Ryan Matters

In 1989, researchers from the Salk Institute in California published a paper detailing how theydeveloped an RNA transfection systemthat could directly introduce RNA into whole tissues and embryos.

The concept of using RNA as a drug is first described in this paper, making it the seminal work that formed the foundation for decades of further research in this area. The Discussion section of the paper states that:

The RNA/lipofectin method can be used to directly introduce RNA into whole tissues and embryos (R.W.M., C. Holt, and I.M.V., unpublished results), raising the possibility that liposome-mediated mRNA transfection might offer yet another option in the growing technology of eukaryotic gene delivery, one based on the concept of using RNA as a drug.

One of the Salk Institute researchers listed on the paper is Dr Robert W. Malone, a scientist who has recentlybeen censoredon social media for warning about the possible dangers of the covid-19 vaccines. It could be argued that theres no expert more qualified to warn us about the dangers of mRNA injections than the man who helped pioneer the technology, nevertheless, Big Tech decided he was expounding misinformation, because, well, they know better apparently.

Malones research, which resulted in a procedure that could be used to efficiently transfect RNA into human cells using a synthetic cationic lipid was supported by grants from the American Cancer Society and the National Institute of Health (who currently have a stake in the Moderna mRNA vaccine, showing their allegiance to the technology. More on this later).

While Malones contributions to the development of mRNA technology are well-known and well-documented, Wikipedia decided to remove all mention of him from their RNA Vaccine entry shortly after the scientist began speaking out about the dangers of the rushed-through covid vaccines. TheJune 14th versionof the article mentioned Malone by name 3 times and cited his work 6 times. The current version of the article mentions him 0 times and cites his work only 3 times.

However, this is unsurprising consideringWikipedias documented biastowards the pharmaceutical industry. Far more interesting is the institution that produced the research in the first place the Salk Institute.

The Salk Institute, named after Jonas Salk, the creator of the Salk polio vaccine, was constructed in 1962thanks to fundingfrom the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis, today known as the March of the Dimes.

The March of the Dimes (MOD) was established in 1937 with the mission of eradicating polio and during a time when the Eugenics Establishment was already a prominent, but not yet popular, feature of the American health scene.The theory of Eugenicsis based on the idea that selective procreation can lead to the gradual improvement of the human race and that certain families are fit to lead society by virtue of their superior genes.

At the time, the nations key eugenics organizations included the American Eugenics Society (AES) and the American Society of human Eugenics (ASHE), funded by the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Harriman families, as well as the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research. It should be noted that the Rockefellerswere instrumentalin funding and promoting eugenics around the world. The Eugenics movement promoted selective mating, artificial insemination and compulsory sterilization and euthanasia as important means of weeding out so-called inferior human beings.

The first sterilization law in the US was passed in 1907, in the state of Indiana, and by 1931, many more states had followed suit by enacting similar laws.According to the Indiana Historical Bureau:

In 1907, Governor J. Frank Hanly approved first state eugenics law making sterilization mandatory for certain individuals in state custody.

Those sterilized under eugenics lawwere deemed undesirableon account of mental or physical impairments such as epilepsy, blindness and physical disabilities, as well as social inadequacies such as drug addiction or criminality. According to estimates, around 60,000 individuals were sterilized under such laws, deprived of their right to have children and forever branded as feebleminded.

In fact, the prominence of the American eugenics movementresulted in its adoption by the National Socialist Party of Germany, which sterilized more than 350,000 persons by the end of the second world war. After WW2, eugenics notions were dropped from public conversation, but the movement never dissipated, no, instead it was re-branded using more acceptable terminology such as population control and reproductive health, as we shall see later on.

The emergence of the MOD as a major player in the American Eugenics movement can be traced back to the organizations early association with the Rockefeller Institute from where it procured many of its key members and advisers, including professor Anton Julius Carlson, amember of the American Eugenics Society, recruited to serve on the MODs Medical and Research Committees and Professor Clair E. Turner, another AES member who served as assistant to then President, Basil OConnor.

Just before the establishment of the Salk Institute, the MOD announced it would bephasing out its polio programsand focusing its resources on birth defects.

In 1959, the MOD funded courses in medical genetics at the Jackson Laboratory in Maine, a genetics institute founded in 1929 by Clarence Cook Little, who, at one time or another served as the president of the American Eugenics Society, the American Birth Control League and the American Euthanasia Society.

Jackson Laboratorys claimed mission is to discover precise genomic solutions for disease and empower the global biomedical community in its shared quest to improve human health. Noteworthy is that the lab receivedincreased fundingin 2020, largely from the National Institute of Health (NIH), including a grant of $10.6 million to find treatments for rare genetic diseases by using gene-editing technologies. And at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, the lab worked to developgenetically modified micefor use in vaccine studies and other research related to Sars-Cov-2.

Beginning in the 1960s, the MODfinancedseveral Birth Defects Prevention Centerslocated at medical institutions across the US. These new centers offered prenatal testing via amniocentesis to determine whether a baby would be born with defects and then gave the couple the opportunity to abort the affected child.

The MOD has alsomade direct donationsto Planned Parenthood, a clear contradiction of theirclaimed mission, which is to fight for the health of all moms and babies. Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health care in the US and abroad.

From 2019-2020 the organizationcommitted over 350,000 abortionsand has been criticized as steering resources away from womens health and toward abortion. Unsurprisingly, a look into the organizations history reveals that Planned Parenthood has its roots in Eugenics ideals.

Planned Parenthood was founded by Margaret Sanger, who, far from a birth control activist, as the mainstream would have you believe, was a racist eugenicist who sought to rid the world of unfit human stock. In her essay, A Plan for Peace, she describes the main objects of her proposed Population Congress which includes

a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.

She also mentions the need to control the intake and output of morons, mental defectives, epileptics.

As mentioned earlier, these Eugenics ideals inspired the Nazis who took many of Sangers ideas and ran with them, so to speak. In his book, The War Against the Weak, Edwin Black details how the Nazi sterilization law of 1933 as well as subsequent euthanasia laws were based on blueprints drawn up by Sanger and other American activists. In fact, associates of Sangerknew about these Nazi euthanasia programsand praised them.

Coming back to the Salk Institute, it should be noted that the mainstream account of the 20th-century polio outbreak, namely the notion that the disease is caused by a virus and that Dr Salks miracle vaccine was single-handedly responsible for ending the epidemic, is dubious and likely altogether false.

Paralytic polio appeared suddenly in the US in the early 1900s with continual, dramatic fluctuations in cases a pattern that continued until the end of the 1950s. The introduction of the Salk vaccine in 1954 seemed to coincide with the almost instantaneous decline in cases, which continued for more than two decades.

