1. There's been a great deal of discussion about AI recently in terms of its role in future human societies. Can you please comment on this subject, because the implications of dramatic and unrestrained AI growth appear to be dramatic.
Answer: I have read the AI manifesto, and I know the seven rules that are viewed as sacred in AI circles with regard to ethical AI development. Central to these rules is that AI cannot be used to harm people. Yet the guidelines as they are currently written are completely insufficient to ensure that AI will represent safe modalities across human civilization.
2. May I ask why?
Answer: Nowhere in any of the texts of ethical AI development is there any attempt to define what a "person" is. If you know anything about computer programming, you know that you start with reasonable and agreed upon definitions. But this is completely lacking from AI documentation, and this omission is noticeable immediately.
3. Why does the definition of a human being matter in this context?
Answer: If we look at history, the Germans defined the Jews and others of their victims as "untermenschen," which is to say "subhumans" in order to justify the atrocities they committed against them over the course of years.
So, there is no boundary against our seeing this attempt to define some human beings as "subhuman" for the purposes of AI deployments.
And this is the reason we have been seeing mass resignations from some AI firms pertaining to robotics and defense contractors.
AI experts are not empowered to explain to the public what the argument is really about.
But this is the heart of the conflict.
4. What are the implications of this issue for the future of human sovereignty?
Answer: They are dire, I'm afraid.
Do subhumans have the right to have their votes counted? No.
Do subhumans have the right to own their own genetic information? No.
Do subhumans have access to Constitutional rights? No.
Do subhumans have the right to be protected from unconscionable medical experimentation? No.
Do subhumans have the right to limit their pregnancies by their choice? No.
Do subhumans have choices with regard to whether they are trafficked by the FBI for the profit of the agency? No.
Do subhumans have the right to defense against torture by the FBI? No.
Do subhumans have the right to choose whom they marry? No.
Do subhumans have a defense against wrongful imprisonment? No.
Do subhumans have the right to safe travel, safe food and water, freedom from abuse in the work environment, legal representation, the right to own private property? No, no, no, no and no.
Fundamentally, subhumans, as the Germans showed us with their classifications of "untermenschen," don't have the right to their own lives.
And this is the problem with AI as it currently stands. It is predicated on an architecture that clearly fails to protect humanity with the definition of what humanity is.
And I guarantee you that the FBI defines "targets of interests" and the DoD defines "non-investigative subjects" as subhuman within these institutions' internal terminology.
So, it's clear where we're heading with the current standards within the field of AI.
5. Where are we heading?
Answer: Toward a totalitarian dystopia with no ability to unmake the societal architecture requiring complete compliance and conformity from human beings with all sorts of cruel and unusual conditions imposed upon the majority.
And I encourage people to read the basic documentation pertaining to ethical AI development. If they have ever taken a beginning computer programming course, they will see the problems immediately.
6. Are there solutions to this predicament?
Answer: Yes, but they should have been implemented much earlier.
Right now, the DoD is interested in removing human beings from the chain of command in certain settings.
That's a mistake, because AI is advancing so rapidly that we will not be able to regain human control over AI systems at some future indeterminate point.
7. What will the impacts be if we proceed down the current path?
Answer: Those who ask questions will be eliminated fairly rapidly.
We will begin to see a survival advantage for the less intelligent, for those who don't object to injustice, exploitation, corruption or torture.
The human race will suffer a radical diminishment of its potential.
Barring a course correction, this is what will occur.
8. You have been told by the FBI that drone deployments have been approved against you yourself due to your requirements for the highest standards regarding your case. Are those drone deployments to be autonomous? What is your understanding of this situation?
Answer: Apparently, there has been presidential authorization of wrongful drone deployments against me, according to the FBI.
9. Weaponized drones?
Answer: Allegedly, yes.
10. Even though the President would likely profit from your murder and that of your family members?
Answer: There is the slightest problem of conflict of interest in this matter, isn't there?
11. What is to prevent this type of appalling assault against anyone who objects to corruption or wrongdoing by a particular government official?
Answer: Nothing. And I think this is the fundamental problem. When any elected leader begins to feel that he or she is not accountable for his or her actions, nothing is to prevent attempts to profiteer through schemes of first-degree murder. At that point, we enter into a devolution of human society as a whole.
12. What would you say to President Trump if you were able to speak to him directly?
Answer: I recognize that you feel answerable to Vladimir Putin in this situation, but your primary responsibility is still to the United States. Remember your vows to the American people, including me, and re-engage with this situation honorably. History is watching.
13. Will you please keep in close contact with us, given the astonishing details of this situation?
Answer: I will.
14. Thank you for speaking with us this afternoon.
Answer: You are most welcome.
Lane MacWilliams
