Thursday, January 04, 2024

AI random thoughts

I have thought about Artificial Intelligence and the only issue I see with AI is copyrights. I know that someone used AI to create a picture and tried to copyright or get a patent on it as the author is AI. The patent office refused (good call) and said they have to use the owner of the computers name. BUT that is just for now, what if they sue in court and get it ruled the other way? I think it would be constitutional and necessary to add one item to the US Public Law on Copyrights.  Please just add a definition to the word AUTHORS to say, that Author is to be defined as Human.  You must be human to copyright something (even if created by a computer).  That way any output from AI, (image, picture, song, voice, science, math) cannot be copyright, only a human can copyright the output, thus the copyright would apply to a person.   Copyright law (Title 17, U.S.C.), does not define the word “author”, so just define it as Human. The solution is to update the copyright laws to define Author as Human only. That is the fix.

AI has down loaded the complete Wikipedia, so it is completely unreliable. Garbage In, Garbage Out. One result would be a very liberal biased chat bot. Wikipedia maybe good for looking up facts on programming or other items, but when it comes to the political and science, the data is skewed to the LEFT. (By the way, it HAS been trained on wiki data and wiki is biased)

AI as swallowed up all of Wikipedia (woke) and all of the big tech social media data (also woke), so Yes AI is woke. Dangerous, nope, it is just a computer program. Are there AI systems that have errors? Yes, they are written by humans.

Like every other computer program, it is not self-aware, and has no free will. Someone programmed it to say such things, to be biased, to influence, monetize, and to change people's social behavior.

AI is just another tool. AI will not create consciousness. It will not become sentient. The two aspects of the universe are informational (nonmaterial) and physical (material). Computers are composed 100% of physical entities, and consciousness is 100% in the information domain.

 Liability example: how does OpenAI address potential liability concerns when ChatGPT is used in healthcare decision-making? I would think the liability remains with the doctor. Much like you can’t blame the Gun for a Murder. AI, like a gun, is just a tool. Responsibility remains with the one who uses it. (Whatever it is)

 Big media and big government are just trying to scare people into giving up their liberty for some future safety.

Government should not regulate computer programming (AI).  Let the Industry or market place regulate AI, but don’t regulate it by laws. Congress has no constitutional authority to regulate computer programming (AI). That does not mean they won’t do it. It will end results into a disaster. Keep Programming Free from Government Interference.

Just as the Constitution gives the USA NO authority to dictate to any country the type of weapons they can Have. So be it with AI. The constitution and common sense tell you that you cannot govern computer programming on a world basis. Or constitutionally within the USA. 

I would like to see the programs and algorithms as Open Source. I would like to see the algorithm that they use to censor out Hate, False truths, and lies.

So will they make public the algorithm to determine what is HATE speech?

 AI is a computer program and data, and has no need of an "AI Bill Of Rights". AI has No Rights, only People have Rights. But the President of the United States already has the "Blue Print for An AI Bill of Rights". The US is dreaming if they think they can regulate AI, as the World is full of computer programmers.

If the World Economic Forum (WEF Davos) and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) want More Government regulations, do you think that they are doing so for the good of humanity, or are they just wanting to increase their world government power and agenda. The European Union already has the EU GDPR or the General Data Protection Regulation, is the world’s strongest data security and privacy law, implemented by the European Union in 2018. One part this legislation requires human intervention in some automated decision making.

We do not need to have civil rights protections made applicable to AI. ore Deep State trying to scare you, Remember, Sam Altman attended the Bilderburg2023.

I doubt the integrity of any of the Bilderbergers, World Economic Forum, Council on Foreign Relations, Deep State crowd.

Government will regulate it is the biggest danger of AI. 

 I am Pro AI.


