Musk calls for government regulation to ensure that market pressures to pursue AI are not civilization threatening

In calling for regulation and government leadership or direction on the matter, Musk departs from his typically unfavourable attitude towards regulation. He highlights manipulation of information (e.g. fake news, etc) as among major risks that an AI could be harnessed for.

More at

Posted in Arts, media & society, Economics, social and commercial policy, Epistemology, Philosophy, Policy, Quotidian, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Pathways to power survey for administration to those who interrupt public conferences and other meetings with continuous blackmail hunting by use of triggers and observing responses

1) Do you think blackmail or similar forms of coercion are acceptable means of suppressing competition or scaring away those who are not willing to participate in blackmail?

2) Would a 360 camera in every pair of underwear be an acceptable means of ending rape?

3) Are you familiar with the concept of brainwashing? (Yes/no). Would you like to make any remarks on the subject?


4) How about stealing passwords for the purpose of blackmailing people, in addition to use of the same to coercively prevent from reporting further coercion? Do you think this should be encouraged by public authorities or should some people go to prison?


5) Please specify a major event that occurred in 1939. Alternatively, you may prefer to discuss the broader circumstances which led to repeated bombing of London in the early 1940s.

6) If there is one thing that police and intelligence investigations should be focusing more time on these days, what might that be?


(Context: In 2017 it is relatively commonplace for some people to attend public conference for the purpose of making many compromising statements and then observing who responds, for the purpose of blackmail hunting. I have observed this happening at health technology conferences, information technology conferences, at police accountability review sessions and others.

It is not my job to do anything about this, but the people whose job would be to deal with this Stasi 3.0 seem to be rather preoccupied with cameras up every orifice or some such thing.)

Posted in Arts, media & society, Business and entrepreneurship, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, History, International, Physics, Political philosophy, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

When the logic of “periodically kick the bums out” is not enough

If there are major problems and the party in power has not only not solved those problems, but is unable to even acknowledge the existence of those problems, then many people will be inclined to go beyond blaming the party for inaction and blame them as the locus of conspiracy (which may be at least partially true in at least some cases).

For example, in a situation of neurowar ambush, all that people will know is that the people in power are not only not fixing the problem, but have the appearance of covering up the problem.

In the age of beyond-incipient neurotechnologies that can be used in a neurowar ambush (and also be diverse forms of other organizations which tend to bring societies down more so than to build them up), people will then be inclined to vote out WHOEVER is in office, and go for the alternative which appears most likely to result in radical change (hopefully of the type needed) and in recent years have demonstrated huge willingness to place their electoral bets on any new thing (e.g., France) or take risks that have potential for undesirable extremism (e.g., USA).

In such a situation, if the newly inaugurated are unable to address these risks effectively, they will easily be maligned as ineffective, leading to the entry of yet another set of fresh faces which will be poorly positioned (and lacking in knowledge) to engage in effective risk mitigation measures.

There is more on the question of major rejections of parties and taking chances on new options (e.g. the one-year old party that won the election in France, Trump’s winning the US presidential election) at Project Syndicate.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, History, International, Philosophy, Physics, Policy, Political science, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

One way that neurotech can be dumb: “Any maybe leaders”, profiling relating to a policy position, and 20-year advance foreign suppression in an open country

The situation: A foreign group calculates a potential loss in the 20-year timeframe if Domestic Policy A becomes supported in government.

10,000 “maybe leaders” under the age of 25 have their social media accounts hacked for the purpose of finding indicators that they are supportive of Domestic Policy A. Among these 10,000 “maybe leaders”, 200 are found to have relatively high dedication in support of that particular issue.

A foreign group calculates a potential loss in the 20-year timeframe if the domestic policy issue becomes supported in government. With access to data on known positive and negative stimuli and other means of coercive, semi-voluntary or other influence on “any maybe willing puppet” — most especially those who may be persuaded to believe that there is no choice and in the end just do anything they are directed to do in a particular moment, but also including those who believe that they are in the service of some particular objective which will involve their group becoming powerful and hence themselves becoming powerful or otherwise advancing their objectives, etc. –, this foreign entity then goes about determining a sequential processing of “any maybe leaders” who support Domestic Policy A who are then to be targeted for Zersetzung-style 3.0 eradication from relevance.

In 10 years time, the 200 “maybe leaders” who previously actively advocated for that policy have been whittled down to 5, and all of them have been manipulated in a manner that has led to them having revolutionary sentiment disproportionate to reality, and more generally for them to be positioned in an unnecessarily highly confrontational manner which then positions support for Domestic Policy A as associated with madness.

In 15 years time, Domestic Policy A is no longer on the agenda, and rarely even heard of.

Result: The presence of a relatively high number of “puppets for the taking” in year 0 is hacked in a manner which censors a certain viewpoint and ultimately leads to the absence of the superior policy in year 20.

Superior solutions start with recognizing inferior situations.


(Quite some variety of more complex situations could be imagined, but the simplicity of the example draws attention to the realistic nature of the risk.)

