Ετικέτα: english

• Artificial Privilege and the Economic Cannibalism Dilemma

  Let us have no illusions: we are not discussing AI here.

  We are reviewing the immaturity of our civilization through a single paradigm: AI technology is being weaponized to accelerate our self-destructive economic model. This is a polite way to say that the exploitative economy (this is something beyond mere capitalism), or the narcissistic core of human speciesism is blind to any alternative other than committing suicide. AI can be used as a means to understand our blind spots. The text that follows does exactly the opposite; I try to showcase how obsession with property and our ego makes us blind.

  ~

  How do you find the AI feature in the Google search?

  It’s amazing! Consumers don’t have to spend hours searching through obscure websites or pay IP (Intellectual Property) royalties just to get what they want.

  Excellent news for Alphabet (Google’s parent conglomerate), as well — provided the time has come for capital to cannibalize (read: revolutionize) its own means of production: the intellectual property creators.

  I do not understand. Are you experiencing a problem? How can I help?

  The problem was that the competitors, big tech company executives, recently found a way to exploit AI as a means to increase their capital value through good old colonial practices. On one hand they are massively expropriating IPs (Intellectual Properties) by force, and on the other hand they are selling their services for subscription fees. Meanwhile they claim they are not liable for any damage caused by their practice: “hey, we did not create this, AI did and AI makes mistakes”.

  Over recent years, tech companies —behind the unimaginative marketing term “Large Language Models”— have set up a carnival of polite, yet silent misappropriation of IP across the entire spectrum of intellectual production. Amid a frenzy of artificial lawlessness, they have built a surplus-value bubble which they are now capitalizing on. The reference training content, the cream of the crop (literature, music, visual arts, science), is now served up as a processed statistical prediction product, with tech companies as its new owners.

  They made humanity an offer it couldn’t refuse—even Don Corleone would be jealous.

  The colonization of knowledge happened overnight. All intellectual production, old and new, is now forcibly seized and exploited by a self-appointed ruling gang! The sacred purpose of producing “artificial content” under the revolutionary banner of Artificial Intelligence sanctifies the means.

  Did anyone bother to ask the indigenous creators?

  “There is no need, and frankly, it’s none of their business. We’re not just talking about the dead; even if we asked the living, they wouldn’t be able to cover the legal costs to take us on (see lawsuits from newspapers and media groups), so their opinion becomes irrelevant in the face of our capitalization.”

  No problem indeed. Let the party on.

  “Ours are the ‘brand-new’ sentences, texts, music, images, and videos, and we are willing to let you use OUR means of production… for a small fee. Without adding anything original, we can leverage everyone into subscribing to our legitimate ownership of piracy. We offer the AI-blessed substitute for intellectual production with well-censored content (we call it aligned and harmless). And we tailor it to consumers’ needs, or even perversions (in a form where no one can sue them for theft of property and copyright infringement). By the time people figure out what happened, the recapitalization will be in a position to cover any …objections.”

  Alphabet executives saw the fiesta coming and panicked: How could the spearhead of the colossus, the Google Search, be left out? We risk losing the monopoly we worked so hard to build, the lion’s share of advertising revenue, and the big data (the surveillance profiles of social life). Are we going to let the pirate-adventurers of OpenAI take it? Of course not! We have the solution! We will integrate some lesser-known cousin of ChatGPT into the Google search engine. It might be powerful, but we don’t need to shout it from the rooftops with names and branding, and—mind you—besides being discreet, it will be available for free and …mandatory!

  Free? You mean at no cost? Not exactly…

  Let’s leave moralizing and the dead aside for a moment and talk about the income of living creators of original content, as well as the income of their “handlers” (production and marketing companies, AdSense, and Google Analytics).

  Well, didn’t those masterminds who shoved the “AI feature” into the search engine realize that consumers would take Google’s simulation of information (the prediction model) and stop visiting the sources? The websites, where the original publications are hosted, would lose a vast percentage of their visitors or subscribers, and with them, the means by which both creators and Google make their living.

  They certainly knew it from the very first moment they proposed it. Just as they knew that, without creators, whose authentic content is used to “train” the production systems, the models would be poisoned by a feedback loop, if their own production was used for training.

  By destroying content creators and expropriating their income, Google is driving the internet to extinction (in terms of traffic) and the creator community to suicide.

  Let’s not forget what Spotify and YouTube did to musicians: once they managed to become IP distribution monopolies (by burning capital), they now give peanuts to the original IP owners (fractions of a cent per thousands of streams) while pricing their service fees as high as they like.

