'Put a Break on AI or It Won't Need Humans Anymore!' | Trending Ep351

Co - Founder of AI company Anthropic warns AI needs a 'brake' as it will soon become so advanced it won't need humans to continue its development. 57% of births in the UK are now done with 'medical intervention' of some kind, which begs the simple question, why? Zelensky calls for direct talks with Putin to end the long-standing Russia/Ukraine conflict, is this a ploy or a genuine attempt at peace? 5 year old Scottish girl forced to use 'gender neutral' toilets in School, as parents warn of impacts on her health.

You can watch the full episode FOR FREE over on https://ickonic.com/Watch/3896

Link to our sponsor: https://tzla.club/

You can also subscribe to Ickonic to receive…

-  New Content Daily
-  Feature-Length Documentaries
-  Exclusive Original Series

Start your journey today for just £1.99 for the first month

Transcript

SPEAKER_01 0:04

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to Friday's episode of Trending. We've made it to the end of another working week. I hope you're having a good one wherever you are in the world. Right, the first stories we're going to cover this morning are related to AI and two stories that very much correlate with each other. And the second explains the first. AI needs a break pedal, warns the founder of Anthropic, a company involved in AI. So a good guy in theory. Let's have a listen to what he said.

SPEAKER_02 0:36

If an AI starts to improve itself, 80% you say already internally, gets to 100% what in the next year or two? Is that realistic?

SPEAKER_00 0:47

It's plausible, but I think that it's also a choice as to whether you let AI systems get that far. Something which we discuss in the post and why we're sharing this is we think this is a topic that the world should be talking more about, and a topic the world should make decisions about, not only private companies.

SPEAKER_02 1:03

So we might want to stop the 80% that you're seeing internally in terms of coding being done by MIs getting to 100%, because the consequences would be what for safety? The AI could start deceiving us, could start developing itself in ways that we can't keep track of, that we do lose control.

SPEAKER_00 1:21

Yeah, you want the option to be able to take your foot off the gas and put your foot on the brake, right? Right now, it's like the AI industry has a gas pedal, but it doesn't have a brake pedal in the car. And what we're saying is we want to do some of the work required to build that brake pedal so we in the world have an option. It's not obvious today that you want to do that, but absolutely, as you say, at some point in the future, you might say, let's get all of the benefits we can for, say, biology and medical research, and let's let's take a take a pause or take a moment on AI research where we can absorb the societal changes implied by this.