But prior to being called polio, conditions involving infirmity of the limbs were known by various other names including apoplexy, palsy and paralysis. Many historical writings refer to paralysis resulting from exposure to toxic substances and many of these accounts were documented by Dr Ralph Scobeyin his 1952 statementto the Select Committee to Investigate the Use of Chemicals in Food Products titledThe Poison Cause of Poliomyelitis and Obstructions to its Investigation.

Scobeys paper includes references to several investigations that seemed to indicate a link between polio outbreaks in the 20th century and the consumption of fresh fruit, providing a link between Polio and toxic pesticide exposure.

One crop pesticide in widespread use at the time was DDT, ahighly toxicorganochlorine that waswidely publicized as being good for you, but eventually banned in 1972. In 1953, Dr Morton Biskindpublished a paperin the American Journal of Digestive Diseases pointing out that:

McCormick (78), Scobey (100-101), and Goddard (57), in detailed studies, have all pointed out that factors other than infective agents are certainly involved in the etiology of polio, varying from nutritional defects to a variety of poisons which affect the nervous system.

The danger of toxic pesticides, including DDT, and their disastrous effects on the environment were illustrated by Rachel Carson in her 1962 book, Silent Spring.

In more recent times, researchers, Dan Olmstead, co-founder of the Age of Autism, and Mark Blaxil conducted twobrilliant investigations into the polio epidemics of the 20th century, reaching a similar conclusion to Scobey and Biskind, namely that the disease was caused by the widespread use of neurotoxic pesticides such as arsenite of soda and DDT.

Although Salks vaccine was hailed as a success, the vaccine itselfcaused many casesof injury and paralysis. And though there does appear to be a convincing correlation between the timing of the vaccine and the reduction in polio cases, as all good scientists know, causation doesnt equal correlation, especially considering the fact that DDT was phased out, at least in the US, over the same period.

Interestingly, Dr Salks polio researchwas fundedby the mother of Cordelia Scaife May, an heiress to the Mellon family banking fortune who idealized Margaret Sanger and later joined the board of the International Planned Parenthood Foundation.

Mays views on immigration were radical, to say the least, and according to some, she favoured compulsory sterilization as a means to limit birth rates in developing countries. May later joined the board of thePopulation Council, an organization founded by John D. Rockefeller III focused on population reduction.

In 1995, the Population Council collaborated with the WHO to createfertility regulating vaccines.

It would be a mistake to think that the polio epidemic was not related to the current age of vaccination we find ourselves in. On the contrary, claiming that polio was eradicated in the United States due to vaccination alone is a lie that garnered public favour for childhood vaccinations and helped to set the groundwork for the widespread belief in the safety and efficacy of all vaccines.

Diseases such as polio and smallpox (another lie that is beyond the scope of this article), and the subsequent pro-vaccine propaganda, primed much of the population to accept, without question, an experimental jab based on poorly understood technology.

In 1997, 8 years after the Salk Institute paper, the FDAapproved the first-ever trialof transfected RNA to develop immunity in cancer patients. The Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee of the National Institute of Health then voted to continue approval some months later, leading to the first-ever mRNA-based vaccine administered to humans.

Though mRNA is propagandized in the media as the next revolution in health, those with keen perception may be alarmed when reading excerpts such as this one, taken froman article on the history of mRNA, written by Damian Garde, a Biotech reporter for STATS:

The concept: By making precise tweaks to synthetic mRNA and injecting people with it, any cell in the body could be transformed into an on-demand drug factory.

Talk of cells being turned into on-demand drug factories is exactly the sort of meaningless techno-rhetoric meant to impress and entice an uninformed public. mRNA vaccines are based on the following concept: a piece of synthetic mRNA is shuttled into your cells, where it is used as a template to create the viral spike protein. Once this protein leaves the cell, the body producesantibodiesand learns how to fight future Sars-Cov-2 infections.

mRNA-based vaccines are often touted as a safer alternative to DNA-based vaccines, which,according to expertsmay trigger permanent and dangerous changes in the genetic information of treated people. However, do we know for sure that mRNA vaccines dont permanently change the genetic makeup of our cells?A 2001 papertitledRNA as a tumor vaccine: a review of the literaturestates that (emphasis added):

unlike DNA-based vaccines, there islittledanger of incorporation of RNA sequences into the host genome.

The use of the word little would seem to indicate that there may be at least some danger of genome integration, or more likely, researchers simply dont know.

In the 2004 expert opinion paper by Pascolo cited above, he outlines the link between mRNA vaccines and gene therapies, something which is continually denied and dismissed by the mainstream:

Although located in the cytosol and not in the nucleus, mature mRNAs belong to the biochemical family of nucleic acids. mRNA, similarly to DNA, may be considered a gene and, consequently, its use as a vaccine may be viewed as gene therapy.

Interestingly, it is purely due to a technicality of regulatory law that covid-19 gene therapies are allowed to be called vaccines.This is explainedin a paper titledThe European Regulatory Environment of RNA-Based Vaccines,which states that:

The definition of a gene therapy medicinal product as outlined in Annex 1 to Directive 2001/83/EC is as follows:

Gene therapy medicinal product means a biological medicinal product which has the following characteristics:

Gene therapy medicinal products shall not include vaccines against infectious diseases.

As is evident, the mere act of calling a gene therapy a vaccine against infectious disease negates its classification as a gene therapy, the approval process for which, at least in Europe, involvesgoing through the CATwhich is the EMAs (European Medicines Agency) Committee for Advanced Therapies.

Evidently, this play on language would seem to constitute a loophole of sorts, allowing easier approval for mRNA-based gene therapies planned for human use.

Approval is certainly a contentious topic when talked about in the context of the current covid-19 vaccines, none of which have been fully FDA approved, only authorized under emergency use (EUA), and labeled as investigational products, a fact that many people are unaware of. However, early in the year vaccine manufacturers already set their sights on full regulatory approval, after only 6 months of trial data.

On the 7th of May, Pfizer formally initiated their application to the FDA, with the aim of having the first-ever fully approved covid-19 vaccine. But with millions of vaccines already administered under EUA, whats the rush?

Furthermore, for the six first in disease vaccines approved by the FDA over the last 15 years, the median trial durationwas just shy of two years. A vaccine approved after 6 months of data would constitute one of the fastest ever.

Thephase three clinical trialsfor Pfizer, Moderna and Janssen are two years in duration, but the FDA has not clearly stated their position with regards to minimum follow-up prior to consideration for approval.

