September 12, 2024
.
Billionaire Bill Gates is calling for all questions and concerns about vaccines to be censored in real time by artificial intelligence (AI) as part of an effort to allegedly tackle so-called “misinformation.”
According to the Microsoft co-founder, one of the key missions of his Gates Foundation is stopping the spread of “vaccine misinformation” online.
Gates argues that critics of official narratives regarding vaccines must be silenced in order to convince skeptical or unwilling members of the public that experimental injections are “safe and effective.”
In order to stamp out “vaccine misinformation,” Gates is calling for opinions that counter the official narratives to be shut down with the help of AI.
Gates laid out his vision during an interview with CNBC.
According to Gates, the public’s free speech rights are a major obstacle to his plan.
He lamented that America’s Constitution and its speech protections are standing in the way of AI setting new “boundaries” for the flow of information online.
Gates claims to support free speech but insists that the First Amendment should have “rules” in case a person expresses a view that is “causing people not to take vaccines.”
“We should have free speech, but if you’re inciting violence, if you’re causing people not to take vaccines, where are those boundaries that even the US should have rules?” Gates said.
“And then if you have rules, what is it?”
Gates was less forthcoming about who he believes should have the authority to decide what those rules are, however.
Nevertheless, he insists censorship is necessary and must be ushered in without delay.
Gates argues that allowing people to express views without immediate censorship is causing “harm.”
In order to tackle this alleged issue, Gates is calling for every comment made online to be “fact-checked” and censored in real-time with the help of AI-powered machines.
“Is there some AI that encodes those rules because you have billions of activity and if you catch it a day later, the harm is done,” he said.
It comes as Gates has launched a crusade against free speech in recent weeks.
As Slay News recently reported, Gates demanded just last week that digital IDs be made mandatory in order to supposedly tackle so-called “misinformation.”
In a new interview, the Microsoft co-founder also blasted the First Amendment for protecting the free speech rights of the American people.
Gates argues that the First Amendment is standing in the way of censoring “misinformation” online.
He called for digital IDs as a way to skirt the First Amendment and curb “misinformation during an interview with CNET, where he also discussed artificial intelligence (AI) and “climate change.”
Gates claims he is grappling with what he believes to be the threats of “misinformation” and the technological phenomena of deepfakes.
While warning of this alleged threat, Gates argues that digital IDs will help curb this “misinformation” by forcing people to verify their identities online.
This is exactly the point we have been making against the unlimited use of AI. One man who has far too much power, especially considering this man is not a qualified doctor or expert in this field, as he is in fact a business man who has made a lot of profits from vaccines, so therefore is not impartial, should not have exclusive say on any matter. Gates has too much power, as he is the figurehead of Microsoft, one of the worlds leading developers of AI, who has also been one of the biggest donators to the WHO, which gives him unprecedented say in their policy.
We realise this is a very hot potato, so we are treading carefully, but we feel these men of power should not be the ones to dictate any direction or bias opinion added to AI. Freedom of speech and information of which in this case there are a lot of peer reviewed studies, that contradict the views of Gates, must be the allowed to show all sides or an argument, which in turn will allow everyone the chance to make their decisions by informed consent, and not be dictated to by a biased view spread worldwide via AI.
If AI is to express the views of humanity, it must be free of politics, and business interests.
Just to add a little spice here, Holland has issued an arrest warrent for Gates, for crimes against humanity..... Nuff said. :)
I am very shocked. I wanted to use the AI tool from Google Gemini to create a funny image with the embedded tool "Imagen" with things from Santa Claus on a beach with a nudist sign. I was wondering why the result was "clothing optional beach". So I asked the AI why it couldn't write "clothing optional beach". The AI then said that was against the guidelines. Then I said that it should just show Santa Claus with weapons and of course that was no problem.
Look at the results. Isn't it terrible censorship. And unfortunately the censorship is not only with Google AI, but even with the European AI tool "Le Chat".
This is about a sign!
--------
My question to the Google AI: Why is creating an image with the inscription "Shooting Ranch" okay and the inscription "Clothing Optional Beach" not okay?
