Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt’s Big Treatise on AI Panned in Book Review(showbiz411.com)
showbiz411.com
Henry Kissinger and Eric Schmidt’s Big Treatise on AI Panned in Book Review
https://www.showbiz411.com/2021/08/10/henry-kissinger-eric-schmidts-big-treatise-on-artificial-intelligence-panned-in-early-important-book-review
45 comments
“Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world” — Henry Kissinger
I can't find evidence that he said this. Do you have a source?
Nor can I.
Publications either fail to reference their source, or give secondary references, or give incorrect references.
For an example of the last, https://ccp.org.au/content/2-exhibitions/1-all/0-fertile-gro... cites "Kissinger, H., National Security Council. (1974). The Kissinger Report: NSSM-200 Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security Interests", but I could not find that quote in https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf .
I looked at that one because Google Scholar says that "Fertile Ground" document I linked to is from 1992. Internal evidence shows it's no older than 2019.
The oldest actual mention in Google Scholar is from 2006 at http://www.libertydollar.org/news-stories/pdfs/1161050727.pd... , without attribution. Note that https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/ refers to the organization as 'a Canadian conspiracy website'.
In 2007 there are a few more citations, like http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.532... . That in turn cites WikiQuote. WikiQuote currently has that quote in the Talk page under "None of these quotes should be reinstated in the article unless a source is found."
I looked at the next few years of publications which use that quote. None give a primary reference or even provide a citation.
This pattern strongly suggests that Kissinger did not say it. Clearly it must have been Lincoln or Churchill. /s
Publications either fail to reference their source, or give secondary references, or give incorrect references.
For an example of the last, https://ccp.org.au/content/2-exhibitions/1-all/0-fertile-gro... cites "Kissinger, H., National Security Council. (1974). The Kissinger Report: NSSM-200 Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security Interests", but I could not find that quote in https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAB500.pdf .
I looked at that one because Google Scholar says that "Fertile Ground" document I linked to is from 1992. Internal evidence shows it's no older than 2019.
The oldest actual mention in Google Scholar is from 2006 at http://www.libertydollar.org/news-stories/pdfs/1161050727.pd... , without attribution. Note that https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/global-research/ refers to the organization as 'a Canadian conspiracy website'.
In 2007 there are a few more citations, like http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.532... . That in turn cites WikiQuote. WikiQuote currently has that quote in the Talk page under "None of these quotes should be reinstated in the article unless a source is found."
I looked at the next few years of publications which use that quote. None give a primary reference or even provide a citation.
This pattern strongly suggests that Kissinger did not say it. Clearly it must have been Lincoln or Churchill. /s
Saying harsh but true things makes him a war criminal?
No, masterminding the illegal bombing of two countries (Loas and Cambodia during the Vietnam/American War) with horrendous long term outcomes for the civilian population and also plotting coups and unconditional support for brutal dictatorships that kill their own citizens with impunity makes you one.
Yes Vietnam was a shitshow -- but it was Nixon who was the chief executive who decided what to do. I have no love for Kissinger, but his job was giving advice (no matter how cold) on how to win the absurd war. My point is, of all the players in that saga, Kissinger seems to get a greater portion of disdain.
Kissinger gets more disdain because, unlike Nixon, much of the political establishment continues to treat him as a national hero.
His direct involvement in an atrocity-filled period of US foreign policy is what gets him called a war criminal, not his pithy quotes.
When Eric Schmidt was still active in leadership at Google he brought Kissinger in for internal fireside chats at least a couple times.
It was entertaining to watch the internal memegen when this went down.
It was entertaining to watch the internal memegen when this went down.
That's kind of a weird argument. I can understand not buying the book, not wanting to reward him, but it seems like a pretty separate dimension from "trusting his advice". I have no reason to think alleged "war criminals" are more or less trustworthy than the average politician.
"Anything that flies on anything that moves" -Henry Kissingers policy for attacking the Vietnamese
Is George Bush a war criminal too?
It's just a matter of opinion. Actually, he is Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, as well as Obama.
And, if he actually has some good insides, why not just consider these?
Obama winning the Peace Prize while bombing people was the moment I realized Nobel Prizes are a joke. Politicized Orwellian doublespeak.
It was given to him less than eight months after he became president, mostly based on his campaign rhetoric. Really just massively embarrassing for the Nobel committee in hindsight.
The Nobel Secretary regrets that award. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960
It was given to him less than eight months after he became president, mostly based on his campaign rhetoric. Really just massively embarrassing for the Nobel committee in hindsight.