Friday, July 24, 2020

Whiskey Rebellion

Whiskey Rebellion, thousands NOT killed. It was a rebellion started by the Illuminati and Washington stopped them . The Founding Fathers sought to pay off the massive debt from the War of Independence by imposing taxes on imports (tariffs) as well as taxes on the sale of alcohol and tobacco (which are called “excises”). The tax on alcohol prompted farmers in Western Pennsylvania to start a tax revolt, now called the “Whiskey Rebellion,” as whiskey had come into use among poor frontier traders as money in lieu of scarce gold and silver coin. Faced with the rebellion, and several federal tax collectors being shot at by the rebels (whom today would almost certainly be branded “terrorists”), President George Washington put down the rebellion in a way that would have enraged today’s neoconservatives who believe in a “unitary executive.” Washington first asked permission of Congress to call up the state militia and enforce the internal revenue laws. When congressional leaders agreed, Washington marched out at the head of the Virginia and Pennsylvania militia and negotiated with the “terrorists,” who agreed to put down their arms. And when two civilians were shot accidentally by militiamen, Washington handed the soldiers over to local prosecutors to be tried for murder charges. (Both were exonerated after an investigation.) President Washington then pardoned most of the rebels. Washington would today probably be branded by neocons as being a weak executive who didn’t “support the troops.” Though unpopular in some parts of the country, the tax on alcohol continued through the end of John Adams’ presidency.

Here is something to consider: Oxford USA 1962 Federal Marshals and National Guard and States Rights.

Friday, October 26, 2018

"I pity the man who couldn’t come over." My Grandfather in WWI Letter to his sister.

Louvanoy, France, May 9, 1919. 

Mrs. Alice .....: 

Dear Sister: I am writing from Louvanoy, France. This is a bright, sunny day. I am well and waiting for my time to come home, the same thing that all the A.E.F. are doing.  It is looking good for us now, for Secretary Baker has promised to have us all home by September 1, and that will not be long coming for we have been over here so long we have learned to wait. The men you hear talking most of coming home are the last ones who came over. You don’t hear any kicking among the men about not getting home, although they are all anxious to go.
Living over here is not so bad since I am getting mail from home regular, but it was some months before I got a letter from home when I first got over here, and then it was dated two months before I received it.  I do not blame Mr. Barleson or any one else for that, for I was moved around so fast it would have taken four race horses to have kept up with me, but I guess I am now stationary for a while. I have met lots of friendly people among the French. As a rule, they are all friendly and will do anything they can for us. I stayed in a billet where the old lady was a mother to us. She kept warm water for us and would net let us wash in cold water. Most all the people you see over here are women and children. You see scarcely any able-bodied men. I hear that some of the boys have gone home and given the people the black side of France. I suppose that is the side they wanted to see, and, of course, they found what they were looking for, but I found France and the French people to be what they truly are, a worthy people. The women wear mourning for their loved ones who died for France, which we respect as D.S.C. or Croix de Guerre. They sure are worthy of the honor we give them for the brave deeds they have done and the hardships they have suffered in this war. Some of the French soldiers are coming home now. They are glad their work is finished and glad to get back home, although I do not imagine it seems much like the home they left four years ago. How do you imagine I would feel to come home and find the country full of strangers.  I guess it would be not much like home.
            But the French do not deserve all the credit, for the English, the Italians, the Canadians, the Australians, the Sammies and all the others did their part and did it well. However, the men at the front are not all who should be praised, for the war would surely have been a failure had it not been for the people back home standing so loyally behind us. In England I saw women who I knew did not have to work for a living doing men’s work on the railroads, or the highways and on the farms – pretty and refined girls working like men. I talked with a little girl, 12 years old who was driving a gravel cart repairing the road, near Winchester, England. She told me she had two brothers in the war then and her father and another brother were killed at Ypres, and she had two sisters who were Red Cross nurses in France and another sister who was sunk on a British hospital ship by a German submarine. Her mother and grandmother and she were keeping house. I told her I thought her family had done enough for the war, but she said no, she had a part to do and she was going to do her best for England. I talked to a ten-year old boy who was selling papers and his mother was washing clothes to support five younger brothers and sisters, while his father was in France fighting.
            I will never forget the good treatment I received in an English hospital. I have been around several hospitals over here and know the fuss they raised in the states about the boys not getting good treatment is not true.
            The men over here sure thank the people at home for the way they stood by them through the Red Cross, the Y.M.C.A., Knights of Columbus and the Salvation Army. They sure have been a great help to us.
            Well, sis, this is all I know to write. I suppose that the soft, sad, tenderfooted soldiers who stayed in the states until after the war was over and then raised a yell because they did not get to go over, are going to take the boys’ service stripes off of them. Well, I am sorry they did not get to come over and learn what a soldier was, for if they knew they would not be kicking. They say that the salt water stripes makes a distinction between the soldier who came over and the one who stayed at home. I am of the opinion every man that wanted to come came. I could have come sooner than I did, and you know they did not have a man in the army that was not as good a man as I was when I went in. I guess if these good home soldiers could have come over after the armistice was signed they would have put on three service stripes and half a dozen wound stripes and in two weeks been raising cain to be sent home, but probably, there is no difference after all between the soldier who stayed, in a nice canteen or personal office, or walked the streets of New York or some other place and the one who crossed the pond with Boch sub under the ship which happened to have been an English cattle boat before the war, and after accidentally landing safe, carried his full equipment five miles on his back and waiting hours for something to eat, stretched his pup tent over a mud hole the next morning and slept, the next morning to get in a funked box car 7x20 feet with 45 or fifty others and ride four or five days, eating corned beef and hardtack and then drilling two or three weeks day and night, to say nothing of the man who walked post in mud knee-deep guarding supplies for the front – and the trenches, shrapnel, shells, cooties, rats, gas and other little things of that kind. I pity the man who couldn’t come over.
Your Brother,