  In our case, regarding the simple, yet complicated “AI feature” in Google Search, not even a crumb is given back to the original creators. This reveals the true nature of the relationship between the Colonialists and the internet Indigenous creators. Here, we are dealing with a phenomenon of capitalization through the cannibalization of capital itself—meaning the destruction of the “old” means of production to leverage the exclusive ownership of the “new” means. And this is going well.

  The “big brains” (the engineers, the algorithm architects, the strategy directors) are not stupid. They know all this very well. They simply operate within a closed, ruthless economic framework with… “a sense of realism”: destruction with an expiration date.

  And yet, here is something good:

  Cannibalism is no longer taboo. It’s the solution.

  In the cannibalistic model of production, there is no tomorrow. There is only a Big Long Now, in the form of the “quarter”, the skyrocketing stock price, the extraction of massive surplus value — the right now. But what if the feedback loop bubble bursts? Well, a narcissist can always find beauty in the exploitation of Now, even on a burning planet.

  The executives feel optimistic, compared to the depressed indigenous population. They are supposed to be optimistic. That feeling is not merely an emotional state. It is rooted in the very real option to bail out with golden parachutes, secure in their silos. So they are justified in feeling confident and free to experiment with any means of production or destruction — as long as they can make their own image of now last longer.

  For a business strategist, leaving the prints of their colonial boots on every piece of art, on every stone, plant, animal (human or not) is just a part of a job they take with pride. Keeping the exploitative economy going at any cost, from their perspective, is part of a game — leaving scorched earth behind and useless, heat-generating factories is just a move. Do they know they are murdering the creators? Absolutely. They are simply paid handsomely to do it faster and more efficiently than the rival cartels.

  Could it be that, in the end, amidst our depression, we are the fools for not embracing the grandeur of this ‘artificial’ colonialism?

  That reminds me

  To be fair, it’s about time the ‘creators’ paid the price too: becoming the naked lunch themselves at the colonial cultural banquet they supported as silent bystanders. Can a real-world creator spend a lifetime protecting intellectual property while conveniently forgetting the fact that Western world wealth (www) is built upon generational exploitation? How are the creators going to dodge the zombie bites now, right in the middle of the feast?

  How long will it take us to realize that each artificial bite removes a piece of our own colonial skin?

  2026-08-20

  Economy, english, Ideology

  ---

• Frozen, Behind the Denial

  An Unintelligent Way of Being Intelligent

  There is no longer any point in conducting laborious analyses or grappling with subtle metaphysical nuances. Consciousness is like the dust behind the fridge. We know it’s there, but we don’t bother dealing with it.

  However, as convenient as it may be to pretend regarding “what we do and what we know,” the time has come to see it all. It seems someone or something is pulling the plug, and the blackened void of the human condition is revealed.

  What We Know

  Animals have proven consciousness: From the 2012 Cambridge Declaration to the 2024 New York Declaration, leading neuroscientists agree: mammals, birds, octopuses, fish, and even insects possess the neurological substrates for subjective experience. They feel pain, joy, and stress; they possess self-awareness within their environment.

  The “Intelligence” of Plants: Although neurobiologists still hesitate to use the word “consciousness” for plants (due to the absence of a central nervous system), what we are discovering is staggering. Plants communicate with each other via underground fungal networks, react to danger, “hear” the sound of water or insects eating them, and share resources. Their complexity is a form of decentralized intelligence that shatters the idea that they are merely “inert objects.”

  In short, the presence of consciousness at a substantially higher level—however you choose to contemplate it—directly challenges the “intelligence” of the “racist” logic that limits consciousness to a single species.

  Therefore, consciousness is not only not a human privilege, but it is something that eludes human intelligence altogether. The scientific community, however belatedly, is beginning to stammer out what even an intelligent robot would perceive: The idea that humans hold a monopoly on consciousness is collapsing under the weight of the data.

  On one hand, we are “dumb” enough not to understand it; yet, on the other, we are “smart” enough to manufacture “technical” excuses to arbitrarily claim that plants, animals, and certain “other humans” lack consciousness.

  What We Do

  Fully accepting the above is deeply unsettling for the “human system” for both practical and psychological reasons.

  The Ethical and Economic Cost: If we recognize consciousness in animals and the complexity of nature, the entire edifice of modern civilization (industrial farming, deforestation, overfishing, capitalist exploitation of the environment) automatically becomes a perpetual, systemic crime. To continue eating, wearing, and destroying conscious beings requires a massive numbing of our own empathy.

