The Age of AI by Henry Kissinger, Eric Schmidt and Daniel Huttenlocher
economist.com
economist.com
The past 60 years have made me skeptical about what those values actually are.
Edit: Going by the rule "your values are demonstrated by what you do, even when it costs you to do that", it's fairly easy to figure out what they are.
This is all a matter of design. We shouldn’t try to design artificial Intelligence, we should design intelligent systems (ones that support systemic success and wellbeing). ML, GANs, transformers, bots and other technologies are cool tools. Let’s not fool others or ourselves by calling them AI.
The clear and present danger is the creation of powerful intelligent systems that we can’t control and that decrease overall system success/wellbeing. Like corporations that aren’t beholden to broader societal interests. That’s the real “AI“ challenge we need to address. And, how do we enable the governing systems in our society to act intelligently? We desperately need more functional governance at scale.
I have to say it will be schadenfreude from me -- given the absolutely reckless behaviour of the army of grant-chasing academics happy to inflate the bubble. When that funding suddenly disappears, it'll be there own fault.
But in all of those cases humans are in the loop to either build the system at scale or to keep it from going off the rails in production. I see much more of that in the next decade. And I don't think there's going to be an AI winter but I do hope there's a reckoning for all the snake oilers of AI out there. I mean they're the same people who snake oil for crypto too, and they're just getting their game on for snake oiling the metaverse.
Maybe that will happen for AI VC, but as someone else said, VC is where good ideas go to die.
Pre-Neolithic humans while biologically considered modern, lacked many of the expressed cognitive capabilities we now demand nascent AI systems to exhibit.
Self-hosting AI capabilities may come at some point in the future, long after these human bootstrapped and maintained systems have proven their commercial worth.
It has the ability to defeat any captcha, it can write well enough to waste peoples time, and it could push any agenda.
I think when such a weapon is released, there will be nothing mere mortal web owners will be able to do, since there is no digital identity that couldn’t be spoofed by it.
There is nothing these language models can do that isn't already being achieved by an entire planet of mechanical turks with nothing better to do. But they do so with a much better carbon footprint.
There will be plenty of tools for motivated mere mortal web owners. Most of them involves various ways of saying no to uncurated content. But it's more fun to talk about the near-term AGI and the imaginary threat it poses. Who doesn't love a good Boogeyman story?
Good grief, I hope so! After all that money! If no-one had come up with anything they could hype out the ears, the train would have stopped years ago.
The problem isn't toy inventions, it's making a significant positive impact on the world as a whole. Generalisability and efficiency of deployment, creating benefits for billions of households.
Lithium-chemistry batteries are having a net positive effect. AI seems to be a net negative, the way it's been used in Facebook and YouTube. Deepfakery is unambiguously a negative.
The jury is still out on Alphafold 2. The default expectation would be that it's like Watson as used in medical diagnosis. There wasn't much 'there' there.
That would be like finding a grand unified theory in physics. No big deal there amIRight?
But your skepticism is great. More opportunities for those of us who actually get what it achieved and are looking to extend it to more practical domains beyond protein structure prediction (which is already huge). And kudos to Deepmind for open sourcing it even though they did their usual trick with the training data and recipe and left it to you to implement.
Deepfakery is going to be great when I can do things like make a new season of classic Star Trek with a bunch of amateur voice talent and it looks like the original show. Maybe even use some of the season 4 pitches that were never made. I never got why none of the original silicon valley billionaires didn't pay whatever it took to make this happen while the original cast was still alive. But now you no longer need to be a billionaire...
https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Undeveloped_Star_Trek:_...
Work on AI is basically as old as computing itself (i.e. the pioneers of computing explored from early on connectionist models of computing, neural networks, cellular automata, reinforcement learning, LISP, etc). AI has been evolving for eight decades, vast resources have been channeled into it; and frankly, the successes are striking.
It would be almost impossible for us not to conceive of AI as a “thing.”
Look, I’m not critiquing the field of AI or funding it. Referring to AI research is no problem. My problem comes from naming the outputs of the field “AI.” Because we all know it is a moving target, it doesn’t really mean anything and it confuses non-experts to the point that they make poor decisions.
But modern decision support systems may make use of AI (of the results of research under he umbrella of AI - in short, "AI". It is not necessary to have the bunny quotes of figurative speech everywhere, they should be understood even when inexplicit but clear). And AI in DSS increases the underlying problems.
