We talked about, you know, this interesting thing that’s put out by OpenAI. They call it chat 4-0 as an omni. And that was a little chatty, I found it to be very annoying, voice that was there. But it was, it sounded a good deal like Scarlett Johansson. And she came out and said, yeah, they tried to do a contract with me. I said, no, they went ahead and did it anyway. She sent them, lawyers sent letters to them, they took it down. But this is broader than just this one particular incident.

Because as Hollywood Reporter says, battle lines are being drawn over the use of AI tools in Hollywood. Actors may be the next group of creators to open another front in what could be an interest, an industry defining legal battle against AI firms over the use of copyrighted works and personal data in order to power their human mimicking chat box, chat box. So again, they’re stealing intellectual property. They’re stealing people’s appearances. They’re stealing people’s voices. They use it for their own stuff. But it’s based on theft. It’s based on imitation, repackaging.

It’s very deceptive. And when we look at it, the reason I criticize it is not even for that, but because of what I think it was specifically designed for, and that is for surveillance and for pattern matching, to be able to instantly identify us just as 5G is a fundamental technology that must be there regardless of the consequences to us and to our health. It must be there as a substrate for the kind of surveillance state that they want. So must you have artificial intelligence to make use of all of that data.

So again, she alleged that they were copying and imitating her voice after she refused to license it to the company. And I think it’s, they can make a pretty strong case for it. But this is actually something that was shown and predicted 11 years ago in a movie that really wasn’t very good. It had Robin Wright in it, you know, from the Princess Bride. And she was actually playing herself. And it was actually about the decision of an actress who in the movie, Robin Wright has a child who’s got real health issues that’s created financial strain for her to give the incentive for her to sign over her entire persona to this company that then takes it and that’s, she doesn’t act anymore.

And that’s really what would have happened with Scarlett Johansson. It would have damaged her career from overexposure. And no matter how much compensation she got for it, and I’m sure that they would not have given her some kind of a royalty every time things spoke, that would be unworkable. But I want to play for you a little bit of the trailer for this movie that came out 11 years ago. It was called The Congress. And then we’ll talk about what it was actually showing. If I can find it on here, it is.

You had it all, Robin. A movie queen at 24. And you slammed all the open doors, crushed all the dreams. And then Aaron’s condition started going downhill. Eventually you will be completely blind. This proposal won’t be on the table again. Robin and Wright for Jeff Green. You’re the future, Robin. Our princess arrived. And now I’m in this moment. What situation are you in, Jeff? The situation of offering you the last contract that you’ll ever have. We want to scan you. All from your body, your face, your emotions, your laughter, your tears.

And you want to own this thing called Robin Wright. I have a new age. Once we scan you, there’s no going back. Welcome to the future is Congress. Okay, so that’s where it gets weird. And that’s where they lost me. And that’s why it’s got very, very low ratings. I’m not recommending that you watch it. The first part of it actually was really good. And in this review, uh, 11 years ago, almost exactly 11 years ago, May 16th, 2013, uh, what they said was in the Congress, Robin Wright plays herself in a trippy cautionary tale about where society is headed.

And we’re there today, assuming that movie stars license their essence to studios and audiences, abandoned cinema in favor of chemical cocktails that allow them to experience life as their celebrity of choice, virtual reality. So you can go in and you can not even that they’re looking at movies where they have recreated this, uh, you know, Robin Wright or any other actor. Uh, but it’s going to be an immersive virtual reality experience. Uh, all of the stuff is coming together. Uh, you would just be able to, instead of being a furry or some fictional character, you could be a particular, uh, actor or actress this live tune, uh, live and cartoon hybrid ideal for midnight crowds and psychedelic enthusiasts.

Uh, but, um, they didn’t like it too much and neither did I. They said the beginning of it would make a really good hour long episode of the twilight zone. And that was the part of the trailer that I showed you there. After that, it goes into, um, uh, the production values are not very good in terms of the animated stuff. And they said, uh, the remainder of the film functions as a, uh, an adaptation and spirit only of Stennis law limbs, the future logical Congress. That’s why they called it the Congress.