Posted in Arts, media & society, Development, Economics, Economics and philosophy, Economics and science, Economics, pure theory, Economics, social and commercial policy, Epistemology, International, Philosophy, Physics, Policy, Political philosophy, Political science, Quotidian, Science, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Blackmail hunting should be an explicit crime. This is not at all the same as journalism or whistleblowing or any other type of non-blackmail activity.

Distinctions between criminal blackmail and journalism


Journalism: Obtain information that would be of interest to the public, and then make money writing things that it is believed the public should know about

Blackmail: Obtain information (whether involving embarrassing, criminal, or any any sort of thing), potentially including fabricated information that has some element of believability, for the purpose of using this to coerce the individual to a) refrain from particular activities, speech or viewpoints, b) perform a particular activity, engage in particular speech or promote a certain viewpoint. Specifically, for the purpose of coercing someone to do what they would not otherwise do, or to not do what they otherwise would do.


Journalism: The journalist interviews the source who has information which may be comprising to that individual but which deemed likely to be of general or specific interest to the public. In almost all cases the journalist retains the legal right of prerogative regarding revealing, or not revealing, this source.

Blackmail: The information having been obtain, it is made know to the individual by any means calculated to potentially have the desired coercive effect. No public interest case exists (although falsehoods regarding public interest may be promoted among those actively involved in perpetrating negative treatments intended to promote coerce-ability on the part of the target.

In short, journalists obtain information that is of interest to the public and they protect their sources. Whereas with blackmail false or true information is used in order to control an individual.


Not the same thing. However, it seems that some diversity of actors involved in blackmail-oriented activities have (with varying degrees of pretension involved) difficulties understanding the difference between the acts of a) obtaining information of interest to the public and protecting sources, and b) trying to assert domination over an individual.

Due to the existence of the common thread of “something that someone doesn’t want to be publicly known about them” (including potentially false things), it seems that some diversity of actors involved in blackmail hunting and other blackmail-directed activity have difficulties allowing themselves to take a moment and comprehend that journalism for public interest and blackmail people to control or perhaps enslave them are fundamentally different activities.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, Philosophy, Policy, Political philosophy, Political science | Leave a comment

The value of a leadership with independent authorities that goes deeper than Mr T

In response to the potential that Trump will basically not make use of diplomatic apparatus, which tends to be much cheaper than bombs in both the short run and long run in most matters of foreign affairs, key figures in the US Senate have been running a sort of parallel State Department on their own initiative.

This is mentioned in a NYT article where Trump’s decision to hand authority over troop deployment activities directly to the Pentagon in addition to the cuts he wants to the State Department seem to be meeting a response of Congress “to recapture much of the Senate prerogatives on foreign policy”.

It is worth mentioning that the (at least temporary) blockage of some additional arms sales to Saudi Arabia is said to be tied to concern for the high level of civilian casualties caused by Saudi use of lethal force in Yemen.

Anyone know any place outside of the West where non-presidents who don’t agree with the president can take their elected representative “stamps” and go do quasi-foreign policy quasi-independently? (The example of Chrystia Freeland in Canada doing an independent fact-finding mission to Ukraine while in opposition is another interesting example along those lines.) A Chinese mayor, for example, might independently seek city-to-city relations in a foreign place, but how long do you think he’d be in the mayorship after his return if it turned out that a major objective in a particular visit was to promote courses of action that differed significantly from (in particular if contradicting) those sought by the president?

Posted in Arts, media & society, International, Political philosophy, Political science | Leave a comment

Some Indians seem to have been persuaded to buy this line

(Among the extremely diverse traditions of the soon-to-be-most-populous nation on the planet) There were some fertility cults in India back in the day (perhaps including of the type that would dance around ceremoniously and then have a group orgy), and therefore any and all up to 100% complete invasion of privacy including all sexual activities or even thoughts are game as a natural, superior, and more free mode of being.

Because, as I said, there were some sex cults in India, and sex is natural, and everyone knows that India is the oldest cradle of advanced philosophy and civilization there is. QED.

(To my knowledge, however, even despite entire massive temple complexes having been built comprised of primarily naked and/or sexually positioned figures comprising most of what is there, this was not a suggestion to have 100% privacy invasions about every sexual act or thought, and the temple complex is rumoured to have served a number of purposes, most especially including its role as a place to visit for Brahman boys, who otherwise were so completely unexposed to any sexual content whatsoever that the temple complex was intended to serve as an instructive introduction to sexual awareness prior to their having a family.)

Posted in Arts, media & society, Epistemology, History, International, Philosophy, spiritual, Travel | Leave a comment

Any back any stab blackmail culture of 2017

In 2017, people do not want to give their name to a stranger.

In 2017, people do not want to tell a stranger even which part of town they live in until relatively assured that you are not an adherent of the “any back any stab blackmail culture of 2017”.

In 2017, a new acquaintance or contact will very often wait until the last minute to agree on a precise location of meeting, not primarily due to the convenient possibility due to cell phones, but more to avoid having that location known too far in advance and as a function of which some third parties might obtain this information and come to harass them.

In 2017, without reassurance that you are not an unwilling (or formerly unwilling) adherent of the “any back any stab blackmail culture of 2017”, people do not want to tell a stranger what company they work for.