As AI becomes increasingly a realistic part of every day life, it necessarily invades language. Historically even words for colors took centuries to enter into common usage in most cultures.
If AI researchers were to stop referring to AI as a whole, and individual AI technologies as “a thing,” it wouldn’t change how the rest of the population talks about AI.
When I entered the field, my mentor said that the first thing to know was that, “Nothing works.” For years, branding something as AI was an invitation to not get funded. I doubt the restraint around the use of the term was entirely altuistic. AI skeptics notwithstanding, the train has left the station and the changing public discourse reflects that reality.
Like search, recommendation, autopilot, navigation, translation, NPC, deepfake… referring to any of these as “the AI” does no one any favors. All are tools.
Check this out: https://nooscope.ai/
Oracular devices are a real thing - you have dimes for a coin toss. Decision making algorithms of scarce transparency do exist. It (the contextual object) is a real thing: AI as an oracular device is a real thing.
> desire AI as an agent with independence
The point is that we do not desire that. It is an agent when entrusted, and it is independent when unchecked, which the black-box nature of some AI technologies can facilitate.
The issue is not with a misunderstanding of the term AI - which we have used for 65 years effortlessly, exactly «that every aspect of learning or any other feature of intelligence can in principle be so precisely described that a machine can be made to simulate it. [...] how to make machines use language, form abstractions and concepts, solve kinds of problems now reserved for humans, and improve themselves» (McCarthy 1955) -, but with its real instances and very real potential adopters.
Except that AI research rarely tries to replicate how people think; instead, it create systems that mimic the typical outcomes of human effort. The term AI was invented for grant applications. What’s the difference between AI, Automation and Cybernetics?
It does not matter (and, literally, «how people think» is not necessarily "intelligence" - a special feature). And, if it «mimic[s] the typical outcomes of human effort», it is still within the broad proposal from McCarthy of «solve kinds of problems now reserved for humans» to substantiate the general idea of an "artificial intelligence", which is literal:
___ there is a phenomenon called 'intelligence': can we replicate it through computing?
The difference between the various areas: if it spawns from some consideration of the phenomenon of intelligence call it AI; if it can manage a process unsupervised call it Automation; if it refines its operation through feedback call it Cybernetics; if it manages a process unsupervised refining its operation through feedback in a system inspired by the phenomenon of intelligence call it Artificially Intelligent Cybernetic Automation - I do not see the problem. "It is not really intelligent": yes, we know. We study intelligence and see where that brings. We have posed a problem ("can we replicate intelligence through computing"), then we reap the outcomes of the effort.
The big issue here is that the "unsupervised" part becomes very risky after the feedback if responsibilities are to it delegated beyond its worth of reliability, which is especially relevant if the """intelligence""" part is oracular, a black box, non-transparent, which is apparently something the authors note on a different perspective as they note that «the algorithm was able to spot aspects of reality that humans had not contemplated, might not be able to detect and may never comprehend».
So, as "the strategist" said, "there are things we know we know, there are things we know we do not know, and there are things we do not know we do not know". We have a better idea of the reliability of a deterministic system; we do not know exactly what specific exceptions to our expectations can be raised by automation through less transparent systems; we know those systems are there for anyone to implement and delegate, and that is a problem.
[1] https://tim.blog/2021/10/25/eric-schmidt-ai/
[2] https://hiddenforces.io/podcasts/eric-schmidt-ai-human-futur...
Sorry for the subtlety, I'll remind myself of readers like you in the future.
Seriously, thanks for taking the time to come back to this. You made my night better.
Andrzej Rosiewicz - Wieje wiosna od wschodu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XM2FSf5IQa8
>Opposite the stage are sitting Mikhail and Raisa Gorbachev, next to Wojciech Jaruzelski.
Nina Hagen - Michail, Michail (Gorbachev rap)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7e1suuoTs2Q
>Zdravstvuyte tovarisch Michail Gorbachev, zdravstvuyte prekrasnaya Raisa!
>Ty ne frantsuzsky, no ty Russky bogatyr'
>Oy-oy Mama kruzhitsia zemlia, Matushka-Rossia Rodina moya
>Oy-oy Mama hvatit-hvatit syl, v novoy revolutsii pobedit Michail!
