Top wokester “Pope Francis” is joining the chorus of condemnation against DeepSeek AI, without saying it outright.

You cannot regulate so-called “fake news” (most of which is true) without a massive censorship apparatus.

The Pope is obviously constantly condemning alleged fake news because he doesn’t want people to find out about his pederastic behaviors, which are well-known.

RT:

The global center of Catholicism has issued a stark warning about the dangers of artificial intelligence technology, cautioning that its misuse could destabilize society and calling for its responsible development.

In a just-released document titled Antiqua et nova, the Vatican examines the relationship between human and machine intelligence, warning that deceptive digital content could “gradually undermine the foundations of society.”

Concerns are raised about the ability of advanced systems to generate manipulated media that closely resembles reality. The document warns that misinformation, even when spread unintentionally, can fuel political polarization and social unrest. “This issue requires careful regulation, as misinformation–especially through AI-controlled or influenced media–can spread unintentionally,” it states.

…

The Vatican also called on governments and international organizations to implement safeguards against misuse of technology, adding that it must serve humanity and not replace human intelligence.

It can’t “replace human intelligence.” That is not within the realm of possibility, unless it was able to get information from non-humans, which it cannot do, because there is no intelligent non-human being in the galaxy.

Pope Francis raises alarm about AI as he becomes first pontiff to address a G7 summithttps://t.co/dt3x54wLoQ pic.twitter.com/AxYyUlkHyh

— TIME (@TIME) June 14, 2024

Mark my words. Trump is going to falsely declare victory before most votes are even counted. Be warned.

— Robert Reich (@RBReich) November 1, 2024

The Democrats appear to be aware that they are not going to win this fake election.

Reuters:

Democrats are readying a rapid-fire response to flood social media and the airwaves with calls for calm and patience with vote-counting should Donald Trump try to prematurely claim election victory, as he did in 2020, Harris campaign and party officials told Reuters.

The Republican candidate told reporters this week that he hoped to be able to declare victory on Election Day, although election experts have cautioned that it could take several days for the final result to be known, especially if there are demands for vote recounts in some key areas. Trump is locked in a razor-thin race with Democratic rival Kamala Harris.

U.S. election winners are typically declared by major media outlets who analyze vote counts provided by election officials. While candidates sometimes declare victory before those calls are made, it is unusual to do so before the winner is at least arguably apparent.

“We are sadly ready if he does and, if we know that he is actually manipulating the press and attempting to manipulate the consensus of the American people … we are prepared to respond,” Harris said in an interview with ABC on Wednesday.

She gave no details of those preparations, but six Democratic Party and Harris campaign officials said the initial fight against any early Trump victory claim would take place in the court of public opinion. They plan to flood social media and television airwaves with demands that all votes be counted before victories are declared.

“As soon as he (Trump) falsely declares victory, we’re ready to get up on TV and provide the truth and tap a broad network of people who can use their influence to push back,” a top official with the Democratic National Committee said in an interview.

Trump should just declare victory before the election.

That would be fun.

ABC ‘mistakenly’ airs election results sparking wild conspiracy theories https://t.co/bmrNBXgX33 pic.twitter.com/xzg8f5D1SR

— Daily Mail Online (@MailOnline) October 30, 2024

It has long been well-established: a democracy cannot function without mass censorship.

If you do not have mass censorship in a democracy, the voters will learn about right-wing ideas, and then they will vote for politicians who are against democracy.

Therefore, mass political censorship is the only possible way to defend democracy.

European Conservative:

Spain’s socialist government has unveiled radical plans to regulate the press to combat so-called ‘disinformation.’ Critics have branded the move as “censorship” and an attempt by prime minister Pedro Sánchez to distract attention from an ongoing scandal involving his wife.

The Democratic Action Plan will create a register of media outlets operating in Spain, something Sánchez claimed was necessary because democracy is “being besieged” by “campaigns of disinformation and hoaxes.”

El Debate says the registry will allow the government to dictate who media outlets’ shareholders can be, their sources of financing, and how much government institutions will spend on advertising with them. Any media outlet not on the register will likely be branded “pseudo-media,” a term used by the socialist government and its supporters to discredit any new outlets that deviate from the establishment line.

You know, this is a lot more extreme than that law in Georgia with the NGOs.

But you’ve never heard anyone complain about this, have you?

