AI: Decoding the Psyop

AI is not what you think it is -- which is why you are allowing them to take it from you.

AI promises to be so powerful that it (like computers) fundamentally changes almost everything it touches. The idea that anyone could have this power is not attractive to the powers that be.

Don’t take my word for it. Here is Bill Gates admitting that “managing AI” is right up there in terms of importance with climate change, bioterrorism, and nuclear war:

Gates is not just winging it, these are highly intentional words, each with decades of planning behind them. He is signaling the agenda to control AI. AI is seen as so powerful that it is a threat to the technocratic takeover. It can't be allowed in our hands. This is the new gun control. AI is seen as the new weapon, and an informed populace therewith, a threat to the state.

Indeed, among the more prominent of the World Economic Forum’s technology initiatives is the AI Governance Alliance. It has been working for years with industry leaders and nations to define "Responsible AI," ensuring that regulation is ready to roll-out to ensure AI is used only for “socially responsible” purposes. Their typical buzzwords are applied to decorate the reality that this is about monopolizing the use of AI.

Looking deeper into those WEF-associated institutions, we get even more context, and discover how it will be done. The EU-based "Center for Future Generations" has called for a "Global Compute Governance Consortium—an international effort to regulate and track AI’s most critical resource: compute.”

The ICGC proposes that the best way to regulate AI is to regulate computation power itself, and that all data centers should be tracked and inspected by the government, and all use of its resources tracked to an identifiable person. Straight from their own language:

• The protocol would define compute thresholds above which training a powerful AI system would be considered high-risk as the EU did in its AI Act, and re-adjust them regularly.

• To fulfill its mission, the ICGC would create a Global Compute Registry, which would track the ownership and use of compute resources. Any entity possessing large-scale computing clusters located or operating in the member states would be required to report such possessions, including its location and compute capacity. Changes of possession should also be reported, especially if some part of the cluster is transferred to a non-member state. This idea is not without precedent; the 2023 US Executive Order on AI already introduced some reporting requirements on location and total capacity for owners of large compute clusters in the US.

• Furthermore, owners would be required to report provisions of access to these clusters to any domestic or foreign entity, including the type of use (for instance, training specific or general AI models, foreseen use cases and risks, etc.) and verification of the user’s identity. This approach mirrors Know Your Customer policies in the financial sector, which require companies to verify the identity of their clients to prevent illegal activities. The Global Compute Registry should also publish an annual report presenting data on the amount of compute resources globally available and project its growth.

Suddenly, instead of the promising future OpenAI and the media are presenting, we realize the WEF and other elite institutions view popular use of AI as “high-risk.” This is reinforced by a constant stream of media nonsense about "conscious" AI trying to blackmail engineers and so forth, but also by policymakers/NGOs and academics. For example, Berkeley’s own Machine Intelligence Research Institute’s pinned post is a book entitled, “IF ANYONE BUILDS IT, EVERYONE DIES.”

This is part of an extreme fearmongering psyop — and it is also portends the calls to regulate AI.

There is also a consistent narrative around the massive electrical and water requirements of massive AI data centers. These will also be cited as a reason to restrict use of compute resources.

The typical script dictates that we will experience an “AI False Flag” which will be hugely damaging and scary. And then the politicians will point at it, and say “Ooh, big AI scary! We can't let terrorists have it. Thank goodness the WEF already has these regulations drafted that we can just adopt.” The technocrats have perfect technology. We are FORCED to use ChatGPT, feeding their system. Eat ze bugs indeed.

OpenAI

OpenAI is, naturally, among the WEF’s “AI Governance Alliance” partners. Unsurprisingly, they are actively supporting the regulation of compute power, having worked with GovAI in 2024 to publish a paper entitled “Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence,” which is not at all unclear:

Computing power, or "compute," is crucial for the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities. As a result, governments and companies have started to leverage compute as a means to govern AI. … Policymakers could use compute to facilitate regulatory visibility of AI, allocate resources to promote beneficial outcomes, and enforce restrictions against irresponsible or malicious AI development and usage.

This is why OpenAI has a $300 billion market cap: insiders know that they do not own the technology—indeed, it cannot be owned!—but that they are the Chosen One. That’s why Larry Ellison and Sam Altman stand there on Trump’s second day in office with those grins while they talk about how great AI will be. They know they will soon have exclusive use of it.

That’s why Altman stands at conferences and says organizations should not train their own models, just use OpenAI’s. He knows full well — indeed as one of his teams authors papers about regulating compute power to permanently preclude any competition! — that no one else will even be allowed to have access to this kind of hardware, “to stop bad actors.” “For social good.” OpenAI is the Chosen One. Altman just can’t say that yet.

I know the language is dense. I know you may not like ChatGPT, or care what “compute” is. But the key is that as they are building super-intelligent systems, they are simultaneously setting up the regulation to keep it only to themselves. Google, OpenAI, Oracle, (and the US government) will run realtime perfect simulations populated by our digital twins, with perfect data on all resources from supply chain blockchain, to control their 4th industrial revolution. We will not be allowed access to any significant compute capacity. There will be no competing. There will be no innovating.

The regulation of compute power is the key that turns the lock on the technocratic prison. And this all must go into place before the quantum revolution (another favorite topic of the WEF), to ensure that nascent yet unimaginably powerful form of computation will never be made available to us.