He is a state department hack who has a talent for self-promotion as a "grand strategist" even though there is very little that he was responsible for setting in motion, and much of what he worked on was either irrelevant or ended up getting botched. He did, however, claim many foreign policy victories during a time period when U.S. foreign policy was particularly incoherent and schizophrenic, with America often being on both sides of a given conflict as the various organs of US foreign policy fought with each other and coordinated badly.
One can argue that the visit to China was legit his. Pretty much everything else is clearly P.R. and taking credit for the work of others in order to make a name for himself and pad his enormous consulting fees. IIRC, Kissinger and Associates - his private gig to cash in on his grand expertise - now focuses on doing lobbying for China.
I mean they get called shit birds, but “Kissinger is a war criminal” is a meme and should be recognised as such.
So people see this obvious impotence, build a mental wall around it, and then just assume that everything else that happens in the world is the result of the CIA pulling the strings on direct orders from people like Kissinger - who is the puppet master of the third world.
This ... is not good history.
US power has always been primarily soft power -- cultural and economic power. We can threaten to cut off aid, impose sanctions, pay bribes, etc. But most coups that that are "US backed" would have succeeded with no actual backing, and often the backing consisted of side payments and giving a greenlight to not impose sanctions on the coup plotters. This was actually what Hussein claimed, that he was given a green light by Rumsfeld. It's only for truly weak and unpopular regimes, or states undergoing existing legitimacy crises, that foreign meddling can be a difference maker.
Meanwhile, those times when the U.S. actually launches invasions of places -- Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo/Serbia, etc. are somehow discounted. Yeah, Kissinger backed violent groups and lobbied to funnel financial and military aid to places that should not have received it, but at the same time he didn't actually lie us into wars, unlike Powell or Albright or even Dean Rusk. IMO these three have much higher body counts, and we are just talking about the post 1960 period in US diplomacy, and haven't even touched things like the Mexican-American war or adventurism or "felling trees and indians". It's just bizarre how much focus Kissinger has gotten, and I really do attribute it to self-promotion.
Edit: Transcript link in the first reference you gave.
>Eric Schmidt: About 12 years ago, I met him [Kissinger] at a conference called Bilderberg.
The Bilderberg Group[1] is the closest thing to a "secret cabal running the world" that we actually have. Not very secret, though.
I can’t see how militarized forms of AI don’t emerge as a consequence of significant progress in non-military AI, so perhaps all roads do eventually lead to SkyNet.
Sure. One country threw a ton of resources into a program, and as a result the technology spread to numerous other countries leading to something like seven countries capable of destroying the world.
Maybe the end result is inevitable. Racing towards it so we can kill others before they can kill us isn't smart.
Will technology, including AI, inevitability be used to improve weaponry? Yes. Will AI inevitably lead to Skynet and Terminator robots? Hardly.
Today we can't build a self-driving car with more than level 2 autonomy, nor do honest experts believe one will happen soon. Today's autonomous mobile robots are incapable of even the most rudimentary human motions, and likewise, human-level robots are invisible on any 50 year time horizon, commercially or militarily. No AI-based tech has shown even the faintest sign of the level of AGI capabilities needed to control a robot army. Nor has any AI shown the potential for an emergent executive function or a desire to KILL ALL HUMANS.
To assume that present-day AI will likely self-assemble into a rebel robot army intent on destroying humanity… Why does anybody take this crap seriously? Or soberly reference it while hoping to be taken seriously?
It's time for all adults everywhere to stop imagining that pop scifi movies are a sensible foundation toward discussing how new tech can best serve its intended purpose. Scifi is meant to entertain, not inform. Given what we know today about AI, Skynet doesn't have a hope in hell in happening — not in terms of platform mobility nor in terms of cognition nor in terms of self-assembly. So PLEASE give all references to Skynet a rest.
Terminator style robots would be a pretty inefficient way to wipe out humanity.
Wrt motive, I would assume that if we are someday killed off by our own machines, it will most likely be something akin to an accidental nuclear holocaust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger
https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/emails-give-...
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/5/6/nsa-chief-goo...
[0] https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
[1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2016/02/the-n...
Maybe how to select which terrorist group to give weapons to?
Kissinger can supply the training data.
For the ruthlessly cynical and basically destructive ends toward which this man has devoted his life - his judgement is arguably quite effective.
That is, after all, how you get to be "America's preeminent living statesman".
Mostly by having been in the room during historical decisions, getting old, and refusing to ever go away even when your contributions proved to be disastrous.
