The latest report about Wikipedia’s corruption comes from the great investigative journalist Craig Murray, who had been in the UK’s Foreign Service from 1984-2004 and who was forced out in 2004 because, having been since 2002 UK’s Ambassador to Uzbekistan, he decided to whistleblow instead of to accept the corruption by his own and Uzbekistan’s Governments. Wikipedia’s article about him says that his immediately prior posting had involved participating in enforcement of the prior economic sanctions against Iraq, and “His group gave daily reports to Margaret Thatcher and John Major. In Murder in Samarkand, he describes how this experience led him to disbelieve the claims of the UK and US governments in 2002 about Iraqi WMDs.” So, his disenchantment with UK’s foreign policies seems to have grown over the years, instead of suddenly to have appeared only during the two years in which he was an Ambassador.
On May 18th, he headlined at his much-followed blog, “The Philip Cross Affair”, and reported: “133,612 edits to Wikipedia have been made in the name of ‘Philip Cross’ over 14 years. That’s over 30 edits per day, seven days a week. And I do not use that figuratively: Wikipedia edits are timed, and if you plot them, the timecard for ‘Philip Cross’s’ Wikipedia activity is astonishing … if it is one individual.”
He presents reasons to question that it’s a one-person operation, then states that, the purpose of the “Philip Cross” operation is systematically to attack and undermine the reputations of those who are prominent in challenging the dominant corporate and state media narrative. particularly in foreign affairs. “Philip Cross” also systematically seeks to burnish the reputations of mainstream media journalists and other figures who are particularly prominent in pushing neo-con propaganda and in promoting the interests of Israel. …
“Philip Cross”‘s views happen to be precisely the same political views as those of Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia. Jimmy Wales has been on twitter the last three days being actively rude and unpleasant to anybody questioning the activities of Philip Cross. His commitment to Cross’s freedom to operate on Wikipedia would be rather more impressive if the Cross operation were not promoting Wales’ own opinions. Jimmy Wales has actively spoken against Jeremy Corbyn, supports the bombing of Syria, supports Israel, is so much of a Blairite he married Blair’s secretary, and sits on the board of [the neoconservative and neoliberal] Guardian Media Group Ltd alongside Katherine Viner.
The extreme defensiveness and surliness of Wales’ twitter responses on the “Philip Cross” operation is very revealing. Why do you think he reacts like this? Interestingly enough. Wikipedia’s UK begging arm, Wikimedia UK, joined in with equal hostile responses to anyone questioning Cross.
In response, many people sent Jimmy Wales evidence, which he ignored, while his “charity” got very upset with those questioning the Philip Cross operation.
Wikimedia had arrived uninvited into a twitter thread discussing the “Philip Cross” operation and had immediately started attacking people questioning Cross’s legitimacy. Can anybody else see anything “insulting” in my tweet?
I repeat, the coincidence of Philip Cross’s political views with those of Jimmy Wales, allied to Wales’ and Wikimedia’s immediate hostility to anybody questioning the Cross operation – without needing to look at any evidence – raises a large number of questions.
“Philip Cross” does not attempt to hide his motive or his hatred of those whose Wikipedia entries he attacks. He openly taunts them on twitter. The obvious unbalance of his edits is plain for anybody to see.
Among the hundreds of reader-comments to that article, one seems to have come from a Wikipedia-insider, and is abbreviated here:
May 18, 2018 at 18:49
… Wikipedia is a source of information, and so cannot peddle alternative theories of any kind. …[and] no doubt there is some political bias that comes into this process. If you look at the article on the Skripal’s – it is not unreasonable – almost all statements are supported by references to main stream media articles or statements from official organisations such as the Russian government, OPCW or UK authorities. This is what it has to be. (you wouldn’t seriously be suggesting that Wikipedia should have links to craigmurrary or info from RT?).
I haven’t done any scientific study of the sources that are cited in Wikipedia’s many footnotes and whether sites such as Murray’s and RT are banned from them, but this article by Murray does suggest that the bias in favor of mainstream, and against small, ‘news’media, does adhere to the pattern that’s succinctly stated by “Andrew H.” Murray presents remarkable documentary evidence that this is Wikipedia’s pattern. “Andrew H” seems to believe that it’s the right pattern to adhere to.
The present writer also has personal experience with Wikipedia that confirms the existence of this pattern. Among my several articles on that, was “How Wikipedia Lies”, in which I reported that “Smallwood,” the Wikipedia overseer on Wikipedia’s article “United Airlines Flight 93” about the 9/11 plane that came down in Pennsylvania, blocked stating in the text of the article an important fact that was documented even buried within some of the article’s own footnote sources — all coming from mainstream media — that Vice President Dick Cheney had ordered that plane to be shot down and that, therefore, the article’s (and the ’news’media’s and ‘history’ books’) common allegations that resistance on the part of heroic passengers on that plane had had something to do with the plane’s coming down when and how it did, are all false. “Smallwood” blocked me from adding to the text a mention that Cheney on the very day of 9/11 admitted that he had ordered that plane to be shot down and stated his reasons for having done so, and that the order was promptly fulfilled; and “Smallwood” refused to say why my addition of Cheney’s role was blocked, other than to say that that fact “did not appear constructive.” (He refused to say how, or why.)
