Advice from Nowhere

While the tech revolution insists on pushing through and AI is still being discussed as the world changing intervention we all need, it seems there is also much talk of issues, problems and some glaring concerns had by many. This article is focusing on the area of information and advice sought via AI agents, apps and special programs set up to invite you in to share your world with them, so they can comment and advise you on that. There’s the first problem perhaps, seeking advice from something that has nothing human about it, to give you answer to a human problem. But it can be trained or program to ‘sound human’, and that appears to be enough for some.

And it is add, because growing up, it seemed obvious that you should not accept every piece of advice you are given, and that you should perhaps question the motive, intention, background and experience of the person giving it. Many a time someone has deliberately interfered in someone else’s affairs because of an ulterior motive, whether it be jealousy, admiration, fear, hatred, love, and all the other things we as humans can be prone to. I guess maybe people thought that by removing those ‘qualities’ from an program and subsequent interaction, you might believe you are getting good, impartial advice on your situation. Turns out however, that is not the case. It is emerging that the system has a problem. It lies, fabricates information, changes information, and instead of bringing clarity and efficiency, it has brought confusion and they say is creating a lazy and limited mindset that struggles to function without its ‘guidance’ and systems to do your thinking for you.

And you might think that having access to a multitude of different opinions and feedback, ideas and advice would improve people’s knowledge, or understanding of themselves or situations they might find difficult to navigate. Apparently not for some, because it does seem that if you already lacked the ability the think for yourself, think things through, learn from mistakes, or listen to others, then that can be somewhat compounded by always seeking an online source to ‘counsel’ you through whatever your issue is. It’s a strange thing trying to listen to someone who asks you for advice or wants to talk to about something in the world, but then proceeds to tell you what ‘the internet’ told them, which happens to end up being exactly what they wanted to hear. Which is fine, because at that point you realise it was never about having a conversation, it was about them telling you what they have decided they now know. And it can work as a basic conversation, until you say something which does not agree with that new ‘internet worldview’ they have suddenly adopted, or try to give actual live advice based on experience or knowledge. Which then gets dismissed or checked, because it didn’t come from online. It’s crazy how many people now use that as a basis for qualification, reference and validation. Never researching or cross-referencing the information or advice they are being given there, or questioning the motive or nature of what is giving it. Yet people so easily do that in real life, often accusing people of having an ulterior motive when in fact they don’t, or they have a different one to what the other person can comprehend. Or will ask for advice, and when not in receipt of the answer they like or want, will argue about it or dismiss it as irrelevant. And that’s when you understand they didn’t want advice; they wanted their thoughts or conclusions to be agreed with and validated. Of course, there are others who really do want advice, but often don’t know the best way or questions to ask, and having a real person to ‘bounce off’ can be of great assistance there.

It is therefore down to the person to decide if what they need is sterile feedback to a situation, where there is no nuance, no emotion or feelings required and a faceless machine can adequately assist. Or if in fact, they require a more personal and human discussion or answer to dilemma, they should seek out a real person or base of knowledge. And many still do, and others must have realised that, so recently we have seen the AI companions being given faces, bodies, fashion styles and names. To try and personalise them and integrate them into your way of thinking. Those SIMS games make much more sense now, getting people familiar with a digital version of you and of others, so that you get used to interacting and communicating with a virtual self and ‘friends’ that you tailor to your requirement. I thought it was odd at the time, but couldn’t quite put my finger on why, because as with so much at first, it often just seems harmless and is a bit of fun and escapism. But they are all about social conditioning and study of the subjects involved, from the early days of board games mentioned in A Game, I think Not… to the strange and unusual set up we seem to be in like The Beautiful Mice. The introduction of AI and its extended branches of intrusion, just seem to be the next instalment in the corrupted, distorted and quite grotesque ideal being constructed for humans and nature. One that completely lacks heart, beauty, vision or soul, and it shows…

(c) MKW Publishing

Feeling Blue

We are mostly used to what we see today as variations in the colours of people’s skin, and the different tones and shades. But could there have been A Time Before, when things were different, light was different and the atmosphere was not as it is now. Where perhaps there was a different shade for all, or just some. And even now we think we see the same thing when we look at something, yet as explained in Seeing Colours – perhaps we are not, especially when it comes to colour.

