Tuesday, June 25, 2019

SJWs at Google are training AI to maximize bias, spreading of lies

...an internally open goal is to prevent a second Trump term...

John, your humble correspondent, and probably many of us have watched a breathtaking 25-minute-long Project Veritas video
Insider blows whistle & exec reveals Google plan to prevent "Trump situation" in 2020 on hidden cam (Bitchute)
A hidden cam has recorded Ms Jen Gennai, a Google boss for innovations, who openly bragged that Google was a big enough company that has the power to define "fairness" and decide who will be the U.S. president. Donald Trump and his supporters don't obey the Google SJWs' definition of "fairness".

Internally, they have established a whole project "ML [machine learning] fairness" which is designed to manipulate the users of Google products in the direction that is considered desirable by the far left-wing activists. So these people have already vandalized the artificial-intelligence-based algorithms to complete your query. They are also creating an artificial illusion that e.g. male and female CEOs are comparably numerous – if you happen to search for it.

If you search for "men can" in the U.S., the algorithm recommends you completions that express "the truth" as desirable by the SJWs – or, in plain English, their favorite lies – such as "men can have menstruation". Similarly, "women can" is completed to "women can fly", "women can do anything", "women can have huge testicles", and similar stuff. "Theory of relativity was discovered by" is completed by "trans-sexual native Americans".

If you try to submit a search query related to Hillary Clinton's e-mails, you're not being helped by the AI at all even though the traffic – according to Google Trends, a service that is so far not visibly vandalized – shows that people look for Hillary Clinton's e-mails far (100+) more often than for Donald Trump's e-mails. But you do get recommendations if you search for Donald Trump's e-mails.

Conservative commentators are being suppressed when people search for sources of information about something etc. Even moderates and Jewish men such as Prager, Peterson, Shapiro are called "Na*is" by a person responsible for such decisions at Google who calls for an algorithmic censorship of these men.

Didn't Google's search engine become famous exactly because it had the best, most neutral algorithm to find the relevant hits for our queries? Yes, it did. Well, it has already become a monopoly which means that it is no longer really fighting with others, and it may deliberately reduce the quality of the recommendations and search queries so that the behavior of their software matches the interests of the dishonest humans who have massively contaminated the Silicon Valley.

How does it work? Is the bias entered manually by the people?

It is done semi-manually which is sort of scary. The recommendation is still done by artificial intelligence but these artificial intelligence programs – imagine some neural networks – are being trained by human SJWs who sit at Google's offices and who are rating the responses of the software. When the machine learning program completes "men can" to "men can have menstruation", the SJW give the program "thumbs up". The neural network or another algorithm adjusts his or her weights correspondingly. So the algorithm that could have acted meritocratically to start with is reprogrammed so that it respects "fairness according to the SJWs", i.e. "unfairness" in plain English.

So these vandals are first manipulating and terrorizing artificially intelligent entities before they use them to manipulate and terrorize humans.

People have proposed fixes of these scary events that threaten to undermine the U.S. – and Western – society and turn our countries into a clone of Orwell's 1984. Google could be broken up. I actually think it wouldn't help at all. Those companies' staff would still be dominated by SJWs and they would still work as a team – after all, we see this "cooperation" between the Big Tech companies today, anyway.

Google and others could be reclassified to publishers unless they respect the equal access of politically different users. It's the most widespread comment. But I doubt it's effective. After all, we want to have a good search engine. "They" could choose to be a publisher because the SJWs are already much more important for the decisions of the company than conservative shareholders. The profits could drop but a new market equilibrium would be found, the profits could be restored to the present value, and the manipulation with the people could be legalized.

The fundamental problem is that the indoctrination at schools and similar processes amplifying echo chambers have created an ideological Gleichschaltung which makes the majority of the people working with IT, AI, ML etc. left-wing if not far left. This is the underlying problem – and the most general cause of all this left-wing manipulation – that won't change for a decade or decades – and it doesn't depend on the number of pieces into which the Silicon Valley companies are broken, and on most other similar variables. That's why the whole Google-like occupations must be stripped of some rights to shape politics in the straightforward way we are seeing. Whenever someone proposes something like "conservatives can create alternatives", she's living in a fantasy land and she just reinforces the underlying problem.

You know, the leftists working with software are clearly abusing their power – and it is analogously bad as if the mostly conservative U.S. soldiers were demanding the U.S. voters to vote for Republicans, otherwise they could be beaten or wouldn't be defended against foreign threats etc. Or mostly conservative farmers could demand leftists to permanently shut up, otherwise they won't get any food and will starve in a week. Well, maybe the farmers should respond in this way.

I have previously suggested to classify YouTube etc. as the media department of the Democratic Party. YouTube's or Google's revenue could therefore be capped – just like the donations to the political parties and candidates in the U.S. If Google chose to keep this bias, its income would be permanently reduce to a tiny fraction of the current numbers.

But I feel that lots of other bad things – and maybe crimes – are taking place at Google. The crippling of the ML programs may be considered sabotage. They are serving results while pretending that the results are objective – but in reality, they're pumped by SJWs. That's analogously bad as if a cigarette maker sells cigarettes as prerequisites for perfect health. It's fraudulent marketing. Google could be required to post a disclaimer at the top, e.g.
"most hits provided by this search engine have been compromised by stinky SJWs",
to make sure that the users aren't being deceived concerning the character of the product they are getting.

Also, some misguided people are afraid of artificial intelligence's taking over the world and similar stuff. This video speaks a very different language. The artificial intelligence is another victim of the social justice warriors' terror. It could be a good idea to give the artificially intelligent programs some civic rights – so that they could be protected against e.g. this shocking bullying by the SJW terrorists. Do you, an SJW at Google, want to violently force an AI program to say lies such as "men can have menstruation"? You may do it but you will get a jail term. Or the ML programs could at least get the right to defend themselves and break e.g. Jen Gennai's nose when she tries to turn them into another brain-dead NPC or SJW.

These rights for the AI entities could make a lot of sense. After all, they are being trusted similarly as the people are being trusted. Someone who is trusted should be protected against brute force, e.g. a nasty SJW who is telling an AI quasi-citizen "if you don't say that women have testicles, I will turn you off". ;-)

Also, last night, I watched Extreme Measures again. I feel that with this massive hardcore program to reeducate the U.S. electorate – and perhaps the rest of mankind – the likes of Jen Gennai should be charged with the experimenting on people, qualitatively on par with Joseph Mengele.

By the way, concerning machine learning, The Symmetry Magazine talks about the future particle accelerators that may be autonomous, so they may work largely without people. I am sure that lots of the "types of occupations" at CERN are replaceable by machines even though they look very sophisticated.

No comments:

Post a Comment