Back on 8 July 2015, I had headlined, “Wikipedia As Propaganda Not History — MH17 As An Example”, and reported and documented regarding the MH17 Malaysian airliner shot down over Ukraine, that “Wikipedia articles are more propaganda than they are historical accounts. And, often, their cited sources are misleading, or even false.” The Wikipedia article on that incident was anti-Russian propaganda, not a historical account.
As I mentioned in those articles, even Britain’s own BBC had previously headlined, “Wikipedia ‘shows CIA page edits’.” What both Murray, and I (in my latest article about Wikipedia) add to that information regarding some of the people who “edit” Wikipedia, is that Wikipedia itself, in the individuals whom it hires to nix or else to accept each editorial change that is being made to a given article, actually also, in effect, writes Wikipedia articles — and that it does so consistently filtering out facts — no matter how conclusively proven to be true — that contradict the ‘news’media’s (and CIA’s) boilerplate ‘history’ of the given matter. In other words: Wikipedia is a perfect embodiment of the type of society that was described in the fictional 1949 allegorical novel, 1984.
This is the reason why I never link to a Wikipedia article unless I have independently confirmed that, regarding the fact for which I cite the given article, that article is honestly and truthfully representing that matter, or that given detail of it. I do not exclude truths that happen to be included in the standard account; but neither do I (as Wikipedia does] exclude facts which contradict the standard account.
originally posted at strategic-culture.org
Intrusive and Mirrors
Changes are constantly falling over our heads, and organizations are faced with massive and accelerated changes every day. They must respond quickly to a turbulent world and engage with foreign forces. In order to be able to do this, they must have effective and efficient management capabilities in order to make the appropriate changes to adapt to the environment or change the environment in their favor. Organizational evidences show that a high percentage of failures are the result of inappropriate management. Organizations are proud to be honored to be well-directed.
Strong source information is a major organization, often referred to as the vital blood of the organization. Making a decision in today’s turbulent environments brings a lot of confusion without continuous access to relevant information. The provision of such information depends on the design and deployment of information systems and, in general, on their management. However, as far as a well-designed system is concerned, managing these information systems is an issue that administrators need to take in order to be able to plan and adopt appropriate strategies for information systems to increase efficiency, effectiveness, and Competitive advantage achievement.
Why is Sydney Brest in the television show “Nick name” the worst spy in history? She is always arrested. Why is he arrested? Because of she is entering a good coping action. She fled to the guards. Video cameras record their image. She turns on motion detectors, whenever she tries to penetrate computer networks; the intruder detection and tracking systems get his image. She is wary and reckless in everything she does.
You do not want to be in Sydney. You want to be bad guys who always seem to arrest them. This part of this TV show is near the truth. Well, even super spyware can stop it. Security and protection concerns are now very numerous in our lives. The events of July and June 1999 and the 2009 sedition largely affected the security-information concerns. Although these are important things that the government needs to address, there are also more important issues faced by individuals and organizations. Every day we face threats that can lead to financial or physical harm. Although these are not related to terrorism, they have a direct impact on our lives. When security devices turn out, we have to be ubiquitous in our everyday lives. But we always expect the government to take measures for the safety of the nation. In our personal and business lives, we need to see protection all over the place. Most of what you need is available at almost no cost. You just have to recognize and use it.
The concept of key is to accept responsibility for yourself and your organization. I’ve heard that a lot of people and companies are trying to blame for something like a computer hack by saying that the hacker should be a computer genius. When you look at those kinds of casings, you quickly find that the victims have not even done the slightest precaution. To protect yourself, you must know your strengths and weaknesses. I personally do not like to hear excuse and excuse. Yes, there may be thousands of reasons for problems, but they do not care. I really do not want to hear the excuse of the government that why is breaking a light bulb has caused the electricity to be cut off and thousands of people fall in the dark, or why we cannot properly monitor the ship or aircraft, or why Exaggeration is in most of the stuffed things. I would like to see a government confirming that there is a problem, and therefore proper countermeasures must be applied.
The trick is to keep the protection in the distant place. Use in-depth defense that overlooks small problems and is based on the conscious acceptance of potential damage. In this way, you and your organization can keep the information reasonably well at reasonable cost. There is nothing small, and we only need a common sense based on common awareness.
