Category: Tech

Wise Words of Wikipedia’s Co-founder Larry Sanger

Larry Sanger is an esteemed figure in the technology community.

Recognized as one of the early pioneers of the Internet, in 2001 he co-founded Wikipedia.

He is also credited with having come up with the site’s name, which is a combination of the word “encyclopedia” and the Hawaiian word “wiki,” which means “quick.”

He and almost all of the early tech-innovators back in the day envisioned a continuous “free and open” Internet, one in which the marketplace of ideas could forever run with abandon.

Sanger has a Ph.D. in philosophy, served as a professor at a number of universities, and remains one of the truly deep thinkers of the technology world.

Many view him as the chief source of the underlying philosophy of the World Wide Web.

In an interview with senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufo, which was conducted for City Journal, he reacted to statements of former Wikimedia Foundation CEO Katherine Maher, who is now CEO of NPR.

Maher’s statements have created a major backlash. She has basically rejected Internet freedom, admitted that collaboration with government to censor content has been occurring, and seemingly embraces relativism over objective truth.

Acknowledging the inherent bias that exists in Wikipedia, Sanger stated, “The fact that certain points of view have been systematically silenced, is nothing new.”

Yet the Maher comments that were recently reported by Rufo appear to have left Sanger seriously befuddled.

“My jaw is on the floor,” he said.

The Wikipedia co-founder indicated that he was previously unaware of “just how radical-sounding Katherine Maher is.”

Wikimedia’s former CEO reportedly said that it was an error for Wikipedia to be “free and open” and also suggested that allowing the site to be managed in this manner has led to bad outcomes.

Maher also acknowledged that she has worked together with governments to suppress what she deems as “misinformation” appearing on the Wikipedia site.

Sanger was quick to remark, “It’s fantastic, in a bad way, that she actually comes out against the system for being ‘free and open.’”

He views her actions in collaborating with government to censor material as completely incongruent with the notion of a free Internet.

“When she says that she’s worked with government to shut down what they consider ‘misinformation,’ that, in itself, means that it’s no longer free and open,” he noted.

He views it as outrageous that the site “has not just been taken over by the Left, but has been co-opted by and working with the government. That’s not a thing I would’ve imagined happening 20 years ago.”

What makes the situation even more untenable is the fact that now Maher is the head of a national broadcasting company that is financed by American taxpayers.

Sanger believes that she should be immediately removed from her position as CEO of NPR.

“If NPR wanted to prove that they were still committed to free speech, to being ideologically neutral, and simply nonpartisan, they would let her go right away,” he said.

He remembers clearly the vision of the web at its inception.

“We didn’t have to have a special vision of a free and open Internet. That was the Internet,” he emphasized.

Those of us who were early Internet adopters believed that freedom would forever be its hallmark.

Sanger said that in those early days “the notion of restrictions on free speech was nowhere to be found.”

He additionally commented that “in the 1990s and 2000s, Democrats and Republicans were competing with each other to demonstrate how much in favor of free speech they were.”

In an attempt to enhance the understanding of the fragile nature of the net, the online founding father drew from his academic background.

“As a philosopher, I knew that this was not automatic, that it could easily change,” he explained, noting that “we could lose these freedoms.”

To paraphrase the words of one of our nation’s eminent founding fathers, it’s a free platform if you don’t bleep it.

Transhumanism and the Abolition of Free Will

What is free will?

It is the ability to act at one’s own discretion, to make choices of one’s own volition.

Within the earthly realm, it is actually a prerequisite to human rights, to the pursuit of happiness, and to true liberty.

In America we have oftentimes taken the gift of free will for granted. However, when we experience the loss of this treasure, in ways great or small, we are suddenly cognizant of how crucial it is for us to safeguard it always.

Elite leaders, who are part of influential global organizations, dream of a future in which the world is no longer populated by human beings as they are currently known.

Instead “new human beings” would consist of an amalgam of human as well as high-tech components. This would likely result in the manufacturing of synthetic creatures devoid of the remnants of free will.

The notion of a super-humanity, i.e., one that is theoretically enhanced via the merger of people with technological parts, is known as transhumanism.

Transhumanists are supposedly looking to convert human beings into creatures with amplified intellects and increased vigor.

More than anything, though, transhumanists seek to extend human life indefinitely.

In other words, they are on a quest for immortality.

