True Innovation Requires Fascism?

Shirley Ann Jackson has a very distinguished past.

For the entirety of my adult life, I have been intricately involved in researching the basis of new technologies. At AT&T Bell Laboratories, I conducted research that contributed to the understanding of electronic and optoelectronic materials used in semiconductor lasers that are now part of many devices. As a professor of physics at Rutgers University, I was fortunate to be able to teach undergraduate and graduate students, conduct groundbreaking research, and supervise Ph.D. candidates who would go on to find solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges.

I served as chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a role to which I was appointed by President Bill Clinton, where I initiated a strategic assessment that put the agency on a more businesslike footing. As a member of President Barack Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), I advised the White House on policies in many areas of science, technology, and innovation. From 2014 to 2017, I was cochair of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board.

These leadership roles across the technology industry, academia, and government have given me unique perspective and insight. What I have learned is that it is only through the mobilization of all three, acting in concert in an innovation ecosystem, that we can meet the biggest challenges of today and tomorrow.

"All three" being Big Tech, Academia, and Government.

While there is some truth to this, the question is why? Why does innovation "require" the help of government? Wouldn't companies chase after innovation for market based reason?

The 1960s space program is the best example of this. You had The Space Race, under the direction of US President John F. Kenned, people from all different arenas of science were working towards a common goal. To land on the moon. This is one of the few times that government paired with private industry to achieve something great. Here's what Kennedy said to congress.

These are extraordinary times. And we face an extraordinary challenge. Our strength, as well as our convictions, have imposed upon this nation the role of leader in freedom's cause.

... if we are to win the battle that is now going on around the world between freedom and tyranny, the dramatic achievements in space which occurred in recent weeks should have made clear to us all, as did the Sputnik in 1957, the impact of this adventure on the minds of men everywhere, who are attempting to make a determination of which road they should take. ... Now it is time to take longer strides – time for a great new American enterprise – time for this nation to take a clearly leading role in space achievement, which in many ways may hold the key to our future on Earth.

... Recognizing the head start obtained by the Soviets with their large rocket engines, which gives them many months of lead-time, and recognizing the likelihood that they will exploit this lead for some time to come in still more impressive successes, we nevertheless are required to make new efforts on our own.

... I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space, and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.

... Let it be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action—a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 million dollars in fiscal '62—an estimated seven to nine billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all.

John F. Kennedy,
Special Message to Congress on Urgent National Needs, May 25, 1961

But there's a stark difference in mindsets from then to now. The main difference being that nothing the government is proposing at this time actually benefits the American People. Instead it benefits a leftist ideological goal, of fewer workers, and Universal Basic Income.

The Biden regime shutdown the Keystone XL Pipeline, because they were "worried about the environment." But there are two problems there. The fuel will still move, at much greater cost, and by truck, which increases the chances of a spill.

While being so worried about the environment, the Biden regime supported waiving sanctions on Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline because, "it’s almost completely finished." So, pipelines are bad (for the environment) when they're in the US, but they're great when they're in Russia?

This is why having the government involved in "innovation" is a bad idea. The people who wish to drive innovation in the arena of A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) are not doing it for the betterment of society. All of the people involved in the race for AI have an agenda that's far removed from what most people might invision.

Look at it this way. When computers were first introduced into the business environment, they were supposed to make work easier for employees. Most remember thinking that they will be able to get more work done, making their workload lighter. But the exact opposite happened. Instead business realized that they could get the work of 10 people from one person using a computer. So they reduced their workforce(s) and hired people who were good at operating computers.

The race for AI is no different. It's posed as an "us vs. them" type of situation, the first country to moderately perfect AI will rule the world! Similar to the space race, only there's little connection there. The people behind the AI push are those who wish to replace humans, and replace the human labor force with machines. This can be found easily through their conferences. That's why Elon Musk supports a basic living wage, because he envisions machines replacing most of the labor jobs over the coming years.

Now you know why they are trying to teach kids to "code" so badly. Because they don't expect there to be many skilled labor jobs in the future, because machines will be doing those jobs.

At this point in time, would you trust government (think Biden regime) teaming up with private industry in an effort to advance AI -- for the good of everyone? Do you really think that AI will help the American People, or is it more likely that it will help to progress a leftist ideological goal?

Considering the government's ridiculous track record with the COVID pandemic, would you trust them with AI?

Please leave a comment, like it or hate it, I'm looking for conversation... You DO NOT need to register to leave a comment. Email addresses are NOT used. Just make one up "someone@somehost.com"