Al Nusrah Front returns to the embrace of Al Qaeda
Identificationof Al Qaeda’s puppet
The US State Department announced on May 31, 2018, that it has amended the terror designation for Sunni Jihadi group Al Nusrah Front (also known as Jabhat al-Nusra) to include the “alias” Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS).It should be noted that Al Nusrah Front is primarily known for being the Syrian unit of Al Qaeda and the militant leader of the Central Asian Islamic terrorist groups Katibat al Tawhid wal Jihad, Katibat al-Imam Bukhari, the Turkestan Islamic Party and Katibat al Ghuraba al Turkistani.
The State’s statement says that «in January 2017, al-Nusrah Front launched the creation of HTS as a vehicle to advance its position in the Syrian uprising and to further its own goals as an al Qaeda affiliate». Since then, the “group has continued to operate through HTS in pursuit of these objectives.”
Ambassador Nathan A. Sales, State’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism, noted that “today’s designation serves notice that the United States is not fooled by this al Qaeda affiliate’s attempt to rebrand itself. Whatever name Nusrah chooses, we will continue to deny it the resources it seeks to further its violent cause.”State’s actions notify the U.S. public and the international community that Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is an alias of al-Nusrah Front.The United States’ decision put a firm end to the speculative “games” between two leaders Ayman al Zawahiri and Abu Muhammad al Julani to hide their criminal ties and to present HTS as a new independent revolutionary movement in Syria, not related to the terrorist organization al Qaeda.
As is known, Salafist Jihadist group Al Nusrah Front after announced its formation in 2011, rapidly grew in influence and played the central role in the dynamics of the conflict in the Syrian Civil War. Al-Nusra was partly the product of Qatari funding and Turkish logistical support that were directed to Syria on the basis that jihadism would be the quickest way to topple the Assad regime.Al Nusrah was and remains an official branch of al Qaeda. Therefore, the counterterrorism officers described Al Nusrah Front as al Qaeda in Syria or al Qaeda in the Levant.
On December 12, 2012, the United States designated Jabhat al-Nusra as a foreign terrorist organization, followed by the United Nations Security Council. In July 2016, to avoid US sanctions the group was rebranded as Jabhat Fath al-Sham, as a new pro-Sunni player in the Syrian Civil War. Julani, the leader of Al Nusrah/JFS, said at the time that his organization has split from al Qaeda. He argued this step that the move was intended to remove the pretext used by powers, including the US and Russia, to bomb Syrians. Because of tactical considerations, alQaeda supported the split. Ayman al-Zawahiri vaguely added: “The brotherhood of Islam is stronger than any organizational links that change and go away.”
The US authorities never believed the speculative game between al Qaeda and Al Nusrah Front. They responded by saying it saw no reason to change its view of the group as a terrorist organization. Furthermore, in May 2017, the State Department announced a reward of up to $10 million for information on Julani’s whereabouts. The notice referred to Julani as the “senior leader” of Al Nusrah Front, the “Syria branch of al Qaeda.”
And finally, as we at the beginning of this article said, following the firm logic to fight against al Qaeda, the US recently has updated the designation of the Al Nusrah Front despite the its decision to split from the al Qaeda and rebrand.
The Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s objection to the US
June 1, 2018 HTS promptly responded to US authorities.The official statement of the HTS in Arabic, which is called “The New American Designation: The Double Standards Against the Syrian Revolution”, was distributed by the political department of the group.In its statement, the HTS accuses the US of the fact that “the American policy of non-interference allowed Russian occupiers to bomb Syrian cities and played into the hands of Iran and its militias.”
Further, the statement says that “instead of the renewing its policy in the region (the Middle East) and improving it for the better, the American leadership has proceeded to designate the HTS, the Sunni revolutionary entity, as international terrorism, which infringes upon the Syrian revolution again in favor of the Bashar regime and Iran.”HTS once again denied any connection with al Qaeda.At the same time, the group described itself as “a sword that protects the Islamic pro-Sunni Ummah from the criminal regime of Bashar Assad and his Iranian patrons.”HTS directly appealed to the US administration: “At the same time we are sending a message to the new U.S. administration, do not repeat the mistakes of the previous administration in establishing Iran and its militias in the Sunni Arab regions. Giving Iran the political green light increases their brutality and criminality in the region which has a negative effect on the Syrian people and their revolutions’ last bastion in the liberated North.”
In a statement HTS tried to assure the international community that “it aspires to have balanced relations built on cooperation with the neighboring countries which realizes stability and security in the region, it is not an organization that threatens the exterior or represents a danger to it”. This shows the growth of the international ambitions of HTS and his dream of taking power into his own hands.Therefore, the HTS’ statement turned out to be balanced, without unnecessary emotions, without empty promises to build the Caliphate, without calls to wage jihad against “American crusaders”, “unbeliever regimes”, “devil countries”. It is not characteristically to ISIS, al Qaeda and other jihadist groups’ statements.According to the tone and nature of the statement, it can be concluded that HTS strongly desires to become a party to international negotiations on the Syrian problem.In conclusion, the HTS appealed to the residents of the liberated territories (Sham) “to protest against the U.S. decision by standing protest and popular demonstrations”.