Kissinger's plan to bomb rice production in Cambodia not only failed to stop the North Vietnamese, but directly lead to the rise of Pol Pot. It also starved millions of civilians. The guy is a monster.
""" Computers and nuclear weapons In 2019, Kissinger wrote about the increasing tendency to give control of nuclear weapons to computers operating with Artificial Intelligence (AI) that: "Adversaries' ignorance of AI-developed configurations will become a strategic advantage".[195] Kissinger argued that giving power to launch nuclear weapons to computers using algorithms to make decisions would eliminate the human factor and give the advantage to the state that had the most effective AI system as a computer can make decisions about war and peace far faster than any human ever could.[195] Just as an AI-enhanced computer can win chess games by anticipating human decision-making, an AI-enhanced computer could be useful in a crisis as in a nuclear war, the side that strikes first would have the advantage by destroying the opponent's nuclear capacity. Kissinger also noted there was always the danger that a computer would make a decision to start a nuclear war that before diplomacy had been exhausted or the algorithm controlling the AI might make a decision to start a nuclear war that would be not understandable to the operators.[196] Kissinger also warned the use of AI to control nuclear weapons would impose "opacity" on the decision-making process as the algorithms that control the AI system are not readily understandable, destabilizing the decision-making process:
... grand strategy requires an understanding of the capabilities and military deployments of potential adversaries. But if more and more intelligence becomes opaque, how will policy makers understand the views and abilities of their adversaries and perhaps even allies? Will many different internets emerge or, in the end, only one? What will be the implications for cooperation? For confrontation? As AI becomes ubiquitous, new concepts for its security need to emerge.[196]
"""
I am still waiting for a copy of the book. But I am under the impression Henry is providing the long view of history: how industrialization and tech shaped modern nations, with A.I. in particular. This theme has appeared in earlier Kissinger books.
P.S. Kissinger has yet another book coming out in 2022 on Leadership.
1) Giant 'please subscribe' banner, similar button top right. But I am a subscriber already, and I have to search around to be able to log in
2) in 2021 what login box is still being undone by a space at the end of an email address? Really? Mobile devices often add spaces, can we not deal with that?
Predicting how AI will affect society’s sense of reality is best left to politicians and CEOs (or CS department heads)? They’re making a psychological/sociological claim here, not a business, political, or technical one. Are they qualified to predict what society will use as a basis for reality? Also they have plenty to gain by this agenda being believed (maybe not Henry I dunno).
Unlike most books to date, this book about AI is not intended for technologists or tech fanboys. When the three authors are the CEO that oversaw the growth of a now-trillion dollar behemoth high tech corporation, and the singly most experienced political counselor of hundreds of world leaders and staffs for the past 50 years, and the Dean of MIT's school of computing — they hope their collective gravitas will speak to a more sober and authoritative audience than prior books on AI.
Following the article, the scope is probably specific: they raise the problem of "transparency" ("how and why does the black box indicate this solution") as primary, especially in the context of policies and reaction. Decisions (long and short term) have been up to now taken as the result of a discussion between human minds. What happens if black boxes are now entrusted?
Results of the application of AI in the medical field suggest its increased adoption in other sectors, but the special quality of these outputs are in that they are surprising and obscure (as opposed to, notably, teaching new abilities). The possibility of application of these technologies - possibility called a certainty by the author, authoritative in his field - to matters of national security, defence, strategy and tactics, is surely a problem. What is proposed and encouraged is that countries with values consistent with those of the authors gain an advantage (to counter automated "psychopath" decisions).
--
From the interview documentary The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara: McNamara met Fidel Castro years after the crisis, and Castro declared never having had issues with taking actions which could have caused the utter annihilation of Cuba. To the utter bewilderment of McNamara. This could represent an example of «values consistent with those of the authors».
This book ("The Age of AI", Kissinger, 2021) is as good as a Business Insider article written by a European regulator. Read "World Order" instead! Whatever you think of Kissinger, I guarantee you'll learn something from his 2014 book.
As the second to last paragraph points out, the book doesn’t delve into some modern day controversies to make its points. The pros being the ideas might be spread further, maybe even to China. The cons being the book isn’t as timely and impactful as it could be. It seems like a good trade off to me.
