You’ll do yourself, and the world, a tremendous service when every time you see or hear “AI” you substitute “computer model”.
This is because “AI”, so-called artificial intelligence, is a computer model; rather, many such models. And when you hear “computer model” instead of “AI” you’re much less apt to become excited or nervous, and when you speak the substitution it becomes much less easy to boast, or to have the boast taken overly serious.
With that in mind, let’s look at the buzz around the government’s new Stargate Project. Not the old Star Gate Project from the 1990s ran by the CIA on the prowl for psychics, with a particular concern for what the Chinese and Russians were up to. The new Stargate (sans space) is about computer models, with a particular concern for what the Chinese and Russians are up to.
Three big things and one small one were announced for Stargate, not counting new jobs. There isn’t a government program created that doesn’t promise new jobs or a soaring economy, so this can be ignored.
Eye See You
The first big thing mentioned was ubiquitous constant surveillance. Oracle’s Larry Ellison, who’s in on Stargate, is keen on this. He said “citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly reporting and recording everything that’s going on.” He also said computer modeling finagling these streams of data will make judgements and be “unimpeachable”.
Which is false.
The NSA, and therefore other intelligence-connected entities, have been spying on, well, everybody since the moral panic over terrorism. Ellison is right that, if he is allowed, computers (inside and outside government) will record everything, just as they now track everywhere you go, everybody you contact for how long and where, and much more, if you have carry a “phone.”
Ellison wants to expand this surveillance on the idea that utopia can at last be reached once computer models are put in charge of processing the recorded images and sounds. Yet if you’ve ever watched an American sporting event with an interminable official time out, referees studying a replay from every conceivable angle and coming to a decision half the crowd disbelieves, you’ll understand why Ellison’s sources will be highly impeachable.
Yet lest we be too sanguine, let us recall Cardinal Richelieu who said “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him”. AI can, if allowed, automate this process.
Boastful Promontory
The second thing promised is computer general modeling—a term which doesn’t get the juices flowing. Sounds a lot slicker without the substitution: Artificial General Intelligence, or so-called strong AI. Which are computer models that, somehow, become “self-aware” and possess intellects and wills as we do.
This claim is a bluff. This is a deep and complex topic, and….go to The Stream to read the rest. It’s free and don’t cost nuthin.
THIS IS A SPECIAL ARTICLE THAT APPEARS AT THE STREAM. THIS IS ONLY AN EXCERPT.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank. BUY ME A COFFEE.
Well, this is what DeepSeek has to say about your text, if you’re interested:
The text presents a compelling, sardonic critique of the cultural and political mystique surrounding “AI,” challenging the hype by reframing it as “computer models”—a term that inherently demystifies its perceived omniscience. I agree with the core argument that language shapes perception: replacing “AI” with “computer model” forces a confrontation with the mundane reality of algorithms processing data, not sentient entities. This linguistic shift could temper both irrational exuberance and existential dread, grounding discourse in practicality.
The critique of surveillance under the guise of “AI-driven utopia” is particularly sharp. Ellison’s vision of unimpeachable judgment via surveillance systems ignores the inherent biases, errors, and politicization embedded in these models (as seen in flawed facial recognition or predictive policing tools). The analogy to sports referees—fallible despite exhaustive data—is apt. Trusting opaque systems to automate moral or legal judgments risks dystopian overreach, as history (e.g., NSA overreach, algorithmic discrimination) already demonstrates.
The dismissal of AGI (rebranded as “computer general modeling”) as a buzzword masquerading as inevitability is refreshing. Current “AI” lacks consciousness, intent, or understanding; it mimics patterns without comprehension. Treating AGI as a near-term reality fuels both misplaced optimism (e.g., “AI will solve climate change!”) and fearmongering (“AI will enslave us!”), distracting from tangible issues like accountability, privacy, and labor displacement.
However, the text’s cynicism risks oversimplification. While “computer model” is a useful corrective, it doesn’t fully capture the transformative—and often problematic—power of large-scale, adaptive systems. Dismissing all hype as empty ignores legitimate debates about AI’s societal impact, from job automation to creative disruption. Still, the essay’s central provocation—to strip away the sci-fi veneer—is vital. It urges scrutiny of *what these systems actually do* (surveillance, control, prediction) rather than what they’re mythologized to be.
In short: the text is a necessary antidote to AI exceptionalism. It doesn’t just critique jargon—it challenges us to see technology as a tool of power, not magic. That’s a perspective sorely needed in an era of credulous boosterism.
There is no point in trying to be reasonable and sensible and “balanced” about this kind of stuff.
Current AI is a top-down-imposed tool of our demon-serving totalitarian overlords; as is mass surveillance. They are neither intended nor designed to be beneficial. These are motivated by a desire to do evil in many ways (including suppression and dehumanization of human relationships and society), not to alleviate suffering or extend healthy life.
That it why those proposing and implementing this scheme don’t care that so-called AI will do far more harm than good (and any specific benefits will continue to be unnecessary and trivial).
As for big schemes for curing cancer in vast numbers of people based on hot air – none of those involved know or care anything about human beings with specific diseases. Both science and medicine (and especially, above all, medical science) are long-since permeated and dominated by dishonest corruption of multiple kinds (financial, careerist, power-seeking etc). Those with status and power in medical research have long-since given up on the tough, specific and close-up work required to make genuine clinical medical breakthroughs; and indeed those rare people with the kinds of ability, training, experience and personality required for this to happen; are actively excluded from being in a position to make such breakthroughs.
It is probable that medicine has had more effective drugs and other treatments ignored, banned or suppressed, than effective new drugs have been patented, for several decades.