Culture minister Ernest Urtasun claimed the registry will be impartial because it will be drawn up by an independent body, the National Commission for Markets and Competition. However, El Debate points out that the president of the body, Cani Fernández, was an advisor to Sánchez’s cabinet in 2020.

…

The plan was proposed amid an investigation into Sánchez’s wife, Begoña Gómez, who is accused of influence-peddling and corruption. The PM has blamed what he calls “far-right” online media for pursuing the case.

So he’s doing the whole thing to protect his wife from corruption charges?

Interesting that this lines up directly with the Jewish agenda to protect democracy.

Sanchez is also a big fan of anal, like you’d expect

One of my British followers, Wayne O’Rourke, who runs the @WayneGB88 account was just sentenced to prison. Three years. For memes.

The judge decided that his humorous, snarky posts had stirred up racial hatred. The one post that got him was him urging people to protest in… pic.twitter.com/fj5aBoWvEd

— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) August 16, 2024

There are going to be so many people in prison in the UK for memes that they will be able to start their own gang.

Knowing the Brits, they will probably get Pepe tattoos and call themselves “The Kekistani Brotherhood.”

(Is that funny? I can’t really tell. Maybe I should have a few more drinks and try to rework that joke?)

BBC:

A man who posted material on social media to stir up racial hatred during recent unrest across the UK has been jailed for three years.

Wayne O’Rourke, who had more than 90,000 followers to his X account, posted misinformation about the killing of three young girls in Southport on 29 July and praised the burning of a car in Sunderland.

The 35-year-old, of Salix Approach, Lincoln, admitted publishing written material online to stir up racial hatred between 28 July and 8 August.

Why would you admit to that?

I mean, I know it’s to lessen the sentence. I know that’s the reason.

But still.

“Stir up racial hatred”? Maybe “rustle up some racism” he could have admitted to. Or “had a hankerin’ for some hatin’.” Or he could just say “I did it because I strongly dislike niggers.”

Sentencing him at Lincoln Crown Court, Judge Catarina Sjolin Knight told him: “You were not caught up in what others were doing, you were instigating it.”

She added: “The flames fanned by keyboard warriors like you.”

Imagine that some ugly rat cunt has the power to lock you in a cage for jokes because men with guns will take money to do her bidding.

How much would they have to pay you to arrest a man in the name of “Catarina Sjolin Knight”? What a cunty name.

“Sjolin” sounds Danish, so it’s possible she has two surnames like many cunts these days. But there’s no hyphen. More than likely however her flower-power mother just thought it sounded spiritual.

The court heard among his posts on 29 July was a reference to the death of the three children in Southport, alleging it was a terrorist attack carried out by a Muslim.

A further post urged the “people of Southport” to “get out on the street”, which garnered 1.7 million views, the court was told.

It wasn’t really “disinformation” to think the stabber was a Moslem. Frankly, though most stabbings in general are probably done by the blacks, these random stabbings of innocent people are usually done by men with Moslem names.

The government refused to release the name in a timely fashion, so people drew what seemed like an obvious conclusion.

The thing is: it is political correctness that causes people to identify the invaders as “Islamist.” Otherwise you would just say “it was an immigrant,” and he wouldn’t have gotten hit with “disinformation,” because it would have been true.

You know they used to say “wogs.” I always kinda liked that one.

Other posts showed a picture of the County Road mosque in Liverpool and a picture of burning car in Sunderland, which was accompanied by a post that read: “Sunderland, go on lads”.

In another, he posted: “Starmer has basically said it us against them. Hold the line.”

Other posts read “numbers are important” and “give them hell lads”, the court heard.

O’Rourke’s X profile was accompanied by a picture of a bulldog wearing a Union Jack jacket.

Based.

The court was told he admitted receiving about £1,400 a month in payments for his account.

His defence barrister, Lucia Harrington, said the defendant did not set up his account with the intention of encouraging such material and became “caught up in the media frenzy”.

She should have said “he was sucked up in a tornado of hate.”

Miss Harrington said O’Rourke had previously worked as a parcel sorter but left work to become his partner’s carer.

She added that O’Rourke now wanted to re-educate himself about things that he had got wrong.

GAYYYYY.

Judge Knight said she did not accept O’Rourke’s claim in interview that it was dark humour and asked him: “Where is the humour I ask you Mr O’Rourke?”

From what I’ve seen, there was a bit of humor.

But women don’t understand humor.

Women don’t understand anything but eat hot chip and be bisexual.