More literally: what happens if, for example, weapons systems are automated by black boxes? So-called "expert systems", for example, remaining within automation, can be instructed more clearly, explicitly, deterministically, about values and boundaries. That the results of "black box decision systems" can be surprising is also a risk.
Nonetheless, the details of the "paperclip maximizer argument" are valid, though not primary, for the real point: AI applied to strategy, tactics, defence and weapon management can suffer from the "Orthogonality thesis" (the decision may be out of a process unaware of human values) and "Instrumental convergence" (the decision may be out of a process unaware of its legitimate boundaries).
The primary point remains "You do not put an "enfant prodige" in charge of systems with overextensive consequences".
It’s disgusting.
Henry Kissinger is a war criminal. That doesn't mean he can't write interesting books (and his intelligence & experience are obviously immense) but it does mean he doesn't deserve that kind of flattery and respect.
“ According to historian and Kissinger biographer Niall Ferguson, however, accusing Kissinger alone of war crimes "requires a double standard" because "nearly all the secretaries of state ... and nearly all the presidents" have taken similar actions. But Ferguson continues "this is not to say that it's all OK."”
“Kissinger served on the board of Theranos, a health technology company, from 2014 to 2017.”
I would probably scrub this if I were on his team.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_6
Like this that didn't make it to the front page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_4...
>"Dumb, stupid animals..."
>Indeed, Kissinger's quote is found on pg. 194 of Woodward/Bernstein book The Final Days, which is considered a notable secondary source. However, the quote in the book is in a section highlighting Kissinger's difficult, and often abusive, relationship with White House staff. The specific context is the contentious relationship with Alexander Haig, Kissinger's military aide - the quote is given as a demonstration of how Kissinger allegedly taunted and belittled Haig. Woodward/Bernstein do NOT use the quote as any kind of authentic evidence that Kissinger hated the military, or that this was an opinion that formed any of Kissinger's foreign policy decisions. By placing the quote in that section, WE'RE (Wikipedia and NOT Woodward/Bernstein) attempting to make the connection and asserting this was Kissinger's attitude in approaching foreign policy. That connection is NOT supported by the source so it's not acceptable in a biography of a living person.EBY (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
>I accept your rationale. There is nowhere else to put it unless I start a new section but I won't because it would be vexatious to do so simply to accommodate the quote. Sqgl (talk) 16:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl
>>It's tough because this kind of inflammatory quote IS indicative of one of the prominent aspects of Kissinger's personality, which is why Woodward/Bernstein included it in their book. But as you say, I don't see a place to integrate it that wouldn't blow the B:LP hatch. EBY (talk) 16:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
>He might shoot his mouth off more than others, and he may even be more guilty than others (Hitchens certainly thinks so, as noted), but realpolitik is ugly and examples of it as revealed in CableGate are educational. The reason the leaks were sensational is because so many are in denial of realpolitik and those in power want to keep it that way. Personally Obama reminds me of Gus from Breaking Bad so don't think I am being partisan here.Sqgl (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl
>>I agree that examples are educational. Which makes me wonder about articles and even venues outside the WikiWorld that could advance that knowledge. EBY (talk) 18:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
>I here what you are saying and defer to your experience on this site.Sqgl (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)sqgl
Or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_2...
>Slobodan Milosevic and Kissinger compared
>[From a public interview on June 11, 2004.] On May 27, the New York Times published one of the most incredible sentences I’ve ever seen. They ran an article about the Nixon–Kissinger interchanges. Kissinger fought very hard through the courts to try to prevent it, but the courts permitted it. You read through it, and you see the following statement embedded in it. Nixon at one point informs Kissinger, his right-hand Eichmann, that he wanted bombing of Cambodia.
>And Kissinger loyally transmits the order to the Pentagon to carry out "a massive bombing campaign in Cambodia. Anything that flies on anything that moves."
>That is the most explicit call for what we call genocide when other people do it that I’ve ever seen in the historical record. Right at this moment there is a prosecution of Milošević going on in the international tribunal, and the prosecutors are kind of hampered because they can’t find direct orders, or a direct connection even, linking Milošević to any atrocities on the ground. Suppose they found a statement like this. Suppose a document came out from Milošević saying, "Reduce Kosovo to rubble. Anything that flies on anything that moves." They would be overjoyed. The trial would be over. He would be sent away for multiple life sentences—if it was a U.S. trial, immediately the electric chair. ~ Noam Chomsky —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsnow75 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
[Citation needed]
More specifically, if you make a claim like this, please link to an edit where it happened. The entire revision history is in the public record.