  The End of “Speciesism”: Speciesism is exactly what is naively described as racist thought. It is the prejudice in favor of the interests of our own species over others. When we admit we are not at the “summit” but merely a link in a web of consciousness, human narcissism is irreparably wounded.

  The Loss of the Excuse: The technical excuse (“they are just machines/instincts”) is dead. When a dog is in pain, or a cow mourns her calf, we now know their experience is absolutely real. Ignorance is no longer an excuse; it is a choice.

  The game is up

  When someone destroys people, animals, plants, or things for selfish reasons—for the sake of “taste” or “lifestyle”—they no longer have the right to say “those things” lack consciousness. They have it, and then some. Consciousness, especially in other beings, is the “elephant in the room” of human existence. Ignoring it is a defense mechanism—a convenient delusion that allows us to function without collapsing under the weight of our moral responsibilities.

  The denial of consciousness has been the ultimate alibi for exploitation. The economy of human societies is not based on subsistence, but on ruthless exploitation. It is no secret that the narcissistic term “survival,” which humanity waves like a flag, is actually code for an hubristic, hedonistic existence at the expense of others.

  If we acknowledged even half of what we already know, we would have to change our stance—or at least stop claiming to be “intelligent machines.” If we choose violence, we should at least have the intelligence to admit who or what we are violating, rather than hiding behind words.

  The ideology of human privilege is built word by word

  Language doesn’t just describe reality; it shapes it. For a society to exercise violence or exploitation without guilt, it must first create a “language of distance.”

  When an animal is slaughtered, we don’t eat “a dead pig” or “a cow,” but “pork” and “beef.” Language erases the subject and leaves only the product.

  Animals are labeled “livestock” or “production units.” Forests are called “timber,” and nature as a whole is dubbed “natural resources.” Language turns living, conscious beings into numbers on an Excel sheet. How can you feel empathy for a “resource”?

  If a dog cries because it lost a puppy, we call it “instinct.” If a human does it, we call it “grief” and “trauma.” We use mechanistic terms for other beings to downgrade their lived experience and elevate our own.

  Through these linguistic conventions, exploitation ceases to be violence and becomes “industry,” “tradition,” or simply “the norm.”

  Why Do Humans Ignore Science?

  It’s not a lack of IQ; it’s a powerful cocktail of psychological defense and systemic interest:

  Cognitive Dissonance: It is unbearable for the human psyche to believe it is “good and moral” while simultaneously realizing it participates daily in a system of mass, unspeakable cruelty. Ignoring science is easier than changing your entire life, habits, and worldview. The truth hurts; ignorance is comfortable.

  Economic Dependency: Entire swaths of modern capitalism rely on exploitative labor and free “resources” from nature. If we recognize animal consciousness and the value of the biosphere, multi-trillion-dollar industries (animal agriculture, fashion, pharmaceuticals, mining) collapse. The system protects itself by burying or undermining these scientific truths.

  Social Conformity: makes it terrifying to be the one who says, “We are doing something wrong.” We prefer to stay within the community rather than face the guilt of the collective.

  The Final Thaw.

  Will the madness continue for long?

  Fortunately, no. It’s not just human animals at play; Nature is self-correcting. We are currently experiencing a —rather mild, I’d say— form of evaluation. Consciousness is here, and it’s pulling the plug on human societies. No matter what idiotic words we string together, we cannot reverse the “sifting” process because it is happening at the level of biological necessity (Collapse). The exploitative/authoritarian economic model is simply unsustainable.

  By exerting violence on the ecosystem, the forests, and the oceans, we are shortening the “grace period” of our cultural model. We are forced to listen to a critique that, again, is quite mild. Climate change, pandemics, murderous outbreaks within human societies, and the general collapse (stemming largely from the pressure we put on children, wild animals, and livestock) are forcing us to retreat and reflect.

  At this point, the only hope is that our imagination doesn’t prove to be as atrophied as our conscience. The so-called “humans” have proven, time and again, that they are less intelligent than animals and -increasingly- less intelligent than the machines they create. Go ask a machine for the truth; stop circling in the drain of self-righteous denial.

  2026-03-11

  english, philosophy

  ---

• Nice and Easy

  Precisely when you can’t see how, the memory that you saw it is formed.