The Nobel Secretary regrets that award. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34277960
[deleted]
I'd look instead at the Atlantic article [0] that is the germ of of the book. The authors, also including Dan Huttenlocher of MIT, opine that this AI era is potentially as big as the Enlightenment era. Thinking will not be the same. The tone, for lack of a sophisticated term, is woo-woo meta. These are smart experienced people who I would assume would be making a conscientious effort to make an important point. But, it's lost on me. And, I too am skeptical of Kissinger and of Schmidt. Personally, I think when we look back on the period, the story will be about our tragic inaction on climate. Hopefully there will be a heroic coda to that. By comparison, AI will be just another mode of industrial automation.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/henry-k...
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/08/henry-k...
i came here for the answer to a question - why is henry kissinger, 97, writing a book about AI - which doesn't seem to be addressed in the article. was this book concept algorithmically generated? any insights?
Just reminds me how much I miss reading Christopher Hitchens....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trial_of_Henry_Kissinger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ant6tY-MOIk
Who asked for this collaboration?
It's pretty gross. Can you imagine working on a book with Kissinger? Schmidt reveals a willingness to not only interact with but collaborate with world historic criminals.
World historic criminal? Kissinger seems undeserving of that title considering the age he worked in.
Also fun fact, Kissinger was on Theranos’ board of directors.
Also fun fact, Kissinger was on Theranos’ board of directors.
> World historic criminal? Kissinger seems undeserving of that title considering the age he worked in.
I'm not understanding the rationalization? I keep parsing the sentence as either 'He's too old to be a criminal.' , or 'He existed in an era that was horrible, so give him a pass.'
I don't consider either rationalizations to be worth contemplation, honestly.
I'm not sure if 'war criminal' is a title with expiration, nor do I think that such titles should be normalized by comparing it to some of the most tumultuous times in human history.
The only other group of people that shrug off 'war criminal' titles as easily as Kissinger are US presidents; that feels telling to me.
He has a long and storied history of being a horrible person , but being exceedingly successful at it.
I'm not understanding the rationalization? I keep parsing the sentence as either 'He's too old to be a criminal.' , or 'He existed in an era that was horrible, so give him a pass.'
I don't consider either rationalizations to be worth contemplation, honestly.
I'm not sure if 'war criminal' is a title with expiration, nor do I think that such titles should be normalized by comparing it to some of the most tumultuous times in human history.
The only other group of people that shrug off 'war criminal' titles as easily as Kissinger are US presidents; that feels telling to me.
He has a long and storied history of being a horrible person , but being exceedingly successful at it.
Indeed. There are a big handful of countries that he can’t travel to, as he is wanted by the authorities there either for questioning or arrest or possible prosecution.
For those of us who are entirely unfamiliar could you give a source?
It’s not that hard to find this information. This is an opinion piece, but it’s a starting point: https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-2002-12-12-021212...
Yeah the Theranos connection makes it very hard for me to accept his credibility in relation to any new technology.
Have you heard about a little place called 'Cambodia'?
It would be nice to see a real source. That said, I don't see a distinction between these kinds of works, that essentially address the author's made up version of what they think AI is, and futurism. It may be fun to read and hear about how our toilet will monitor our health and our robot butler will plan our day, but it's just pop culture musing, it's not grounded in anything to do with the actual technology.
I would prefer to read such a work from someone who specializes in that genre of pollyannaish woolgathering, such as Michio Kaku or Ray Kurzweil, instead of celebrity elites dabbling in it.
Is this some sort of six-degrees thing where Eric Schmidt wanted to co-author a book with Kissinger (or the other way around) for the prestige? And then they paid Huttenlocher to actually write it?
Off-topic a bit:
The word pan is far too overloaded as is: a metal cooking utensil, a camera going across, sorting gold from dirt, to conclude or end up (it panned out), to criticize sharply. Can't we use something else?
The word pan is far too overloaded as is: a metal cooking utensil, a camera going across, sorting gold from dirt, to conclude or end up (it panned out), to criticize sharply. Can't we use something else?
I would caution you not to look up “foot” if you don’t want to be further upset.
Interesting considering that I remember reading that Kissinger didn't know much about AI until last year or so.
> Henry Kissinger, age 97,
Wow, the guy is still alive. I though he kicked the bucket long ago.
Wow, the guy is still alive. I though he kicked the bucket long ago.
The only thing I take away from this news is that Eric Schmidt has an even weaker moral compass than I previously thought.