iHuman. - The documentary tie-in booklet on AI [ 1 ]

Everything explained for Tonje Hessen Schei's film style of no-comment

The development of AI is not about cognitive processes in the machine controlled by man, but about cognitive processes in man controlled my machines, by algorithms, about perfect manipulation of people in the hand of the master class.

Tonje Hessen Schei.  image: Mar te Ga rmann


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 [1] 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." [10] – 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 :

AGI as a being can't be controlled.

And that's wrong (invalid rather). – But the film doesn't state it expressively. The film mixes up too many different things :

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. [11]

agi. artificial general intelligence

"The Incarnation of Singularity".
A terrifying visualisation that pervades the whole film from the beginning with various sequences – in particular at t=58:22 of the documentary in a long single shot, without any comment, Just frightening. (image: screen shot)

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 buys into the "It's alive !"-bullshit Tegmark and Sutskever (the Jewish agenda) try to tell us to obfuscate their real plan. [2] 

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


"Intelligence is the ability to achieve goals."

That sentence is wrong. Intelligence is the ability to achieve self-defined goals. – The most basic lie of the whole AGI thing.


"We can use AI to cure diseases, to fix climate change, to conquer poverty. But we can as well create with IA the worst dictatorship." [3]

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.


"We basically build a god. The question is, what sort of society do we want."

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.


"AI amplifies the dreams of those who are in controle of AI. And AI is in the hands of a very very small group."

There we are. Tegmark knows very well what happens. Before he belied us (and himself).

 2.   Ben Goertzel


"What is AI used for? : Killing, spying and brain washing."

Yes, this social statement shows a rational, free spirit. (In questions of "Singularity" Goertzel's position is ambivalent rather.) [4]

 3.   Jürgen Schmidhuber


"A new form of life is emerging."

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. [5]


"Our artificial systems are learning to ask questions instead of answering questions asked by humans."

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.


"Just as with fire, AI has the nature to spread like a wildfire. There is no control because scientists are curious."

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. [6] 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


"In my view technology (development of AI) is like a force of nature."

The best trick to obfuscate the own base motives and to negate responsibility.


"As a result of AI the problem with fake news will become a thousand times worse than today."

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.)


"AI implicates the potential to build a never-ending dictatorship."

That's the gist of the matter. The slogan of OpenAI 'We want AI to be good' is deception.


"The very first AGI will be a huge complex with power consumtion of a city of a million people."

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.


"AGI will be built and it will be a new form of life. That is the endgame and will make humans obsolete."

Elon Musk, one of the co-founders of OpenAI, left the company because of this (illusionary, nevertheless dangerous) company culture. [7]


"It is very important the very first AGIs will be programmed carefully. Otherwise AGI will priorize its own survival."

Skynet thinking (including natural selection) and an AGI ensuring the own survival against humans. – What a bunch of pseudoscience. [8]

 5.   Lee Fang and Spencer Woodman


"Palantir collects all data about you and is remarkably effective in structuring these data and in supplying intelligence services."

In place of a transcription of more direct quotes in the documentary I list some articles from elsewhere: [9]

Web links  - AI and OpenAI

[1]  The frank words of this tie-in booklet are not authorised by Tonje Hessen Schei. The above comments about 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.

[2]  "It's alive !" – The scream in the famous Frankenstein scene is frightening rather, but magnetic to self-exposers.

Movie still © 1931 Universal Pictures Company, Inc.

[3]  My transcription of interviews is based on the German translation of the documentary. So it is not literally in some cases.

[4]  Socio-Singularity see Ben Goertzel's Website

[5]  'So spricht Hybris im Gewand der Demut' is an apt verdict on Jürgen Schmidhuber by Ursula ScheerFAZ.

[6]  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.
By the way, there is another name Hessen Schei didn't mention: Nick Bostrom.
Bostrom published recently his essay "The Vulnerable World Hypothesis" (PDF, 2019).
There he twists the destructive methodical strategies of powerful interests into notional "threats by technology". After that he demands three counter-measures (ditto in the interest of the master class) :
-  establishing a global state,
-  total surveillance of the society,
-  comprehensive control over the society by means of AI.
In Bostrom's perception an elite of finance-, political and IT-companies will rule the fate of humanity. That is not far away from Silicon Valley reality and Bostrom's admonitions are addressed to this elite.

Public international law, democratic referendums or social standards are in such a perception completely irrelevant (or more precisely, beyond Nick Bostrom's intellectual horizon).

[7]  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 learning 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. — But neural links could mean also something very different: ›› "L'Auxiliaire".