Homer .....

Friday, July 08, 2016

Dangerous Trends Toward Civilian Police Review Boards

Dangerous Trends Toward Civilian Police Review Boards

For nearly 50 years, a deadly and effective attack has been orchestrated against local police departments all throughout the United States and most Americans do not even realize it is happening. The very organizations which are to provide front-line protection against lawlessness in our communities are being targeted. The reason: to neutralize the ability of the local police to identify and intercede criminals and terrorists who would disrupt our peaceful communities. This in turn would lead to the dissolution of strong local self-government, which is the cornerstone of our republican form of government in the United States.

"Another Police-Involved Shooting"

Any time a police officer is involved in a shooting, the headlines writers scream out "Another police-involved shooting has taken place!" It gives one the feeling that the police should be the last people to use weapons, if at all. Nothing is said about the thousands of incidents police are confronted with daily where no weapons are used. Calls for investigations immediately follow and some citizens and lawyers smell lawsuits in the making. Closely behind these incidents are cries from liberal organizations and politicians that a group of untrained civilians should be brought in to investigate and review these cases of police activity. These are called Civilian Police Review Boards. Such is the case facing my city of Mesa, Arizona, now the 40 th largest city in the nation.

Civilian Police Review Board Prohibited by City Charter

Fortunately, it won't be very easy to do. In 1967, a 14-member Board of Freeholders was assembled to write the City Charter. Serving on that board was Louis Stradling, a student of constitutional government for many decades. He had made a study of those who want to weaken local police in America and was instrumental in having the following words inserted into the City Charter: "A civilian Police Review Board is prohibited by this charter." Since then, the wisdom of that move become apparent. Because of recent unfortunate shootings in our city and the renewed call for civilian Police Review Board, I asked Mr. Stradling where he obtained his background information in 1967. He reminded me that W. Cleon Skousen had just published a book on that subject in 1966!