Transhumanists see their form of eternal life being brought to fruition via the uploading of themselves into Artificial Intelligence hardware.

Oxford professor Nick Bostrom wrote that transhumanism is “a loosely defined movement…that can be viewed as an outgrowth of secular humanism and the Enlightenment.”

Many transhumanists are actually enamored with the whole notion of an immortal cyber-being, one in which the human intellect has been separated from the physical body and the “person” has been uploaded into computer hardware to achieve the ultimate end-goal.

Transhumanists refer to this state as the “posthuman” one.

Ray Kurzweil, a leading transhumanist, forecasts a world in which humans are extinct and the only “life” on earth will be computers.

Like many other transhumanists, Kurzweil’s view is that the universe is merely matter in motion. Our souls and minds are nothing more than bio-computers.

He further posits that his perspective leads to the logical conclusion that there is no essential difference between human brains and computers.

“We’re going to become increasingly non-biological, to the point where the biological part isn’t that important anymore,” Kurzweil stated at a conference about the coming 2045 world.

“Even if the biological part went away, it wouldn’t make any difference,” he remarked.

The pursuit of immortality is happening in plain sight.

Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and others are spending enormous amounts of money on anti-aging technology and treatments that they purportedly believe will allow humans to live forever.

In order to reach their goal of living forever, transhumanists are willing to give up everything it means to be human, including free will.

Yuval Noah Harari of the World Economic Forum stated, “Humans are now hackable animals. You know the whole idea that humans have this soul or spirit or free will, and nobody knows what’s happening inside me, so whatever I choose, whether in the election or whether in the supermarket, this is my free will – that’s over.”

The idea of humanity devoid of free will was featured in the 1948 novel, Walden Two, written by father of behaviorist psychology B.F. Skinner.

Skinner’s utopia was inhabited by people who were completely under the control of operant conditioning. In this fictional community, everyone is content because all have been fully conditioned to respond to their constraints with pleasure.

Individuals are ruled by elite experts who program them to pursue entertainment and leisure in controlled harmony. Of course, it is a world that is devoid of free will as well as representative government.

Similarly, Brave New World, the 1932 dystopian novel by Aldous Huxley, imagines a global government whose citizens are environmentally engineered into a blissful servitude. This is accomplished through reproductive technology, bioengineered drugs, and psychological conditioning.

Skinner’s Waldensians and Huxley’s 26th Century Londoners lack some very basic human attributes. Since they have become automatons they no can longer experience the transcendence of friendship, courage, self-sacrifice, love, and more.

Ironically, the folks who are pushing the transhumanist agenda are engaging in an intellectual sleight of hand.

They substitute a counterfeit faith in place of a genuine one.

Transhumanists desire to scan and transfer human consciousness into a machine. But in order for this to be accomplished, they must first come to believe in what could be called “a digital soul.”

Somehow a machine would have to possess the spiritual cognizance that human beings instinctively understand are not a part of the physical world.

Transhumanists have channeled their hope for salvation into an irrational belief.

Contrary to the religious wisdom of the ages concerning the sacredness and dignity of life, they cling to the idea that all of the mysteries of human consciousness can be reduced to mere algorithms.

Caution: If you go down this path, there’s no turning back.

Instead I recommend following the road where free will is the norm, happiness abounds, and life everlasting is waiting for you.

Science Fiction Comes to Life in AI Executive Order

An executive order recently signed by the president centers on the regulation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its implementation in the “whole of government.”

The AI acronym itself has been absorbed into our national lexicon. And although it may sound as if we all share the same definitional understanding of the words, the truth is we actually don’t.

I begin this article with a clarification of terms in the hopes that it will serve to increase awareness of misunderstandings that are making the rounds.

The term “Artificial Intelligence” refers to computer algorithms being combined with data for the purpose of solving problems, addressing issues, or facilitating the creation of innovative ideas, products, etc.

An algorithm is basically a list of instructions for specific actions to be carried out in step-by-step fashion by computer technology.

AI utilizes something called “machine learning,” which allows the computer technology to be educated, so to speak, and to advance further by adapting without having been given explicit instructions to do so.

The type of AI that most people are familiar with and that is currently in widespread use is designed to specialize in a single task.

Conducting a web search, determining the fastest route to a destination, and alerting the driver of a car to the presence of a vehicle in the car’s blind spot are just a few examples. This type of AI is often referred to as Specialized AI.