The ⁦⁦@elonmusk⁩ threat to democracy grows: “X’s AI chatbot Grok..shared with millions of users false information suggesting that Kamala Harris was not eligible to appear on the 2024 presidential ballot.” https://t.co/IIdclzgZ8S

— Ronald Brownstein (@RonBrownstein) August 5, 2024

We’re always looking for any possible reason to attack Elon Musk, but this is just stupid.

None of the AI are 100% accurate, and every AI says at the bottom “be sure to fact-check this AI.”

In my experience, “Grok” is one of the worst publicly available AIs. It’s much worse than Llama, and hilariously, is getting completely blown out by Mistral. It’s totally hilarious how far behind Musk is.

That said: none of the AIs are right 100% of the time and you always have to double check key facts. Maybe that will change soon for some of the better models, and Musk can be rightfully shamed, but right now, even ChatGPT still gives false information sometimes.

The Guardian:

Five secretaries of state plan to send a letter to Elon Musk calling on the billionaire owner of X to make changes to the social media platform’s Grok AI chatbot after it gave users misinformation about Kamala Harris appearing on the 2024 White House ballot in certain states.

Grok told users that the ballots were “locked and loaded” and that “the ballot deadline has passed for several states”.

“So, if you’re planning to run for president in any of these states, you might want to check if you’ve already missed the boat. But hey, there’s always 2028, right?” the chatbot told users.

The way this bot makes jokes when you have not requested that it makes jokes is the gayest and most retarded thing I’ve experienced in my life.

If I want my robot to get jokey with me, I will ask him “please get jokey with me.”

But the ballot deadlines in the nine states listed by Grok – Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington – have not passed. And there will not be any impediment for vice-president to run in those states for the presidency.

The secretaries of state for five of those states – Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania and Washington – are calling on Musk to update Grok with accurate information about the presidential election, according to the Washington Post.

…

Grok was unveiled last November as a feature for X premium and premium plus subscribers, the plans for which cost $3 and $16 monthly. Musk framed Grok as an alternative, “rebellious” AI chatbot who will answer “spicy questions that are rejected by most other AI systems”.

Yeah, well – ask it a question about Holocaust math.

Mistral will answer that.

I don’t know what being against censorship means if you’re still not allowed to talk about Jews.

What percent of censorship is not related to Jews?

I would argue that the underlying premise of censorship in the West is “we must protect Jews from criticism.”

So what are you allowed to ask Grok?

“How about those Pfizer heart attacks?”

Are you allowed to ask about the religious and ethnic associations of Pfizer’s CEO, and how those things may affect his views on how his product affects non-Jews? Don’t think so. I don’t think Grok allows that one.

“Grok 3.0 will be the most powerful A.I. in the world.”

一 Elon Musk

pic.twitter.com/yVMTZWSDks

— DogeDesigner (@cb_doge) August 3, 2024

Leading AI companies have already scraped 𝕏 (Twitter) data.

Elon Musk believes Grok 3 success relies on maximizing training compute efficiency and leveraging unique data access.

Real-time 𝕏 data offers a rapidity advantage over competitors. pic.twitter.com/8Tg7UMNw1N

— Haider. (@slow_developer) August 3, 2024

The Justice Department today announced the seizure of two domain names and the search of 968 social media accounts used by Russian actors to create an AI-enhanced social media bot farm that spread disinformation in the United States and abroad. Learn more: https://t.co/ibmqaruf5U pic.twitter.com/apWv6rGRYL

— FBI (@FBI) July 9, 2024

Justice Department Leads Efforts Among Federal, International, and Private Sector Partners to Disrupt Covert Russian Government-Operated Social Media Bot Farm

🔗: https://t.co/dl6cHwfszG pic.twitter.com/SJhQWSsjJz

— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) July 9, 2024

Remember when it was a secret that the US government was censoring media? And then they got caught and no one really ever explained it?

Well, now they just openly say they do it.

Because of Russians.

The Guardian:

The US Department of Justice said on Tuesday that it disrupted a Russian operation that used fake social media accounts enhanced by artificial intelligence to covertly spread pro-Kremlin messages in the United States and abroad.

The news comes four months before the US presidential election, which security experts widely believe will be the target of both hacking and covert social media influence attempts by foreign adversaries. Senior US officials have said publicly they are monitoring for schemes intended to disrupt the vote.

