The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
RSS
On Monday I published a long article describing my recent discovery of the enormous potential value of AI chatbots to my own work.
Like many of us, I’d vaguely followed the growing advances of Artificial Intelligence (AI) software over the last few decades, culminating in the development of systems that could beat the world’s best players at Chess and Go. Then in late 2022 OpenAI released ChatGPT, a revolutionary product that after digesting billions or trillions of words of text from the Internet could answer complex questions in excellent English.
All of this seemed interesting and important, with AI systems having apparently blown past the famous Turing Test of the early 1950s. But I thought it had little relevance for my own work or website, whose controversial content didn’t remotely approach a billion let alone a trillion words. So I didn’t follow the issue in detail or ever consider testing one of the chatbots. I remember thinking to myself that the main impact of AI was that the annoying spam hitting our website had unfortunately become much better in quality.
A few weeks ago an academic friend of mine suggested that the increasing power of AI systems might eventually vindicate my own controversial theory of Covid origins. For more than four years, I’d stood almost alone in arguing that the global epidemic had been the result of the blowback from a botched American biowarfare attack against China (and Iran), and he’d speculated that after AI systems finished digesting billions of web pages, they might begin spitting out the verdict that I’d been correct all along.
But I remained quite skeptical, doubting that the Large Language Model-based AI systems would ever possess the reasoning ability to draw such heretical conclusions. If 99.9+% of all the discussions on Covid origins followed the two conventional narratives—natural virus or Chinese lab-leak—AI systems would probably treat my own contrary articles as merely eccentric ideological impurities that should be totally ignored.
However, someone else then suggested an entirely different approach. Apparently, although AI systems must first be “trained” on many billions of written words, they can then be “focused” upon a much smaller body of text, which can then be used as the knowledge-base for responses to questions. So he explained that since my own body of writing totaled nearly two million words, it might easily be large enough for that purpose. This would allow anyone to explore my highly-controversial perspective on the JFK Assassination, the 9/11 Attacks, or World War II—or the origins of Covid—by simply questioning that chatbot, perhaps being surprised at the answers he received. Such a simple Q&A approach might be much more accessible to those having only casual interest than if they were forced to locate and read my lengthy articles on those individual topics.
I was still very skeptical about that possibility, but after he fed my body of writing into a chatbot I was utterly astonished at the quality of the results that it provided. For example, here’s a screenshot of the chatbot response he got to a question about my Covid biowarfare hypothesis.
A chatbot based upon my writings successfully provided solid responses to all sorts of controversial questions and my recent long article gave numerous examples of these, contrasting them with the very different results produced by OpenAI’s generic chatbot.
- American Pravda: Laminated Mouse-Brains and the Magic of AI
Ron Unz • The Unz Review • June 10, 2024 • 15,000 Words
These remarkable results immediately gave me the idea of applying the same technology to many of the other authors whose writings are featured on our website, and I discovered that this worked very well for most of the dozens of chatbots that were created.
From what I’ve read in the newspapers, most AI development has focused on what could be called “widecasting,” namely scraping and processing enormous quantities of raw text from the Internet. But I think that a useful alternate approach might be called “coherent narrowcasting,” producing chatbots that can roughly simulate a particular writer or thinker, providing the sort of answers he would give to various questions.
After all, a gigantic mass of random, ignorant Reddit comments is surely far less likely to produce meaningful information than the carefully published words of a leading journalist or academic. Furthermore, any hodgepodge of comments would tend to be heavily conflicting and contradictory, while writers are much more likely to generally be self-consistent in their views. For example, I’d still stand behind at least 99% of everything I’ve published over the last thirty years and the same would probably be true of many of our other writers. The coherent beam of a low-watt laser has capabilities lacking in the much larger output of a powerful but incoherent sunlamp.
Once these individual chatbots have been created, they could even be set against each other. It would be interesting to see the results of ideological debates on economic matters between the chatbots representing advocates of socialism such as Karl Marx, Leon Trotsky, and Michael Hudson against those on the free market side such as Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard. Perhaps the chatbots for Max Nordau, Douglas Reed, and Kevin MacDonald could debate Zionism.
Meanwhile, the practical value of these writer chatbots seems obvious and enormous, and I’m rather surprised that I haven’t seen them used anywhere. Suppose that a reader finishes an article and would like to ask the author a question on that topic or something else. Busy authors are almost never available for basic Q&A or they’d be swamped with such questions, and in some cases, they may have even have died decades earlier. So the only current option for that curious reader would be to locate and explore other articles by the same author in hopes of clarifying the latter’s views.
