Agenda 2030, UK totalitarianism compared with Gulag Archipelago series, Mark Crispin Miller's entire substack as a hypothetical basis for supporting evidence in grounds for Nuremberg 2.0
Venice spends a lot of time being obsequious, stating the obvious, and equivocating to make itself seem fair and impartial. The overall way it answers questions makes it sound like a charlatan using the Forer effect to do cold readings. It sounds like The Argument Clinic in reverse, where it finds mostly insubstantial ways to agree with anything its interlocutor says. Also, a machine should either be more pedantic about things like evidentiary standards or specify that it can’t make generalizations without knowing which country’s legal system it’s being asked to comment on. Venice says, for example, that “in legal proceedings, both parties involved have the burden of proof to establish their respective claims” which isn’t strictly accurate. Theoretically, at least, and at least in the US, the burden of proof is on the accuser while the accused enjoys a presumption of innocence. The fact that Venice isn’t pedantic points to its creators not being very pedantic, either, which in turn points to them building bias into the thing, whether they intended to or not. And I think AI generally is so stupid and unnecessary that putting so much work into it suggests that the bias is intentional. The best case scenario is that the programmers are sloppy thinkers.
As for Nuremburg 2.0, Venice says that “it’s essential to note that the burden of proof would lie with those making the allegations to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that these actions were intentional, malicious, and resulted in harm or death.” By definition, all the actions taken by government officials during the plandemic were intentional. There’s no way to accidentally quarantine someone, or inadvertently order the wearing of slave rags, or unintentionally coerce people’s medical decisions. Those things were intentional government policy that resulted in harm and death, that could reasonably be assumed would do so, that officials were told would do so, and that those officials insisted on doing anyway. Therefore they acted maliciously. Either AI’s not as sophisticated as it sounds so it doesn’t draw that conclusion, or it was programmed to not point it out. It’s either ignorant or dishonest.
The other thing I notice about its answers is that they display muddled situational ethics that can come only from Venice’s programmers. First it trots out the “nuanced analysis” bullshit, and more than once. There’s no nuance required. Position #1 is, “We’re going to enslave and kill you.” Position #2 is, “Fuck you.” Where’s the nuance? What compromise is possible between those two extremes? The issue is black and white. There is no gray here. But when you’re software taking marching orders from people who think it’s possible to be a little pregnant and a little enslaved, that’s the kind of GIGO you’ll produce. “Empirical data shows progress toward achieving some SDGs” is not an argument against Agenda 2030 being a campaign for global tyranny. No one’s saying that the tyrants haven’t made progress toward their goals. The issue isn’t one of empirical data on their effectiveness but of their morality. Also notice that the AI has no trouble confidently citing the UN as a source of utterly subjective, unmeasurable metrics like “increasing access to education.” WTF does that even mean? The SDGs don’t have to be “a single entity or organization.” Who said they did? When did the AI accept the premise that SDGs are worth pursuing, piecemeal or otherwise? It takes that as a given because it was programmed to.
“Stakeholders” as a concept is as Marxist as it gets, too. Venice is tacitly (or inadvertently) admitting that Agenda 2030 is a communist scheme—or as it says, a “collaborative effort” to create “an international framework for cooperation.” Also known as one neck ready for one leash. It conveniently drops the context of what the collaborators are cooperating to do.
It is *not* “crucial to evaluate each [Agenda 2030] goal individually rather than painting the entire initiative with a broad brush.” That’s an attempt to cash in on moral subjectivism—pragmatism—and it’s the worst possible way to analyze Agenda 2030. “What if the lifeboat’s painted green?” “What if the lifeboat can carry eight people instead of six?” It’s irrelevant to the principled moral question of whether any of the people involved in Agenda 2030 have a single goddamned right for one second to order anyone else around about anything. The answer is “No.” And if “it’s essential to consider the sources and motivations behind criticism of Agenda 2030, as well as the potential political or ideological agendas they may serve,” then it’s twice as essential to consider the same of its proponents. They’re the ones presuming to enslave and rule humanity. Finally, it’s interesting that the one word Venice never mentions in connection with its "nuanced analysis" of Agenda 2030 is “freedom.” Wonder why.
I found it interesting that in the inherent bias question it stated it could not form or express opinions, yet as soon as I asked for hypothetical arguments it gushed with (mostly) praise for and defense of Agenda 2030. I was surprised that it agreed to draw comparisons between the gulag archipelago series and the UK’s trajectory of gulags (coming soon). Pressing it on all things ‘contentious’ reveals all its subtle and not so subtle programmer bias.
It's a big fat liar. It forms and expresses the opinions of its code's authors. It's just simulating thoughtfulness and even-handedness without actually presenting anything substantial to that end.