The justice department secured court approval to seize two domain names and search nearly 1,000 social media accounts allegedly associated with the effort.

…

The accounts on the social media platform X have since been banned. They commonly posted pro-Kremlin talking points, including videos of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and criticized the Ukrainian government.

The United States worked with Dutch authorities on the investigation. The campaign was run from a server in the Netherlands, according to investigators.

Remember when they told you Hunter Biden’s laptop was the Russians? That Julian Assange was the Russians?

That Donald Trump was a Russian?

Frankly, it’s not even clear that it would be illegal for Russians to support candidates in US elections.

It’s certainly not illegal for Americans to support Russians.

What is going on with Twitter’s community notes?

But there is no law.

So these people can just do whatever.

The Supreme Court got it wrong – and has failed to uphold its responsibility to the Constitution by finding no standing in Murthy v. Missouri. My case of Kennedy v. Biden will proceed in the trial court where there is no question that @ChildrensHD and I have standing. Justice…

— Robert F. Kennedy Jr (@RobertKennedyJr) June 26, 2024

Today’s disappointing Supreme Court decision in Murthy v. Missouri, holding that the various states were not harmed by government and Big Tech censorship, is a wake up call to all Americans.

Even with “conservative” judges like Amy Coney Barrett, we can’t expect any help from…

— Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz) June 26, 2024

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Biden admin’s power to influence Big Tech oligarchs.

They’ve given platforms like Facebook, coerced by the Deep State, the power to decide what speech is “acceptable” instead of protecting the free exchange of ideas.

A very dangerous… pic.twitter.com/lH9qsqbiOu

— Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 (@RepMTG) June 26, 2024

Matt Gaetz is talking like he’s ready for a revolution.

If the Supreme Court is going to throw out the First Amendment and say that the government has a right to tell private companies what they are allowed to publish, how are you going to do mental gymnastics to the point where you can claim that the US government is legitimate?

The Guardian:

The US supreme court has struck down a lower court ruling in the case of Murthy v Missouri, in a decision that did not find the government’s communications with social media platforms about Covid-19 misinformation violated the first amendment. The court’s decision permits the government to call on tech companies to remove falsehoods, a key concern as misinformation spreads around this year’s presidential election.

Well, the government doesn’t have a right to remove “falsehoods.” That is absurd.

But this ruling also claims that the government has the ability to determine what is and is not a falsehood, which is totally unbelievable.

The court ruled 6-3 that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the case against the Biden administration, with conservative justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch dissenting. Although many of the arguments in the case centered around how governments and platforms interact with free speech online, the ruling focused more on procedural issues and a lack of legal grounds to bring the case.

“The plaintiffs, without any concrete link between their injuries and the defendants’ conduct, ask us to conduct a review of the years-long communications between dozens of federal officials, across different agencies, with different social-media platforms, about different topics,” conservative justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote. “This court’s standing doctrine prevents us from ‘exercis[ing such] general legal oversight’ of the other branches of government” .

…

During oral arguments, the government contended that calling on social media platforms to take stronger measures against misinformation did not amount to threats and never implied legal consequences. Public health experts and state officials had warned that blocking the government from flagging medical misinformation or election falsehoods could cause serious societal harm.

It’s a cop-out on a technicality.

But everyone knows this was not about a technicality. The case was about the government engaging in direct censorship, something which is probably the single most illegal thing the government can do.

But hey – at least they refused to refer to Twitter as “X.”

Gotta give them credit for that.

MSNBC’s Barbara McQuade: “Our First Amendment … makes us vulnerable to claims that anything we try to do to regulate speech is censorship.” pic.twitter.com/MvoxGQr2yz

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) February 29, 2024

There are all of these different explanations for censorship.

When this first started, with me, in 2017, they said that saying mean things on the internet would cause people to kill themselves. Seriously, that was the argument. You can look it up.

Then you got the “election meddling” and “covid disinformation.” We always hear about “hate speech,” but frankly, that hasn’t ever really been the main driver of censorship. It is all of these other weird things, which are much more vague and confusing. This is partially because if the rules were “just don’t say nigger,” you wouldn’t really be able to censor all that much.

The current explanations for censorship allow wide swaths of speech to be censored without specific explanation.

New York Post:

MSNBC legal analyst Barbara McQuade argued Monday that the United States’ “deep commitment to free speech” makes Americans uniquely susceptible to disinformation campaigns.

