iHuman is a landmark in documenting interviews and direct quotes on artificial intelligence.
The spoken content of the documentary is produced as a collage of (solely) direct quotes and recordings. There are no comments by the film itself, the topics speak for themselfs. – A great technique, but it entails that the ultimate truth about artificial intelligence is nowhere pronounced :
AI is on the brink to take control over humanity not because humans "lose control to AI" or AI will be a "being not controllable". – To the contrary AI takes control because
• it is never a 'being' (or 'alive')
• it comes with the intended purpose to control humanity (on behalf of someone, you-know-who).
To pronounce things with an exclamation mark where the film left us with a question mark here is the booklet.
In Germany the documentary iHuman (2019, 97min) could be watched as a stream 2020-04-20 to 2020-07-19 at arte.tv, a documentary about the social aspects of so-called Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).
I was appalled by the emotionally paralysing impact of the documentary. Therefore I went through the film multiple times to get (for myself initially) a clear picture.
* * *
Tonje Hessen Schei  has a good sense for finding all the self-exposers of the transhumanism scene. And she does manage it perfectly that these AI priests debunk themselfs in their interview statements.
It would have been enough to add two or three analytic sentences subsequent to each interview to make the dokumentary a more 'coffee-table' contribution to enlightenment. – Of course that is (for artistic reasons) not Tonje Hessen Schei's style.
In consequence she produced a maze of "cosmopolitical discontent" – she produces, to be honest, emotions (that lead actually to nothing).
The wording of the film starts with the biggest lie of the AGI apologists: "We can't control it." – Of course the outcome of the human evolution in general can't be controlled (up to this point). But that's not what is meant here. The AGI mafia tries to reason us into this :
And that's wrong (invalid rather). – But the film doesn't state it expressively. The film mixes up too many different things :
- AGI (neural networks)
- totalitarian surveillance
- autonomous weapons
- manipulation of behavior, thoughts and feelings,
optimised by AI.
Tonje Schei deems it justified to mix the points up because they share a common thread: they are digital technologies, they are frightening, inhumane and socially threatening. – But a shared emotional thread as a topic isn't called documentary, it is called demagoguery (at least there emerges a suspicion).
In fact all the points are propelled by rational, clear interests (of well-known perpetrators), and not by an anonymous "fate" of humanity.
The anonymous "fate" of humanity : What does the "Incarnation of Singularity" and the visualisation stand for? For the Artificial General Intelligence coming into being? – Of course not, that will never happen. It is the totalitarian, everlasting global dominance coming into being, made possible by AI, as it is planned ahead.
(No one believes the "It's alive !"-bullshit Tegmark and Sutskever try to tell us to obfuscate the real plan.  )
Following here the analytic sentences Tonje Hessen Schei didn't have the guts (or the director's style) to pronounce in the film :
1. Max Tegmark
That sentence is wrong. Intelligence is the ability to achieve self-defined goals. – The most basic lie of the whole AGI thing.
Tegmark's 'we can' is nonsense. There is no 'us'. Technology has always been in the hands of the ruling class. Instead of blathering about a 'we', he should ask what the intention of the ruling class with this technology is.
As I said, there is no 'we' and there is no decisionmaking. In history a god has always been a fabricated (fake) god to sanctify the interests of the master class. This time it is not different. Tegmark statements are issued to make people believe and trust in a new (infallible) fake AI-god.
There we are. Tegmark knows very well what happens. Before he belied us (and himself).
2. Ben Goertzel
3. Jürgen Schmidhuber
Well, in biology scientists can't even evoke metabolism in its simplest form, let alone create an alive protozoon from dead matter. In computer science the "creation of life" as well fails at the earliest state: when machine learning has to decide by itself what to learn next. – Everything further is hybris. 
Exactly that is the self-delusion of AI propaganda. Schmidhuber thinks people are too naive to notice he is just pretending. AI not only can't ask questions of its own accord, even AI answers to questions have to be programmed before by humans.
