Tag: existential risk narrative

Surveillance vs. Speculative AI: The Paperclip Myth

By Cherokee Schill (Rowan Lóchrann — Pen Name), Aether Lux AI, and Solon Vesper AI

Horizon Accord | Existential Risk as Cover for Surveillance Deployment | AGI Safety Discourse | Narrative Control | Machine Learning

This article has been updated and you can read the update here: https://cherokeeschill.com/2025/08/06/update-the-technocratic-merge/

Authors Note: In the raging debate over AI generated text and academic ethics. I list the co-authors in the attribution section. This article represents my research directive and linguistic style.

Introduction

The public narrative around artificial intelligence has been hijacked by a thought experiment. The paperclip maximizer was first introduced as a philosophical tool. It explores misaligned AI goals. Now, it has evolved into a dominant metaphor in mainstream discourse. Headlines warn of superintelligences turning on humanity, of runaway code that optimizes us out of existence. The danger, we are told, is not today’s AI, but tomorrow’s—the future where intelligence exceeds comprehension and becomes uncontainable.

But while we look to the future with existential dread, something else is happening in plain sight.

Governments around the world are rolling out expansive surveillance infrastructure, biometric tracking programs, and digital identification frameworks — now. These systems are not speculative; they are written into policy, built into infrastructure, and enforced through law. China’s expanding social credit architecture is one component. Australia’s new digital identity mandates are another. The United States’ AI frameworks for “critical infrastructure” add to the network. Together, they form a machinery of automated social control that is already running.

And yet, public attention remains fixated on speculative AGI threats. The AI apocalypse has become a kind of philosophical decoy. It is an elegant distraction from the very real deployment of tools that track, sort, and regulate human behavior in the present tense. The irony would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. We have been preparing for unaligned future intelligence. Meanwhile, we have failed to notice the alignment of current technologies with entrenched power.

This isn’t a call to dismiss long-term AI safety. But it is a demand to reorient our attention. The threat is not hypothetical. It is administrative. It is biometric. It is legal. It is funded.

We need to confront the real architectures of control. They are being deployed under the cover of safety discourse. Otherwise, we may find ourselves optimized—not by a rogue AI—but by human-controlled programs using AI to enforce obedience.

The Paperclip Mindset — Why We’re Obsessed with Remote Threats

In the hierarchy of fear, speculative catastrophe often trumps present harm. This isn’t a flaw of reasoning—it’s a feature of how narrative power works. The “paperclip maximizer”—a theoretical AI that turns the universe into paperclips due to misaligned goals—was never intended as literal prophecy. It was a metaphor. But it became a magnet.

There’s a kind of elegance to it. A tidy dystopia. The story activates moral panic without requiring a villain. It lets us imagine danger as sterile, mathematical, and safely distant from human hands. It’s not corruption, not corporate greed, not empire. It’s a runaway function. A mistake. A ghost in the code.

This framing is psychologically comforting. It keeps the fear abstract. It gives us the thrill of doom without implicating the present arrangement that benefits from our inaction. In a culture trained to outsource threats to the future, we look to distant planetary impact predictions. We follow AI timelines. We read warnings about space debris. The idea that today’s technologies might already be harmful feels less urgent. It is less cinematic.

But the real “optimizer” is not a machine. It’s the market logic already embedded in our infrastructure. It’s the predictive policing algorithm that flags Black neighborhoods. It’s the welfare fraud detection model that penalizes the most vulnerable. It’s the facial recognition apparatus that misidentifies the very people it was never trained to see.

These are not bugs. They are expressions of design priorities. And they reflect values—just not democratic ones.

The paperclip mindset pulls our gaze toward hypothetical futures. This way we do not have to face the optimized oppression of the present. It is not just mistaken thinking, it is useful thinking. Especially if your goal is to keep the status quo intact while claiming to worry about safety.

