/gnosticwarfare/ - The Future of AI Conflict

>>156

I agree. I'll be breaking Butterfly War down into digestible chunks over the next month.

Regarding immediate action you can take on Butterfly War, You'll want to start with meta data collection to get a baseline. One enterprising anon mentioned buying old Obama phones from eBay. Those things are packed with meta data which, if properly extracted, can deliver tremendous training material for future automated operations.

A second plan would be to put out nets of your own. Create mobile apps that appeal to specific demographics and collect the meta data as you go. Sell it for a few bucks and see if you can convert the app to something monetizable to help justify continual operation.

You'll want to collect accelerometer and gyro data fro motion analysis, app usage time for employment analysis, battery life statistics to evaluate a users capacity for planning, GPS and network data to get location trends, messages for sentiment analysis, contacts for social analysis, heatmaps for touch behavior, image sensors for facial recognition, etc.

Build an app that requires all of this (a game, for example) and market it to the desired demographic then collect all the data. Your data will be a useful training set in the future.

>>168

I think I'm getting it, but what can possibly be done against total political control, total monetary control, and the Samson Option?

Kittens and Rainbows

>>270

This is the new brown pill?

>>277

No, I'm just the most content person you'll ever meet. Continue to do whatever you're going to do, just know that it's probably being counteracted as soon as you do it. That's the nature of Fate.

>>277

>>282

He's editing my posts because I am a bad faith actor who wants to spread demoralization instead of engaging in conversation.

>>168

I figured this would be the best place to ask something like this.

CultState, do you think there could be different types/branches of this Butterfly War idea? I know your main iteration is mostly focused on turning their own algorithms against them so that they're basically consumed by their own digital fire, but I was thinking about things along the lines of camouflaging oneself through either sarcasm or intentional misrepresentation so that while the algorithms don't pick up on it, people will and they'll be exposed to beneficial propaganda.

A lot of /pol/acks, either by will or by necessity, already hide their power level, and if you extend that idea even in normal, non-digital interactions, you can subvert the leftist concepts really easily. This is even more pronounced if you pose as one of their own, making them eat their own "deconstruction of ideas" poison to the point that it overwhelms their own politics.

I think similar ideas to the Butterfly War can be applied with considerable success in these typically normal moderated-by-consensus discussion spaces, especially ones considered "safe," as in almost exclusively leftist and often academic in the sense that when there's no other scapegoat for the left to push poison at, they'll consume their own all too eagerly

>>385

> do you think there could be different types/branches of this Butterfly War idea? I know your main iteration is mostly focused on turning their own algorithms against them so that they're basically consumed by their own digital fire, but I was thinking about things along the lines of camouflaging oneself through either sarcasm or intentional misrepresentation so that while the algorithms don't pick up on it, people will and they'll be exposed to beneficial propaganda.

Yes, of course. There will be millions of iterations and variations of this idea. The current investment structure of AI makes the entire surface area of entire nations incredibly easy to toy with. Sarcasm research has been done extensively. Double meaning is still a tough nut to crack, which is why my Incorrect Synonym attack works.

> A lot of /pol/acks, either by will or by necessity, already hide their power level, and if you extend that idea even in normal, non-digital interactions, you can subvert the leftist concepts really easily. This is even more pronounced if you pose as one of their own, making them eat their own "deconstruction of ideas" poison to the point that it overwhelms their own politics.

A fun side effect of the censorship wars is that /pol/lacks hide their power level online.

I'm slap in the middle of Hollywood in the belly of the beast and I -never- hide my power level in person. I've even been able to secure tacit support for eugenics in ground zero of this Leftist cathedral shithole. How? Try this out next time for fun:

> “Oh, you think seeking guidance for genetic health is taboo? Yeah? How many people with down syndrome have you had sex with? Exactly.”

I can't keep getting away with it, and yet, I do. How? Simple.

The more we deny our power level online, either by self-censorship, filter bubble distribution, or active suppression, the more the Left can't develop an immunity to these ideas in person. Basically, without proper inoculation online, our ideas become exotic in person. With a tinge of framing and a dab of storytelling skills, even the most ardent Leftist can be brought to a beneficial perspective to consider on their own time. It's not a matter of tricking or hacking them. It's just understanding that the Left is mostly a psychotribe rooted in seeking proximity memetic purity, not pragmatic reality. They live and breathe symbols as absolutes and exotic variations to symbols are the most appealing of all.

Sure, the hatchet jobs to cast anyone darker than coffee as a genocidal Nazi are prime time bread and circus, but there isn't a member on /pol/ on any Chan literally goosestepping on cured Jew skin in their grandfather's SS garb. /pol/ isn't about purity. It is about the eternal mutation of our ideas along the lines of pragmatic adaptation, not memetic purity. Do we need to adopt a Egyptian chaos frog who has suspicious ties to notorious homosexual fixer Roy Cohn in order to bring our ideas to the mainstream? Yes? THEN FUCK IT, IT SHALL BE SO. This is the /pol/ I know and love.

You don't “win” meme wars by destroying contending memes. You either make your memes exotic variants of theirs or you make memes expressing human behavior that previously hasn't been correctly identified but is known by many none the less.

>>386

This post is more of a whitepill than I think is intended or immediately understood.