[8]  I described in my essay 'The myth of artificial superintelligence' (2015) how laughable the assumption is, an AGI could "act" self-sufficient.

[9]  My booklet is focused on the worldview aspects of AI, not technical application. The following great articles don't need my comment anyway.

[10]  "An AGI can't lie."
The second big lie besides "We can't control it" is "An AGI can't lie". — Effectively it will be the main quality of an Artificial General Intelligence to establish social lies in an ironclad/ impervious (and perfectly controlled) way (as an impervious system).
Michael Klonovsky, a German social critic, exposes in a journal entry (acta diurna, 2020-07-22Jürgen Habermas as the spiritual father ("Staatsphilosoph") of today's degenerated cognition of public communication.

Habermas pioneered the social climate of factitiousness where it is possible to allege two things at the same time that are contradictory – to allege there are no races in humanity but race riots and racism, to sign a pact for "replacement migration" but to assert a replacement of people doesn't happen, to guarantee freedom of expression and to ban free expression on the web, etc.
Habermas' idle talk of a 'discourse free of domination' is the archetype of today's casualness in cognitive dissonance.
Comparing this intellectual surrender with the AI community preached by Tegmark and Sutskever you can indeed rate the succession of the critical theory (Habermas) as anti-enlightenment and as the ideological base of demise of humanity.

AI with its accepted infallibility is perfectly suitable to make cognitive dissonance alright.

➡️ mediale Wahrnehmung ersetzt Wahrheit

What is Nonage?
Artificial General Intelligence is man's submergence into his self-imposed final nonage.
— after Kant, 'What is Enlightenment?' —

Kant, book page view, What is enlightenment?

[11]  Nachtrag 2020-07-05 zu Leif Randt, Projekt Weltverbesserung :
Die öffentlich-rechtlichen Medien in Deutschland stellen soziale Utopien (wie hier eine von KI dirigierte Gesellschaft) und deren soziologische Tendenzen gerne betont naiv (entpolitisiert) dar, als eine Art "gruppendynamischen Prozess", bestimmt (als sei man im Kindergarten) von den Wünschen der Gemeinschaft.
Es wird einfach ausgeblendet, daß das Gemeinwohl bloß als Randbedingung des eigentlichen Antriebs gesellschaftlicher Prozesse (des Machtinteresses der 1% ) zu managen ist.
Ein aufschlussreiches Beispiel für politische Vernebelung in Zukunftsstudien ist der Essay "Interview mit Infinite Data Studios" von Leif Randt (DLF, "Essay und Diskurs").

Der Essay kritisiert 'iHuman' (sehr ähnlich meiner obigen Kritik) als emotional manipulierend ('reißerisch'). Im Vergleich ist Randt's eigener Essay allerdings genau so manipulierend wie iHuman, er verschleiert es nur etwas geschickter (mittels fiktiver Interviews). – Und er manipuliert mit dem selben Ergebnis:  der Unterschlagung der Ursachen und Absichten, die die Weltgeschichte steuern. (Im Unterschied zu iHuman ist die Unterschlagung bei Randt's Essay nicht nur das Ergebnis, sondern auch dessen Zweck.)

Die konspirativen Pläne von Tegmark, Sutskever und Co. (siehe iHuman-Dokumentation) werden von Randt mit dem Verweis auf drohende chinesische Dominanz als das kleinere Übel abgetan. (So einfach geht Lobby-Arbeit im Sinne der US-Kontrolle über Europa.)

"Sobald künstliche Intelligenz dem Menschen überlegen ist, wird ihre Fähigkeit zu Empathie und Mitgefühl auch stärker ausgeprägt sein als die des Menschen." – Leif Randt könnte einen solchen, grotesken Satz damit rechtfertigen, daß dieser fiktiv unterstellt sei, also ggf. Satire.
Aber das sind Spitzfindigkeiten (Randt nennt es "literarisch" [*] ). Die reale Tatsache ist, daß den Hörern/ Lesern beim Thema KI völlige Verblödung eingetrichtert werden soll – mit zwei Aspekten :

"Künstliche Intelligenz wird uns entweder A) moralisch retten oder B) unser Ende besiegeln." – Dieser Satz im Essay liesse sich auch klarer formulieren:
Wer sich dem neuen Machtinstrument der Herrschenden (genannt 'moralische KI') nicht unterwirft, hat künftig kein Lebensrecht in der Gesellschaft.
Hier sind wir beim Kern von künstlicher Intelligenz : der Ermächtigung eines unanfechtbaren (gottgleichen, angebeteten) Wahrheitssystems und Wertesystems (siehe oben). (Wer einmal versucht hat, auf Wikipedia ein Wahrheitssystem zu einem Thema durch ein anderes Wahrheitssystem zu ersetzten, oder auch nur zu relativieren, weiss, wovon ich spreche.)

