Interesting piece. The author claims that LLMs like Claude and ChatGPT are mere interfaces for the same kind of algorithms that corporations have been using for decades and that the real “AI Revolution” is that regular people have access to them, where before we did not.
From the article:
Consider what it took to use business intelligence software in 2015. You needed to buy the software, which cost thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. You needed to clean and structure your data. You needed to learn SQL or tableau or whatever visualization tool you were using. You needed to know what questions to ask. The cognitive and financial overhead was high enough that only organizations bothered.
Language models collapsed that overhead to nearly zero. You don’t need to learn a query language. You don’t need to structure your data. You don’t need to know the right technical terms. You just describe what you want in plain English. The interface became conversation.
Okay. Claims are not evidence. “I read it somewhere” is not even close to substantial, because anyone can write anything they want on the Internet. Without evidence or even consensus amongst experts, it just sounds like a conspiracy theory.
The CIA is often the bogeyman, because they do lots in secret, and the government is inherently untrustworthy. That doesn’t mean they have wireless brain interfaces, however.
Check out the FOIA website, keywords, remote viewing, telepathy, mk-ultra and stargate there is already a bunch of released documents unfortunately the majority of them are excessively redacted. Mostly are from around 80s to 00s, a long road since back then. That’s why I wouldn’t be surprised if they are already installing LLMs into humans brains.
I believe I read about the human-digital interface from a leaked unredacted document I found anywhere in the deepweb, but as you say anyone can just claim online something is whatever and there is no way to prove it.
Human digital interfaces aren’t a secret, but other things like remote-viewing, etc. have been known about for a long time, and they were failures. There’s even a whole movie about it called Men Who Stare At Goats. Pointing to a few examples of actual conspiracies or weird projects doesn’t mean every claim has validity. It just means the government is generally untrustworthy, but that also means you need to take each claim individually, in practice. You can’t just generalize and say that “government untrustworthy, therefore believe the opposite of anything they say.” That’s being reactive, not skeptical.
That’s not to say that there’s not scary tech out there (it’s been demonstrated that they can not only see but hear conversations through walls by interpolating Wi-Fi signals), but it’s all very much within the realm of science, not the paranormal.