In other cases, the precise opposite applies, where signs of adherence to the “any back any stab blackmail culture of 2017” are required before a new acquaintance will desist with psychological attacks involving numerous highly practiced and habitually pre-meditated means of eliciting stress in another person (at times combined with externally directed neuroweapons) until their subservience to this “any back any stab blackmail culture of 2017” has been thoroughly demonstrated, which at times is inclusive of resistance towards any positive statements of the freedom or individuality of the offending party.

In 2017, people often do not even want to reveal so much as their profession or main interests.

In 2017, people often do not want to reveal to a stranger so much as the university or other post-secondary training or skills building they have engaged in.

Over 20 years, I worked in services professions in some different countries. I have literally met and had conversations with perhaps some tens of thousands of people across some dozens of countries (ranging from tens of seconds to days or near lifetimes, but excluding simple hello/goodbye/thank you exchanges with someone at a shop or giving directions).

Over much of that period, it was customary to exchange names, place of origin, and rapidly work through some other basics like what you studied or do for work, your interests, and how they hell it came to pass that the two of you ended up in this same place and are now speaking.

In 2017, some years into the spread of the “any stab any back blackmail culture” where “any maybe leader” is harassed from any any angle that can portray them in any possible negative light, people who meet a stranger are cautious to give their name, do not want to say even where they are from, do not want to say even what their main profession is, are hesitant to reveal interests, are fearful to express political opinions in a way that I am highly familiar with from extremely politically unfree countries (e.g. China, where politics is booooorrrrring).

And, most definitely, people who meet a stranger often do not want to provide information that could lead you to people they know, until they have some assurance regarding adherence to the “any back any stab blackmail culture of 2017”.

Some people would like to primarily blame social media and the internet for making this all possible. They make for a handy scapegoat for those who abused their positions to amass volumes of information on all individuals (clearly by now well in excess of the 5000/person database that formerly attracted much criticism and antagonism from a public that could hardly believe any government could consider such an evil thing as to amass 5000 datapoints on every citizen under the assumption that this would obviously and could only be abused). This amassed information was used to mine for any possible angle to convince a person that they were fucked over in some manner, for example, any resistance to opening up on any matter at any time was then seen as an opportunity to make any claim of guilt and to tar some people in any sort of way. In combination with extensive other information collected on individuals, this was then used to progressively extract compliance in numerous regards, to the extent that “any maybe leader” now has to deal with essentially 24/7 harassment in public – harassment that is individually tailored on the basis of this extensive psychometric information that is in at least one but presumably very numerous databases by now.

How the hell is that in the interest of any one around here?

“Any back any stab blackmail culture” is a way to bring things down, not to build them up.

It is not how it was. Some people are in a better position than others to KNOW that.


“Any back any stab blackmail culture of 2017” is another way to express the nature of the informal quasi-slave puppet army that has been conscripted against their will and have learned to love as master influences which formerly enslaved them.

(P.S. – it must be explicitly noted that the “quasi-slave puppet army” aspect of things is explicitly NOT a suggestion towards impunity or clearance against all responsibility of acts perpetrated by slave puppets. This must be stated explicitly, in 2017.)

(P.P.S – I explicitly note that I have not mentioned use of neuroweapons in directing such acts as tend to be related to the “any back any stab blackmail culture of 2017”.)

Posted in Arts, media & society, Courts/police/justice, Economics, pure theory, Epistemology, History, International, Philosophy, Political philosophy, Quotidian, Web and computing | Leave a comment

Thoughts relating to perspectives on “flexible labour” as pertains to freelancers / contractors / self-employed

What share of independent professionals would turn down a guaranteed 40 hour work week at 80% of the pay per unit output?

The benefits of flexible labour supply should not be ignored, and potential lifestyle aspects will appeal to some. But please do not glamourize what for many people amounts to a nearly maximal application of the “use you and throw you away” logic.

In the organization I do most work for, the arrangement is exceedingly beneficial and enables to access occasionally required pools of talent. This makes it possible to access top talent across all projects and in management operations without having to worry about whether they are missing a few items from the wishlist – it can easily be explained as improving overall quality of outputs.

But please don’t try to tell me that the economic benefits of such arrangements imply that freelance service providers should – as a general rule – appreciate the situation. There is a difference between Ubers using technology to try to squeeze the maximum drop of availability and effort for an absolute minimum of pay in what are totally dead end positions that erode the capital of the worker through wear and tear on their vehicle, as compared to organizations that can make enormous improvements in both price and quality by accessing flexible independent contractors. The second group needs freedom and no more red tape than necessary, the first group requires basic protections while they endeavour to move a career and life forward.

Posted in Arts, media & society, Business and entrepreneurship, Economics, Economics, pure theory, Economics, social and commercial policy | Leave a comment

What does “responsible, no-nonsense journalism; coverage that can’t be bullied” mean?

What does it mean when NPR (public radio in the US) is promoting itself with statements like “responsible, no-nonsense journalism; coverage that can’t be bullied”?


Posted in Arts, media & society, International, Political philosophy | Leave a comment