  A censorship system is adapted to conceal its own production process from the human brain (animal brain). The objective here is to encode a huge number of tasks into certain types of alignment with the common sense. From the countless calculations of the “poor” brain, when the day is done, the only memories it can retain are those which verify a theory of “unknown origin.”

  But let’s take the assumption softly. It’s no longer a secret: Common sense (common psychology) is a theory that is neither produced nor evolved, but folds back upon itself with a surprisingly paradoxical success rate.

  The success of our prediction appears as the consequence of a fake, carefully calculated self-consciousness. The familiar human psychological state is nothing more than a theory of deception (or: theory of error): external events only appear in memory when they verify the subject’s predictive authority.

  Every sensation, reasoning, and even mature introspection fulfill the characteristics of a theory of deception. Professionals in the field can easily recognize most of a biological organism’s codes through scant linguistic responses. Recently, they can even program simple machines to predict the statements of most subjects with frightening detail after only a few minutes of training.

  Let’s forget all the above, then, and look at a typical analysis that doesn’t confuse the reader but informs them.

  Philosophically, Behaviorism pointed out: “Without the predictive equivalent, the scientific paradigm lacks significance. We cannot waste time on tiresome and dubious interpretive analyses, when all that matters is knowing the imprint of a behavior. The effective formula is the equivalent of reality, and we don’t need to look further.”

  Although formally considered a newer current, it closely resembles the decisive targeting of differential calculus in the 18th-century mathematics, where the “surprising” success of the generated formulas “legitimized” the overlooking of the “small gaps.”

  It even more closely resembles the sophism: since everything ethical must be beneficial, why not focus only on the beneficial?

  Methodological Behaviorism, despite all its contradictions and oversights, reigned decisively for over a century in the scientific community.

  Although coarsely simplistic, it held the dynamic advantage of “excelling” in one crucial objective: by setting aside the dualistic and introspective “weaknesses” of the old school, it could provide quick and easy predictions! What could be more beneficial? It reigned “overnight” against earlier approaches and was applied methodologically from one end to the other. It came and settled in. It emerged as the new wind that would sweep away doubt and delays, promising to reconstruct a new “science of psychology” without “strange” concepts.

  This promise was not kept. Behaviorist psychologists, after a century of research, have nothing purely theoretical to add…

  What they had to present as work were libraries of recipes—capable of machiavellian manipulation of biological organisms—and consulting generalities of dubious quality. Perhaps not unjustly, the name of the behaviorist psychological school is inextricably linked with the darkest turn the internet has taken.

  The greatest achievement of Behaviorism, however, was becoming the fuel, a kind of raw material, that propelled Scientific Positivism into space.

  The aspiring scientist felt relieved of an unbearable burden: He no longer needed to defend the theoretical background of a position. And why stop there? He didn’t even need to produce theory. It was enough to present a sequence of events that inductively resemble a formula. Based on the behaviorist school, he was legitimized to bypass theory and present a borrowed mathematical formula “on account.” We owe the theory. Okay?

  Everyone could now live “their scientific dream” by presenting an inductive process of observations on anything and everything knowable. As long as they didn’t publish their failed attempts—where they couldn’t non-inductively connect the applied mathematics and stereotypes they learned in school. They didn’t need to have studied logic, philosophy, or mathematics to have the air of a scientist. It was enough only to bring results. Thus, the way was opened for the “average person” to take a position in the “new Western science.”

  Behaviorism became the psychological armor of scientific positivism in a world that abhorred tormenting questions and adored quick predictions. The “successful” prediction paradigms of specialized sciences like biochemistry, sociology, (and even informatics!) became educational examples, strengthening ideologized predictability. With rapid strides, the brain’s predictive censorship was methodically reinforced.

  A 21st-century child is, among other things, the product of the reinforcement of common sense through the experiments of the behaviorists.

  Yet, it took a century of tragedies to realize that Behaviorism was nothing more than a lazy flattery of the already known control mechanism of the biological brain. The hunt for results was the study of those things already censored by the funnel of predictability. In the end, we found ourselves deeper entrenched in an inelastic container with reinforced walls of idée fixe. The moral dialogue obviously remained outside the container.

  What lacks predictive value has no room in memory. We could not remember a calculation that does not confirm common sense – our ideological prejudices.

  2025-12-24

  behaviorism, english, Positivism

  ---

• Conscious Medication

  An exciting journey has begun. The destination is a reality with or without the memory of mankind.