Uh, but it redirects the classic sci-fi novels, anti-communist satire without any humor. Uh, it takes all the humor out of his satire toward a society dominated by drug companies and Hollywood studios, two industries that make decidedly strange bedfellows, except not really, you know, they’re pushing everything and Yuval Harari has said, it’s his desire to make sure that we drop out, that we play video games, that we do drugs or anything to keep us away from reality. Uh, virtual reality, whatever, you know, to keep us in the, um, you know, locked in our room and a fantasy world, they’ll do that.

And of course, Hollywood will be a part of that as a Hollywood is tied in with video games as it is now, but I think also drugs. And I think there’s also a place there for them to bring in, uh, these personalities. It’ll be iconic and, um, um, you know, it’s already begun in terms of going in and mapping people’s appearances and being able to, uh, get them to move and speak is only going to get much, much better, uh, in a very, very short period of time. I think we’re going to see that.

And they talked about that 11 years ago. It seemed kind of strange, but, um, they could see that that was where it was headed. You know, uh, Brian Shilhavi talked about AI. He said, um, if you want to take a look at a Boeing, he thinks that, uh, perhaps what is happening there is results of your faith in AI technology. He said, behold the results of your faith in AI technology, the Boeing example of failure. Brian Shilhavi health impact news. And he quotes one of the whistle Boers, uh, the John Barnett, who was found dead, uh, as a quality manager at Boeing, you’re the last line of defense before a defect makes it out to the flying public.

And I haven’t seen a plane out of Charleston yet that I’d put my name on saying that it is safe and airworthy. Hmm. So, uh, Brian says so far, I’ve not found anybody investigating what I’ve investigated today. And that’s why I’m going to report on it, this article. And that is the fact that while Boeing has an annual budget of 6.4 billion with a B dollars for developing AI and technology, and that while it has invested in AI technology for over a decade now, not only are their planes not becoming safer and more advanced due to this newer technology, but they’re becoming more dangerous and less advanced than older planes were before the rapid development of all this AI technology.

At the very least, we can say that all the billions that were spent on AI and technology by Boeing over the past decade plus have not made their planes safer. So even if it isn’t the cause of, um, you know, these increased, um, accidents, he said, certainly it hasn’t made them safer. So it’s been money that’s been wasted. And he said, just like we saw, uh, all these movements to make autonomous self driving cars and how that was a lot of wasted money, uh, billions poured down the drain. And, uh, Brian still have you said for the longest time that he thinks that this is going to be a third wave of hopium about artificial intelligence, that it’s not going to fulfill, uh, the promises that it’s made before.

I don’t know about that. I think that it’ll be deceptive enough that people will buy into it. And I think that part of the deception is for us to think that it’s about making things for us. It may be there to distract and to entertain, to mislead and misdirect us. It is not there to serve us. It is part of the serve state, the surveillance state. And I think that when we look at the impact, uh, one way or the other as to what it’s having on, let’s say Boeing, where they put six and a half billion dollars in, uh, to me, I think the real issue of artificial intelligence, as I said yesterday, it’s a, I’m not surprised to see Sam Altman and Jeffrey Hinton and these other people who are essentially the founding fathers of this, um, artificial intelligence stuff.

I’m not surprised to see them teaming it up with universal basic income. And not just because for, you know, 15 or so years, they’ve been talking about how they’re going to replace people with artificial intelligence and robotics and things like that. Uh, not simply because it’s a pacification, not, not simply to pacify us with universal basic income, but the fact that universal basic income is welfare, which pacifies people and artificial intelligence is there, uh, in the same way to make us, uh, as I said yesterday, Eloy, right? Uh, to make us dependent on, uh, this centrally provided stuff so we can’t do things for ourselves.

So we don’t have to grow or build or repair things. We rely on artificial intelligence. And that has been one of the big negatives of technology all along. The David Knight show is a critical thinking super spreader. If you’ve been exposed to logic by listening to the David Knight show, please do your part and try not to spread it. Financial support or simply telling others about the show causes this dangerous information to spread farther. People have to trust me. I mean, trust the science, wear your mask, take your vaccine.

Don’t ask questions. Using free speech to free minds. It’s the David Knight show. [tr:trw].

See more of The David Knight Show on their Public Channel and the MPN The David Knight Show channel.