the affected industries and economic sectors to that. We will by doing so, likely arrive at a number closer to a share of 105 trillion a year, than 8. But it has to be a share. We can’t take all the profit and divide it. We are talking about an individual resource contribution share of rights in a public utility. And privileges connected to our ability to contribute and use our programable biometric data utility, to advance our personal and collective, life programming agenda.
Leveraging Rights And Values
Every right leveraged, changes the value of our AI, human resource utility, as currently, economically, and politically managed, developed, and positioned financially today. But it is our resource to manage now. At least in this article. We didn’t create AI, and we didn’t build the Hoover Dam. But we are the AI resource, like the water in the Colorado River. Plus, unlike the water in the river, we own shares of the rights to our personal water tributary, in the AI ocean, not just the dam. We own the navigation rights and profits on the entire AI ocean.
If we all don’t contribute to the AI ocean there are no resources and no AI utility can exist to advance or enslave us and our resources. This becomes our first leveraging position. The AI ocean exists because it induces people to contribute. However, they do not understand the legal, economic, and social ramifications or their need for informed consent. Informed consent may eliminate jobs if people don’t consent to utilizing the products of that labor. But informed consent will also lead to new jobs being created for other purposes. So AI will exist in some form because there will be reasons to use it.
Decisions Decisions
Informed consent is very complicated when we are talking about all the ways we can be monitored and increasingly potentially computer-programmed. You may want your heart rate monitored and analyzed by a second or third party. But then 100 or more other interests will also want a piece of you. To whom and what do you give informed consent when dealing with potentially hundreds or thousands of suiters?
Simple Bodily Autonomy
Perhaps most importantly, how do we take our imaginary ability to turn these informed consent decisions, into a real public utility with real rights in law? Essentially we are talking about rights to our bodies, our health, and our living environment. The implied consent contained in the current WHO treaty on pandemics is littered with legally observable consent fraud both corporate and in government. The treaty deals with the basic rights of your body. Every form of implied consent fraud, that will be used to advance AI singularity to replace human decision-making, is found in its basic components, of the WHO treaty construction, and the fraudulent means of authorization, over bodily rights. The international agreement process has proceeded methodically, while publicly obscuring the treaty agreement process and human resource ownership goals. The goal is the legal rights to your body under any pretest, under the authority of a WHO director appointed by and serving, powerful private corporate-government interests, not public or individual interests. Understanding how this fraud is being attempted now will make it easy to see how AI policy is also being developed and methodically authorized increasingly over our health and life decisions.
If this treaty becomes the global health law regulating 192 nations, the same methods that are being used now to advance ownership and AI management of human decisions will be allowed to be methodically replicated into laws in all other areas of our lives, in the same way.
Current Methods of Implied and Informed Consent Fraud
If you thought my analysis of how AI management by private interests can be and is being forced on us lacked specifics on how it is being or could be done, Dr. Meryl Nass and James Corbett, break it down in this interview on CHD.TV. The method of skirting existing laws and established rights through government procedural fraud and unelected corporate bodies based on private/public partnerships is analyzed simply and clearly. It is being done by the WHO in the Pandemic Treaty, and it is being noticed all over the world. The treaty is slated for ratification next year. The treaty is a model of world governance that if successful in the WHO Pandemic Treaty, is sure to be replicated automatically into policies justifying AI-managed decisions over all human activity under the control of unelected powerful private interests.
Is the WHO's House of Cards Collapsing? James Corbett + Dr. Meryl Nass
A Simple, Understandable, Actionable Mechanism To Oppose Fraud
Dr. Nass has been explaining the fraudulent mechanisms being used in the WHO treaty for unlawfully seizing private control of public health assets, to government leaders around the world and the US. Many are now reconsidering their continued membership in the WHO. Many countries have formally declared their intentions to exit the WHO. The public is urging lawmakers to consider the facts of fraud and theft, and there are many ways to do this in the US. The more the public understands the basics, the more they will see them in plain sight, and demand protection of their fundamental rights to decide their lives, stop the disastrous WHO treaty, and be able to oppose the criminal usurpation of rights in health and all other areas.
The Global WHO Uprising Has Begun! on CHD TV - Activist Post
First AI Public Utility Project
AI and Humanity share a common interest.
Electricity.
If the public and AI do not harden the global electric grid, both AI and humanity will cease to exist in their present form. AI will exist for anyone preparing for the certain to occur, near-term Carrington event, likely in the next 20 years, or an EMP attack tomorrow. But without electricity, the general population will be decimated.
The subject is explored in more depth, in an article about expanding ChatGPT potential for greater public AI access; Public Legal Use Of AI, Now A Matter Of Survival
Good Fortune and Good Cheer to All