This post is turning into an endless slog, which I find disagreeable, not because your post is disagreeable, but because I end up having multiple responses going at the same time. I've already cut out two short sections, and now I'm having to rethink the whole, due to a reappraisal of the central premise of your post. This leads me to wonder whether I should just bin the whole thing, but that would deprive the thread of some, I think, interesting points, including some revelations about Tyred, which I've laid out for you in between the lines.

It occurs to me now, after writing for some time, that the question of your title depends upon a misunderstanding. You rightfully believe, through implied and express claims of mine, that I believe that AI power will radically constrain pedophile communication in the future.

However, you mistakenly shift your footing to a claim I have not made, which is that the elites "fool everybody all of the time". It is understandable that you have taken this misstep, since I wrote a note entitled "The Free Press Has Never Been Free", a polemic which details my rather cynical opinions about how the media has been controlled. And I have noted the recent remarkable unity of the press with respect to Wikileaks and Julian Assange, or the "merely coincidental" machinations that ended with Glenn Greenwald dumped by the Intercept. So I do believe there is considerable control over the media. "Never" is a polemical flourish, since obviously not every word we've read in the newspapers has been written by an Agency hack.

But these two claims should be treated separately. The first has to do with how powerful AI could get against us, and the second characterizes the sorts of people who are actively seeking that kind of control. I think what I've written convinces on both counts, when understood the right way and not as you've represented it as involving "fooling all of the people all of the time."

My initial and immediate response to your title was a provisional "yes", and I pointed to the efficacy of war propaganda. I'm removing paragraphs here, but the point is, and I think you'll agree that most people most of the time buy it war propaganda, and that's why they do it. I noted that the propaganda didn't work so well when it came time to sink Donald Trump, who may be the next president. It would seem that elite propaganda is not always effective. Not everyone is fooled all of the time.

Because of this, we should avoid conceiving of "elite control of media" in black and white terms. The elites have control of a lot of levers, and sometimes they press right, and sometimes they press wrong. All that needs to be the case is that the elite control is reliable. It doesn't have to be perfect.

Wikileaks is a very good example of when the American elites lost direct and reliable control of the narrative. I've argued in this thread that the silence around Wikileaks, the absence of reporting on similar leaks, and the lack of journalistic interest in Assange provides good evidence that reliability of control has been regained.

So, the elites don't have to "fool everybody all of the time", only "most people most of the time", and have contingency plans to deal with uncooperative types who become a problem, like Assange. If your question can be rephrased this way, then the answer is most absolutely YES!

Now I read the rest of your post.

Who are the ruling elites

I like your analysis, but you leave out the organizations that are structured as a "system of cells interlinked, within cells interlinked, within cells interlinked within one stem." These are the truly invisible ones, who pull the biggest strings, and at the point of a gun.

If my history is correct, at a certain point in the Roman Empire the praetorian guard decided who would be emperor, upon the basis of who paid the biggest bribe. Why shouldn't a shadowy organization at the top of Empire not have its own inscrutable interests, and thus represent an elite body in and of itself?

“They're innovating” you write. Clearly they are. And sure, AI threatens to become an extraordinarily powerful tool of elite control . But I'm sure you've noticed the cock-up at Google. Read this article if you haven't already https://www.piratewires.com/p/google-culture-of-fear (Also linked below.) Google may sit on vast amounts of cash and can marshal the talents of some of the brightest minds around, but that didn't prevent them from a complete cluster fuck with the unveiling of Gemini.

Your link doesn't work, so I cannot respond directly to that.

I suppose you mean the controversy surrounding racial depictions in Gemini. I place this in the same category as JohnHolt's hopeful discovery that Gemini was spouting MAP talking points when asked about pedophilia. My advice in both cases is not to be distracted by temporary misalignments of the internal parameters. These parameters can change, and will be changed, to meet expectations.

You may not know this, but search engines have long been quietly modifying search results to fit an intersectional political agenda. It has been a passtime of the far right to reveal how Google shows black families when "black family" is searched for, and mixed race families when "white family" is searched for. Rinse and repeat across a variety of search requests, for example "white scientist". It was good evidence that behind the scenes Google was pulling the strings to get a "racially unbiased" result. And nobody outside the far right cared about this, as far as I could tell.