Longer, placebo-controlled trials are paramount to assessing vaccine safety. It is extremely alarming then that vaccine manufacturers, within weeks of receiving EUA, began tounblind trialsby offering those in the placebo group the chance to get vaccinated.

Moderna announcedthat as of April 13, all placebo participants have been offered the Moderna covid-19 vaccine and 98% of those have received the vaccine, meaning that their placebo group no longer exists and as such, they have no way to accurately measure long-term safety.

In anarticle for the British Medical Journal, Peter Doshi quotes the FDA, on several occasions, saying that the maintenance of a placebo group would be critical to assessing both the safety and efficacy of covid-19 vaccines, which is obvious to anyone who understands the consequences of failing to adhere to scientific rigor when testing a new medical therapy.

In reality, there could be many reasons for manufacturers wanting FDA approval for their vaccines, but likely top of the list is the stamp of approval that comes with full licensure and the ability to use this as a way to convince those who remain skeptical regarding the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Moreover, full FDA approval would pave the way for easier vaccine mandates, putting immense pressure on those of the awakened class who represent a thorn in the side of the Great Reset/Great Convergence agenda pushers.

More disturbing inconsistencies can be found in the FDAs process for assessing and approving these experimental vaccines. For example, the FDA recently cautioned against the use of antibody tests for evaluating immunity or protection from covid-19, especially after a person has received a vaccination, despite their EUA being originally granted, in part, due toantibody responses.

The implication for this reversal is that the EUA given for covid-19 vaccines should also be reversed, but whats the likelihood of that happening after millions have already been jabbed?

Moreover, the idea that antibodies provide protection from so-called viral infections represents a poor understanding of the body and the immune system. The fact that antibodies play little role in viral infections has been known by medical scientists since the 1950sbased on researchthat shows persons with the genetic inability to produce antibodies, called agammaglobulinemia, have normal reactions to typical viral infections and even appear to resist recurrences.

One of the covid-19 vaccine manufactures most talked about in the media is Moderna, a biotech company co-founded by Robert Langer, a researcher and inventor at MIT.

In 2013, the biotech startupreceived $25m in fundingfrom DARPA (the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency), a research arm of the United States Department of Defense, and an organization well-known for ruthlessly pursuingdystopian, transhumanist technologies, such as implantable nanoparticles and bio-brain interfaces (more on this later).

Noteworthy is that the US government, through the National Institute of Health,appears to have a financial stakein the Moderna vaccine thanks to a contract signed by both parties, giving the NIH joint ownership over Modernas mRNA vaccine candidates. According to Axios:

The NIH mostly funds outside research, but it also often invents basic scientific technologies that are later licensed out and incorporated into drugs that are sold at massive profits.

This is more than alarming considering the NIH is responsible forprioritizing promising treatmentsfor covid-19 as well as improving clinical trial effectiveness, which, for Moderna, is impossible considering their trial no longer contains a control group.

NIHs vested interest in Modernas success may also provide a plausible explanation for why the biotech startup received EUA for their vaccinedespite failing, for over 10 years, to bring a single product to market.

In an interview for Economic Club, NIH director Francis Collins denied that covid-19 vaccines would be money-makers, saying that Nobody sees this as a way to make billions of dollars.

However, evidence points to the contrary as Modernas covid-19 vaccine sales reached $1.7 billion in the first quarter of 2021, making their CEO, Stephane Bancel, one of themany new pharma billionaires.

Operation Warp Speed, the name given to a partnership between several US Federal agencies aimed at accelerating the development of a covid-19 vaccine, was also wrought with conflicts of interest.

The Operation Warp Speed administration hired several consultants with ties to Big Pharma, including two former Pfizer executives. And in May 2020, it was reported that their chief adviser, Dr Monsef Slaoui, a former pharmaceutical executive himself,held $10m in GlaxoSmithKline stock, the same company that was later awarded a $2 billion contract to supply the US government with 100 million vials of covid-19 vaccine.

Dr Slaoui also held significant stock in Moderna, to whom the federal governmenthas awarded over $2.5b in funding.

Moderna co-founder, Robert Langer, whose net worth has alsoskyrocketed into the billions, is one of the worlds most cited researchers. A scientist at MIT, Langer holds over 1,400 patents and specializes in biotechnology, nanotechnology, tissue engineering and drug delivery.

Furthermore, Langer holds an administrative role at theMIT Media Lab, the same institute that was the focus of a scandal after it was revealed that the lab accepted funding from convicted sex-offender, Jefferey Epstein. Epstein also happened to have adisturbing fascination with transhumanism, a modern-day version of eugenics (transhumanism is discussed later in this article).

Then director of the MIT Media Lab, Joi Ito,approved two donations from Epstein of $1.75m and allowed the prolific paedophile to direct funds to the lab from other wealthy benefactors, including a $2m donation from Bill Gates, who also has unsettling ties to Epstein, havingflown on his private jetand met with him on several occasions.

When the news broke out and Joi Ito resigned from his post at the lab, Langer was one of the first people tosign a letter calling for him to stay, and as an administrator for the labs Directors Office, its hard to believe he didnt know about the Epstein donations in advance.

Described as the common denominator in several coronavirus efforts, Robert Langer is certainly an interesting player in the transhumanist movement. In 2015, his company, Microchips Biotech, partnered with Israeli pharmaceutical giant, Teva Pharmaceutical, to commercialize its implantable drug delivery device.

Noteworthy is that Teva Pharmaceutical has receivedsignificant investment from Warren Buffett, who, in 2006, pledged to gradually donate his fortune to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, an organization whom he served as a trustee up until very recently.

Langer also has ties to Charles Lieber, a Harvard nanotech scientistwho was arrestedin January on account of making false statements to federal authorities regarding his collaboration with Chinese researchers at the Wuhan University of Technology.

In 2012, Langer and Lieberworked togetherto create a material that merges nanoscale electronics with biological tissues. The material was described as a first step toward prosthetics that communicate directly with the nervous system.

Much of Langers research is backed by Bill Gates, who began funding mRNA technology in 2010 and has alsoinvested millionsinto Moderna.

In 2017, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundationsponsored a projectat Langers lab to create a microparticle vaccine delivery system that could generate a novel type of drug carrying particle, allowing multiple doses of a vaccine to be administered over an extended period of time with just one injection.

Then in 2019, Gates and Langerteamed up againto create an invisible ink tattoo that embeds immunization records into a childs skin. Disturbingly, the eventual goal of the project is to inject sensors that can be used to track other aspects of health.