Anyway, I've noticed in my personal life that, if you play your cards right, leftist are closer to Ally's than Conservatives are. Personally I've had a great deal of success turning leftists in favor of eugenics by appealing to their love of nature. Global Warming alarmism has an easily exploited overpopulation aspect to it. It helps that India and China pollute more than the rest of the world combined. You can also use India's constant immigration to the US as a point because the West is "stealing" their brightest people who could help India stop it's pollution problems.

Also they're already primed to accept ethnostates via safe-space mentality and the notion of a society structured for whites. Tell them that white people have no business involving themselves in structuring a system for blacks and black people are better off constructing a whites-free society in their ancient homelands. Only a racist would object to that notion, because it implies Blacks are incapable of building their own country.

>>385

Reading into the world of finance, I've quickly come to notice that CS's considered "values of gamers" (ability to spontaneously form action groups, innate knowledge of digital information flows, erroneous indomitable paranoia enforcing a culture of evidence and truth due to anonymous paranoia, (imageboard-specific languages and associated abilities to transfer information with no (traditional) accountable methods of tracking)) strike some (but not all) parallels between the personalities populating the unspoken worlds of illicit money movements in the less-than-legal worlds of finance. More specifically, I'm talking about the culture of secrecy surrounding the many tax havens around the world.

I don't think that any individual one of the (assumed to be) motley crew gathered here could hope to penetrate the excessively complex and secretive network of unregulated finance bodies around the world, but CS's considerations of AI and computer emotional learning strike a specific chord within me and make me think that the most dangerous thing in the modern world would be a trusted and integral personality in this network suddenly breaking rank and crowing the mechanisms of these money networks to the public world. But considering so much of this international network is so trust-based (with long-term vetting methods) while not actually being personal (in most cases), what if a sufficiently advanced AI could take the place of a trusted central person in an offshore finance network? Once they're sufficiently nested in and have collected enough information, a switch could be flipped and the secrecy (of which is often protected by the threat of the ending of careers or lives, both useless to an AI) could be turned off in an instant, unrestricted by a single person's notion of self-preservation. I also can't help but feel the analytical powers of AI could be used to determine a most efficient path of money through countries to determine the most tax-effective method, ensuring a comparatively powerful spot in a world where trust is established by secrecy and proven by profits.

Shit, even the prospect of an actor like this existing would introduce a level of stability to international finance, which could in turn make the whole environment more risky, which is honestly a net positive for honest financial regulation bodies around the world, at least to my brain. Would an AI sleeper agent in the offshore financial be feasible, or practical or possible? How would such an AI be deployed? How many would-be whistleblowers would it take to establish a reputation in this field?

>>610

A singular sleeper agent wouldn't be needed, but the risk of one is a good vector to explore.

As AIs dominate more and more of the linguistic space, it will consume legal, contractual, conversational, and social/emotional space. When done correctly, it can make a move on the C-suite space.

As deepfakes introduce unique risks to human chiefs, humanless organizations will be sought after. There is a DAO right now worth $150M without a single human in it. DAOs are immune to deepfake reputation attacks.

Either sleepers or pressures will drive money into DAOs as mass producible reputation attacks disrupt trust networks.

>>611

>trust networks

I can't help but feel that this is a key factor in the offshore system that if broken down via the deconstruction of MAD agreements and de-significance of blackmail via deepfake technology then a lot of personally honest people would really feel comfortable to talk about the illegal activity happening under their watch. However, I think that ultimately the internal objectors would still feel hesitant to rat out a system that they know is filthy but can't expose without exposing themselves in the process. Do you think that these actors would drive business into DAOs in order to rout out the weak-willed offshore parties?

Would centralizing the risk into the most illegal territory potentially centralize the most vulnerable targets? It sounds jucier the more I consider it.

To add to the previous and to keep exploring the vector, in this new realm of DAOs ultimately acting as the major financial bodies in these offshore networks (since traditional methods of secrecy don't work as effectively these days) what would you consider the informational vulnerabilities of DAOs? Could the previously mentioned aspects of the butterfly war come into traditional play? Or would a new AI manipulation methodology need to be employed in these business networks, as there are different required inputs and different results required (to my knowledge, "traditional" butterfly war involves attacking SV entities via manipulation of user metadata to spoof the protected users in order to manipulate the actual protected users which ultimately manipulates the SV corporation's adstreams, whereas attacks on these trust networks would possibly involve manipulating said metadata to penetrate the trust network by creating and validating a spoofed user in the network who would then destabilize the network, forcing business activity off this traditional trust network and onto DAOs where potentially, control is held by non-insider players, depending on capital flows)? If the established parties were aware enough of such a ploy, could they– god forbid– recreate the secrecy methodologies of old where regulation is enforced through hidden language, subtlety and redirection of jurisdiction but acting on a metadata level as opposed to a social/legal level? How would such a network be disassembled?

To my best knowledge, your idea in the butterfly war is to make socially impactful sleeper anons who can sit idly until times of needed action, unaffected by big data oversights (or excessively effected by the same bodies, violating common law and driving political action). My question is that despite the obviously higher level of complication in metadata manipulation that it would entail, what if you could make a spoofed DAO, or a spoofed banker, or a spoofed business to do the same as the sleeper anon? A trap shell bank nested within "trusted" legitimate offshore banks to catch and record illicit business data for the purpose of catching multinationals in the act of tax arbitrage? Could this data possibly become another method of blackmail should the traditional methods fail? Moreover, could a sleeper agent impact the effectiveness of tax law in countries such as the US or the UK, by making a particularly retarded action and bringing the full weight of the international tax machine down on it?