Specialized AI is starkly different from another type of AI called Artificial General Intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence is the kind of AI that can, and likely will, match and even exceed human intelligence capabilities.

The executive order recently signed by the president is voluminous, exceeding 100 pages. It is also massive in scope, directing the “whole of government” to strictly regulate Artificial Intelligence technology.

There are several items that should be of concern. However, one thing that is especially alarming is the repeated use of the word “equity.”

In the executive order, all federal agencies are directed to establish an annual “equity action plan” aimed at helping “underserved communities.”

In a section titled “Embedding Equity into Government-wide Processes,” the Director of the Office of Management and Budget is tasked “to support equitable decision-making, promote equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance, and assist agencies in advancing equity, as appropriate and wherever possible.”

The same section also states, “When designing, developing, acquiring, and using artificial intelligence and automated systems in the Federal Government, agencies shall do so…in a manner that advances equity.”

Again looking at definitional meaning, even though the words are often conflated, the meaning of “equity” is quite different from the meaning of “equality.”

The meaning of “equality” was iconically conveyed in the words of Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., when he urged that people “…not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Character is the essence of a person and is unique to the individual within whom it is found.

The meaning of “equity,” particularly within the context of the executive order, is something very different. It means treating each individual in a selective manner precisely because of skin color, gender identity, or myriad other designated categories.

The end result of such an overriding governmental policy may actually end up being the antithesis of true equality.

The executive order dictates that AI projects conform to prescribed equity principles.

Senior Fellow of the Manhattan Institute Christopher Rufo tweeted that the order has created “a national DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] bureaucracy” and has “a special mandate for woke AI.”

This may mean that woke algorithms could ultimately be incorporated into cell phones, electronic devices, automobiles, household appliances, etc.

Writing for Forbes, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute James Broughel did not mince words.

Broughel called the order “the biggest policy mistake of my lifetime.” He also emphasized the hazardous aspects of the executive order, stating that it “may prove one of the most dangerous government policies in years.”

To sum things up, Specialized Artificial Intelligence improved our lives in a lot of ways.

But when the inevitable happens and it evolves into a woke Artificial General Intelligence, under government control it has the very real potential to wreck our lives.

I find myself longing for the days when it was only science fiction.

AI Is Stealing Hollywood Jobs

Believe it or not the Hollywood strike is still going on.

The problem for the members of the Writers Guild of America (WGA) and the Screen Actors Guild (SAG-AFTRA) is that right now almost nobody is paying attention to their plight.

Yes, the picket lines continue to be manned and the press conferences rage on. But something very different is going on behind the scenes.

The current strikes were initially prompted by the usual compensation-related concerns. However, this time the central issue revolves around the role that Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going to play in the future creation, production, and marketing of entertainment content.

In terms of the negotiations between labor and management, the situation is truly unprecedented, due to the technological elephant in the room.

Strikers are seeking an agreement that would set up guardrails across the industry in relation to the expanding application of AI technology.

Advances in AI are testing the law, especially when it comes to the manner in which courts are applying, interpreting, and ruling in cases that involve intellectual property.

Comedian Sarah Silverman recently brought a lawsuit in federal court against Meta and OpenAI for copyright infringement. The case is part of a proposed class action lawsuit.

Silverman in particular alleges that, without having given her consent, books that she had authored were included in the technology’s training data.

No question that actors and writers have legitimate reasons to fear the loss of their livelihoods. After all, AI has the potential to allow studios to simulate the likenesses and voices of actors in perpetuity, without ever having to compensate individuals for the use of their personal identities, characteristics, personas, etc.

Let’s not forget that AI also has the ability to create screenplays, minus the human writers.

In relation to the strike, SAG-AFTRA president Fran Drescher, best known for her starring role in the 1990s sitcom “The Nanny,” stated the following: “If we don’t stand tall right now, we are all going to be in trouble, we are all going to be in jeopardy of being replaced by machines.”

Bob Iger, who is currently a prime target of the unions, is on record as specifically having stated the drawings and videos generated by AI are “something that at some point in the future the company [Disney] will embrace.”

While speaking to a crowd gathered in Times Square, actor Bryan Cranston aimed his comment directly at Disney’s CEO, saying, “We’ve got a message for Mr. Iger. I know, sir, that you look at things through a different lens. We don’t expect you to understand who we are. But we ask you to hear us, and beyond that to listen to us when we tell you we will not be having our jobs taken away and given to robots.”