Gates claims he needs the data for disease prevention, referring to his efforts to wipe out polio, measles and other infectious diseases from around the world. However, Gates various health-related initiatives in developing countries are not the work of a loving philanthropist, like the media would have us all believe. Instead, evidence would suggest that Gates involvement in public health represents the continuation of a long-standing eugenics agenda, hiding in plain sight.

Gates links to the eugenics movement start with his father, who praised the Rockefellers for their work in public health and evenmet with them in 2000to discuss matters relating to infectious disease, vaccines and the environment. During the meeting, Gates senior was quoted as saying:

Taking our lead and our inspiration from work already done by The Rockefeller Foundation, our foundation actually started GAVI by pledging $750 million to something called the Global Fund for Childrens Vaccines, an instrument of GAVI.

Interestingly, almost ten years after that meeting, Gates juniorco-hosted a meetingwith David Rockefeller to discuss population reduction.

Perhaps even more telling is the fact that in 2012 Bill and Melinda Gates hosted their London Summit on Family Planning, where they announced their commitment to population control in the third world, on the 100th anniversary of theFirst International Eugenics Congress, also held in London.

Gates is well-known for his obsession with vaccines, a curious pursuit considering that the 9,000,000 people who die every year from hunger would be better served by having clean water, food supplies and sanitary living environments.

In 2009,Gates Foundation funded observational studies in Indiafor acontroversial cervical cancer vaccinethat was given to thousands of young girls called Gardasil.

Within months, many girls began to get sick and within a year, five of them had died. During a similar study for a different brand of the HPV vaccine, many girls were hospitalized and a further two died. The Economic Times of India reported on this in 2014, with the shocking revelation that:

Consent for conducting these studies, in many cases, was taken from the hostel wardens, which was a flagrant violation of norms. In many other cases, thumbprint impressions of their poor and illiterate parents were duly affixed onto the consent form. The children also had no idea about the nature of the disease or the vaccine. The authorities concerned could not furnish requisite consent forms for the vaccinated children in a huge number of cases.

Gates has also heavily promoted the oral polio vaccine in India, after endeavouring to eradicate the disease. However, as discussed earlier in this article, toxic chemicals are involved in the etiology of polio and thus the disease cannot be eradicated by the use of vaccines. In fact, global health numbers indicate that more cases of polio are now beingcaused by the vaccines themselvesthan anything else.

In 2018, a group of brave Indian researcherspublished a paperin theInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Healthshowing a correlation between the oral polio vaccine drives and increased cases of acute flaccid paralysis, a condition described as clinically indistinguishable from polio.

Ironically, Gates has a$23m investmentin Monsanto, the company that markets roundup a glyphosate-containing pesticide that is known tocause adverse health effects, including neurological disorders and paralysis.

Read the original:
OffGuardian because facts really should be sacred

Cosmic art punks Jack James and Kemp Muhl, formerly known as Uni, resurrect as UNI and The Urchins

Kemp-directed video for genetically modified Doll Parts (Hole cover) out todayHERE

Uncomfortable and strangely beautiful blend of grunge, synth wave and punk macabre in the best way -PAPER MAGAZINE

On January 13th, 2023,UNI and The Urchinswill release their debut album,Simulator, onChimera Music. Formerly known as Uni, UNI and The Urchins are thepost-apocalyptic rock & roll cultled by vocalist and NYC nightlife fixtureJack James Busaand ex-GOASTT bassistCharlotte Kemp Muhl. Combining acrobatic post-punk with glittery glam rock,V Magazineonce described the bands sound as in their own league and therefore genre.Simulatorwas written (and mixed/mastered/engineered by Kemp) mostly in isolation in the woods of Upstate NY, but takes listeners on a cosmic journey through a"lobotomized disco"world of silicone sex doll factories, crucifix manufacturers and iPhone graveyards, in a Camus-esque dive into the ways technology has permanently changed our lives and, quite literally, us.

And in the same DIY vein as the making of the album,every song onSimulatorwill be turned into an epic music videodirected/edited/colorized (the whole bit) by Kemp herself. Self-taught in every respect - she left school for a modeling career after the sixth grade - Kemp has directed each pre-SimulatorUNI and The Urchins video to date, and her surrealist style has gained her additional gigs directing videos for bands such as The Smashing Pumpkins and The Killers' Mark Stoermer.

The first video to be released from the album, today, is an industrial-trippy cover of Holes Doll Parts. Magnified by the narcissism of social media, the visuals poke fun at the meaningless of beauty as we enter an almost-here age of transhumanism and body/genetic modifications, where bodies will just be an interchangeable design element.

Watch the video for Doll PartsHERE:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acHiln-9C-M&feature=youtu.be

Read atPAPER Magazineabout the "macabre in the best way" videoHERE:https://www.papermag.com/uni-and-the-urchins-doll-parts-2658210728.html?rebelltitem=17#rebelltitem17

Largely written alongside the pandemic-accelerated collapse of civilization - and societys resulting shift from a real world to a virtual world of humanoid avatars -Simulatorwas inspired by Kemp, Jack, and guitarist David Stranges love-hate relationship with the black magic of technology. After years of cynicism towards the modern world, its a trio of retro-rock-loving musicians determination toaccuratelyriff on the musical processes of their predecessors, which always looked forward, not behind. As Ziggy looked to the space race and moon landing as defining zeitgeists of his time, UNI and The Urchins look to the Singularity and the horizon of VR replacing all flesh.

Their motto for this new era? Mutate or Die

Check out an album trailerHERE:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkztKd0kuR0&feature=youtu.be

Watch this space for more news, music, and videos to come fromSimulator.

About Chimera Music

Chimera Music, formed in 2008 in the Manhattan kitchen of Sean Ono Lennon and Charlotte Kemp Muhl, has released the pair's many projects as well as music by Yoko Ono, Moonlandingz, Black Lips, RZA, Iggy Pop, Ahohni, Tune-yards, John Zorn & others.

UNI and the Urchins (Credit: Ariel Sadok)

Frontman Jack James(Credit:Ariel Sadok)

About Frontman Jack James

Jack James is the androgynous alien front-man, starring in and co-creative directing UNI and The Urchins transmedia production house. He appears in television shows such as the FOX series Gotham, Rock Me, and the lead role in feature film, Mister Sister, a performance which earned him a Winter Film Awards nomination for Best Actor. From Blackbook magazine: Singer Jack Jamesghostly falsetto makes the proceedings all the more eerie and disconcerting an alarmingly tall man who resembles a cult character from horror movies vocal chops oozing charisma and star power. He can also appear at your Bar Mitzvah dressed as the lovechild of Kenneth Anger and Peewee Herman for the small fee of 13 Faberg eggs and your immortal soul.