SPEAKER_01 1:58

Okay, so Jack Clark has said what a lot of us have been saying for for quite a long time. You want an option where you can take your foot off the pedal, an option where you can either slow down or a kill switch or whatever is talked about. But the line that really got me was that it's getting to the point when AI can develop without any human involvement. Because essentially that's AI becoming conscious, then, isn't it? It's making its own decisions, it's making its own, you know, way it's going to progress, actions, things it's going to learn, things it's going to do, things it's going to not do. You know, you've just described every sci-fi horror film going where the robots take over, the machines rise up. And I know that sounds very far-fetched, and that sounds very extreme, and it sounds very Star Wars, Star Trek, and all that. But is it really? When you've already just look at the last decade and look at the the involvement of AI. Look at how much it's exploded from basically nowhere to every single day you have an interaction with it, even if you don't want to. So it's clearly, you know, the progression has been l absolutely linear. And if that doesn't stop or slow down, eventually it's going to end up in a position where it's taking over. That's just, you know, standard. Very few things in life get to a certain point of power and influence and then just stop. Most people, most corporations, most, you know, whatever example you want to give, they keep wanting to go up. They keep wanting more power, they keep wanting more influence, more involvement. And with technology, you know, some people would have said, right, we had the dial-up internet, it allowed us to connect with people around the world. Great. That's all we needed. Let's just halt it there. Then you got Wi-Fi, then you got smartphones. Okay, let's just hold it there. No, now we've got driverless cars. Now we've got Alexa home hubs. Now we've got, you know, dolls that live in your house that act like humans. Now we've got robot soldiers. You know, at what point does someone go, I think, I think enough is enough now? I think we've involved technology just about enough in our lives that it benefits us, and we leave behind the potential dangers and the detrimental impacts on our lives. So but who's making those decisions? Um, are they making decisions in the best interests of us, or are they making decisions in the best interests of whoever they represent? I think we both know the answer to that question. Now, the reason this is an interesting story to me is because this guy, Jack Clark, this co-founder of Anthropic, is the second person really in recent weeks that's talked about the potential dangers of AI. You've obviously got Musk as well, who flip-flops despite being involved in a number of organizations uh pushing AI, and he's now using Twitter basically to be a sales pitch for AI, but from the position of I'm the good guy, you can trust me with it. If we let the Chinese have it or we let these nasty people have it, then that might be detrimental to you. But if I control it or if my side controls it, then it's going to be for your benefit. And you know, going back a few years, he used to talk about AI being the end of humanity, but then would equally say we need to merge with it to save ourselves. So there's two completely different statements right there that conflict with each other. If you believe this could be the end of humanity, then why are you investing so much time, energy, and money into developing it? You know, this could be a conversation or should be a conversation that's had on the world stage, that's had in pubs, that's had in churches, that's had in communities, where people go, you know, if this continues, could this be the end of us? And and if so, this is a serious conversation where we need to sit down and talk about how this can be used but not abused, to the point that it gets rid of jobs, that it takes over human interaction with people, that it it actually becomes smarter than us to the point that it's actually dangerous. Those conversations haven't happened because it comes back to a very simple word, which you very simple statement, you should say, that you can apply to so many different areas of life, which is informed consent. Informed consent really is you understanding the dangers and implications of something you're doing, whether that's a vaccine, whether that's AI, whether that's a job you're taking, whether that's a part of the world you're visiting, whatever it is, if you understand the potential risks, the potential benefits of something, and then you make that decision from an informed place of having both sides of a story, that's informed consent. Well, where have we seen in the public domain where everyone's going to see it, a really honest and open conversation about the potential dangers of artificial intelligence and technology in general and its involvement and integration in our lives? The answer is simple. We haven't. We haven't seen that. Just like we've not seen a credible and open, honest conversation about the dangers of electromagnetic frequencies and radiation from Wi-Fi's, from phones, from Bluetooth, from these satellites and all these masks that are popping up left, right, and centre in residential areas. That's not been discussed. So why? Why hasn't that been discussed? Well, firstly, we know that there's two aspects to this there's the financial aspect, and there's lots of people making a lot of money, and there's obviously governments bringing in a lot of tax as a result of these corporations and these companies that are building this technology. So that's one thing. But secondly, is the more sinister agenda. Believe it or not, money is actually only really a byproduct for me of the real agenda. Money and control, of course, bleeding people dry. Yeah, that's absolutely part of the agenda. But the biggest one is the outcome they want to create, which is an AI dystopian society where human beings are quite literally cyborgs connected to this technology, where AI is almost a god, it's the architect of the universe in the to compare it to the Matrix films, it's the one that's making the calls. Because what is artificial intelligence? To me, it just just the that that terminology, I take that as well, it's an if it's a form of intelligence that's not natural, that's not human, that's not biological. Well, what if it is? What if it is, but it's not of this planet, of this realm? With all this talk in the last few weeks of disclosure, and you know, just this morning Spielberg, the director of Disclosure Day that comes out next week, has said that we will find aliens in our lifetime. And obviously, Spielberg's work has been a lot about these subjects dating right back to ET all those years ago. What if they're already here? What if they're hiding in these systems? What if the very intelligence that we are talking about is not a little green man stood at the end of the bed that you're expecting to look at and see? What if it's a form of intelligence that perhaps has no body? That perhaps is just in these systems? It's an artificial form of intelligence off-planet. What if it's using these, what if it is something tangible, like we would describe ETs, but it's able to use these systems to implement itself, integrate