Union workers typically strike in order to increase leverage for negotiations with management.

The sad truth for both the WGA and SAG-AFTRA is that the recent strikes have increased the incentive for Hollywood employers to find ways in which they can actually prevent future strikes.

Despite the rhetoric of studio reps, AI technology equips entertainment employers to potentially avoid future strikes altogether, via drastic reductions or the complete elimination of conventional creative workers.

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), i.e., the studios’ organization, has taken the position that AI should be used in what the group calls “a balanced approach based on careful use, not prohibition.”

Judging by actions as opposed to words, it appears that the major studios are tacitly embracing AI.

As a matter of fact, an AI hiring spree is currently taking place and almost every major entertainment company is involved.

— Disney has a number of open positions that focus on AI and machine learning.

— Netflix has similar job offerings, including an AI Product Manager job that promises an annual salary of up to $900,000.

— Sony is looking for what the company refers to as an AI “ethics” engineer.

— Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount, and NBCUniversal have also joined in the AI hiring boom with their own job offerings.

It seems quite significant that Hollywood studios are seeking to fill AI jobs; this in the midst of strikes that have occurred over AI’s use itself. Tack this on to the fact that workers are having to witness layoffs that may prove to be the largest in the history of the entertainment business, including the firing of about 7,000 Disney employees.

From ancient past to present day, new inventions have historically caused the displacement of workers.

Again, though, something very different is going on. And it probably has to do with the philosophical, political, societal, cultural, and ethical transformations that are occurring simultaneously in our country and in the world.

The Hollywood strikes are likely to last a long time and may not bring a satisfactory outcome to the unions’ memberships.

So goes Hollywood, so goes the world?

Hidden Blessing in the Hollywood Shutdown

Hollywood sets have gone dark.

A central reason for the recent Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) strike is that actors, writers, and other entertainment artists are super nervous about Artificial Intelligence (AI) making them and their jobs obsolete.

When the strike was first announced, current president of SAG-AFTRA Fran Drescher was at the mike to address the press.

Drescher, the former lead actress of the 1990s hit TV sitcom “The Nanny,” heads the union that boasts a membership of over 160,000 film and television actors.

Interestingly, the writers union had gone on strike a couple of months back. But now that SAG-AFTRA has also taken to the picket line, the situation in Hollywood is looking pretty bleak.

The last time both unions were on strike simultaneously was over sixty years ago, when none other than then-actor (who ultimately turned President of the United States) Ronald Reagan was wearing the union president’s hat.

Like every other aspect of our lives, things presently appear to be out of whack.

The brand of Hollywood itself is in tatters, in large part because of the cultural and political agendas that permeate every nook and cranny of the town.

What has particularly outraged the public, though, are the productions that have been coming from major studios, chock-full of vile and inappropriate imagery, content, and messaging aimed straight at our kids and teens.

Could the Hollywood shutdown created by the two entertainment unions be a blessing in disguise?

A lot of consumers of entertainment fare are viewing it this way, as if maybe a wrench in the works was exactly what was needed to stop the madness.

Striking actors and writers have reason to be concerned about the capability of AI models to supplant human beings in the manufacture of entertainment products.

Creative types are also increasingly astonished at the sheer capabilities of generative AI models, which can digitally produce what would typically have been created by human beings, but in a faster and less expensive way.

AI ingests the works and images of human artists as part of its training data. The technology can then alter and/or mash-up content, allowing entertainment companies to avoid compensating the people who originally created the works or were even the subjects of images used.

Additionally, other creative types such as musicians and visual artists are carefully watching the entertainment biz battle, as are all those who work in an array of fields that will no doubt be affected by AI’s implementation.

We are already witnessing the technological replacement of human beings in a host of industries. Still, the entertainment business has a unique opportunity to do something helpful for society at large.

The manner in which Hollywood resolves the two strikes could set the marker, not only for the entertainment industry but for other businesses as well.

Digitally created trailers and scenes featuring what appear to be well known actors have popped up all over the internet. The virtual phenom is posing legal and ethical concerns that the unions are obliged to address.

At a recent press conference, Drescher warned, “If we don’t stand tall right now, we are all going to be in trouble. We are all going to be in jeopardy of being replaced by machines.”

SAG-AFTRA chief negotiator Duncan Crabtree-Ireland indicated during a press conference that a proposal by the studios would put background performers at a terrible disadvantage.