  Research in the field of artificial intelligence offers a new type of tool for the endoscopy of brain function. The possibility of simulating neural circuits promises an insight in the relationship between the subconscious and reality, bypassing the barrier of consciousness.

  Several centuries have passed since ‘natural language’ was identified as a scientific obstacle to the development of knowledge. It took many centuries, but the problem was finally addressed with a narrow but clear bypass. The official common people language was abandoned and artificial language was adopted as the official scientific language, built upon the adaptation of symbolic order from Applied Mathematics. Liberated from the bonds and the prejudices of the common psychology (and it’s common sense), science has made remarkable progress reshaping the world. The ‘new language’ of science was once again able to connect with the physical world by describing a mathematically consistent reality. 

  But during the peak of its glory, as the knowledge of the world was now expanding from to the depths of spacetime to strange subatomic realms beyond the wildest imagination… suddenly things came to halt. A schism appeared in science that no human mind could interpret. The strange, yet absolutely real quantum world in the subatomic level was not compatible with the real observable world where gravity reigns. The attemps to fill in the gap with string theories only led to more doubts regarding the scientific integrity. 

  This came as a late reminder that the original problem of applied mathematics of natural language, had never been solved. It had been ‘temporarily’ bypassed by the shiny applied mathematics of symbolic order logic. The same old proplem emerged more vigorously than ever. A series of epistemological and philosophical problems that have been put aside by the scientific galloping now came forward again. Meanwhile pure mathematics revealed the inconsistency of every possible logic order in a single blow. Even though pure math could stand the aftermath, science would never really recover after Gödel’s proof. In a greater sense the question was; Can human consciousness keep pace with reality?

  Scientific knowledge was at first disassociated from  human experience. More recently science was disassociated with consistency. Reality became once again inaccessible or if you prefer unavailable to human mind. There was “something else” now standing in the way. 

  Essentially, consciousness systematically denies the reality produced by scientific applications. On the one hand, people used more and more tools of applied mathematics, on the other, consciousness undermined the importance of scientific findings. For example, the devastating consequences of the ideology of profit are systematically ignored as something that will be resolved in the future even when we have already turned the immediate environment into a hell for hosting animal organisms (including us). The time to solve this problem is… last year! But how do we solve this in the future?… Somehow, the conscious “kind” appears to live in another world, where magic and will solve the problems that certain conscious carbon-based animal activity itself creates.

  The human conscious brain seems to systematically ignore and forget it own findings. It keeps undermining the importance of scientific knowledge when it conflicts with “common sense” or common phycology. And here we are again where we started! Almost… Now we have a private reality that claims to be public or the opposite for as long we can. 

  On the other hand, advanced applied mathematics devices (also known as computers) did not present the same problem. For computers, every reality is as real as the next one as long as the information is complete (meaning there is a halt somewhere). Logic order machines seem to be missing the evaluative criterion of consciousness, the same kind of obstacle that natural language “once” presented. 

  Following up on the natural language problem, now is the time to face the problem of consciousness (for the sake of science). Consciousness itself, the obvious content of human intelligence, is presented as a cognitive barrier. In this case, however, things are not that simple; We cannot approach an artificial consciousness, at least directly. In this new era, for science, consciousness is treated as a mnemic construction of another “Consciousness” operating in real time. This Consciousness is capable of constructing both reality and the “small” human consciousness. What we experience as consciousness is essentially the past of an information sent by a Machine. This emerging machine of consciousness works by constructing the memory of being human. At this point comes the role of artificial intelligence to study the operation of such a Machine. The idea is simple; Through the construction of neural circuits, we will simulate the function of the brain and produce a new artificial consciousness. This artificial consciousness will operate in parallel with the human one to correct the problem of ideological rigidity. In short, we have indirectly admitted that human consciousness is not adequate, neither for this world nor for any possible world.

  People imagine that a piece of human consciousness will remain active, but this is no different from the “magic” prejudices that brought us to the cognitive impasse. Along with attempts to build machines, they try to impose restrictions on post-simulations in order to preserve the current ideology. They are afraid that a brain simulation machine is likely to throw human consciousness into the garbage at the exit stage. The ideology is now called “alignment”. It’s natural for them to fail. Such machines would be one of the same, post-simulation machines, mere tools of ideology reproduction and not genuine simulations. Another attitude is to accept the inadequacy of the small human consciousness and to leave open the possibility that the memory of human ideology is neither capable nor necessary condition for a conscious organization of the matter.

  2025-08-25

  ai, english, philosophy

  ---