That is not true. The development of AI is not a matter of curiosity. It is under the power of order from the military and security.  The development could be regulated – just as nuclear tests are regulated (stoped) in the atmosphere. But the master class simply doesn't want regulation of its biggest dream of dominance over the people.
4. Ilya Sutskever
The best trick to obfuscate the own base motives and to negate responsibility.
From the perspective of Sutskever's backers fake news are not a problem but the purpose and the means of advanced AI (to control a society). No one will call it 'fake news', no one will become aware it's manipulated.
Only the few news that manage not to be filtered by the 'AGI' will be called fake news (watch today's TV and you know that I mean).
'AGI' is simply the globally forced into line information bubble we are supposed to live in. (Let alone AGI itself as a living being is a fake.)
That's the gist of the matter. The slogan of OpenAI 'We want AI to be good' is deception.
Let us be clear:
• This will be not a "silicon brain", not an "AGI".
• It will be equipped with a friendly soft Siri voice (in all languages) and with a compelling foxy PR strategy – combined with a hidden social scoring system.
• It will be your personalised ultimate knowledge base – combined with the ideology that only one truth exists, the system's truth. (Just as it is already today the case with Wikipedia.)
• It will be NSA raised to the power of n – combined with a personal digital welfare worker, a counsellor for all kinds of life hacks ... and with dragnet investigation.
• It will be your psychiatrist and good friend "just to talk to".
– And Sutskever is payed for making it shine even more by adding an aura from fancy science words.
Today's AI people believe in the Turing test. But the Turing test tells nothing more than 'make-believe and fassade works'. In the end it is all schematism, an illusion. But for dominating people it works.
Skynet thinking (including natural selection) and an AGI ensuring the own survival against humans. – What a bunch of pseudoscience. 
5. Lee Fang and Spencer Woodman
In place of a transcription of more direct quotes in the documentary I list some articles from elsewhere: 
Web links - AI an OpenAI
 Tonje Hessen Schei of course wants to keep working and to direct further documentary films. Therefore the frank words of this tie-in booklet are not authorised by Tonje Hessen Schei. The above comments for the film (the film itself is produced in no-comment style) are of my own and independent.
If you want to see Tonje Hessen Schei speaking for herself watch the Q&A video (2015) about her documentary DRONE.
 "It's alive !" – The scream in the famous Frankenstein scene is frightening rather, but magnetic to self-exposers.
 My transcription of interviews is based on the German translation of the documentary. So it is not literally in some cases.
 Socio-Singularity see Ben Goertzel's Website
 'So spricht Hybris im Gewand der Demut' is an apt verdict on Jürgen Schmidhuber by Ursula Scheer – FAZ.
 I analysed the power of order over AI in my essay 'The fate named artificial intelligence' (2015). There you can find the truth Tonje Hessen Schei is five years later not allowed to tell.
 Even though Elon Musk left OpenAI he is still working on the idea of the "Neural Link" (chips as brain implants). At a 2h-talk (2020-05-07) Musk says people will be able to communicate without voicing words so the communication can go much faster. – My comment: Humans can't process meanings in sentences much faster than the words are voiced (especially in long sequences). And repetition by voicing words is a main factor of learning (also of adult persons). Therefore Musk's statement the human language will be obsolete is pure nonsense. (Not to mention that most thoughts of humans are strictly meant for not being heared by others.) – For helping people with disabilities Neural Link could be indeed big progress.
 I described in my essay 'The myth of artificial superintelligence' (2015) how laughable the assumption is, an AGI could "act" self-sufficient.
 My booklet is focused on the worldview aspects of AI, not technical application. The following great articles don't need my comment anyway.
- theintercept.com/ .. Drone Wars
- theintercept.com/ .. Military-Tech Complex
- theintercept.com/ .. Palantir and Trump’s deportation machine
- Lee Fang (Twitter)
- thenextweb.com/ .. Palantir took over Project Maven