“They propose that our background performers should be able to be scanned, get paid for one day’s pay, and their company should own that scan of their image, their likeness, and should be able to use it for the rest of eternity,” Crabtree-Ireland said.

The Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP), which represents major studios including Walt Disney and Netflix, issued a statement suggesting that the claim made by SAG-AFTRA leadership is untrue.

An AMPTP spokesperson told ZDNET that the use of digital replicas would be restricted to the specific motion picture for which the actor is employed, and that any additional use would require the actor’s permission.

“Any other use requires the background actor’s consent and bargaining for the use, subject to a minimum payment,” the spokesperson stated.

This strike over AI is just the opening scene.

Sit yourself down and get ready for a real-life epic drama.

Only this time you’re not going to be able to say, “Don’t worry. It’s only a movie.”

AI and the Song

Music is a universal language like no other.

When words seem inadequate, it speaks volumes.

So where does music come from?

We may differ in our opinions on that. But a lot of us believe that inspiration, in music as in various other art forms, literary writings, discoveries, inventions, and the like, has an other worldly origin.

Musical inspiration is particularly unique, though, because of its biblical roots and its distinct resonance within human beings across all time.

Artists who are driven to share their musical inspirations are currently facing some questions that are seriously haunting ones.

Here are a few:

1. Can technology really create the equivalent of human music?

2. Will technologically designed songs measure up to the music that human beings love?

3. Is music designed by technology really music?

There are a whole lot of music artists who are concerned about Artificial Intelligence (AI) and its supposed “creation” of musical content.

Experimentation with computers composing music has been going on for decades. But there was always a human at the helm.

Now with AI, the human is hidden. A programmer, a series of programmers, faceless, nameless, all seemingly lost, only data remain.

And we are supposed to accept the notion that data have been assigned to be our new composers?

Such so-called artistic advances in AI are prompting an interesting reaction – a mixed blend of enthusiasm, anticipation, and alarm.

A few recent examples provide insight.

A “collaboration” between famed pop musicians Drake and The Weeknd, which was actually an AI-simulated version of “Heart on My Sleeve,” went viral on social media. The track was quickly pulled at the behest of the label, Universal Music Group.

AI was used to generate an album of the highly successful British rock band Oasis. But the group had long been disbanded. Apparently, an insignificant detail.

Canadian EDM artist Claire Boucher, a.k.a. Grimes, is evidently embracing the idea of an AI version of herself.

She sent out the following advertisement of sorts:

“I’ll split 50% royalties on any successful AI generated song that uses my voice,” Grimes tweeted. “Same deal as I would with any artist i collab with. Feel free to use my voice without penalty. I have no label and no legal bindings.”

Probably the biggest story relating to all of the above involves Sir Paul McCartney. The former Beatle is one of the most influential composers and performers of all time.

McCartney has accelerated the AI discussion by announcing that the surviving Beatles would release an AI-assisted tune, which will feature vocals by the late John Lennon.

He told BBC Radio 4 that the technology was able to “extricate” Lennon’s voice from a demo recording to allow the song to be completed, and it is set to be released this year.

During the production of Peter Jackson’s documentary “Get Back,” technology was used to remove background noise from the track and otherwise clean up the audio.

“[Jackson] was able to extricate John’s voice from a ropey little bit of cassette,” McCartney said. “We had John’s voice and a piano and he [Jackson] could separate them with AI.”

“So when we came to make what will be the last Beatles record, it was a demo that John had, and we were able to take John’s voice and get it pure through this AI,” McCartney added.

Reportedly, the song is a 1978 Lennon composition called “Now and Then.”

McCartney had received the demo a year earlier from Lennon’s widow, Yoko Ono. The tracks were recorded on a boombox as John sat at the piano in his New York apartment.

Two of the songs on the demo, “Free as a Bird” and “Real Love,” were restored by producer Jeff Lynne and released in 1995 and 1996, the first Beatles release in 25 years.

The band had attempted to record “Now and Then,” but the recording session had been halted and the tune abandoned.

Now AI is facilitating McCartney’s completion of the song.

But is it really a new Beatles song? John isn’t with us anymore. How could it be?

After the announcement, some consternation appeared on various web platforms.

McCartney then backtracked a bit, taking to Twitter to assure Beatle fans that in the making of the “new” Beatles song nothing had been “artificially or synthetically created.”