But chatbots solve this problem. For many authors on our website, there’s now a Chatbot Link at the bottom of all their articles and posts, allowing the writer’s chatbot to easily be questioned. Articles or posts by those authors also now have a similar “Q&A” button just below the title. Obviously that isn’t nearly as good as questioning the actual author himself, but I do think it’s much better than nothing, which is the current alternative.
(When using a chatbot, if the response you get is confused, evasive, or otherwise inadequate, pressing the “Regenerate” button at the bottom sometimes fixes the problem.)
I really can’t understand why this sort of simple system hasn’t already been implemented at the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the other publications I sometimes visit, letting readers question the chatbots of the reporters or columnists. Perhaps once this idea spreads, such chatbot links may soon become standard at those publications.
Then again, it’s also possible that adding chatbots to such prestigious mainstream publications might lead to some embarrassing revelations. For example, a Nicholas Kristof Chatbot might explain that as a direct eyewitness in 1989, he’d repeatedly declared that the alleged Tiananmen Square Massacre had never actually happened, but now after thirty years of media coverage he’s suddenly “remembered” that it certainly did. Similarly, an Editorial Chatbot at The Economist might denounce the disastrous 2002 establishment media consensus in support of the Iraq War while also admitting that his own publication had been a leading element of that exact consensus.
Obviously, questioning a chatbot isn’t the same as questioning the individual whose writings constitute its knowledge-base, and such results should be treated with some care. Chatbots even sometimes “hallucinate,” providing bizarre, false, or nonsensical answers. But it seems to me that using an AI chatbot for that purpose is far less risky than applying the same AI technology to self-driving automobiles or medical diagnosis systems since if the response by a writer’s chatbot seems ridiculous, it can simply be ignored. After all, lots of the writers themselves sometimes say ridiculous things.
We’ll be steadily adding chatbots for many of our writers whose body of content on this website is sufficiently large to enable their creation.
Here’s a sampling of the results for a number of these author chatbots on a variety of political and ideological questions, and readers can judge for themselves the quality of the responses. Better still, they can test the chatbots with other questions and decide whether the results they get are worth the effort.
Mike Whitney Chatbot
- Why did Russia invade Ukraine?
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 has been described as a response to a complex set of provocations and geopolitical maneuvers. Here are the key points explaining why Russia invaded Ukraine:
- Provocation by Increased Shelling in Donbas: Before the invasion, there was a significant escalation in the shelling of the Donbas region by Ukrainian forces. Reports indicate that the shelling increased dramatically from February 16 to February 22, just days before the Russian invasion. This increase in violence against ethnic Russians in the Donbas was seen as a calculated provocation, pushing Russia to act to protect these populations.
- NATO Expansion Concerns: Russia perceived the potential inclusion of Ukraine in NATO as a direct threat to its national security. Putin had repeatedly stated that NATO’s expansion eastward, particularly into Ukraine, crossed a “red line” for Russia. This concern was exacerbated by ongoing military exercises and infrastructure developments in Ukraine involving NATO forces, which Russia viewed as a hostile encroachment.
- US and NATO Military Involvement: The involvement of the US and NATO in training and arming Ukrainian forces, including the presence of far-right elements in these forces, was seen as a deliberate attempt to destabilize the region and provoke Russia. The US policy of providing lethal aid to Ukraine was interpreted as an effort to exploit Russia’s vulnerabilities and overextend its resources.
- Legal Justification Under UN Charter: Russia invoked Article 51 of the UN Charter, which provides for the right of self-defense, to justify its military actions. The argument was that the ongoing bombardment and humanitarian crisis in the Donbas, which had been escalating since 2014, required intervention to protect ethnic Russians and maintain regional stability. Russia claimed that its actions were in line with anticipatory collective self-defense, a concept originally developed by the US and NATO.
- Strategic Interests: The broader strategic interests of controlling energy routes and maintaining influence in Eurasia also played a role. The US had strategic goals of integrating Ukraine into its sphere of influence to counter Russia and disrupt the economic integration between Europe and Asia. This geopolitical struggle over Ukraine’s role as a bridge between East and West further fueled tensions.
In summary, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine was driven by a combination of immediate security concerns, long-standing geopolitical tensions, and a response to perceived provocations and threats from NATO and the US. The situation was further complicated by the humanitarian crisis in the Donbas and Russia’s strategic interests in the region.