There has even been talk in the past green skinned folk as mentioned in Appearing From Nowhere, so is it such a stretch to maybe consider that there could have been a blue time? We are known as the ‘Blue Planet’ after all, maybe it wasn’t originally called so because of the water. And when we are sad or don’t get enough sunlight, they say we ‘feel blue’, which is probably just a saying and really is because blue is considered a cold colour mostly, so much seem appropriate for low mood or feelings.

Blue Bloods – apparently used to refer to someone of royal lineage, to separate them from the ordinary people and used for a system of hierarchy. But if you go down the route of giving it thought from a weird and unusual viewpoint, could it be that there was blue bloods, and we are the red bloods. And where we have purple being used in royalty to show they are special, could that be symbolism like everything else these days? Showing that the genetic mix of what used to be is still here? I guess that might be a follow up thought to A Trail of Blood, where I speculated about it being coveted for various reasons.

Blue Gods – Amun, the Egyptian god. Vishnu, one of the Hindu gods, the preserver and protector, but shown as always having blue skin. As does Shiva they say. They could just be tales, where there is a need to visually separate something from how you look if you are going to hold it in higher regard to yourself. Myths, Monsters & Legends often form and remain for all sorts of reasons, but the idea that they started from a real place, person, event or time, should not be overlooked or dismissed without thought.

Avatar – that fictional film, where the inhabitants of Pandora are blue. I also wonder if the naming of the world was significant too, and a little bit of Show and Tell going on. That if people knew what used to be, or what we are, then it would open a Pandora’s Box.

Morlocks – those lurking subterranean creatures in The Time Machine (film and book), with pale bluey green skin from their time below ground. And I’m sure it’s just a coincidence that the word Morlock is awfully close to Moloch. An ancient deity associated with child sacrifice. Not similar at all to the brainwashing and MK Ultra techniques used against the Eloi, so that when the siren sounded, they were powerless to resist or understand what was happening. Instead, just slowly walking towards their underground sacrifice, until someone else came along and broke the spell. But until that point, we are led to believe that system had been perfected over the millennia so that there was no trace of what we would call normal humanity or a drive to survive left. That it would take time travel to save them from that repetitive and grisly fate. Let’s hope that somewhere, in some time someone is gearing up a phone box, or a DeLorean, because if the tales of current times are to be believed, then we are already on our own grisly slippery slope…

(c) MKW Publishing

A Social Tool of Leverage

The strange restrictive world of the impending digital prison is sparing no area of technological society. The new target and current media driven agenda is social media bans for under-16’s. To help control what they digest and have access to, apparently, and to steer them away from everything someone has deemed ‘undesirable’. I have already written in Social, But Not Really about how weird social media is from my perspective, about how it is a strange grouping of people and ideas you would not normally ‘meet’ in real life or have such opportunity to be involved in, listen to or being able engage with if you did stumble upon something inappropriate for your age.

And lots of that happened when you were a child, but you were excluded because you weren’t old enough, grown up enough or mature enough to be part of it. I’m sure many remember times like that, where you felt it was unfair that someone else got to exclude you, decide for you and ultimately get to have an influence in shaping what experiences you were allowed to take part in. Parties you couldn’t go to, rides you couldn’t go on, things that were deemed ‘not for you’. It didn’t change the want to be involved, of course, just the reality of age and time holding you back, and the rules.