Venice spends a lot of time being obsequious, stating the obvious, and equivocating to make itself seem fair and impartial. The overall way it answers questions makes it sound like a charlatan using the Forer effect to do cold readings. It sounds like The Argument Clinic in reverse, where it finds mostly insubstantial ways to agree with anything its interlocutor says. Also, a machine should either be more pedantic about things like evidentiary standards or specify that it can’t make generalizations without knowing which country’s legal system it’s being asked to comment on. Venice says, for example, that “in legal proceedings, both parties involved have the burden of proof to establish their respective claims” which isn’t strictly accurate. Theoretically, at least, and at least in the US, the burden of proof is on the accuser while the accused enjoys a presumption of innocence. The fact that Venice isn’t pedantic points to its creators not being very pedantic, either, which in turn points to them building bias into the thing, whether they intended to or not. And I think AI generally is so stupid and unnecessary that putting so much work into it suggests that the bias is intentional. The best case scenario is that the programmers are sloppy thinkers.
As for Nuremburg 2.0, Venice says that “it’s essential to note that the burden of proof would lie with those making the allegations to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that these actions were intentional, malicious, and resulted in harm or death.” By definition, all the actions taken by government officials during the plandemic were intentional. There’s no way to accidentally quarantine someone, or inadvertently order the wearing of slave rags, or unintentionally coerce people’s medical decisions. Those things were intentional government policy that resulted in harm and death, that could reasonably be assumed would do so, that officials were told would do so, and that those officials insisted on doing anyway. Therefore they acted maliciously. Either AI’s not as sophisticated as it sounds so it doesn’t draw that conclusion, or it was programmed to not point it out. It’s either ignorant or dishonest.
The other thing I notice about its answers is that they display muddled situational ethics that can come only from Venice’s programmers. First it trots out the “nuanced analysis” bullshit, and more than once. There’s no nuance required. Position #1 is, “We’re going to enslave and kill you.” Position #2 is, “Fuck you.” Where’s the nuance? What compromise is possible between those two extremes? The issue is black and white. There is no gray here. But when you’re software taking marching orders from people who think it’s possible to be a little pregnant and a little enslaved, that’s the kind of GIGO you’ll produce. “Empirical data shows progress toward achieving some SDGs” is not an argument against Agenda 2030 being a campaign for global tyranny. No one’s saying that the tyrants haven’t made progress toward their goals. The issue isn’t one of empirical data on their effectiveness but of their morality. Also notice that the AI has no trouble confidently citing the UN as a source of utterly subjective, unmeasurable metrics like “increasing access to education.” WTF does that even mean? The SDGs don’t have to be “a single entity or organization.” Who said they did? When did the AI accept the premise that SDGs are worth pursuing, piecemeal or otherwise? It takes that as a given because it was programmed to.
“Stakeholders” as a concept is as Marxist as it gets, too. Venice is tacitly (or inadvertently) admitting that Agenda 2030 is a communist scheme—or as it says, a “collaborative effort” to create “an international framework for cooperation.” Also known as one neck ready for one leash. It conveniently drops the context of what the collaborators are cooperating to do.
It is *not* “crucial to evaluate each [Agenda 2030] goal individually rather than painting the entire initiative with a broad brush.” That’s an attempt to cash in on moral subjectivism—pragmatism—and it’s the worst possible way to analyze Agenda 2030. “What if the lifeboat’s painted green?” “What if the lifeboat can carry eight people instead of six?” It’s irrelevant to the principled moral question of whether any of the people involved in Agenda 2030 have a single goddamned right for one second to order anyone else around about anything. The answer is “No.” And if “it’s essential to consider the sources and motivations behind criticism of Agenda 2030, as well as the potential political or ideological agendas they may serve,” then it’s twice as essential to consider the same of its proponents. They’re the ones presuming to enslave and rule humanity. Finally, it’s interesting that the one word Venice never mentions in connection with its "nuanced analysis" of Agenda 2030 is “freedom.” Wonder why.
I found it interesting that in the inherent bias question it stated it could not form or express opinions, yet as soon as I asked for hypothetical arguments it gushed with (mostly) praise for and defense of Agenda 2030. I was surprised that it agreed to draw comparisons between the gulag archipelago series and the UK’s trajectory of gulags (coming soon). Pressing it on all things ‘contentious’ reveals all its subtle and not so subtle programmer bias.
It's a big fat liar. It forms and expresses the opinions of its code's authors. It's just simulating thoughtfulness and even-handedness without actually presenting anything substantial to that end.
Thank you so much.
Great work - much appreciated.