The Global AI Summit went almost unnoticed last week, but as we rapidly approach a sweltering digital future, it’s worth keeping an eye out for what these industry leaders are up to.

Right now, humanity’s digital technology is like a Ferrari speeding around the corners along the Amalfi Coast. Of course, we are making progress, but sooner or later there will be a sudden tourist bus – a rubber squeal – and a long drop into the Gulf of Salerno.

Where is biometric technology headed? The question is no longer ‘what can he do?’ it’s ‘what does it do want to TO DO?’

Unfortunately, the answer is likely to unsettle free-spirited citizens, as collectivist ideology bleeds into the minds of political leaders and tech CEOs. The world is bracing for the worst-case scenario where our digital executives are ruled by communist China and oppressive Islamic theocracies. One has a lot of people to control, and the other is keen to control citizen morality against Western influence.

In this case, the recent Global AI Summit boasted of three main themes; “AI now”, “AI next” and “AI never”.

AI Never comes with the description:

“How can we ensure that the future we design is the one we want to live in and not some dystopian science fiction?” AI Never challenges audiences and speakers to engage in debates on the ethics and responsible use of AI across a range of fields and topics.

It all sounds nice and fluffy until you realize that there are people leading the conversation on digital ethics who are being gullible when it comes to a secure future for AI. After all, are we to believe that politicians in severely tyrannical governments are serious about digital ethics? If they can’t enforce human rights in real world laws, why should the digital realm be any different?

It’s a sentiment that should be repeated to Australian leaders who have shown favoritism to digital tyranny in the name of ‘security’ and ‘sustainability’ when given the chance.

Westerners need to understand that entire branches of AI are funded by countries with dubious motives. Whatever technological advances they make can easily be exported into our systems by leaders like Trudeau who cast a fond eye over collectivism. If we’re not careful to take a digital stance on the ethics of AI as a civilization, we won’t have a say in what happens to our data, because organizations like the United Nations collectivize international data on our behalf – almost certainly for “green” initiatives. .

Unfortunately, because Australian politicians have shown themselves eager to use the digital world to increase government power and surveillance, there needs to be an open national conversation to contradict our supposed consent. There was no self-control during Covid and it is unlikely there will be during the “climate apocalypse”.

Chairman of the Saudi Data and AI Authority, Dr. Abdullah bin Sharaf Alghamdi, began his message to the Global AI Summit with:

“In an effort to successfully address increasingly complex challenges, both local and global, and to harness the accelerating pace of technological development, a revamped concept of smart cities has taken hold, with major countries now facilitating development of smart city ecosystems in order to successfully meet the demands of rapid population growth, improve resource efficiency, and enable collective solutions to improve individual quality of life. This revised approach to smart cities is increasingly holistic and focused on the principles of sustainable development, each addressing economic, social, environmental and cultural dimensions.

‘…Since its creation, the Saudi Data and AI Authority (warm and fluffy, right?) enabled this transformation by delivering unprecedented levels of data through AI technologies for smart cities. »

Australian cities are involved in the Smart City project. It’s a loosely put together mass digital harassment scheme that uses things like billboards and bus shelters to spy on citizens with facial recognition software – sending data back to a central control center. It’s part advertising and part surveillance – one of many hybrid business and government projects that sees private citizen data turned into a valuable asset without our consent.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Deputy Minister for Cities and Digital Transformation Angus Taylor signed us up for a version of this digital future under the “three pillars” of; Smart investment, smart policy and smart technology.

While there is no problem using data in “smart cities” to keep tabs on burst water pipes or destroyed bus shelters, what governments are most interested in is the biometric data of people who live in these cities. That is, where they go, how they get there, what they do, who they meet and who they are. This is information that the government has no right to know. It’s no different to handing the Prime Minister a detailed breakdown of your daily movements.

Auckland (New Zealand), Markham (Canada), Gothenburg (Sweden), Seoul (South Korea), Chattanooga (USA) and Huzhou (China) also want to try the slippery slope of smart cities.

No doubt the government will say “it’s for your safety”, or worse – for your convenience – but the dystopian digital hell the AI ​​summit warns against lies in the technology it endorses.

What do you think the government will use all this smart city infrastructure for the next time a “pandemic” happens?

It’s highly likely that facial recognition software will be useful for monitoring “close contacts” or unvaccinated people and for alerting authorities (or automatically anchoring your social credit score) if you’re caught with one foot outside. your authorized area. Heaven help you if you refuse vaccination orders. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that Covid is used as a repeated example to ensure the security of “smart cities”.

Are you asking if people living under eternal communist surveillance in Tibet and Xinjiang feel “safe”?

It’s no surprise to find security and policing high on the smart city agenda, with automatic AI-driven “respond and act” protocols topping the list that trigger at their round of “drone responses”.

Urban transformation, sustainability, a “vibrant society” and surveillance are used interchangeably and whether you have a natural interest in technology or not, you are interested in it.

But don’t worry, the trusted World Economic Forum (?) is leading the charge for smart city ethics.

“World leaders announced the launch of the Global Smart Cities Alliance on Technology Governance at the 2019 G20 Summit in Osaka, Japan. As an international organization for public-private cooperation, the World Economic Forum has been chosen to be the secretariat of the G20 Global Smart Cities Alliance.

Human beings are not performance quotas. The idea that AI is being used to extract social targets from the human fabric that binds a civilization together is an undesirable and dangerous precedent shrouded in the usual “utopia” lie.

There is no version of social control that ends in happy, free, and creative cities. Humanity needs chaos and feeds on the whim of error to excel.

Younger generations, who do not have a healthy fear of technology, are going to be the Trojan horse by which leaders bring about a data-driven, prison-like future.

If we are to ensure our security while advancing technology, it is the government – ​​not the citizens – who must be kept out of big data. Without limits on government visibility, there will be no limits on government control.

Do you have something to add ? Join the discussion and comment below.