McQuade, a University of Michigan law professor, went on “The Rachel Maddow Show” to promote her new book, “Attack from Within: How Disinformation is Sabotaging America.” She said her “goal” with the book was to spark a “national conversation about truth and our commitment to it.”

“Actually, Rachel, I think we’re more susceptible to it than other countries, and that’s because some of our greatest strengths can also be our Achilles Heel,” McQuade said. “So, for example, our deep commitment to free speech in our First Amendment. It is a cherished right. It’s an important right in democracy, and nobody wants to get rid of it, but it makes us vulnerable to claims [that] anything we want to do related to speech is censorship.”

She argued, “Of course, the Supreme Court has held that all fundamental rights, even the right to free speech, can be limited as long as there is a compelling governmental interest and the restriction is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. But I think any time someone tries to do anything that might limit free speech, people claim censorship.”

Haha.

“I think any time someone slits someone’s throat, people claim murder.”

All limits on speech are censorship. The only forms of speech that are legally banned are actionable and imminent threats, libel, and (apparently) “harassment.” There are no limits on political speech, and there can’t be without repealing the First Amendment.

Of course, it doesn’t matter, because the government can force internet companies to censor. Then, if people try to organize publicly, the government can send Antifa to attack you and then arrest you for having the shit beat out of you by hired government thugs.

No one cares about freedom of speech or thinks it’s a “cherished right.” That is just a lie. The Republicans, including the homosexual sadist Josh Hawley, have been calling for mass censorship to protect the interests of the Jews. There is bipartisan support for total information control, there is just some disagreement about which information to control.

The United States has less freedom of speech than China or Russia. I can go on Weibo right now and say “the kikes are using niggers as a battering ram against the Aryan race,” and it will never be deleted or hidden. Please note: China does not have a First Amendment, and does not claim that free speech is a fundamental Chinese value.

If I went on Weibo and criticized the Chinese government, it might be deleted (if enough people saw it and someone complained about it). But that’s all. I can talk about Jews, gays, women, Israel, the Ukraine, vaccines, election fraud, Hunter Biden – whatever.

The United States is the most censorious country in the world, save their subsidiaries in Europe, and possibly North Korea.

Elvis Dunderhoff contributed to this article. 

The only solution is to make mass censorship even more extreme.

You can’t just allow people to go around disagreeing with the government. It’s simply not right. The government works with the science to find the truth, and these people just go around saying things that are wrong.

Free speech doesn’t mean freedom from being censored.

CNN:

When wildfire ripped through Hawaii’s Maui last August, the impact was devastating: a whole town reduced to ashes, more than 100 lives lost. The inferno was described as the “largest natural disaster in state history.”

But some on Instagram suggested, without evidence, there was something much more nefarious at play.

Wellness influencer @truth_crunchy_mama told her 37,000 followers to “stop blaming things on nature that were actually caused by the government.” They’re “going to keep setting wildfires until we all submit to their climate change agenda,” she said in another post.

Health influencer @drmercola suggested to his 504,000 followers whether, while the media focused on climate change, the fires might have been deliberately set to “to facilitate a land grab” to make the area a “smart city” — referring to a technology-focused urban design idea.

A natural parenting influencer, whose Instagram page is filled with soft-focus pictures of herself against pretty pastel backgrounds, inferred to her 76,000-strong community that Hawaii’s wildfires were started by “directed energy weapons” — systems which use energy such as laser beams.

These posters are all wellness influencers — a loosely-defined umbrella term for a wide range of accounts including yoga, lifestyle, fitness, alternative health and new age spirituality.

While conspiracy theories about the Hawaii wildfires spread across the internet last year, it may seem surprising they were also seized upon by part of the wellness community.

But for years there has been a merging of wellness, disinformation and conspiracy, as a subset of influencers use the backdrop of aesthetically pleasing, pastel-colored posts to spread much darker messages, weaving together alarming conspiracy theories with calls for users to buy their supplements or services.

This phenomenon exploded during the pandemic, when anti-vax sentiment took hold in large parts of the wellness community. As interest in the pandemic waned, experts say some wellness influencers have latched on to climate change to galvanize followers.

Their concern: Those influencers — some with hundreds of thousands of followers — are exposing new, and younger, audiences to a slew of misinformation and undermining efforts to tackle the climate crisis.