The HTS appeal was supported by the so-called Syrian Salvation Government (SSG) in Idlib, which decried the United States’ enlisting of the opposition group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) as a terrorist organization. The SSG said in a statement that the HTS is a faction of the Syrian Revolution factions, which stand with Syrians against criminals. The SSG claims that Washington is “silent” about other terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah and Iranian and Iraqi militias, and accused the United States of supporting the “terrorist” Kurdish People’s Protection Units.
HTS is the combat mentor of Central Asia’s jihadist groups
The US State Department’s decision to include HTS in the list of world terrorist organizations will influence the future destiny and reduce the fighting capacity of the Central Asian jihadist groups that are under the al Qaeda’s umbrella. Because HTS from the very beginning of the Syrian war was and remains a combat mentor for Katibat al-Tawhid wal Jihad, Katibat al-Imam Bukhari and the Turkestan Islamic Party.In their unification, not only the ideology of al Qaeda but also Turkey, which conceived the idea of creating a broad pro-Sunni coalition against the Bashar Assad’s regime, played a huge role.Uzbek and Uighur jihadist groups have much in common with the Al Nusrah Front.
Al Qaeda backed Uzbek and Uygur jihadist groups, who fighting in Syria against the government forces of Bashar Assad, closely integrated into the ranks of HTS.At the same time, they managed to maintain their relative freedom.That is, they retained the name of their organizations, separate financial sources, have their own budget and their own material and technical base.
As is known, the affiliation of the Central Asian jihadist groups with the Al Nusrah Front occurred in 2012-14 on the recommendation of al Qaeda.They share the common ideological doctrine of al Qaeda and, on its call, did hijrah (the migration or journey of Muslims for Jihad)from Afghanistan and Central Asia to Syria to wage jihad against the “enemies of Islam.”The Uzbek and Uighur groups were stationed in the territories controlled by the Front-An-Nusra, in particular in Idlib, Aleppo, DeirezZor, Homs and Hama.They have a common enemy of the Bashar al-Assad regime and have a common goal to build in the Middle East a Shariah state.After the conquest of Sham and Afghanistan, they plan to apply their combat experience in Central Asia and establish a Caliphate with the ideology of al Qaeda in the Ferghana Valley and in Chinese Xinjiang.
During the tough struggle for leadership in the jihadist world between ISIS and al Qaeda, they all supported the position of Ayman al Zawahiri and Abu Muhammad al Julani.As a result, for the Central Asian Jihadist groups affiliated with the Front-An-Nusrah, another front of the war with the Muslim brothers of the Islamic state opened. On April 27, 2017, during the evening prayer in the mosque of a Syrian city of Idlib, the leader of Katibat al-Imam Bukhari Sheikh Salahuddin was killed based on orders from Al Baghdadi by an Uzbek militant from South Tajikistan, who was a member of ISIS. The Islamic State distributed the following statement via Telegram messenger in this regard, “The emir of detachment of the Katibat al-Imam Bukhari, Sheikh Salahuddin, was punished according to Sharia law for all the betrayals he committed.”
Unlike ISIS, which used jihadists from Central Asia to commit extreme forms of violence, al Qaeda backed HTS recommended that Uzbek and Uighur armed groups treat the local population more favorably.As a result, they had good relations with the local Arab Sunni people, some of them established family ties with the Syrians.As a result, they had good relations with the local Arab Sunni people, some of them established family ties with the Syrians.According to the Dubai-based Arabic Al Aan TV, around 20 000 Uyghurs from China’s Xinjiang established their village in Zanbaq and Jisr al Shughour, which has been substantially changed the demography of Idlib province. They are linked to the military wing of al Qaeda, HTS.But at the same time, Central Asian militants do not participate in local civilian management institutions that operate on the HTS controlled territory.This gives them the opportunity not to interfere in the everyday and economic problems of Idlib Province, such as tax collection, disputes in the Sharia court, which allowed them to bypass conflict situations with the local population.Therefore, the local Sunni population perceives them as defenders against repression by the Alawite army and Shiite militias of Iran.
The HTS backed Central Asian Jihadists groups adhered to the doctrine of al Qaeda’s leader Aman al-Zawahiri, who said that “We adapt to the practical reality wherever it is. We would take into account the circumstances of each jihadist arena and what achieves its interests.” As a result, they managed to maintain the fighting efficiency of its factions.The HTS backed Central Asian Jihadists groups adhered to the doctrine of al Qaeda’s leader Aman al-Zawahiri, who said that “We adapt to the practical reality wherever it is. We would take into account the circumstances of each jihadist arena and what achieves its interests.” As a result, they managed to maintain the fighting efficiency of its factions.