I am not saying I disagree with you. I'm no Kissinger fan. But your argument will be much stronger if you provide hard facts, not just an unsubstantiated claim.
Anyone with the time and stomach for it can look at TheTimesAreAChanging's edit history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheTimes...
I'm not saying he's a paid apologist for horrible people, but... (And you did ask for citations!)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Trial_of_Henr...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Kissinger&d...
Henry Kissinger Talk Archive 5: Kissinger Encomium (a speech or piece of writing that praises someone or something highly)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Henry_Kissinger/Archive_5...
>Kissinger Encomium
>The Kissinger page reads like a paid publicity brochure. Any attempt to correct the record with verifiable sources is swiftly deleted unilaterally by TheTimeAreChanging. Here is a paragraph that I inserted (with sources) at the beginning that TheTimesAreAChanging deleted. If this keeps occurring, I plan to escalate this to Wikipedia.
>"Kissinger's legacy, including the Nobel Prize Award, remains controversial. [2] Critics point to Kissinger's role in overthrowing the democratically elected Allende government in Chile;[3]; his knowledge and possible abetment of Project Condor, a program of repression and political assassination carried out by Chile, Argentina and Uruguay;[4] and his support of the Pakistani army during its slaughter of Bengalis in 1971[5] . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 11:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC) "
>>You can't use other Wikipedia articles as a source, and your other sources are poor. This material is covered in depth in the article itself, so repeated attempts to insert POV language about the "slaughter of Bengalis" and some such to the lead can only be seen as POV-pushing on a BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
>I don't use Wikipedia as a source. Since when is Time Magazine or the National Security Archives poor sources? I will continue make these edits and not be bullied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 17:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
>"slaughter of Bengalis" is not POV language. Do you dispute it occurred? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malpaso (talk • contribs) 18:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
>>"Slaughter of Bengalis" would undoubtably be a WP:NPOV violation, even if it the reliable sorces. Try again, if you wish to do so within Wikipedia policies. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
>>>I don't get it. In the article on Irving Berlin, it states Nicholas II, the new Tsar of Russia, notes Whitcomb, had revived with utmost brutality the anti-Jewish pogroms, which created the spontaneous mass exodus to America. Such words are very strong, but they are generally accepted by reasonable people as the only correct way to describe pogroms. Is there something different about Bengalis, or Kissinger, that makes it biased to call it "slaughter of Bengalis", even with reliable sources? 178.38.168.13 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
>I can confirm Malpaso's claim that the editor known as TheTimesAreAChanging is making tendentious editorial decisions, deleting criticisms of Kissinger on the basis that they come from bad sources. Among the sources he has rubbished are CNN and Christopher Hitchens. I have tried to add to the article lead a statement that several groups and individuals, from Hitchens to Code Pink, have tried to indict Kissinger for war crimes. TheTimesAreAChanging has deleted these on the basis that they are "just opinion", while having no problem with those opinions that praise Kissinger. I have tried to initiate a discussion with TheTimesAreChanging on his talk page, but he seems uninterested in justifying his actions. G.S.Bhogal (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
>>Code Pink? Are you serious? I am no great fan of Kissinger, but you seem to lack an elementary understanding of the relevant Wikipedia policies, e.g. WP:BLP.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
>Third Opinion
>A third opinion has been requested, but it isn't clear what the question is, because the above discussion has not been civil. It also isn't clear whether a third opinion is applicable, because more than two editors are edit-warring the page. Please state a concise and civil question and I will try to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
>The article as written is propaganda, not necessarily by the editor's design, but by the favoritism applied to official reports of Kissinger's career and the failure to credit any of the subsequent investigative journalism that has proven persistently over the decades how a legend of diplomatic genius conceals intrigue, bloodletting, and a willingness to dispense with democracy. Macdust (talk) 18:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
>From the beginning there are two Henry Kissingers being presented in alternation: the effective Kissinger presented over the years in official reports, his own writings, and derivative news stories, and the Kissinger held to account for political injustices, covert military and intelligence actions, and the suffering and casualties occurring as a consequence.
>So we have Kissinger the icon, then a passage of what appears to be mud thrown at him, then Kissinger the schoolboy, then the icon suffering more mudslinging, until by the end of the story all the international catastrophes sound like sour grapes.