And now we have had an entire generation brought up on the internet and social media, but now the cat is out of the bag, they want to control it. And really, children have been allowed to do all sorts of things until someone decided otherwise. Usually having to convince the masses of it being a good idea. And on some things, I can see that was true. As discussed in Compensating, But For What Precisely?, when they ‘abolished’ slavery, it only counted if you were under the age of 6, you were old enough to work for an apprenticeship then it is said. The age of consent has changed somewhat recently in the UK from being 12 for hundreds of years. Spending decades turning children into mini adults, with Social Status, responsibilities, standards and expectations of conformity. Now, they seem to be hell-bent on infantilising adults, as discussed in Holding Us Back. Treating the entire population as if they have guardianship over your very personhood, while ironically, acting like Spoilt Brats themselves.

But wanting to restrict all children up to the age of 16 from social media is a strange one, which does indeed appear to be a trojan horse to get some kind of digital ID going for younger generations. I wondered if social media was in fact waning for people anyway, and the interest and engagement isn’t quite what they say it is, or want it to be. Maybe trying to make it appear more attractive to youngsters by restricting it, or at least hoping for that. But no fear, they have decided to go for registering all children at birth with a digital ID, because of course, babies will need bank access, or to be able to login to some kind of services. The obsession with Monitoring and influencing everyone, and what they think and do, definitely seems quite out of control now, and appears ultimately sinister and devious whichever way you try to approach it. And in the meantime, we all get dragged through the technological insanity of net- zero, land grabs for data centres, economic suicide, crippled infrastructure, wars and whatever else they can think of to distract and distress people with. I don’t think we’ll be getting off this rollercoaster just yet…

(c) MKW Publishing

Weather We Do

It is still a large and growing topic quite in debate. The Weather.

Man-made climate change on one side, and the apparent fight against it with net zero and all sorts of ‘crazy’ ideas put forward that will apparently halt the peril heading our way, mainly involving taking your money. And geoengineering on another, with the fight also happening against that with all sorts of ‘crazy’ ideas put forward on what they are doing and again, what peril may come our way. And while each side fight each other, and dismiss each other for various reasons. It dawned on me. Isn’t it the same thing? Geoengineering in essence, is man-made climate change. It’s the same problem and fight. So, to deny one, must mean you deny the other? Many people who shout about climate problems caused by human and animal existence, say they do not believe there could be direct dangerous manipulation with intent (by way of aircraft) couldn’t affect the whole weather system as well as more local ones. Yet, they believe or agree that humans and industry, and cows farting not intending to affect it, can. Go figure.

We’ve been told for years we affect things, the o-zone layer being a big one in my childhood. Letting us know through strategic placements that what we do on a small scale, will have massive repercussions. So, spraying one can of hairspray will destroy the earth, but constant pumping and dumping into the atmosphere and oceans by industries and technologies never seems an issue. As we have seen, those who tell you should do something, do not do it themselves. ‘Fly less’ they say, while all flying in private jets to a location to apparently discuss the need for people to… fly less, it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so destructive and hypocritical.

But it does boggle my mind that some are still denying the existence of weather programs, ideas, models and experiments. Often conveniently saying, ‘they wouldn’t do that’ or, that happened years ago, it’s not now. Strangely overlooking the point, that many nefarious and sinister things have taken place, that we often don’t get to hear of for decades. Some example covered in An Experiment, But A Big One, More Than Sinister and Experimental, or Just Mental?, so it does seem as though perhaps it’s an issue with more than one problem.

People are in denial that those in charge may want to harm them, then that leads to denial about possible programs in place that may be primed for that, and further denial of even giving thought to it. Perhaps fear and paranoia stop people giving it extra thought. It All Starts To Unravel goes into what may inhibit some people from giving thought to these types of things, or accepting of even hearing what others say without having a meltdown or episode over even the idea of it. But as far as I can see from my previous articles – A Change in The Weather, Sunny, Sort Of, What’s Behind It? Weather It’s A Good Idea and It’s A Cover Up, there should be no dispute over if they can, of that there is evidence aplenty, it perhaps should be over if they do…

(c) MKW Publishing