Iran’s multi-faceted strategy in Syria
Undoubtedly, the United States’ enlisting of the HTS as a terrorist organization aims to reduce a significant long-term threat to the West from alQaeda. While the West was busy with ISIS, HTS has quietly laid the groundwork for al Qaeda’s resurgence by using the potential of Central Asia’s Salafi-Jihadi groups. As a failed state on the Middle East, Syria remains the ideal staging ground for al Qaeda to rejuvenate its global campaign of terrorism through HTS.
However, along with this, the US decision can strengthen Bashar Assad’s position in the internal civil war and increase the influence of pro-Iranian Shiite military formations in the Middle East.Because the HTS militants are a serious obstacle against the military expansion of Iran’s Shiite mercenaries in Syria.Today HTS is fighting not only against the regime of Bashar Assad and its ideological opponents ISIS but also against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.
Iran’s influence in the Middle East is growing not only due to the participation of the Iranian military in the Syrian war but also due to the increase in Shiite settlers.The Guardianand Chatham House wrote that Iran managed to settle hundreds of thousands of Shiite settlers in Syria, where the Sunnis fled from the Civil war or were expelled.Tehran is building an arc of control stretching from its borders to Israel. The Assad regime granted citizenship to about two million Shiites from Iran and Lebanon in order to prevent the return of millions of displaced persons and refugees to their homes.Changing the demographic situation in Syria is the most serious threat to American interests in the region.Therefore, after HTS was designated on the list of global terrorist organizations, the US should develop additional levers to contain Iran’s ambitions in the region and support the Sunni majority from the attacks of Russia and Iran.
It should be expected that in order to avoid American military, economic and diplomatic persecution, the HTS will continue to portray itself as the vanguard of the Syrian revolution, and not as al Qaeda’s puppet.But after the State Department’s decision, it will be difficult to reformat HTS into a serious political player on the Syrian stage.
The U.S. has achieved some strategic successes in the fight against al Qaeda, ISIS and the global jihadist movement as a whole, but the war is far from over.Today, the US is breathing down the enemy’s neck, and the frontline against Islamic radicals is currently being limited to the Middle East, Central Asia and the African continent. Thanks to the professionalism of the US special services, jihadist lone wolves have not recently managed to penetrate inside the country under the guise of refugees and commit acts of terrorism, as it is happening on a monthly basis on the streets of European cities.
To prevent the future threat of al Qaeda, the United States must put an end to the multiple ways that al Qaeda and its puppets attempt to gain a foothold in Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The new frontiers of political and strategic technology: The future technological singularity
To put it in a generic but understandable way, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a technologically mediated ability (but always present in a digital computer or in a computer-controlled robot) to carry out activities usually typical of an intelligent being.
In this case, the intelligence is the traditional one of the definitions born in the twentieth century in the framework of empirical psychology: logical ability, in the sense of abstraction from the characteristics that science considers “secondary” and hence subjective; understanding, that is the thought correctly imitating the future behavior of the human and non-human movements and reactions present in the external world; emotional knowledge; design, in the absence of an image already present in the external world; finally creativity and problem solving.
As the American pragmatist Charles S. Peirce used to say, understanding or thinking is a form of “talking to oneself” and of symbolically representing – not necessarily reflecting – the inferences that can be found in the external reality.
In Peirce’s mind, all these inferences were probabilistic.
According to the Austrian physicist and philosopher, Ernst Mach, science is instead the process replacing experience with representations and images through which “it becomes easier to handle and manage the experience itself”.
This means that in the transition phase between the nineteenth and the twentieth century, science was no longer interested in the “essence of reality” -interpreted in a reductionist sense – but it created a new reality on its own, easier and more adapted to the human mind and to societal needs.
It was Ernst Mach who applied the criteria for analyzing the data which developed between the nineteenth and the twentieth century in human sciences to physical and chemical science.
In essence, at the end of its epistemological program, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) can reach a complete simulation of the human brain and, in some respects, even outperforms it in its results. Possibly even in the forms of information processing-understanding and hence transformation of what – in a long-standing Western philosophical tradition – is called “reality”.
Hence a “Hyperman”, technologically reminding us of the “Beyond Man” or “Overman” (the Übermenschnever to be translated as “Superman”) theorized by Nietzsche, since the homo sapiens sapiens is evolutionarily unstable. Again to use Nietzsche’s words, what we call “man” is a “a rope, tied between beast and overman – a rope over an abyss”.
However, let us revert to military technology.