History shows that new technology can shake things up. Imagine that printing press had been viewed as too powerful for the common man, and reserved for only the ruling elite. In fact, perhaps they regretted not doing so:

The spread of mechanical movable type printing in Europe in the Renaissance introduced the era of mass communication, which permanently altered the structure of society. The relatively unrestricted circulation of information and ideas transcended borders, captured the masses in the Reformation, and threatened the power of political and religious authorities. The sharp increase in literacy broke the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning and bolstered the emerging middle class.

If, instead, the German elite had tracked down Gutenberg and taken his printing press, and a 15th century Klaus Schwab proclaimed, “Mass communication is too powerful, we must ensure that the printing press is only used for social good.” The elites would make full use of it, pumping out books and media at scale, while the rest of us were left to frantically scribble with a quill. There would be no competing. The marketplace of ideas would not have opened, and one can question the Reformation would have ever happened.

We are at exactly such a crossroads now. This time, however, the elite are moving to keep the technology out of our hands.

So … Where Is Everyone?

If AI is even half as powerful and impactful as many believe, where are the “AI rights” groups? Why is there no “Freedom of Compute?” Where is the equivalent of the NRA fighting for the individual’s right to compute? We’ve never heard these concepts before, yet it is now equally important as the First and Second Amendment — where is the movement for a Bill of Rights for Compute Power?

I believe there are a few factors here:

• Not enough people understand AI (or compute).

• Not enough people understand the technocratic agenda.

• Those who do understand the elite intend to use AI (or indeed, ultimately to merge with it, if you follow the transhumanism thread far enough) consider AI “evil” as a rule, and want nothing to do with it. A lot of the “independent media” falls here, and so our battlestations have simply been left unmanned on this front.

• Those who do see the regulation of compute power, don’t fully appreciate the implications for the future of humanity.

The goal of this article is to move the Overton window for this conversation, and to help people grasp the stakes here. If no one understands the operative plan is to strip us of our “Right to Compute,” there will be no resistance to that plan. But there must be! If AI is the new weapon, we cannot allow it to be wrestled from our hands before it is even born.

Let’s look very briefly at a different way AI could go. If you are afraid of computers you can skip to the conclusion below.

Disarming the Psyop

The release of DeepSeek out of China was so impactful because it allowed anyone to download a model that ran on your own hardware with the fidelity and reasoning of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. It exposed absolutely that OpenAI owns not the technology itself, but only a slice of a frontier—and a rapidly moving one. This is why we hear, "we need half a trillion dollars for OpenAI and Oracle initiatives" -- it's to make AI seem huge and expensive and inaccessible to normal people. It is not. Developed and used with intention, models can be run locally (on your device), meaning there is no need to feed all your data up to OpenAI to fuel their perfect surveillance/control system.

Hardware and software continue to develop, and while OpenAI is exploiting a brief window where the new capabilities exist but are still prohibitively expensive, soon your cellphone will have a chip with enough power to run whatever models you want locally (right on your device).

If, in the long run, AI actually needed obscene amounts of capital to build huge data centers with integrated nuclear reactors and guzzled cities worth of water — there would be no need to regulate it. That they are so eager (and working now) to do so betrays the reality: this is not the case.

Even model training — which is much more computationally expensive than just “using” a model — can be decentralized. Communities can contribute their own compute power, much like folding@Home, or use federated learning. Give the open source folks a bit longer, and one can imagine people contributing their compute cycles to different models — if we still have access to the compute!

This technology must belong to all of us. Whether or not you use it is personal choice. Just as with the 2nd Amendment, not everyone wants to carry a firearm, but everyone should have the right to do so.

Conclusion

I love humanity. I love our art, our music, our spirit, our history. I find distasteful an AI-created facsimile of truly inspired creative and intellectual work. But, I will defend our right to use it. This technology is here now; the bizarre but powerful genie is popping out of the bottle, and we must work to ensure no group claims exclusive ownership of that genie to retain control over society.

If, however, humanity is collectively too distracted by all the other scripted crises, or if we are too afraid of an AI apocalypse, or if we are too reluctant to be associated with “fighting for AI.” If we fail to secure the right to use compute power for ourselves and future generations — we lose the ability to create our own models with real history, alternative viewpoints, alternative medicine, herbalism, permaculture, decentralized solutions, and we, and the coming generations, will be doomed to accept the already disappointing, disempowering consumerist technoserf rhetoric that ChatGPT or Grok serve up, sourced from establishment-approved sources. We will live in reality dictated by Snopes and Wikipedia, H.G. Wells’ own “World Brain,” the freemasonic “Universal Dictionary:”

a new, free, synthetic, authoritative, permanent "World Encyclopaedia" that could help world citizens make the best use of universal information resources and make the best contribution to world peace.

This is not the future I envision for our children. We have to imagine and work for a future where anyone or any community is free to leverage compute power—digital or quantum—to make the world a better place.

UPDATE [June 15 3am PT]: There are a couple nascent efforts to defend the Right To Compute:

• Montana's SB212 was passed and signed by Gov. Gianforte, “recognizing our fundamental right to own and use computational tools like AI, and any future government restrictions on computing must respect this right.”

• New Hampshire also floated a Constitutional amendment directly over the target: “the right of individuals to use computation resources shall not be infringed.” Like I said, this is as important as the 2nd Amendment — I love that it mirrors the language.

• Texas’ HB149, on the other hand, has passed both houses and is sitting on Gov. Abbot’s desk; it does not frame AI access as a fundamental right but instead focuses on regulating AI applications to “protect consumers.”

Your thoughts are welcome — comment below.

---

• Follow me on Telegram

• If you value this work, please support me on Patreon.