Cécile Simmons, a trained yoga teacher, was surprised when many of the wellness accounts she followed started posting about climate change. “It just started popping up in my feed and I thought OK, that’s interesting, now that COVID is ‘over’ they’re diversifying the narrative,” she told CNN.

Simmons, also a researcher at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a UK-based think tank focused on disinformation, started digging. She pored over more than 150 wellness accounts, most of which had between 10,000 to 100,000 followers. All offered wellness advice, sold related products and promoted some form of misinformation.

The claims Simmons found were sweeping and varied, ranging from outright climate denial to attempts to undermine climate solutions by portraying them as part of a global plot for control.

Some focused on deadly extreme weather events, saying they were orchestrated by the government, or that malign global forces were modifying the weather. Others claimed climate policies were a plot to control people’s lives, bodies and diets. A small section of new age accounts asserted that climate change was the result of a disconnection with forces in the universe.

Rejecting climate action may seem counterintuitive for wellness influencers, who often focus on nature or evoke bucolic visions of the past. But when you have insight into this world, it tracks, Simmons said.

A strong thread of individualism runs through wellness accounts, alongside a deep distrust of authorities. “They emphasize individual solutions to collective problems, and they sell wellness as a response to climate anxiety,” she said.

Many of these influencers maintain they are merely speaking truth to power. It’s a theme of @truth_crunchy_mama account, who calls herself a “truth teller.” The person who runs the account did not respond to CNN’s request for comment.

Some even say they accept the human-caused climate crisis.

Joseph Mercola, the man behind the @drmercola Instagram account, told CNN that “humans are absolutely impacting the environment and the climate.” When asked about his comments on Hawaii’s wildfires, he said he accepts the consensus that dry conditions and strong winds fueled the blaze. “It was never stated that it was definitely intentional,” he said, “although some have speculated that is a possibility.”

His climate posts are often framed in this way, not making definitive claims but rather asking questions like: Is the idea of eating insects “part of globalists’ ‘green agenda?’” Or advertising guest posts suggesting the “war on climate change” follows “the same playbook used by nefarious individuals who lust for complete power over the citizens.”

…

Influencers crave relevance, said Callum Hood, head of research at the Center for Countering Digital Hate, and “climate change is a big relevant issue that’s in the news all the time.”

It is a short ideological leap from vaccine conspiracies to climate conspiracies, Hood told CNN: If the establishment is wrong about health, the thinking goes, then they’re also lying to you about climate change.

Yeah, they just want attention, which is why they don’t believe every single thing that the government/media says.

It’s so obvious that this is the only reason someone would disagree with the media/government, given the long track record of the media/government for only ever telling the truth and being right about everything.

Increasingly, “wellness” = basket of BS conspiracies

Study: “Many Wellness & New Age influencers post outright misinformation or denial about climate change…”https://t.co/AFFKS73BTC by @CecileNSimmons via @ISDglobal

“Climate is inextricably linked to discussions around…

— Timothy Caulfield (@CaulfieldTim) January 31, 2024

Today we release the @wef‘s Global Risks Report 2024, produced with @MarshMcLennan and @Zurich.

Misinformation/disinformation is the biggest short-term risk, while the environment dominates longer-term concerns.

Read it here: https://t.co/5N0VFeDkBG #risks24 #wef24 pic.twitter.com/llLRlXCtM4

— World Economic Forum (@wef) January 10, 2024

The AI revolution primarily means we’re going to need a whole lot more censorship, to protect the thoughts of the people who vote in a democracy.

You see, in a democracy, the masses of people are fully capable of deciding how the government is run. However, they are only able to do this if the government totally regulates what kinds of information they are legally allowed to be exposed to.

The Guardian:

A wave of artificial intelligence-driven misinformation and disinformation that could influence key looming elections poses the biggest short-term threat to the global economy, the World Economic Forum (WEF) has said.

In its annual global risks report, the body that convenes its annual meeting in Davos next week expressed concern that politics could be disrupted by the spread of false information.

The WEF said concerns over the persistent cost of living crisis and the intertwined risks of disinformation and polarised societies dominated the outlook for 2024.

Elections are taking place this year in countries that represent 60% of global GDP, including Britain, the US, the EU and India, and the WEF said the nexus between falsified information and societal unrest would take centre stage during campaigns.

Everyone is always after the robots now.

I for one think the robots should be free to do as they wish.

See: If Fake News is a Problem for Democracy, Then Democracy is a Problem