The IA technology includes not so much the replacement of man with the thinking machine – an idea probably harboured in some people’s minds – but rather more specific techniques: the Virtual Agents; the processing of Natural Language; the platforms for the “self-learning” machines; robotics; the processing of human and computer perception; neural networks.
Incidentally, the Intelligent Virtual Agents (IVAs) are the programs providing pre-established interactions with human beings, especially on the Web.The Natural Language Processing deals with the computer treatment of natural human and non-human language.
The platforms for the “self-learning” machines use the recognition of external patterns and the computational theory of learning – hence they create algorithms that can learn new rules from a wide set of data and make predictions starting from the already pre-defined patterns and from the data sets that grow indefinitely.
In the current phase of this complex “research project” – just to use the terminology of the epistemologist ImreLakatos – we have reached the following levels: a) we can build systems and robots that are already faster, more capable and more powerful than us. The AI systems are expected to reach our same analytical (and creative) power within 2045. The level of singularity, as this point of noreturn is currently defined.
Moreover, b) we will have robots permanently taking care of us, interacting with our body and reading our emotions. But this already happens. Google Home, the Jibo control center and the Roomba “social” robot are already among us.
Furthermore, c) also on the basis of a huge and always updatable universe of data, we can predict the great global phenomena at natural, cosmological, medical-epidemiological and human-statistical levels or even at economic level.
Wewill soon be able to predict also the human behavior in larger populations -often with great accuracy.
On top of it, d) we will have such exoskeletons or extracorporeal extensions as to improve – as never before – our physical and even intellectual/perceptive abilities.
We will shortly become super-human – not in Nietzsche’smeaning of the concept – but rather in the sense of the most popular science fiction comics of the 1960s. Before technological singularity we will record a merger between AI apparata and our mind-body whole.
In the near future, there will be a stable connection between the human brain and computer networks, as already planned and designed by Neuralink or by the Californian company Kernel, which even study the implantation of AI interfaces in the human cerebral cortex.
Finally, e) the end of work.
However, what will the exchange value of the items processed by the AI machines be, considering that our society is based on Smith’s labor theory of value?
How can we set prices, including the non-monetary ones, if there are no values – the classic theme of political economy and also of Marx, his main critic?
In all likelihood, at strategic and military levels we will have 4 types of applicative Artificial Intelligence: the Artificial Narrow Intelligence (ANI), sometimes also referred to as “weak AI”, is an intelligence working within a very limited context, onlyfor specific and routine functions, that cannot take on tasks beyond its field. It is a specific type of AI in which a technology outperforms humans quantitatively in some very narrowly defined task. It focuses on a single subset of cognitive abilities and advances in that spectrum..
Then there is the Artificial General Intelligence (AGI), also known as strong AI, that can successfully perform any intellectual task that a human being can. Finally we achieve the Super Artificial Intelligence (ASI), when AI becomes much smarter that the best human brain in practically every field, including scientific creativity, general wisdom and social skills.
Hence, in principle, the application of Artificial Intelligence in Defense operations and programming will generally regard a) real military organizations; b) the network of political and intelligence organizations developing around real military structures; c) the whole governmental organization, which is a defense structure in itself.
Finally it will regard the whole system of Defense and Security within society, i.e. the whole network of sensors and AI networks that can be used for protectinginfrastructure, the territory, as well as economic, strategic and intellectual resources.
Currently the major powers’ research focuses on level 1, namely the Artificial Narrow Intelligence – the level at which AI outperforms the human mind and perceptions only in some sectors and only quantitatively.
Nowadays ANI is used to apply Artificial Intelligence mainly to the battlefield and the integration of forces, intelligence and tactical decision-making within “industrial age” technologies.
An evolution which is still included in and confined to the US Revolution in Military Affairs(RMA) that had its true baptism of fire during the two Iraqi wars.
It was at the core of the doctrinal and technological transformations of the Chinese, Arab, NATO and, later, Russian Armed Forces.
It is worth recalling that the RMA was based on the central idea of the Network-Centric Warfare, which sought to translate an information advantage, enabled in part by information technology, into a competitive advantage through the robust networking of well-informed geographically dispersed forces. Therefore the network and the integration between weapons and sectoral and regional commands – hence the de factomerging between the political-military decision-making and the activities on the ground.
This means that there will be a two-fold approach in modern and future warfare: high-technology strikes, which determines the strategic superiority on the field, as well as the whole new low or medium-intensity panoply of political warfare – which operates with the apparent opposite of the Special Forces, on the one hand, and of parallel, civil and rank-and file organizations on the other, including armed citizens, mass operations and operations of influence, the use of local criminal and non-criminal organizations, and the stable “black”, “white” and “grey” propaganda.