>Unless the article starts straightaway with a crisp discussion of Realpolitik, there is no context for understanding and evaluating what Kissinger thought he was doing or at least wanted others to think he was doing while acquiring and exercising immense power. Realpolitik holds the context where great international achievements and calamitous results make sense side by side. It is a much clearer lead-in for researchers making a first serious inquiry.
>(The non-career biography should in this instance be pushed toward the end of the article. Placed at the end, it is illuminating and humanizing. Placed where it is, it magnifies the incoherence.)Macdust (talk) 01:14, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
>>Kissinger is not a philosopher, nor does the concept of "Realpolitik" set Kissinger apart from other men in positions of power. Kissinger did what he felt he had to do to maintain the US as the dominant player in the world and to increase his own influence in the country. I guess you can call it Realpolitk - or you know just politics, Cold War politics if you want to be more specific.Guccisamsclub (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5vo7jLGOb8
Although this is a more balanced, less melodic litigation of his charismatic virtues and war crimes:
Some anecdotes: on privacy, Schmidt famously said "if you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place". So CNET reporters published some of his personal information found through Google searches to demonstrate the need for privacy that he was denying to us peasants. Instead of reconsidering his position, he blacklisted CNET from speaking to Google.
In 2017 a think tank working on tech praised the European Commission's legal decision to fine Google for abusing its market power. Schmidt used his personal influence to have the author of the report fired from the think tank.
See also Assange's report: "Schmidt's world view equates progress with the geographic expansion of Google, supported by the US State Department – technocratic imperialism."
On tax, Schmidt has claimed that Google's tax avoidance is "capitalism" and that he is "very proud of it".
A personal anecdote: I remember Schmidt starting a conversation with a room of people barely making a living by discussing his latest vacation in the Caribbeans and how big his yacht was. He did not even consider that this could be perceived as rude or obscene. It was painfully obvious that to him these extreme levels of inequality are natural and perfectly justified, with himself on the right side of course.
He considers himself very bright. There is some evidence that he his slightly above average. But if you look at some of his strategic decisions, politically before Trump he bet all in on Clinton, positioning Alphabet very close to the Democrats. To a technocrat like him Clinton's victory was obvious. Of course he got things entirely wrong and completely missed the Trump populist backlash, which put Alphabet in a very difficult position politically for several years.
Schmidt is the embodiment of the modern technocratic elite, respects only power and money, complete spite and disregard for common people, entirely alien to the mere concept of common good or actual democracy, and absolute confidence that today's inequalities are perfectly natural, despite his own position being much more a consequence of his sociopathic tendencies than of his slightly above average skills, praising capitalism and liberalism while he got rich and powerful largely through monopolistic market dominance.
Of all the dim technocratic billionaires that pass for our so-called elite today, he is the one I despise the most.
I'm not saying you owe billionaires better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it. Internet psychiatric diagnosis and personal attack rants, for example, don't belong here.
I noticed George W Bush started being celebrated again in the past few years. And Obama has never stopped being a darling! Just astounding. Guess the whole Libya, Syria, Yemen, etc stuff were just little whoopsies. We really dance to their tune, don't we?
https://www.cartercenter.org/health/guinea_worm/case-totals....
Ask President Carter:
Foreign policy/tragedy simply just does not matter to US citizens, US culture, or US media for various reasons independent of any moral failings, or gullibility (though that certainly does help things along).
He was also fooled by Elizabeth Holmes.
How it seems to work is if said person aligns with your own political views (i.e. the ends justifies the mean) then war crime are conveniently overlooked.
It also requires equating the ANC with the uMkhonto we Sizwe [0], making wrong claims about their targeting, and embezzling how the creation of the uMkhonto we Sizwe was a direct reaction to getting massacred when initially attempting peaceful, non-violent, protest [1].
Not to mention how the US's role in Cambodia is in not at all analogous with the role of the AMC in Apartheid Africa. Even attempting this comparison, to argue for some kind or ethical nihilism, is something very weird to do.
Wouldn't you agree these are generally "good" causes, unless you are the aggressor in that situation?
The inherent asymmetry of these conflicts, particularly in military power, leaves the "insurgent" side usually not much more choice than use cruder weapons and go for targets of opportunity that may involve a higher risk of civilian collateral.
Which is not a new dynamic, it's a very old dynamic that many militaries throughout history had to deal with when occupying populated territories hostile to them.