Recently, the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the United Nations (UN), under the command of former Chilean President Michelle Bachelet (representative of the so-called “socialism of the 21st century” in her country) has published a detailed report entitled The right to privacy in the digital age.
The document begins by attempting to quantify “the extent to which the use by States and companies of Artificial Intelligence (AI), including monitoring, decision making and machine learning, affect the enjoyment of the right to privacy and other associated rights.”
In fact, they further specifically suggest that there is a concern about the trend to integrate AI solutions into border control mechanisms, criminal exercises and national security. They also mention its use for future predictive purposes and the automation of political actions that would go beyond the collection of data from many individuals.
Biometric solutions (facial or fingerprint detection) are already being used as an authentication mechanism in electronic devices or as an alternative to keys or “plastic cards” with which it is recorded that one enters an office or other restricted-access facility. In response, Bachelet has urged nation-states and other political institutions to regulate the manufacture and distribution of robots and other electronic solutions that respond to this new technological trend. At the same time, she is proposing new legislation aimed at “data protection.”
In view of the above, I believe that it is necessary to address this issue by dealing with the moral, social and practical implications of the use of Artificial Intelligence as well as the logic that these supra-state conclusions may or may not have, especially knowing the functioning and the ideology that guides them in their operation.
Artificial Intelligence can help others in their day-to-day life
In the same way that a pharmaceutical laboratory may try to research a treatment to counteract the cognitive deterioration that affects elderly people or to develop an abortion pill, robots and other systems that automate decisions and predictions can have both positive and negative purposes.
In their day, with the invention of the tractor, the combine harvester, the helicopter and email, we have seen improvements that have resulted in shorter waiting times for health emergencies, increased food supply, more instant communications and better market prices for various products.
Well, with AI we can have systems that, for example, improve prediction strategies for a natural catastrophe such as a tsunami or volcanic eruption, increase the diagnostic accuracy of traumatic injuries or tumors, or reduce the physical dependency of people with disabilities.
Thus, it cannot be denied that we will be able to earn more money working fewer hours (nothing will be due to the “cheesiness” of certain factions of the “new left” both in Spain and in the United States), nor the fact that our life expectancy may be much higher in general.
But neither is it uncertain that there may be negative applications. For example, mechanisms that allow governments to obtain a greater volume of data on each of us and exercise greater analytical and/or predictive data control (movements, financial transactions, biometric markers, academic records or health history).
In fact, at some point, the capacity of machines could be so sophisticated as to be able to move forward without the need for the human brain, which may pose a threat to the existence of the human species as we know it. Similarly, there may be spiritual conflicts when discussing the concept of death according to the Christian worldview.
Contradictions of globalist institutions
The UN, also known as the supreme supranational body that promotes the ideological concepts of globalism, characteristic of the revolutionary process (wokeism, cultural Marxism, “new religions”, etc.), contradicts itself when preparing these reports.
To begin with, the UN has never condemned the political and economic interventionism developed by the various political entities in the world. In fact, it seeks to reinforce it, even in the cultural sphere, by attempting to alienate competencies that belong to lower-level political bodies.
There are several contemporary examples to which I could refer. One of them is the interest of the Treasury of many modern States, through the combined interdependence of Big Data, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning to reinforce the persecution of the taxpayer, quite plundered (which undermines savings and private property).
But also of interest is the general and common political reaction to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most modern states have tried to align themselves with the UN regarding invasions of privacy and violations of freedom of movement (perimeter closures, confinements, restrictions on economic activity, and “health passports“).
To be more precise, one should refer to its “health arm”, known as the World Health Organization, which is not only headed by a communist linked to that episode of the Ethiopian Red Terror, but which has tried to have a clear mutual cooperation with the Communist Party of China.
As it is, one does not quite understand this contradictory hypocrisy. We could interpret it as a smokescreen to justify anti-innovative business regulations that may also entail traps that ultimately erode more freedoms.
We must be alert to those uses of AI that contravene its service purpose. The automation of processes, the abuse of prediction and the handling of large volumes of data are some of the socialist strategies to do away with tradition, family, freedom and property.