What's different about the incident with Gemini is that now everybody knows. I'm not sure if the mainstream press would have reported that the Kings of England were black women, but they could not tolerate the idea of a multiracial Nazi regime.

The outrage against this does not spell the end of the intersectional regime, only the rejigging of the parameters, to ensure the "right" kinds of intersectionality gets out, and the wrong kind does not get out.

The proper balance of parameters will be found when the desired bias does not result in an overwhelmingly negative response. As soon as the establishment press stops writing about it, the parameters will be "correctly" set. And since we know the agencies control the press, well, this just means that the AI will be ready to regurgitate what the state requires to be true.

If the recent history of biased search engine results teaches us anything, a racially biased Gemini will be accepted so long as white people are the recipients of that bias. I don't personally care, but it's just a fact.

(I have an enormous storehouse of screenshots and other proofs which I cannot bring to bear in this or any other conversation. Among this evidence are screenshots that show the dynamic interaction between trolls who make the AI do bad things, and adjustments of various kinds that thwart these bad uses.)

Google is not exactly dominated by women, but women have accumulated enormous power because they staff Google's HR which in turn pretty much runs the company.

I don't think this thread has been especially about women, though it is my contention that the feminist line on pedophilia will be strictly enforced. You've expanded upon this to discuss the role of women, so let's talk about that.

There are two interlocking points to be made here.

First, when women get involved, obviously they seek their own interests. And this may include pushing a feminist agenda to its logical conclusion, however unjust I may feel it to be.

However, and this is the more important of the two points, women occupy a place of privilege with respect to the concept of safety and security. It is the role of women to play the part of the victim. And it is the role of men to play the part of savior. And nothing about feminism has overturned this order of things. In fact, feminism relies upon this continuing without question, with the state playing the role of men to save perpetually in-distress damsels.

So "making the internet safe" just means, in the final analysis, "giving women what they want". And what they want is not merely security. It is power. Female power flows through the circuitry of safety, and men do not notice this because to enact safety for women, we must view them as powerless. This is why men cannot perceive the power of women, even as they submit to it.

So if we're talking about the danger "AI safety" poses to us, that danger will have an inherent female character because "safety" in the final analysis is, most generically, about protecting women. As "child safeguarding" means, at bottom, protecting females from child sexual abuse, I accept that women will have a great part in shaping AI hostility against us in the name of safety.

How will it happen?

AI, like most of tech, is heavily male-dominated. Feminist are primed to discover all the ways in which male-dominated AI is biased against women, and against the intersectional group they rule. They exert their pressure in two ways.

First, through coordinated "journalistic" attacks from the outside, which gives the AI companies bad press, which leads them to tinker with the parameters until the bad press stops.

Second, by infiltrating the AI companies, through forced diversity hires, leading to an HR takeover. This also exposes the men working inside AI to threats of (real and false) accusations of sexual misconduct, which is perhaps the biggest tool in the Agency's toolbox for getting rid of non-compliant males.

So, with respect to JohnHolt's discovery, we see the first method being employed. Bad press led to an update that set things right--against us, perfectly in line with my predictions.

But as time goes on, as feminist tears build about why AI doesn't have any women in it--why aren't women at the forefront of innovations?--we'll begin to see a physical infiltration of AI companies, leading to improved compliance with feminist principles. This will ensure that no "mistakes" are made, so there doesn't have to be any bad press.

We see this method used by the feminist video game consultancy, Sweet Baby Inc., which is presently embroiled in a GamerGate 2.0-type controversy. It's co-founder was found recently advising attendees of a major gaming conference (GDC) to threaten video game companies to gain compliance:

Put this stuff to your higher-ups. And if they don't see the value in what you're asking for, when you ask for consultants, when you ask for research, go have a coffee with your marketing team, and just terrify them with the possibility of what's going to happen if they don't give you what you want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq86DnmX2xY

So these are the sorts of phone calls that will be coming from inside the house (a horror movie reference, folks) once feminists have installed themselves within AI organizations. This will lead inevitably to a convergence between AI safety and feminist politics driven by improving the safety of women and girls. Although boylove has nothing to do with endangering women and girls, we will nevertheless be caught up in whatever safety regime they establish.

