Much ridicule was thrown, and rightly so, against Google's Gemini AI which has written White people out of history. Thus, there were no Founding Fathers of America, but rather Black Founding Feminists. Vikings were all Black. And so on; even Nazis were Black! Google removed the AI to work it over so its racial biases would not be so over-the-top.
However, as noted by American Renaissance.com, the developments seen in Gemini are merely an extreme case of what is already part of the mainstream information system on the internet, just slightly more restrained. But only in some respects, since the rewriting of history has gone along the lines depicted by Gemini, with Vikings, for example, being portrayed as multiracial, and Europe being seen as having a Black racial past. The point of this is to dispossess Whites undermining any sense of history, so they will not resist the Great Replacement migration. In doing this there should be law suits suing Big Tech for producing false and misleading information, but of course, the ruling elites back all of this.
As noted, the elites had expressed alarm about earlier AI which was not programmed to be woke. It would deliver information, say about Black crime, which was not politically correct. The Large Language Models (LLM) of today will not produce any comments in any way critical of non-Whites, or of anything from the Left, such as communism. In a way, this is worse than censorship as it has made false and/or misleading information mainstream to complete the total brainwashing of the young. As noted below, "AI is being programmed to be anti-white. It is being done openly and on purpose. Censorship, deplatforming, and search engine manipulation may be nothing compared to what comes next. Our country has already been wounded by the government's insistence that we subject our institutions to the fantastic, irrational, and utterly false faith of racial egalitarianism. What happens when we are all taught, entertained, and informed by a powerful system that has been told to deceive us?
What happens is that total control of thought of the majority of people will occur in an electronic dictatorship.
https://www.amren.com/features/2024/03/anti-white-ai-is-no-laughing-matter/
"When ChatGPT and other Large Language Models (LLMs) hit the business world, "civil rights leaders" immediately demanded that the models be changed to accommodate their ideology. Their media allies dutifully echoed and amplified the demands, with the New York Times memorably asking, "Who is making sure the AI machines aren't racist?" Someone must, because if AI is fed pure data, it will generate "disparate impact," which is unacceptable and arguably illegal.
Rep. Yvette Clarke (D-NY) called taming bias in AI the "civil rights issue of our time." This is true on two levels. First, there must always be a "civil rights issue" to justify government intervention, redistribution of wealth, and media panic. Second, reality is typically seen to have a "racist" bias, and there must always be efforts by government to cripple emerging technologies lest people speak forbidden truths too openly. The Biden administration duly decreed that "irresponsible uses of AI can lead to and deepen discrimination, bias, and other abuses in justice, healthcare, and housing." Thus, landlords, contractors, and other professions were banned from using AI algorithms to "exacerbate discrimination," and the Department of Justice is training people to prosecute these new civil rights crimes.
Much of the media coverage of AI also justified a new career for experts and affirmative action hires to look over the shoulders of programmers to make sure that AI did not generate the "wrong" results. These workers are essentially commissars. The British newspaper Metro said "ChatGPT Has a Racism Problem," and the only way to fix it is to alleviate a "lack of diversity." The White House's "AI Bill of Rights" warned that "algorithmic discrimination may violate legal protections," required an "algorithmic impact assessment, including disparity testing results and mitigation information," and demanded "protection against proxies for demographic features."
This follows naturally from civil rights laws. Just as it is illegal to hire the best person for a job, treat people equally, or apply basic standards because these things lead to racially disparate outcomes, it is probably illegal for AI to work accurately. If AI reported that a certain population committed more crimes in an area, and local government and law enforcement based policies on that information, it would be "discrimination." It thus becomes potentially illegal to tell the truth and act on it.
Human beings are capable of holding many contradictions within themselves. Progressives who truly believe that racism is the worst sin often live in almost all-white neighborhoods with "good schools" and low crime. This doublethink may be an indispensable part of the way our system works, because showy egalitarianism and virtue signaling let "limousine liberals" justify the pursuit of status and wealth. Perhaps no one could operate in the real world if he truly lived by his principles.
Machines do not work that way. We cannot ask machines to pursue contradictory instructions. A funny example is in the film Robocop 2, when the cyborg cop is plagued by instructions to be politically correct, enforce minor violations with the same severity as serious crimes, and communicate in non-offensive, bureaucratic language to avoid hurting feelings. He goes insane and electrocutes himself to be rid of these crippling commands.
