by K. R. Thórisson

A new IIIM report argues that contemporary AI is a threat to
democracy, freedom, and the national sovereignty of the Nordics.

Titled Better Machine Intelligence: A Vision for Nordic AI Leadership, the extensive new Tech Report by IIIM released today outlines the limitations of contemporary AI and proposes a way forward for small-data nations like the Nordics and Baltics.

The report starts with a comprehensive explanation of the limitations of contemporary AI, followed by a short overview of general intelligence. These sections together provide evidence for the paper’s conclusion, laid out in its last section, that small-data nations like the Nordics and Baltics must seek an alternative to contemporary AI provided by the U.S. tech giants: Small-data AI.

Contemporary AI — based on artificial neural networks (ANNs), reinforcement learning (RL), and a variety of machine learning (ML) methods, are used to create many of the modern AI products and services that have been brought forth recently. When combined with standard software techniques, the result is generally referred to as “AI” or “genAI”. ANN-based technology has significant limitations, due to its statistical foundation, that are lost on the vast majority of their users. As a result, many believe the hype that this technology will take the jobs of a large swath of the population. While this might happen with future AI technologies, it cannot happen yet because most tasks cannot be performed by statistical information alone.

The paper argues that contemporary AI is not only inadequate for many of the applications it is being tested for, but that it is in fact a threat to society, due to its inherent opaqueness. This opaqueness makes it difficult to govern. The solution, outlined in the last part of the paper (A New Vision for Nordic AI Research), is to pivot away from contemporary AI as much as possible and increase progress towards transparent AI technologies that already exist in research labs in Europe and elsewhere.

by M. A. Torrent

“Consolidating information power in a few massive platforms can be problematic. Some economists compare misinformation to pollution. Prebunking – or inoculating people before they encounter falsehoods – can significantly bolster defenses. Another potent way to curb disinformation is by targeting its profitability.“

This is the second half of a two-part series on cognitive warfare.

In Part 1 of this article I introduced the problem of cognitive warfare weaving its way into our information ecosystems. Cognitive warfare, in short, is a strategy to influence or manipulate a population’s perceptions, beliefs, and therefore decisions by exploiting psychological vulnerabilities through available media systems, often via misinformation tactics. Fuelled by the interactive dynamic between AI-driven misinformation, cognitive biases and groupthink, the collision between truth and democratic discourse is rapidly becoming louder. Yet it would be an oversimplification to conclude we, the general public, are merely helpless victims. It may still be possible to reclaim and reshape the digital commons to serve our collective intelligence, rather than exploit our collective memories. In this Part 2 we shift our attention toward an array of potential remedies; whether by reforming existing platforms or creating entirely new ones, fighting cognitive warfare in social and mainstream media requires a systemic shift on multiple fronts.

Continue reading Fractured Perception: AI, Groupthink,
and the Fragility of Thought (part 2) →

By Marta A. Torrent

The frantic hum of modern life is orchestrated by  an ever-present conductor: the information we consume daily. Some of it looks mundane—headlines, emails—but much is far more insidious, slipping into our consciousness through suggestion, repetition, and emotional appeal. The human brain, despite its capacity for reason, remains highly susceptible to manipulation. In an era where artificial intelligence amplifies these tactics, cognitive warfare—the battle for perception and belief—has become as significant as any physical conflict. If, as Dr. James Giordano said, “the brain is the battlefield of the twenty-first century,” do we want to sit idly by as the very technologies designed to inform and connect us are weaponized against our ability to think critically, erode our democracies, and weaken the institutions we rely on?

For centuries, strategists have understood that shaping perception can be more powerful than brute force. From the deception of the Trojan Horse to modern propaganda, those who design, curate, frame, and shape how we perceive reality inevitably influence the beliefs we adopt and the decisions we make. In today’s interconnected world, these techniques are no longer restricted to warfare nor to geographically bound communities; they saturate social media feeds, news cycles, and digital conversations crossing entire continents in the literal blink of an eye. A false narrative, once seeded, can sweep across the globe in minutes, reinforced by sheer repetition rather than veracity. And so it goes that when outrage becomes the currency that sustains viral momentum, sensational narratives, founded or not, outpace and overshadow measured debate and fact-checking efforts.

Continue reading Fractured Perception: AI, Groupthink,
and the Fragility of Thought (part 1 of 2) →

By Kristinn R. Thórisson

On November 19th, 2024 the US-China Economic & Security Review Commission produced a report to Congress, recommending it initiate a “Manhattan Project-like program” to develop artificial general intelligence (AGI). This is not only laughable, it is madness. Let me explain why. It took 70 years for contemporary generative artificial intelligence (Gen-AI) technologies to mature. Countless scientific questions have yet to be answered about how human intelligence works. To think that AGI is so “just around the corner” that it can be forced into existence by a bit of extra funding reveals a lack of understanding of the issues involved. In the below I compress into 2000 words what has taken me over 40 years to comprehend. Enjoy!

I. Congress establish and fund a Manhattan Project-like program dedicated to racing to and acquiring an Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) capability. AGI is generally defined as systems that are as good as or better than human capabilities across all cognitive domains and would surpass the sharpest human minds at every task. Among the specific actions the Commission recommends for Congress:
▶ Provide broad multiyear contracting authority to the executive branch and associated funding for leading artificial intelligence, cloud, and data center companies and others to advance the stated policy at a pace and scale consistent with the goal of U.S. AGI leadership; and
▶ Direct the U.S. secretary of defense to provide a Defense Priorities and Allocations System “DX Rating” to items in the artificial intelligence ecosystem to ensure this project receives national priority. (USCC 2024 REPORT TO CONGRESS, p.10)

This blurb not only gets the concept of AGI wrong, it reveals a deep misunderstanding about how science-based innovation works. The Manhattan Project was done in the field of physics. In this field, a new theory about nuclear energy had recently been proposed, and verified by a host of trusted scientists. The theory, although often attributed to a single man, was of course the result of a long history of arduous work by generations of academics, as every historian knows who understands the workings of science. Additionally, physics is our oldest and most developed field of science. Sure, funding was needed for making the Manhattan Project happen, but the existence of the prerequisite foundational knowledge on which it rested was surely not due to large business conglomerates wanting to apply nuclear power to their products and services, like the current situation is with AI. For anyone interested in creating a ‘Manhattan Project’ for AGI: Without a proper theory of intelligence, it will never work!

Continue reading Laughable Madness: AGI ‘Manhattan Project’
Proposed by USCC to U.S. Congress →