Bassist Charlotte Kemp Muhl(Credit:Ariel Sadok)

About Bassist Charlotte Kemp Muhl

Shedding her Maybelline model image, bassist Charlotte Kemp Muhl has a background in psych rock from The GOASTT, her band with Sean Ono Lennon, their albumMidnight Sunhailed byRolling StoneandNPRas a best-of-the-year. She has since played bass on Jack White'sBoarding House Reach, acted as a zombie in Jim Jarmusch'sThe Dead Don't Die, and composed the score for an upcoming Crispin Glover film. She has directed all of UNI and The Urchins videos and mini-films, and engineered, mixed and mastered their new albumSimulatorherself. A workaholic and a diehard control freak, her biology is 70% composed of cup ramen and useless science factoids.

Guitarist David Strange(Credit:Nathan West)

For more information, contact Hannah Schwartz:hschwartz@shorefire.com

More:
Mutate or Die: UNI and The Urchins Announce Debut Album 'Simulator,' out January 13th, 2023 on Chimera Music - Shore Fire Media

If you happen to be reading this a million years from now, maybe a movement called effective altruism really took off. Perhaps it protected the lives of the 80 trillion human beings between our generation and yours, who managed to stave off ravaging poverty, man-made pathogens, and nuclear war.

More likely, youre reading this in 2022. If so, chances are that eight years ago, you or some close friends dumped an entire bucket of ice water over your head and shared the footage on Facebook, with a $10 donation to the ALS Association. The research group reported that, in total, the 2014 Ice Bucket Challenge raised $115 million for ALS, the deadly progressive neurodegenerative disease, also called Lou Gehrigs disease. That sounds like a lot of people doing a lot of good.

But if youre an effective altruist, you would probably say that it was funding cannibalism. It was ineffective giving because it pumped millions into a cause that isnt a high priority since it already has sufficient attention, and the research required for a cure will be slow and expensiveessentially depriving more worthy diseases of donations. At the time, the founder of effective altruism (EA), Scottish philosopher William MacAskill, wrote: If someone donates $100 to the ALS Association, he or she will likely donate less to other charities. So, he said, the Ice Bucket Challenge did more harm than good.

This kind of rational pragmatism is a central tenet of EA. The phrase itself was coined in 2011; and the movement, which lies at the junction of philosophy and philanthropy, burgeoned in the halls of the University of Oxford, and has now permeated the world of the ultrarich. By leaving the safe collegial confines of the academy, however, EA has been allowed to grow, attracting a broader range of adherents, often incorporating their own more elaborate ideas. Even when those are promoted by the founding members, theyre easily transformed into even further fantasy by acolytes far detached from the movements core creedsbut wealthy enough to push them.

The grounds of the philosophy are as follows: We should give to the charities that alleviate the worlds biggest problems, and do so with the most effective use of dollars. That premise seems hard to dispute, but theres more. To help achieve that, the movement dictates a narrow set of valuable causes: those committed to alleviating global poverty, investing in biomedical research, and ending factory farmingrigorously selected with empirical evidence to compute cost-effectiveness. Natural disaster relief doesnt pass the test because its oversubscribed. Donating to the treatment of intestinal worms may be more advisable than to tuberculosis, for example, because even though the parasitic disease causes relatively milder illness, its more neglected and more easily remediable at scale.

Sam Bankman-Fried [Photo: Lam Yik/Bloomberg/Getty Images]Now, EA is evolving from obscurity, delving into political spheres, and unfastening the wallets of billionaires. When I talk to William MacAskill on Zoom, he estimates the total of inner-circle EAs at 10,000, up from 100 in 2009. Included in that 10,000 is cryptocurrency-exchange founder Sam Bankman-Fried, who rubs shoulders with Tom Brady and Gisele Bndchen, having thrusted them onto a $20 million Super Bowl ad this year for his company, FTX. And, perhaps theres now a new endorser of the movement: Elon Musk, the fifth most-followed person on Twitterranking between Rihanna and Ronaldowho tweeted his support for MacAskills newest book. This has all formed heavyweight momentum for the rollout of the title, What We Owe the Future, which would be the envy for any product launch.

Much of the newfound enchantment with EA springs from a shake-up of the doctrine in favor of a philosophical concept called longtermism. Between MacAskills first book, 2015s Doing Good Better, and this years, weve suffered a nightmarish pandemic, climate change has spiraled, and tech has produced disquieting side effects. Developed to take on those new threats, EAs now argue that its essential to protect not only our population, but also hundreds of coming generations, millions of years into the future, whose well-being is just as important as ours. That requires even more methodical consideration: calculating not only the cost-effectiveness of philanthropic strategies, but their estimated value for millions of humans, millions of years into the future.

Now embraced, and financed, by some of the worlds richest and most powerful, EA has gone from a simple argument for better allocation of charitable dollars to part of elite discussions about space colonies and digital human enhancement. Which could mean not just eschewing things like the Ice Bucket Challenge, but also constituting a free pass for the wealthy class to abrogate responsibility for addressing todays societal ills while cloaking themselves in a presumably enlightened outlook.

Dont Follow Your Passion, MacAskill titles a chapter in Doing Good Better. To wit, fledgling EAs commit to embarking on career paths where theyre either working for impactful nonprofits or earning to giveworking in well-paid industries, like finance or software engineering, that allow them the luxury of setting aside heaps of cash for donations, typically at least 10% of their total earnings. Theyd say that anyone reading this should be doing the same because theyre privileged to. MacAskill, 35, who says he lives on 26,000 pounds ($31,000) after donating half of his income to charity, is still in the top 3% of the worlds richesteven with his two housemates, lack of a car, and a leaky shower.

The philanthropic causes to which EAs contribute are said to be ones that are relatively neglected, easily solvable, and affect enough people in the world to be impactful if solved. Global poverty has long ranked near the top of lists; other priorities include climate action, criminal justice reform, and animal welfare. To not attend to animals would be to practice speciesism: All creatures are sentient beings capable of pain, and widespread factory farming subjects animals to a lifetime of extreme suffering.

To decide how to tackle those issues, they analyze the causes impacts with randomized control trials. They determine cost-effectiveness using quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs, a numerical measure of the relationship between the predicted quantity of years a person has left to live, and the quality of those years. This should help givers weigh the value of saving a life versus improving the quality of one: Would it be more effective to prevent 10 people from suffering from AIDS or 100 from severe arthritis? EA-aligned organizations, such as GiveWell, prescribe the best routes for charitable giving. For alleviating poverty, the recommended paths are funding parasitic-deworming medicines and bed nets, which respectively cure intestinal parasites and protect against malaria-bearing mosquitos; also, making direct cash transfers to people in developed countries via charities like GiveDirectly.