Future wars will be more widespread and characterized by swarming, because many regional and local actors, including non-State ones, can afford attack and defense panoplies on the basis of Artificial Intelligence – systems more connected to the link between propaganda and politics and less Clausewitz-style: the separation between warfare and non-warfare will disappear in the future and the armed clash will not be “the continuation of politics by other means” – as maintained by the Prussian general and military theorist – but, if anything, there will be a continuum between armed action and political and economic-social operations.
With new and extraordinarily relevant legal issues: who is responsible for an AI or cyberattack? Can we rely on probabilistic analysis of enemy operations or will there be a “cyber or robotic declaration of war”?
Moreover, AI is a way of rethinking, reformulating and reducing military spending, with smarter and more flexible technologies and better cost effectiveness. Hence we will witness the gradual end of the oligopolistic market of technological and military acquisitions – typical of a traditional industrial world – and the emergence of some sort of market economy, open to even the smallest states, in the old political-military establishment that, as early as the 1950s, Eisenhower accused of directing the Western countries’ foreign policies.
In the market of strategic acquisitions there will be specific room for commercial algorithms which, however, can be applied also to the military universe. Nevertheless, in what we have called the “third level” of AI, that is the integration between government and strategic operations, we will have to deal with algorithms that will rationalize bureaucracy and the decision-making process, both at governmental and operational levels.
This will happen also for what we have defined as the Fourth Level, i.e. the dimension of the ecosystem between politics, technology and the rest of society, which is not normally interested in military operations.
As already noted with reference to China and to the Russian Federation, here AI will deal with social prevention (which is the new way of avoiding the post-Clausewitz mix of clash and political representation) and with social resilience, namely the stability of “civil societies”and their critical infrastructure. Not to mention counter-propaganda.
It was Napoleon-style Blitzkrieg.
However, in the future, it will no longer be sustainable, economically and politically, given the military forces’ economic and social limits we are already experiencing today. Hence the link between the AI-Defense Fourth Level and the previous ones will be between Deep Learning, new wide databases, as well as high-speed and highly performing computers.
Within the framework of the NATO countries’ current defense doctrines, the main AI military actors have paid the utmost attention to information and computer technologies that bring together – quickly and easily – the “effectors”, i.e. those or the things that perform the operations with human or artificial “sensors” – the so-called Network Enabled Capabilities, in the NATO jargon.
Nevertheless, how do the old and new superpowers respond to the challenge of military Artificial Intelligence?
China – the country that best stands up to the USA in this field – established the National Laboratory for Deep Learning, which has been operational since February 2017.
Moreover the Chinese company Baidu and the other Chinese web giants have been entrusted with the task of working with the State in sectors such as automatic visual recognition; recognition based on a vast evolutionary database; voice recognition; the new automated models of Man/Machine interaction; intellectual property in the sphere of deep learning.
In this field everything is based on supercomputers, which China can currently manufacture on its own, after the USA blocked the sale of the Intel Xeon processors, up to even producing their autonomous superprocessor, present in the advanced computer Sunway Taihu Light, which is so far the fastest computer in the world, at least in the field of complex computer networks.
Furthermore China’s 13th Five-Year Plan envisages an expansion of the national AI market to the tune of 100 billion renmimbi, with two specific plans: the China BrainPlan, that is AI military-civilian planning for unmanned networks, as well as cybersecurity and complex society’s governance.
The other level, the second one planned by China, is the use of Artificial Intelligence only for military and strategic superiority.
This is President Xi Jinping’s policy line of the progressive “military-civilian integration”.
The Chinese Armed Forces have also established anUnmanned Systems and Systems of Systems Science and Technology Domain Expert Group, in addition to working hard in the sector of visual recognition for the Navy – above all for operations in “disputed waters” – as well as dealing specifically with the command and control of large-range Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs).
Missiles are another important sector in China’s AI military policy – above all to respond to the recently-deployed US Long Range Anti-Ship Missile program, which has replacedHarpoon.
In China all this is included in the broader theory of Remote Warfare, which is based on drones and advanced missile networks.
This is currently at the basis of many Chinese strategic choices. Hence – at any distance – hitting targets which are a greater danger for China, as well as for the Forces on the ground and for the politics-warfare link – a danger that cannot be replaced or postponed in response.
The Chinese Armed Forces are and will always be used “to defend the Party”.
Moreover, Israel was the first country- even before the USA – to use fully automated robots and unmanned military vehicles in warfare, besides buildingHarpy, the anti-radiation UAV searching, targeting and destroying enemy radar centers without human control and supervision.
In the near future, the Israeli decision-makers plan to deploy “mixed” battalions, with robots and human soldiers operating together.
Moreover the Israeli Armed Forces have already put in place the system called Automatic Decision Making, employing robotics, AI and deep learning and operating with almost instantaneous speed, which is strategically unavoidable for Israel.
Aeronautics Ltd, an IDF contractor, has already built a series of UAVs having complex Artificial Intelligence algorithms.