Subversives Invent the Concept of Civilian Police Review Boards

Of course, our own Dr. Skousen is eminently qualified to write about this subject. He spent 16 years with the FBI where he had assignments directly from J. Edgar Hoover to help local police establish training academies. Mr. Hoover asked him to research subversive organizations and activities. Dr. Skousen served as Chief of Police of a major city and editorial director of LAW and ORDER, the most widely distributed police magazine in the United States. Time magazine said he had "run a model police force." His accumulated wisdom was compiled in his book Notes to the New Chief which many new police chiefs used to get a jump start in their duties.
Here are excerpts from Dr. Skousen's 1966 writings on the present subject:
"It was during this same visit to New York that I spoke at length with Dr. Bella Dodd, former member of the National Committee of the Communist Party who defected in 1948. During this conversation I brought up the subject of police review boards and she stated that she was appalled at the success of the Communist Party and its cadre of fellow travelers in persuading New York politicians to accept the idea of a civilian police review board. I asked her how the idea originated and she said it was invented by the Communist Party in the 1930's when it was felt that the country was ripe for revolution. The idea was to somehow get the police out from under the control of elected officials and subject the police to the discipline of a "civilian" group which the Party could infiltrate and control. She stated that by this means they intended to mete out harsh and arbitrary punishment against the police until they were intimidated into a benumbed, neutralized, impotent and non-functioning agency.

Why the Demand for Civilian Review Boards Caught On

"The hate campaign against the police was a natural for Communist and left-wing propaganda purposes. Because the police are the authoritative symbol of law and order the American public is extremely sensitive to the slightest hint that they may be abusing their power. This is a healthy situation so long as the public is getting the true facts, but what happens when the people are fed a continuous and heavy propaganda diet of deliberate lies? Unfortunately, experience has proven that they are just as damaging on a temporary basis as though they were true.
"Not only is public confidence shaken in the police by the poisonous hate campaign and the deliberate lies, but there is also the occasional incident when some police officer actually does use bad judgment. Whenever this happens the Communist-left-wing coalition snatches it up and joyfully proceeds to paint a grossly exaggerated version of the incident and present it to the public as being typical of all police. This is offered as proof positive that a band of uniformed blackguards are brutalizing the whole community and the only way to protect the public from their sadistic savagery is to immediately set up a civilian police review board.
"In such an emotionally-charged atmosphere it is easy for Professional politicians to suddenly decide that here is a wonderful campaign issue which could be made highly popular. They therefore seize upon the idea of a civilian review board and start blowing the Communist trumpet louder than the Communists themselves. This happened in the New York City mayoralty campaign during 1965. Even in the primaries, every single candidate came out for a civilian review board except one, William Buckley.
"Of course, the whole basis for the argument that civilian review boards should be set up is the rather fantastic illusion that (1) there is widespread police brutality, and (2) a civilian review board is the only way the people can protect themselves from police brutality.
"They keep missing the point that when these wild charges are carefully investigated by the FBI or other responsible agencies they do, with very rare exceptions, turn out to be deliberate fabrications.
"They also overlook the fact that every incorporated community and every county government in the United States already has elaborate machinery available -- both administrative and judicial -- to deal with any instances of abusive or illegal police activity.