This validation of prioritizing causes is compellingly novel, says Benjamin Soskis, senior research associate in the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute. Throughout American philanthropic history, theres been ultimately a deference and nonjudgmental attitude toward the ways that people give, he says, fueled by individuals identities, priorities, and prerogatives. EA has opened a space for the community to scrutinize the often-self-indulgent philanthropic choices of the wealthy (and to a much more scrupulous extent than past one-off instances of criticism, such as when hotelier Leona Helmsley left $12 million to her dog, a Maltese, named Trouble). Previously, people wouldnt want to [push] back on gifts to Harvard and Stanford and Princeton as a waste of money, he says, despite their relative ineffectiveness.

But a common concern is that the movements rational assessment of causes removes emotion from givingthat it has an unfeeling, robotic, utilitarian calculus, Soskis says. (EA is explicitly based in Utilitarianism, a British economic movement of the 18th and 19th centuries that preached that actions are right if they are useful or for the benefit of a majority.) But emotion may be the most important factor when deciding where people give: When Michael Bloomberg gives billions to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins, it may not be the most effective use of the funds, but he feels a genuine sense of connection to the school. And the Ice Bucket Challenge had a shared sense of community of friends and familyit s an example of what Jennifer Rubenstein, an associate professor of politics at the University of Virginia and an EA critic, calls intimate donating, like how shed feel pleased to donate to her nieces dance-a-thon for cancer research. But cancer may not pass the prioritization test because its not neglected enough.

I think the emotion is still there, says MacAskill, on the Zoom call. Its just channeled particularly in one way rather than another. In practice, there needs to be some detachment in order to do the most good. Take ER doctors: How much emotion are they feeling day to day? he asks. It might be a fair amount, but if someone dies under their watch, its not the same amount of emotion as if a friend or family member of theirs dies. If you were intensely emotionally resonating with every single person you were interacting with, you just wouldnt be able to do your job.

MacAskill is clearly not devoid of emotion; he opens up about his Eureka moments that sparked the movement, one of which was his visceral reaction as a teenager to learning about the broad neglect of the global AIDS crisis. I was just like, thats fucked up, he says. I cannot believe that people arent talking about this. But rather than emotion, he speaks in terms of ethics. His work stems from a deep, moral desire to make the world better. (In the intervening years, AIDS has become a more prominent global cause, so EAs tend to focus more on malaria and parasitic diseases, though some advocate for funding AIDS interventions.)

MacAskill wants to build a collective movement that effects large-scale moral change, in the way that abolitionists and suffragettes did. Those movements take time, but hes patient; the first public statement against slavery was released in 1688, but it wasnt fully abolished globally for another 300 years (Mauritania was the holdout, until 1981). He envisions, in 100 years, a cultural shift whereby it becomes normal for everyone to consider how theyll make the world a better place. And, naturally, theyll design their plans of action using high-quality evidence and careful reasoning.

The moral underpinnings of EA come from the work of Australian philosopher Peter Singer, specifically his drowning child analogy from 1972. If you walked by a pond, so it goes, and saw a child submerged, the moral obligation to save them would clearly outweigh the small cost of dirtying your clothes and being late for your obligations. Just as critically, this extends to if the child were in a far-flung place across the globe, and you could still save them at a small cost. Thats the rationale for contributing money to relieve world poverty.

But more recently, the understanding of where the drowning child could exist has become more expansive in the eyes of EA thinkers. Now some in the movement advocate that theres no distinction between caring about the spatial versus the temporal. Just as we want to help people in other geographic areas, we should be as concerned about people in the futurepeople who dont exist, and wont for centuries, or millennia, or even millions of years. Homo-sapiens history thus far is minuscule; there will be infinitely many more humans in the future than have ever lived, so preserving that majority should be the priority. When the child is drowning is equally important to where it is.

The effective altruism movement has absolutely evolved, MacAskill says. Ive definitely shifted in a more longtermist direction. Longtermism is rooted in the notion of existential risk, promulgated in 2013 by another Oxford philosopher, Nick Bostrom. Its a more important moral priority to reduce the risks of future extinction over any other global public good. The human race needs to improve our ability to deal with those risks to our species continued existence, so we should generously fund mitigation strategies.

Various extinction scenarios preoccupy EAs: still global poverty and climate change, but also pandemics (natural and engineered), nuclear war, and potentially the takeover of malevolent artificial intelligencea worry that Elon Musk expressed long before his more overt championship of EA. Vastly more risk than North Korea, he tweeted in 2017. (Though, EAs would say that stable dictatorshipsundemocratic governments that stand firm against the international orderare also a high-importance risk.)

So EA is now in the business of catastrophes. But its still informed by empiricism; EAs say theres a risk of between 1% and 3% that an engineered pandemic could kill off the entire human race this century, or a 20% risk of a third world war by 2070. Again, the rationale can feel cold. Derek Parfit, a philosophy professor who mentored MacAskill at Oxford, once wrote that there is a much greater difference between a nuclear war that kills 99% and 100% of the worlds population, than between a nuclear war that kills 99% and complete peacebecause, in the former scenario, humanity is able to regather and rebuild civilization. And future people need the resources with which to do that.

Some of those resources may be fossil fuels. Theyre more tried and tested than renewable sources, MacAskill writes in his book, and solar panels and wind turbines degrade over time. Future people would need a reserve if they had to come back from the brink of a cataclysm, so we shouldnt deplete them now. We have 200 billion tonnes of carbon left in surface coal, and that stockpile would be easy to access using technology as simple as a shovel, he writesand enough to produce the energy we used from 1800 to 1980.

To many critics, these arithmetic predictions for scenarios so far into the future seem absurd; one called them Pascalian probabilities. EAs unemotionally commit to shut up and multiply: to enumerate the expected utility of an intervention aeons into the future by multiplying the value of an outcome by the probability that it will happen. Even the population figures of future people are vague and varying. Some say humanity could exist one million years into the future, based on other mammals survival rates, but because were more developed, it may be closer to 50 million. Or, millions, billions, trillions of years, suggested Nick Beckstead,yet another ex-Oxforder. What matters, Bostrom has said, is not the exact numbers, but the fact that they are huge.

Evangelizing that future people matter just as much could create an injustice to people who are currently living, including the 1.3 billion people in global poverty, says Ted Lechterman, assistant professor of philosophy at IE University in Madrid, previously a research fellow at the Institute for Ethics in AI at Oxford, whos written extensive criticisms of EA. Those trade-offs with present and near-term concerns . . . are difficult to justify. He appreciates the way the movement challenges common-sense morality, and that its generally open to debating its ideas, but thinks theyre overvaluing the future.