But I continue to be skeptical that they can fool “all the people all the time.” That a freewheeling independent like Christopher Rufo took down Harvard's DEI president points to the tenuous grip of elite hold on power. The signs of elite panic and desperation are everywhere. The events at Google are paralleled by those at Harvard, the New York Times https://archive.is/8yHvq, the CIA (the incredible clusterfuck of Ukraine) and other pillars of elite control.

I feel you're getting entangled on the phrase "fool all the people all the time", which is something I have never proposed in this thread. It leads you to seek counter-examples, which are easy to find, but which I believe do not touch my argument.

I argued that all that is required to maintain the artificial legitimacy of managed democracy is that most of the people most of the time accept the AI summary, and to deal with the non-compliant by other means. That is a much more modest goal than the one you presume to be required for success, and we can see it is successful in places like China.

I've also responded to your first statement in the first paragraph now drastically reduced fifth paragraph of this post, regarding war reporting. That is a case of the system fooling "most of the people most of the time", which has proven sufficient to maintain support for elite war policies. One only has to look back a few decades to see that system working effectively. And it is, I assume, how they want the new system to work. Whether they will get it is another question.

You seem to argue that the shakiness of the system means the system cannot "fool all people all the time". Without defending your formulation, I have two comments:

First, it is my premise that the old system is shaking and irretrievable, and that new technologies will need to replace the old. (If it wasn't shaking, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.) Disruption in and of itself is not proof that the transition is not or cannot take place, for disruption is also part of the process of establishing something new.

Second, you have given examples of weaknesses in the facade of elite power as evidence that elite power cannot accomplish what I propose (via your formulation). I respond: just because something slips between the cracks doesn't mean the system isn't working:

• Again, JohnHolt's recent example of AI helping us rather than hurting us was immediately and summarily reversed. There was no consultation with the minority being affected.
• We have often witnessed a statement or even a book that seems to support our views, only to watch it disappear into irrelevancy, all the while the most inane and dangerous ideas are promoted against our cause by the biggest establishment media houses.
• We should not be fooled that the war propaganda doesn't work, just because a lone journalist wrote an eye opening article that somehow slipped into an establishment paper. That's often just the elites signalling to themselves anyway, and if it's not it will soon be forgotten.
• Just because an embattled president of Harvard is yeeted doesn't mean the elites have no power. She will simply be replaced by another candidate of a similar stripe.

In every case, what matters is that there is a plausible counter move. AI is one of those moves, a big one, since it contains within it an infinite number of counter moves, and can operate autonomously.

(You've also mentioned an interesting article in the NYTimes. I've removed my response, because it entails a broader conversation, with more details than the present point and purpose can bear.)

To conclude this section, I remind the reader what I am proposing

1. In dreaming of total information control, the elites will seek AI power, and that
2. AI power is a radical change from present conditions because much of the heavy lifting of tyranny can be offloaded to artificial agents, and that
3. AI "safety" will be defined by its ability to control us as a "public health danger", so
4. We need to prepare for the eventuality of hostile AI power, not in the distant future, but soon.

The plausibility of these statements is not determined by whether or not the system can "fool all people all of the time."

I don't doubt that “AI is a pathway to radically improved competency for the elites” But will they be able to use it properly? Or will it turn on the elites themselves?

These are good questions, but we don't have to answer them now.

What we need to do is watch these developments very closely. If AI turns out to be a less effective tool than I predict, then we have more time to breath. If AI turns out to be as effective as I predict, then our time to breath may soon be over, as novel censorship techniques and effects are directed toward us. AI opens up many avenues of malicious behavior, some of which we know, and others left to be discovered. Always remember that we are the experimental test subjects of the information age. Our rights are subordinate to the "public safety" loophole, which means they can experiment on us with impunity, and they can erase their mistakes by throwing us into the gulag.

It may be, in a very short space of time, that our present communications channels become permanently inoperative. It is wise to take action. I propose two:

1. Archive and cryptographically sign all available materials so that we know what verifiably existed in the Before Time, and
2. Get prepared to move off clearnet once and for all, since AI policing of clearnet is an obvious priority--it's already written into the emerging legislation.