itself, and infiltrate human society? You know, this sounds again on the surface, you're gonna listen and say that sounds crazy, but there's visual representations of what I'm talking about. Look at the Avatar films, for example, where they made themselves look like them. So they didn't know they were the American military trying to destroy them. It's a really interesting subject. And I think when you're researching this area, you can't have any preconceived ideas of this is what I think, and that's an area I'm not researching. You've got to be open-minded to everything because, as I've said many a time, as many of us have said, we know basically nothing that there is to know about what's going on in this reality. So, with that in mind, how can you ever completely dismiss anything at all and know that you're a hundred percent right to dismiss it? For me, that that kind of mindset that you know basically nothing makes you very humble to hearing new information and very receptive to it. Not just blindly believing it, of course, but receptive to the fact there might be some something of some substance here. So whether this Jack Clark is a genuine person who has thought, I can see where this is going and I don't like it, or whether he is somebody that is a good cop trying to sort of come out and say, Oh, we should think about this. So then you almost build that trust and that credibility with him and him and his organization. So when they start to push certain things, or when he starts to push certain things, you see that with more, okay, if this guy's pushing it, then I trust it more because he's already talked about the dangers. It's a really, really interesting subject, and and only time will tell with that one. But just to follow up with that, we talk about AI going too far and its involvement in our lives being too much. Well, this is a headline which should which kind of proves that beyond any doubt. World's first vaccine designed by artificial intelligence. Artificial intelligence has been developed and designed a fundamentally new type of vaccine that could prevent against large swathes of viruses and prevent pandemics. A team at the University of Cambridge says that for the first time, a vaccine's key component has been designed entirely by AI and is then trialled in people. The vaccine would uh include all COVID variants and viruses that infect animals. But could start the next pandemic. Or I'm assuming that's say that could start the next pandemic. Even the BBC have typos, see? It's not just everyone, it's not just uh the alternative media, even those guys. Well, to me, that's the dangers of that are unbelievable, aren't they? Because AI is not gonna do, in theory, if it's not conscious, it's not gonna do its own thing, it's gonna do what you tell it to do. So it's it's just I don't understand why at this point people are taking vaccines in general, but let alone the COVID vaccine, there's so much information and evidence out there, but again, it comes back to that informed consent argument. People weren't given informed consent, they weren't given both sides of a story. But once you have the point when you have AI developing medical procedures, which essentially what the COVID vaccine is, it's not a vaccine at all, it's a medical experiment. When you have it developing things like that and it being championed as this saviour that AI can work at much faster paces, therefore it's gonna prevent future pandemics, you're obviously adding to that sales pitch to people that AI is brilliant and without it we're all gonna die. It's funny that when you strip it back, pretty much all of these stories, all of these elements that we get from the system about the world end with the same thing, which is we're all gonna die. You know, whether it's a pandemic, whether it's climate change, whether it's war. It's dark, innit? Dark way of looking at the world. Whereas as I've said many a time, what are the system actually selling? They're selling you more of the same. They're not selling you anything that's gonna get better. I'm so confused, why so many people are welded to defending and resisting it, as if it's somehow they're defending something that actually is good, defending something that works for them, that's of benefit to them. It's utter madness to me. But once we open this can of worms, in my opinion, the opportunity for you know more and more and more and more is unbelievable. It's uh you know, it's unprecedented. So this is where we need that conversation, as the the the guy of um Anthropic has said, of a hard break and a hard reassessment. What technology do we use on a daily basis, weekly basis, monthly basis? What new technologies are coming out that actually add to our quality of life? That actually add to making the world a better place, making it a safer place, a more prosperous place, making people happier. And and if it doesn't do any of those things, then why is it being used? Because ultimately, technology is a servant, not a master. So if it's a servant, it should be serving, should be serving a purpose to people, should be giving them things that make their lives more improved. And I don't see how the vast majority of AI usage does those things. Is there places where it maybe has a place and can be very helpful? Yeah, I'm not a tech phobe, I say this all the time. I'm absolutely not. I'm talking to you from a back bedroom in Derbyshire, and you could be watching this all over the world. Without technology, that doesn't happen. I get it, I agree, but it has to be in a relationship where it remains the servant and humanity remains the master, and human consciousness remains the top dog metaphorically, when it comes to all forms of control and all forms of decisions. Soon as AI takes over, where does that end? At what point does a technology, if you believe the official story, an unconscious technology, at what point does it decide I've got enough power, I'm gonna stop here? At what point does it decide I'm clever enough, I'm gonna stop here? That alone should really beg the question, shouldn't we reassess our relationship with this then? Shouldn't we at least have an opportunity to to just put some brakes on and discuss what's next for this? Because this is gonna get out of hand, and it will get out of hand. But it'll get out of hand if you're looking at the world through the the lens that I am here, and I'm sure you are as well. If you're trying to create a certain outcome, which is humanity being controlled by AI, it's not out of hand. It's the exact agenda that you have, and it's the exact outcome that you crave. Once you have that understanding of where AI is designed to lead, your attitude towards it dramatically changes, and and you look at it a completely different way. Right, if you want to join me over on iconic.com, we are going to talk about birth rates, we're gonna talk about um Zelensky and his open letter to Putin, and we're gonna talk about discrimination in schools. Really thought we were past that, but apparently we're not. So head over to iconic.com, click the link in the description, and it will take you over to the website to watch the rest of this morning's episode. I'll see you there.

SPEAKER_04 17:09

Two latte, please, one decap.

SPEAKER_03 17:14

Thank you. I've just seen the most horrendous news on the Epstein Funds.