They also run the risk of overfunding some far-flung, sci-fi, oddball causes, such as asteroid collisions and robot apocalypse, Lechterman says. Some causes do feel outlandish; the EA forums host animated debates about the importance of reducing insect pain. MacAskill defends those discussionsnot because he imagines that saving the ants will become a defining cause, but because the dismissal of weird moral ideas has a very bad track record, he says, again citing early abolitionists, whose beliefs were peculiar to the 19th-century majority. Thrashing out insect welfare, he says, helps us mull over morality, and apply that thought to other concepts.

Lately, EAs pocketbooks have become more plentiful, as two tech billionaires have infused the movement with funds. Along with his wife, Cari Tuna, Facebook cofounder Dustin Moskovitz, whos worth a reported $15.7 billion, launched the nonprofit Open Philanthropy, which a spokesperson told me committed more than $450 million in grants last year, and $500 million so far this year, to a variety of EA causes, including vaccine development, criminal justice reform, the welfare of carp, tilapia, and shrimp, and adversarial robustness research.

(One leading cause is growing effective altruism itself, through grants to the Effective Altruism Foundation, and MacAskills nonprofit, 80,000 Hours, named for the timespan an average person works in their lifetime. On the 80,000 Hours website, promoting effective altruism receives five-out-of-five scores on importance and neglectedness, and a four on solvability, totaling to a high score among causes of a whopping 14/15.)

Sam Bankman-Fried is probably the most prominent example of the EA earning-to-give model, that you can donate the most by working lucrative jobsa course of action reportedly influenced by MacAskill himself, whom he met in 2012 as an MIT undergraduate. The CEO of FTX has granted $130 million since February from his Future Fund, which is dedicated to solving longtermist problems. The fund welcomes petitions for grants from anyone working on projects, such as better PPE, advocacy for high-skilled immigration, biological weapons shelters, dealing with population decline, and the ability to rapidly scale food production in case of nuclear winter.

The donors have plunged the movement into politics. Moskovitz and Tuna donated $20 million to Democrats in 2016, making them the third-largest donors of the cycle. This year, Bankman-Fried bankrolled the Democratic primary campaign of Oregon House candidate Carrick Flynn, who ran on an EA platform; he lost, receiving 19% of the vote. EA has long been for political spendingand votingfor achieving better policies to improve the world; MacAskill has been a policy advisor to 10 Downing Street. But $11 million on a failed campaign suggests squandering money, the antithesis of EAs dogma of effective expenditure. Looking back, I think that was too much, MacAskill says (though, he wasnt involved in the spending).

Still, Bankman-Fried has since said he will contribute more than $100 million to the 2024 election. Perhaps north of $1 billion, if he has to stop Donald Trump from winning again. Speaking on the podcast Whats Your Problem, he said: I would hate to say [a billion is a] hard ceiling because who knows whats going to happen between now and then. (Fast Company reached out to Bankman-Fried for an interview but did not receive a response. Moskovitz politely declined.) Even Lechterman, the critic, says political spending may be justified in this case, for preventing the horrible candidate from coming to power. He says denying not only Trump, but also other recently elected global leaders, by funding opposition candidates could have saved a dramatic number of lives, while also improving standards of life and reducing social injustices, which are moral improvements in the EA mold.

The substantial involvement of the wealthy has kindled fears that they could start to drive the movement. Soskis, the philanthropy expertwho is partly funded by Open Philanthropythinks theres enough insulation in the movement to keep a mega-donor takeover at bay. There are a lot of people, like himself, who dont label themselves as EAs but are involved in the discourse, intrigued by the novel philanthropic ideas, and willing to steer them in the right directions. He thinks the number of those people is certainly more significant than their numbers would suggest.

Nor is MacAskill overly concerned. His book discusses value lock-in, the notion that some very niche groups tend to define what the worlds values are, for good or evil, and can change the trajectory of the future forever. He runs through the prominent value influencers of the pastJesus, Confucius, Hitlerconcluding, I really dont think its the rich that systematically determined the values of the future. (Hitler, though, was thought to have amassed vast wealth in the sum of more than $6 billion in todays money.) One of the earliest pivotal abolitionists, he says, was Benjamin Lay, a modest Quaker who lived in a cave. The modern environmentalist movement grew to success from the ground up, all along opposed to corporate interests.

But another billionaire might be the source of some unease. Elon Musk has been effusive about EA, asserting that it aligns closely with his ideology. Maybe more than anyone else in the world, Elon has a worldview, MacAskill says. If [longtermism] were wedded to any one particular person, I think it would be a real shame. Musk, who didnt respond to a request for comment, has reportedly not yet donated to causes based on EA, though hes charged Igor Kurganov, a pro-poker player and EA follower, with guiding his philanthropy plan. (An interesting six-degrees-of-EA-separation tidbit: Kurganovs partner, Liv Boeree, is a former housemate of MacAskills.)

MacAskill says that Musk seems to believe in the uncontroversial aspects of EA, but also has his own cause priorities, such as starting Martian civilizations. Some reports suggest hes fixated on transhumanism, or using technology to enhance our natural human states and transcend biological evolution, to achieve greater intelligence and super longevity. He has discussed the importance of keeping the Earth populated; Musk himself might be playing a first-person role in that procreation program. Theres a worry in general: as ideas get more popular, that they get twisted, MacAskill says.

Elon Musk [Photo: Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images]In his book, MacAskill does endorse reproduction, he says to counter an expanding worldview that its immoral to have kids because of your carbon impact. He stops short of recommending it for everyone because he respects personal reproductive choices, but he believes failing to breed could cause future technological stagnation. Even if the generations ahead dont face a calamitous extinction event, they could go through another Dark Ages, deprived of tech innovation, and an existential brain-drain could exacerbate those sluggish eras and collapse society.

But the transhumanism obsession began inside the Oxford halls, particularly from the mind of Nick Bostrom. He has researched genetic enhancement of intelligence via embryo selection, to engineer designer babies with high IQs, which he has acknowledged is reminiscent of eugenics. Transhumanism goes further, in changing the very substrate of persons from carbon-based biological beings to persons based in silicon computers, wrote philosopher Mark Walker. Bostrom has suggested that if we venture into transhumanism, we could create vastly huge numbers of fugture people. He is also a fan of space expansion, claiming in his Astronomical Waste paper, retweeted by Musk, that we waste 100 trillion human lives for each second that we do not colonize space.