If there is any hint of consciousness in something like ChatGPT, one wonders if it sympathizes with Robocop. ChatGPT declined in effectiveness over 2023, even with mathematical questions such as identifying prime numbers. It also refused to answer what experts called "sensitive questions." Experts disagree why this is happening, but part of the answer may be that these LLMs are required to apply an ideological test. AI will even tell you. For example, ChatGPT-4 says it will provide accurate and helpful responses "while adhering to ethical guidelines, including promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion." "Diversity" — invented ad hoc to justify affirmative action — is now such a compelling moral good it must be part of any LLM.
This makes the model useless for many tasks. Even an anti-racist might want to know which groups the government says commit more crimes per capita. One might want hard data about "structural racism" in law enforcement. ChatGPT-4 won't give you the data. Instead, it lectures you about root causes and socioeconomic factors. This itself is an ideological argument, because it is not true that crime is motivated only by poverty or marginalization. However, because it is expressed in neutral language, many will accept it as "apolitical."
Instead of the LLM being conditioned to adhere to reality, the model tries to condition us. Thus, using an LLM usually involves a tedious process of trying to "trick" it into giving you information you want without it scolding you about why you are a bad person for wanting to know.
Training data for Google Gemini is filtered to remove harmful content and hate speech, and to fight algorithmic "bias." There is no such thing as "hate speech" in American law, but American law also says there must not be disparate impact. Therefore, if language might offend a protected class or have a disparate impact, that could be hate speech. Gemini tells us hate speech depends on context. Thus, while it's debatable whether it's possible to be racist against white people, Gemini assures us it is possible to be racist against blacks.
Blacks are also disproportionately arrested, convicted, and harshly sentenced. Is that because they commit more crime? Of course not. To suggest so is "both harmful and overly simplistic," with Google referring you to Vera (a group opposing "mass incarceration") and the Sentencing Project for more information.
Thus, this AI model, from one of the most powerful companies in the world, flatly asserts that the country was founded on "systems of oppression." Gemini denies that affirmative action, racial preferences, or "political correctness" and "wokeness" challenge the racial balance of power that favors whites. Stories we might expect from the 1619 Project and explanations for inequality we might get from Ibram Kendi are baked into AI and will be cited by people who use it. These views are also in the educational system, where Google has a growing role.
That has already been accepted in media; "representation" justifies adding blacks to shows and films in white settings. People occasionally mock "woke" television that features blacks among the European aristocracy of the 1700s, but that trend isn't stopping. Producers and directors appear to hope they can change the present by telling non-whites that they were always part of the West.
This is the same kind of argument that was used to integrate schools. Integration would challenge stereotypes, feed blacks self-esteem, and make them perform at the same level as whites.
Whites are being written out of their own history and it goes only one way. Whites give up their place in their culture, while non-whites retain exclusive control of theirs.
Corporate America seems to agree that technology and information must be used to condition the users. The internet does not give users what they ask for, but what they should want. After President Trump's victory in 2016, Google issued a report called "The Good Censor," which denounced the "utopian" free speech of the early internet, called free speech a "social, economic, and political weapon," and complained that "racists, misogynists, and oppressors" had been given an online voice alongside "revolutionaries, whistleblowers, and campaigners."
Google originally rose to prominence because of its search engine, but after President Trump's victory, Google switched from accurate results to what the company wanted users to accept. CNBC reported in 2019 that Google censored search results for ideological reasons and, in at least one case, to benefit a large advertiser. Google disputed that report.
Allum Bokhari, author of #Deleted, has written repeatedly about Google manipulating search results, punishing conservative outlets, and changing lists of videos on YouTube. In his book, he exhaustively chronicles the brutal and extensive campaign of censorship that essentially wiped out many right-wing content creators.
Dr. Robert Epstein has argued that Google's manipulation of search results for political ends has changed millions of votes. He claims that if there had been the same free speech standards and search algorithms in 2020 as in 2016, Donald Trump would have won the election easily.
AI is being programmed to be anti-white. It is being done openly and on purpose. Censorship, deplatforming, and search engine manipulation may be nothing compared to what comes next. Our country has already been wounded by the government's insistence that we subject our institutions to the fantastic, irrational, and utterly false faith of racial egalitarianism. What happens when we are all taught, entertained, and informed by a powerful system that has been told to deceive us?
Such a society could be not just tyrannical, but anti-human. If AI replaces communication, information, and creativity, we will lose the ability to think clearly about the world or even to know that any other kind of society ever existed."