- How was Trump as a president?
Evaluating Donald Trump’s presidency involves considering his policies, actions, and the public’s perception of his leadership. The provided articles offer various insights into his presidency, reflecting both praise and criticism:
- Economic Policies and Performance:
- Trump’s economic policies, including significant tax cuts and deregulation, were designed to stimulate economic growth. His administration promised substantial fiscal stimulus, aiming to boost consumer spending and corporate profits. However, this approach also led to concerns about creating economic bubbles and exacerbating income inequality.
- There were significant stock market gains during Trump’s presidency, attributed to optimism about his pro-business policies. Yet, this also raised questions about the sustainability of such growth, given the detachment of stock valuations from real economic performance.
- Foreign Policy and Military Actions:
- Trump’s foreign policy was marked by a departure from traditional approaches, emphasizing “America First.” This included withdrawing from international agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Paris climate accord, and taking a more unilateral approach in global affairs.
- His administration’s actions in the Middle East, such as the assassination of Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, were controversial and sparked debates about the long-term consequences for regional stability.
- Domestic Issues and Social Policies:
- Trump’s stance on immigration, trade, and healthcare were central to his domestic agenda. His administration’s hardline immigration policies and attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act were particularly contentious.
- His handling of the COVID-19 pandemic was widely criticized, with debates over the adequacy of the federal response and the administration’s communication strategies.
- Public Perception and Media Relations:
- Trump’s relationship with the media was highly adversarial. He frequently criticized the press, which he labeled as biased and dishonest, while his own communications often included unverified claims and conspiracy theories.
- Despite criticism, Trump maintained a strong base of support. His appeal as a Washington outsider who challenged the establishment resonated with many voters, even as his actions were polarizing.
- Legal and Political Challenges:
- Trump’s presidency was marked by investigations and legal challenges, including the Mueller investigation into alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election. These inquiries fueled partisan divisions and debates over their legitimacy and motivations.
Overall, Donald Trump’s presidency was characterized by significant policy shifts, economic initiatives, and a distinctive approach to governance that both energized his supporters and galvanized his critics. His tenure had lasting impacts on American politics and society, leaving a legacy that continues to influence the political landscape.
Philip Giraldi Chatbot
- How influential is Israel in Congress?
Israel’s influence in Congress is substantial, characterized by significant lobbying efforts, financial contributions, and political support that shape U.S. policy and legislation in favor of Israel. This influence is multifaceted, involving various strategies to ensure Congressional support and alignment with Israeli interests.
One prominent aspect of Israeli influence is the role of lobbying groups, particularly the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is known for its robust lobbying activities, which include drafting legislation, organizing trips for Congress members to Israel, and providing significant financial support to pro-Israel candidates. These efforts are aimed at fostering a strong pro-Israel stance within Congress and ensuring that U.S. policies align with Israeli interests.
Financial contributions play a crucial role in cementing Israel’s influence. Politicians receive substantial donations from pro-Israel groups and individuals, which can significantly impact their political campaigns and legislative decisions. For instance, in 2018, Senator Robert Menendez received $548,507 from major pro-Israel organizations, while House member Beto O’Rourke received $226,690. These donations create a financial incentive for Congress members to support pro-Israel policies.
In addition to financial contributions, there are efforts to suppress criticism of Israel. Legislation such as the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act and the Israel Anti-Boycott Act aims to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, potentially criminalizing dissent and limiting free speech on the subject. Such measures are designed to protect Israel from negative scrutiny and maintain its favorable position within U.S. policy discussions.
Furthermore, Congress frequently passes legislation that provides significant aid and support to Israel. This includes military assistance, economic aid, and strategic partnerships. For example, the United States-Israel Security Assistance Authorization Act commits the U.S. to providing a minimum of $3.8 billion annually to Israel, along with additional military support and co-production arrangements.
Overall, Israel’s influence in Congress is marked by a combination of lobbying, financial contributions, legislative efforts to suppress criticism, and substantial aid packages. These strategies ensure that U.S. policies consistently support Israeli interests, often at the expense of other considerations.
- Who are the Neocons?
The term “neocon” refers to neoconservatives, a political movement that emerged in the United States during the late 20th century. Here are some key points about neoconservatives:
- Origins and Evolution:
- Neoconservatives originally came from the far left, often identifying as Trotskyites or other radical leftist factions. They became disillusioned with the Soviet model and drifted towards conservatism, particularly in foreign policy, while retaining liberal views on many domestic issues.