It could be that McCartney is experiencing some trepidation about the use of AI for music production.

He’s certainly not alone.

According to a poll taken by the Bedroom Producers Blog, 86% of those surveyed believe the technology will replace existing tools of music production, and 73% of respondents believe AI could replace human producers in the future.

It actually doesn’t take a musician or songwriter or producer or engineer to realize that, within this context, AI is just what its name indicates – Artificial.

Thankfully, there are still those among us who are able to recognize real music and who freely acknowledge the very source of our human inspiration.

AI Plays God

Certain writings have always been considered sacred.

Such writings are, always have been, and always will be revered and treasured by the people who view them as foundational to their core spiritual beliefs.

Many of those who adhere to Judeo-Christian religious tradition consider the Holy Scriptures to be the epitome of such sacred writings. Furthermore, it is resolutely held by adherents that the writings originate from God himself.

The Jewish people have traditionally maintained a respect for scripture, displaying a reverence so deep that they have seen fit to place the Torah, i.e., the five books of Moses, in a carefully constructed ark.

Whenever the Torah is taken out of the ark and exhibited in the synagogue, veneration is offered and the entire congregation stands for the duration of the devotion.

Christians likewise regard the Bible as a supremely sacred text. Christian liturgies feature ceremonial readings of passages from scripture, and the Christian faith upholds the Bible as the Word of God.

If someone were to propose a fundamental alteration of the aforementioned sacred writings, it would be extremely disturbing and highly offensive to members of religious congregations.

As it turns out someone has done just that; proposed a fundamental alteration of the Holy Scriptures.

Yuval Noah Harari, a contributor and advisor to the World Economic Forum, is pushing a new global bible, one that would purportedly be AI-generated.

When Harari was being interviewed by journalist Pedro Pinto in Lisbon, Portugal, he touted AI as different from all other technologies, because, in his words, it is “the first technology ever that can create new ideas.”

Harari went on to compare and contrast AI with an age-old innovation, saying, “The Gutenberg printing press printed as many Bibles as it was ordered to do. But it could not write a single new page.”

He added, “AI can do that. It can even write a new Bible.”

“In a few years, there may be religions that are actually correct,” he opined.

What he meant by “correct” is left to the imagination.

In any event, he seemed to be attempting to describe a socially acceptable scripture that would be suitable for a supposed one world religion.

He asserted that “throughout history, religions dreamed about having a book written by a superhuman intelligence, by a non-human entity.”

It goes without saying that people of faith already know the authentic non-AI Bible already has a supreme author who is far beyond human.

Harari has made it perfectly clear that he is no fan of the Bible or of its adherents.

In an interview with Google, he disparaged Christian beliefs, including the pinnacle belief of the Resurrection of Jesus, which he proceeded to characterize as “fake news.”

A few years ago Harari wrote a commentary in The Globe and Mail that was derisive of the Bible.

“Centuries ago, millions of Christians locked themselves inside a self-reinforcing mythological bubble, never daring to question the factual veracity of the Bible…,” he wrote.

He again linked faith-based beliefs to “fake news.”

“I am aware that many people might be upset by my equating religion with fake news, but that’s exactly the point. When 1,000 people believe some made-up story for one month, that’s fake news. When a billion people believe it for 1,000 years, that’s a religion…”

He belittled those who view the Bible as sacred, stating that “billions of people have believed in these stories for thousands of years. Some fake news lasts forever.”

In a column for the British newspaper The Guardian, Harari blamed the Bible for environmental problems.

“It’s possible to trace a direct line from the Genesis decree of ‘fill the earth and subdue it…’ to the Industrial Revolution and today’s ecological crisis,” he wrote.

In the very book that Harari disparages, the words of Holy Scripture warn about those who view themselves as God.

Google co-founder Larry Page once shared with Elon Musk that he hoped to build an AI super-intelligence that would be a “digital god.”

Many elites see AI as a path to becoming godlike.

The advent of a super-intelligence, which would exceed present human intellectual capacity, would evidently be heralded by Harari and many other globalists as a defining moment.

Harari envisions the future of humanity as containing people who become new types of beings infused with a supposed technologically superior intellect.

He explained that individuals such as these would be “almost like gods.”

The key word in Harari’s musings is almost.

Pray that he doesn’t have to find out the hard way that there is, always has been, and always will be one true God.