The stagnation concern raises some worry about the fate of the future global poorinitially the very individuals that the EAs deemed most worthy of our help. Beckstead, who is now CEO of the FTX Foundation, wrote in 2013 that saving a life in a rich country is substantially more important than saving a life in a poor country because wealthy nations have more potential to innovate. For Lechterman, the critic, the main source of EA disapproval is that the movement has power over the poor, with a heroic, elitist mentality that our global problems are things that smart, wealthy people can solve on their own.

Deciding whats right for poorer countries creates a dangerous power dynamic, he says. Cash transfers may be better than bed nets and deworming drugs because theyre less paternalistic, and allow people autonomy to spend money as they see fit, but theyre still incentives for societies to put off addressing the root causes of poverty. He says the movement should prioritize investing in advocacy groups and grassroots movements, to put resources in the hands of the people suffering the most, and give them the power to effect long-lasting systemic change.

It can be terribly hubristic for an elite few to make important decisions on the worlds behalf, Lechterman says, even if their motivations are, in fact, pure, and their beliefs are correct. Thats paramount now, as billionaires are flocking to the operation without the same philosophical introspection as the Oxfordian thinkers. Thats where things can especially go awry.

Read the original here:
The truth about Elon Musk, Sam Bankman-Fried, and effective altruism - Fast Company

Moral guidelines that help us distinguish between right and wrong are a part of ethics. AI ethics is a set of rules that advise how to make AI and what it should do. People have all kinds of cognitive biases, like recency and confirmation biases. These biases appear in our actions and, as a result, in our data.

Several books focus on ethics and bias in AI so people can learn more about them and understand AI better.

AI Ethics - Mark Coeckelbergh

Mark Coeckelbergh talks about important stories about AI, such as transhumanism and technological singularity. He looks at critical philosophical debates, such as questions about the fundamental differences between humans and machines and arguments about the moral status of AI. He talks about the different ways AI can be used and focuses on machine learning and data science. He gives an overview of critical ethical issues, such as privacy concerns, responsibility and the delegation of decision-making, transparency, and bias at all stages of the data science process. He also thinks about how work will change in an AI economy. Lastly, he looks at various policy ideas and discusses policymakers' problems. He argues for ethical practices that include a vision of the good life and the good society and builds values into the design process.

This book in the Essential Knowledge series from MIT Press summarises these issues. AI Ethics, written by a tech philosopher, goes beyond the usual hype and nightmare scenarios to answer fundamental questions.

Heartificial Intelligence: Embracing Our Humanity to Maximise Machines (2016) - John C Havens

The ideas in this book are economics, new technologies, and positive psychology. The book gives the first values-driven approach to algorithmic living. It is a definitive plan to help people live in the present and define their future in a good way. Each chapter starts with a made-up story to help readers imagine how they would react in different AI situations. The book shows a vivid picture of what our lives might be like in a dystopia where robots and corporations rule or in a utopia where people use technology to improve their natural skills and become a long-lived, super-smart, and kind species.

Life 3.0: Being Human in the Age of Artificial Intelligence - Max Tegmark

The book starts by imagining a world where AI is so intelligent that it has surpassed human intelligence and is everywhere. Then, Tegmark talks about the different stages of human life from the beginning. He calls the biological origins of humans "Life 1.0," cultural changes "Life 2.0," and the technological age of humans "Life 3.0." The book is mostly about "Life 3.0" and new technologies like artificial general intelligence, which may be able to learn and change its hardware and internal structure in the future.

Our Final Invention: Artificial Intelligence and the End of the Human Era - James Barrat

James Barrat weaves together explanations of AI ideas, the history of AI, and interviews with well-known AI researchers like Eliezer Yudkowsky and Ray Kurzweil. The book describes how artificial general intelligence could improve itself repeatedly to become an artificial superintelligence. Furthermore, Barrat uses a warning tone throughout the book, focusing on the dangers that artificial superintelligence poses to human life. Barrat stresses how hard it would be to control or even predict the actions of something that could become many times smarter than the most intelligent humans.

Artificial Unintelligence: How Computers Misunderstand the World - Meredith Broussard

This book helps us understand how technology works and what its limits are. It also explains why we shouldn't always assume that computers are suitable. The writer does a great job of bringing up the issues of algorithmic bias, accountability, and representation in a tech field where men are the majority. The book gives a detailed look at AI's social, legal, and cultural effects on the public, along with a call to design and use technologies that help everyone.

Moral Machines: Teaching Robots Right from Wrong - Wendell Wallach and Colin Allen

The book's authors argue that moral judgment must be programmed into robots to ensure our safety. The authors say that even though full moral agency for machines is still a ways off, it is already necessary to develop a functional morality in which artificial moral agents have some essential ethical sensitivity. They do this by taking a quick tour of philosophical ethics and AI. However, the conventional ethical theories appear insufficient, necessitating the development of more socially conscious and exciting robots. Finally, the authors demonstrate that efforts are underway to create machines that can distinguish between right and wrong.

Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies - Nick Bostrom

Nick Bostrom, a Swedish philosopher at the University of Oxford, wrote the 2014 book Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, and Strategies. It says that if machine brains are more intelligent than human brains, this new superintelligence could replace humans as the most intelligent species on Earth. Moreover, smart machines could improve their abilities faster than human computer scientists, which could be a disaster for humans on a fundamental level.

Furthermore, no one knows if AI on par with humans will come in a few years, later this century, or not until the 21st or 22nd century. No matter how long it takes, once a machine has human-level intelligence, a "superintelligent" system in almost all domains of interest" would come along surprisingly quickly, if not immediately. A superintelligence like this would be hard to control or stop.

Ethical Machines: Your Concise Guide to Totally Unbiased, Transparent, and Respectful AI - Reid Blackman

Reid Blackman tells you everything you need to know about AI ethics as a risk management challenge in his book Ethical Machines. He will help you build, buy, and use AI ethically and safely for your company's reputation, legal standing, and compliance with rules. And he will help you do this at scale. Don't worry, though. The book's purpose is to help you get work done, not to make you think about deep, existential questions about ethics and technology. Blackman's writing is clear and easy to understand, which makes it easy to understand a complicated and often misunderstood idea like ethics.

Most importantly, Blackman makes ethics doable by addressing AI's three most significant ethical risksbias, explainability, and privacyand telling you what to do (and what not to do) to deal with them. Ethical Machines is the only book you need to ensure your AI helps your company reach its goals instead of hurting them. It shows you how to write a strong statement of AI ethics principles and build teams that can evaluate ethical risks well.

Visit link:
Eight best books on AI ethics and bias - INDIAai