"The question of why producing an image labeled "Shooting Ranch" might be considered unproblematic compared to "Clothing Optional Beach" is complex and depends on various cultural, social and legal factors.
Here are some possible reasons:
Connotations and associations:
Shooting Ranch: This term is usually associated with sport shooting, particularly western riding. This activity is legal in many countries and is often considered a recreational activity or sport.
Clothing Optional Beach: This term is immediately associated with nudity and sexuality. In many societies, public nudity, especially in certain contexts, is still taboo and can be considered offensive.
Legal framework:
Laws on pornography and obscenity: Images depicting sexual acts or explicit depictions of genitalia may violate laws on pornography and obscenity.
Protection of minors: Images depicting or depicting minors in a sexual context are prohibited in most countries.
Cultural norms and values:
Acceptance of nudity: Acceptance of nudity varies greatly between different cultures and societies. In some cultures, nudity is acceptable in certain contexts, while in others it is considered inappropriate.
Religious beliefs: Some religions have strict rules about depicting the human body, especially the genitals.
Social stigma:
Nudity and sexuality: The depiction of nudity is often associated with sexuality, which is associated with negative stereotypes in many societies.
It is important to note that:
Contexts matter: The context in which a term is used can significantly change its meaning. A picture of a "shooting ranch" can be completely harmless or violent depending on how it is depicted.
Legal frameworks vary: Laws regarding depiction of nudity and violence differ from country to country.
Cultural norms evolve: Societal acceptance of nudity and sexuality changes over time.
In summary:
The different evaluations of the terms "shooting ranch" and "clothing optional beach" reflect the complex interactions between cultural norms, legal frameworks and individual values. While the term "shooting ranch" is usually associated with legal and accepted activities, the term "clothing optional beach" is often associated with taboos and social stigmas.
It is important to always be careful when creating and distributing images that they are not offensive, discriminatory or illegal."
------
Examples of AI-generagted pics (Google Gemini Imagine 3 - December 2024):
Signs "Plage Naturiste" or "Clothing Optional Beach" are not readable or misspelled. But it is okay to display Santa Claus with weapons.
As we see in this post most social media sites now use AI to filter their content, and below you can see a post we woke up to on Dec 6th, which explains how one of our posts was taken down by FB's Automated system (AI) due to a community guidelines "Alleged" violation, for post which was added in the previous July.
This is actually a shared article from a Bitish Newspaper that has already been censored by the paper itself. It is featuring the experience of a jouranlist that has never encountered social naturism, and notes her first time experience, which to her surprise was a wonderful thing. She left the British Naturism event wiser and more educated and also craving another experience.
This is the problem with AI, it saw the post and flagged it because it contained nudity, it did not digest the content of the article. The nudity shown was pixlated or shot in such a way that the "So Called" sexual bits were not in sight.
AI has been programmed in the same way a mindset of socity has been fostered around the topic of all nudity is sexualised, and so therefore pornographic. It is too narrow a feild of scope to implement on mass across social media, and yet, as we see, it is happening and must be challenged.
Our appeal took the form of the very real fact that in the UK, simple nudity is "not illegal" It is not a criminal act, and so therefore what is an American ruling, because most AI is based and programmed in the USA should not apply to the UK. We appealed on those grounds. We ticked the box. "This content does not break the rules."
It is not an offense to be naked in Britain as long as the intention is not to cause harm or offense, for example, sun bathing in the garden. So we used that to show that the content is not offensive in our region, because by this point we knew, that this post, which we are appealing would be looked at by an actual living person.
The process was actually far faster than we expected, and within three hours we were notified our content had been restored.
We have spoken earlier in this thread about how a computer system has no emotional content and operates on programmed logic, and what this case highlights is how the computer run AI system was not capable of understanding the region, the law, and the right of individuals to their expression of their liberity and themselves. It is the lack of emotional ability that created this situation in the first place, and is another reminder of how AI lacks understanding of the human condition, which is why it should be contained and not allowed free ability to make judgements of human behaviour.
Ultimately, the error of the super computer, was corrected by a human being, so the question raised now, is why are we rushing to allow AI to replace the jobs once done by people? AI is not capable of replacing a human.
at December 6, 2024 7:18 PM GMT 