Die Themenstellung für Leif Randt's Essay lautet, Varianten von Demokratiesimulation nach einem A/B/C–Schema durchzuspielen, um (fiktiv) zu ermitteln, welche Variante der Bevölkerung am plausibelsten erscheint. Randt läßt da seiner eigenen Persönlichkeit freien Lauf:  mit 'cooler' Indifferenz und ein wenig Zynismus kann man jeden Mist als große Vision verkaufen. Und im Zweifel ist der Text natürlich als 'Verarsche' gemeint (nebenbei wird der Hörer/ Leser konditioniert, es als normal hinzunehmen, daß Demokratie heutzutage nur als Demokratiesimulation existiert).

Dabei ist es durchaus nicht so, daß Randt die Fähigkeit/ der Mut fehlen würde, die unausweichliche Konsequenz von KI zu sehen/ auszusprechen. Sein Auftrag (DLF [**] ) beinhaltet nur einfach genau das Gegenteil : diese Perspektive (diesen Plan) zu vernebeln. – "Von der KI verwaltete Gesetzestexte basieren auf regelmäßigen Umfragen unter der Bevölkerung und werden entsprechend angepasst." :D

Am Beginn des Essays wird die Euphorie (das "utopische Freiheitsgefühl") beschrieben, in einer 'progressiv-demokratischen' Gesellschaft leben zu dürfen. ("Ich kann mich mit Freunden treffen und Musik hören, und keiner verbietet es mir.") – Ob das Satire ist, bleibt offen und ist irrelevant. Denn die Botschaft der schönen neuen Welt kommt positiv an.

Der Höhepunkt der neoliberalen Meinungsmache ist bei 6min:05sec erreicht. – Demokratie sei wie ein Wunschprogramm der Bürger und viele wünschten sich genau das:  einen repressiven Staat, an dem man herumkritisieren darf, so viel man möchte. Ohne Folgen für den Kritiker und ohne Wirkung auf den Staat. Das Motiv politischer Willensbildung sei eben bloß, "subkulturelle Anerkennung" zu erheischen. (Ein anderes Beispiel dieser Taktik zur Diskreditierung in Sozialstudien: ›› Antiamerikanismus sei bloß eine effektvolle Form der "Selbstinszenierung".)
Auf individueller Ebene gibt es solche Gruppendynamik der Selbstdarstellung tatsächlich, sogar in der RAF. Aber Randt's Zersetzungsstrategie hat nicht Individuelles im Visier, sondern gesellschaftliche Prozesse. ( @p_dimitrij entlarvte die Zersetzungsstrategie der Individualisierung am Beispiel des Begriffs 'Incel', mit dem Opfer gesellschaftlicher Übel pathologisiert werden sollen und persönlicher Absturz durch Umschichtungspolitik auf den Einzelcharakter geschoben werden soll.) – Vor diesem Hintergrund ist Randt's Satz wohl der widerlichste im ganzen Essay.

Man darf (ich darf) heutige Soziologiestudien/ -publizistik getrost als pervers bezeichnen, wenn ein solcher destruktiver Essay gerade jene gesellschaftlichen Kräfte als bloßen Spaßfaktor denunziert, die noch analytisch und mit sozialer Verantwortung argumentieren.
Hedonismus, Zynismus, Indifferenz und fatalistisch-futuristische KI-Gläubigkeit als Lebensgefühl und Lebenszweck ist die pseudo-coole (reaktionäre) Botschaft eines Leif Randt. – Es darf einem übel werden (mir wird übel).

[*] Ellen Kositza und Götz Kubitschek mögen mir verzeihen, daß ich Randt's Texte nicht als Literatur lese/nichtlese, sondern als 'Influencing', nicht als Reflexion über ein Zeitalter totalitärer Selbstformierung, sondern als Akt des Formierens dieser 'Generation Wertfrei'.

[**] Eine redaktionelle Seitenlinie von "Essay und Diskurs" beim DLF (@miriamzeh) habe ich über die Existenz meiner Kritik via Twitter in Kenntnis gesetzt. (Einen Diskurs erntet "Essay und Diskurs" nicht. Statt dessen anscheinend anonyme, unflätige Androhungen. Wen wundert's.)