Citizen Talking Points Against Civilian Police Review Boards

"The legal basis for such boards is lacking . The Supreme Court of New York recently held that the city of Rochester had no authority to compel policemen to undergo a judicial review of their conduct by a group of private citizens.
"No proof of any need for such a board : Elaborate legal machinery already exists for the channeling of complaints against the police. These include the police chief (who has more reason than anyone to ferret out any irregularities in his department), the civilian police commissioner (whose job was originally created to receive complaints from the public), the members of the city council, the mayor, the city attorney, the district attorney, the U.S. Attorney, the FBI, the grand jury and the Federal Grand Jury. All of these have remedial jurisdiction over charges of civil rights violations by police. Long ago it was claimed that local officials would cover up these violations but no such excuse can be used today because for several years charges of police brutality have been within the jurisdiction of the FBI and subject to Federal prosecution.
"These boards are conducive to the intimidation of police personnel : Because the power to discipline is the power to control, the Civilian Review Board takes the police department out from under the people's elected representatives and places them under a politically oriented and often biased group of lay people who neither know nor understand police problems. During the 1964 riots FBI investigators discovered that departments under Civilian Review Boards were so fearful of reprisal in case they took action where certain minority groups were involved that they were virtually paralyzed. As J. Edgar Hoover reported: "Where there is an outside civilian review board the restraint of the police was so great that effective action against the rioters appeared to be impossible."
"Police subjected to double jeopardy : In Philadelphia, the first city to try a Civilian Review Board, it was found that even after an officer had been cleared by the courts of an offense, the review board continued to harass the officer and threaten him with penalization.
"Civilian Review Board idea originally created to subvert U.S. police . It is obvious that the removal of the police from the discipline and control of the city's elected representatives and making them subservient to a small group of private citizens creates a perfect setup for any subversive group desiring to infiltrate the Review Board and intimidate the police. Therefore, as Dr. Bella Dodd, former national officer of the Communist Party, has pointed out, the whole idea of setting up Civilian Review Boards was invented by the Communist Party three decades ago. Their object, she says, was to gain control of the police and paralyze them when riots and violence were instigated. And as J. Edgar Hoover has already indicated, this is exactly what happens.
"Motives of those now promoting Civilian Review Boards are highly questionable . The American Civil Liberties Union which is waging a nationwide campaign to place the police under Civilian Review Boards has been investigated many times for suspected subversive activities. And while the ACLU has never been proven to be under the discipline of the Communist Party per se, its director from 1920 to 1940 was Harry F. Ward who has been identified by former leaders of the Communist Party as a member. A Federal legislative committee reported, "The American Civil Liberties Union is closely affiliated with the Communist movement in the United States, and fully 90% of its efforts are on behalf of communists who come into difficulty with the law." The California Senate Fact Finding Committee supported this estimate of "90%" and said, "The American Civil Liberties Union may be definitely classed as a communist front or 'Transmission Belt' organization." (These and other citations on ACLU are quoted with original sources in The California Peace Officer, November-December, 1960, in an article entitled "Police Review Board," by Norman H. Moore.)
"J. Edgar Hoover has issued a warning against Civilian Review Boards : In the January 1, 1965, issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, J. Edgar Hoover wrote: "When carefully considered, it is clear this drive for external boards is an ill-advised maneuver. It amounts to the usurpation of authority rightfully belonging to the police commander. It is a practice which could damage effective law enforcement and reduce the orderly processes of community life to petty bickering, suspicion, and hatred."
"Advocates of Civilian Review Boards deliberately misrepresent facts on police brutality : In an article entitled, "Police Brutality, Fact or Fiction," U.S. News & World Report, September 6, 1965, gives the results of a national survey: "Diligent inquiry on the part of staff members ... has failed to turn up evidence of any 'wave' of brutality on the part of police toward citizens in the cities of the United States. What research does reveal is that civilian 'brutality' against the police is being practiced rather widely. Federal Bureau of Investigation statistics show that 57 officers were murdered in line of duty last year. Eighteen thousand policemen were assaulted, resulting in injuries to 7,700 of them." (W. Cleon Skousen, The Communist Attack on U.S. Police , Ensign Publishing, 1966)
Today, the players have changed and the labels have changed, but the intent and the tactics are still the same. Perhaps the best action concerned citizens can do is to organize a Support Your Local Police Committee to make sure the truth is always available to citizens and to have a Police Appreciation Week in the community. We must remind ourselves that local law enforcement is the only thing that stands between us and devastating, brutal anarchy.
Earl Taylor, Jr.

Saturday, November 08, 2014

Rand Paul.

Rand voted to confirmed John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, and for all the Free Trade Agreements, and Rand supports amnesty, a Constitutional convention, 'some' drone strikes, term limits, a balance budget amendment, Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney. Doesn't support Voter ID. He also supported the NDAA and Wants Trans-Pacific Partnership. His "Stand with Israel Act" supports Foreign Aid, wants to "draw new lines for Kurdistan and I would promise them a country". He doesn't sound conservative to me.

Friday, August 30, 2013

The CFR is not your friend video