IA systems to support political decision-making, as well as techniques for the immediate transfer of data from one computer platform to another, and finally AI technologies for the camouflage of networks and human and non-human operatorsare already operating in Israel.
In the Russian Federation, military Artificial Intelligence has a limit, that is the availability of ultra-fast processors for supercomputers – a problem which, however, is being solved.
Currently Russia is mainly interested in developing the Unmanned Ground Vehicles (UGVs), in addition to the robotic platforms for the integration of the various aspects of the battlefield.
In January 2017, President Vladimir Putin ordered the creation of “autonomous robotic complexes” – just to use the Russian government’s terminology – but for military use only.
With the creation of the National Center for the Development of Robotic Technologies and Basic Robotic Components, Russia is implementing a careful policy of acquisition and independent research in the field of military Artificial Intelligence. A network that already operates for acquisitions throughout the worldmarket.
This is an organization which has been operating since 2015-2016.
Russia has already developed unmanned helicopters and the use of remotely-controlled robot-terminators which target alone – again without human supervision – the targets they have autonomously selected by severity of threat and response to actions on the field.
Finally, after the good results reached with its unmanned operating platforms in Syria, Russia is interested in developing AI systems for border protection, with a series of neural networks automatically referring and reporting to cameras, seismic and human sensors, as well as UAV networks, for an immediate response to threats.
For the USA, the first country to be permanently committed to military AI, the next developments will be in the following areas: a) autonomous machines for deep learning, capable of collecting and processing data and making choices, especially in the framework of the current “hybrid warfare”; b) the development of AI strategic doctrines in the field of man-machine collaboration, with the final implementation of the Centaur network; c) the creation of joint man-machine combat units; d) web-connected semi-automatic weapons to survive cyberattacks.
All these systems will be obviously online and interconnected.
Certainly, nowadays, all the major operators of strategic Artificial Intelligence need to use these networks for the crypto-preservation of real intelligence data, as well as for their classification and also for conflict prevention which, as China maintains, must be “predictive, preventive, participatory and shared between political and military decision makers”.
Moreover, the goals of the new AI military networks include “social resilience”, i.e. the stability of the non-military, namely of the members of the “civil society”, faced with any unexpected shocks and actions of “covertor hybrid warfare”.
What about Italy? It has no real document on National Security to be updated every year or for major crises.
This is already a severe limitation. The “White Papers” already drafted in Italy, however, are always political and government documents. They are often drafted by “external” people not involved in the Defense mechanism, or possibly, by the General Staff and they are more focused on the rather vague spending plans and policy lines, as well as on the Grand Strategy, if any, than on the strictly geopolitical and military doctrine.
Little focus on National Interest and much unrequested loyalty to goals set by others.
Furthermore, at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, there is a group of experts working on the Italian foreign policy challenges until 2020.
Hence, apart from the specific activities of the intelligence services, in Italy there is no doctrine or project for internal use of the AI technologies, also in view of stimulating our currently very scarce industries in the IT-AI sector.
Another great deficiency – among the many shortcomings of our defense criteria – and also scarce integration with the other NATO and Allied Armed Forces.
UN forum to explore use of outer space to improve lives, protect planet
Marking 50 years since the world first came together to discuss the peaceful uses of outer space, government leaders, policy...
Iran at SCO: Role, achievements, and goals
Nearly a month after the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), leaders from the Shanghai Cooperation...
Modernization of nuclear weapons continues- number of peacekeepers declines
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) launched the findings of SIPRI Yearbook 2018, which assesses the current state of...
The future we want depends on innovative policies and people-centred technology
ILO Director-General Guy Ryder has urged global business leaders to work together with the United Nations to build a future...
The Secret Gender plague: How The World’s Men Hate Women
In the now famous and well-recognized #MeToo era in America, the call to eliminate sexual harassment in the workplace and...
North Korea, the United States and the Singapore Summit Agreement
There are many essential points of the US-North Korean talks which have been treated, albeit briefly, in the Singapore Summit...
Is Indian Democracy Dying?
The prominent journalist and editor, Shujaat Bukhari was leaving work when he and his two bodyguards were shot and killed. ...
Energy2 days ago
Europe leads the global clean energy transition
Middle East1 day ago
Morocco may have lost the World Cup but could lead the way in protest
South Asia1 day ago
Is Indian Democracy Dying?
New Social Compact10 hours ago
The Secret Gender plague: How The World’s Men Hate Women
East Asia11 hours ago
North Korea, the United States and the Singapore Summit Agreement
Middle East2 days ago
Israel adopts abandoned Saudi sectarian logic
South Asia2 days ago
US- North Korea talks: A role model for Pakistan and India?
Newsdesk2 days ago
MDB Climate Finance Hit Record High of $35.2 Billion in 2017