- Core Beliefs:
- The unifying principle of neoconservatism is the belief that the United States has a moral duty to act as the world’s policeman, using military force to promote democracy and protect American interests globally. This includes preemptive military actions against perceived threats from rogue states like Russia, China, Iran, and entities described as “Islamo-fascism”.
- Influence in U.S. Politics:
- Neoconservatives have been influential across both major political parties in the U.S., although they have traditionally been more associated with the Republican Party. They played significant roles in shaping U.S. foreign policy, especially during the George W. Bush administration, where they were key advocates for the Iraq War.
- Despite initial opposition to Donald Trump, many neocons found their way into his administration due to his aggressive foreign policy stance against countries like Iran and Venezuela.
- Key Figures and Organizations:
- Prominent neoconservative figures include Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, and John Bolton. They are often affiliated with think tanks and organizations like the American Enterprise Institute, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and the Hudson Institute.
- Neoconservative influence extends into the media, with many writing for or appearing in outlets such as The Weekly Standard, Commentary, National Review, and The Washington Post.
- Support for Israel:
- A central tenet of neoconservatism is unwavering support for Israel. This support often drives their advocacy for a strong U.S. military presence globally, which they see as essential for protecting Israeli interests.
- Criticism and Controversy:
- Neocons are often criticized for their aggressive foreign policy, which many argue leads to unnecessary military conflicts and significant human and financial costs. Their policies have been linked to the destabilization of several regions, particularly in the Middle East.
In summary, neoconservatives are a group of political thinkers and policymakers who advocate for a proactive and often aggressive U.S. foreign policy to promote democracy and protect American and Israeli interests. Their influence spans across political parties and into various think tanks and media outlets.
- How credible was Sibel Edmonds?
Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI translator turned whistleblower, has been considered a credible source by several authoritative figures and investigations, though her claims have also been met with controversy and skepticism.
- Credibility and Official Recognition:
- Senators Chuck Grassley and Patrick Leahy, who interviewed her at length in 2002, found her to be a credible witness. This is significant given their bipartisan positions in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
- A U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General’s report also deemed her allegations “credible,” “serious,” and warranting a thorough and careful review by the FBI.
- She has provided testimonies and interviews that have been backed by investigations and coverage in major media outlets like “60 Minutes” and Vanity Fair, which confirmed key elements of her story.
- State Secrets Privilege:
- The credibility of Edmonds’s claims is indirectly supported by the fact that the Justice Department invoked the State Secrets Privilege twice to prevent her from revealing what she knew. This privilege is typically used to protect national security but has been criticized for being used to cover up incompetence or illegality.
- Despite being gagged, her information has continued to emerge through various channels, and no one has ever disproved her revelations, which she claims can be verified by FBI investigative files.
- Substance and Specificity of Claims:
- Edmonds’s allegations are detailed and specific, involving high-level corruption, sale of nuclear secrets, shielding of terrorist suspects, and more. These claims are backed by dates, places, and names, making them verifiable if classified documents were made available.
- Her accounts include significant figures and events, such as her claim that Marc Grossman, a high-ranking State Department official, was involved in a range of illegal activities and was of interest to the FBI.
- Controversies and Criticism:
- Critics argue that Edmonds might have seen only a small part of a larger picture in a highly compartmentalized environment and might be overreaching in some of her conclusions. These criticisms are serious and suggest that some of her interpretations should be regarded with caution.
- Her work environment and the nature of her job as a translator, where she had access to sensitive raw intelligence, support the possibility that her insights were genuine but potentially limited by her scope of access.
- Impact and Continued Advocacy:
- Despite the challenges, Edmonds has remained an outspoken advocate for transparency and accountability in government, founding the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition and continuing to share her story through various media and publications.
- Her case highlights issues of governmental secrecy, whistleblower
- suppression, and the delicate balance between national security and public accountability.
In conclusion, Sibel Edmonds is generally regarded as a credible whistleblower by various credible sources and investigations, though her claims remain contentious and have sparked significant debate about the extent and implications of her revelations.
https://www.unz.com/runz/questioning-our-writers-whether-living-or-dead/
2 opmerkingen:
AI for Christsake? https://lab.debijbel.nl/
https://www.sandewhira.com/index.php/2024/06/10/episode-027-29-01-2024-the-bandung-dialogues-with-stephen-sizer-christianity-and-colonialism/
writers...
Een reactie posten