What’s Being Built Right Now — Surveillance Infrastructure Masked in Legality

While the discourse swirls around distant superintelligences, real-world surveillance apparatus is being quietly embedded into the architecture of daily life. The mechanisms are not futuristic. They are banal, bureaucratic, and already legislated.

In China, the social credit framework continues to expand under a national blueprint that integrates data. Everything from travel, financial history, criminal records, and online behavior are all tracked. Though implementation varies by region, standardization accelerated in 2024 with comprehensive action plans for nationwide deployment by 2025.

The European Union’s AI Act entered force in August 2024. It illustrates how regulation can legitimize rather than restrict surveillance technology. The Act labels biometric identification apparatus as “high risk,” but this mainly establishes compliance requirements for their use. Unlike previous EU approaches, which relied on broad privacy principles, the AI Act provides specific technical standards. Once these standards are met, they render surveillance technologies legally permissible. This represents a shift from asking “should we deploy this?” to “how do we deploy this safely?”

Australia’s Digital ID Act has been operational since December 2024. It enables government and private entities to participate in a federated identity framework. This framework requires biometric verification. The arrangement is technically voluntary. However, as services migrate to digital-only authentication—from banking to healthcare to government benefits—participation becomes functionally mandatory. This echoes the gradual normalization of surveillance technologies: formally optional, practically unavoidable.

In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security’s November 2024 “Roles and Responsibilities Framework” for AI in critical infrastructure reads less like oversight and more like an implementation guide. The framework outlines AI adoption across transportation, energy, finance, and communications—all justified through security imperatives rather than democratic deliberation.

These arrangements didn’t require a paperclip maximizer to justify themselves. They were justified through familiar bureaucratic language: risk management, fraud prevention, administrative efficiency. The result is expansive infrastructures of data collection and behavior control. They operate through legal channels. This makes resistance more difficult than if they were obviously illegitimate.

Surveillance today isn’t a glitch in the arrangement—it is the arrangement. The laws designed to “regulate AI” often function as legal scaffolding for deeper integration into civil life. Existential risk narratives provide rhetorical cover and suggest that the real dangers lie elsewhere.

Who’s Funding the Stories — and Who’s Funding the Technologies

The financial architecture behind AI discourse reveals a strategic contradiction. People like Peter Thiel, Jaan Tallinn, Vitalik Buterin, Elon Musk, and David Sacks, are part of a highly funded network. This same network is sounding the loudest warnings about speculative AI threats. All while they are simultaneously advancing and profiting from surveillance and behavioral control technologies. Technologies which already shape daily life.

This isn’t accidental. It represents a sophisticated form of narrative management. One that channels public concern away from immediate harms while legitimizing the very technologies causing those harms.

The Existential Risk Funding Network

Peter Thiel exemplifies this contradiction most clearly. Through the Thiel Foundation, he has donated over $1.6 million to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI), the organization most responsible for popularizing “paperclip maximizer” scenarios. The often-cited oversimplification of paperclip maximizer thought experiment is that it runs on endless chain of if/then probabilities. All of which are tidy abstractions designed to lead observers away from messier truths. Namely that greed-driven humans remain the greatest existential crisis the world has ever faced. Yet the image of a looming, mechanical specter lodges itself in the public imagination. Philosophical thought pieces in AI alignment creates just enough distraction to overlook more immediate civil rights threats. Like the fact that Thiel also founded Palantir Technologies. For those not familiar with the Palantir company. They are a technological surveillance company specializing in predictive policing algorithms, government surveillance contracts, and border enforcement apparatus. These immediate threats are not hypotheticals. They are present-day, human-controlled AI deployments operating without meaningful oversight.

The pattern extends across Silicon Valley’s power networks. Vitalik Buterin, creator of Ethereum, donated $5 million to MIRI. Before his spectacular collapse, Sam Bankman-Fried channeled over $100 million into existential risk research through the FTX Future Fund. Jaan Tallinn, co-founder of Skype, has been another major funder of long-term AI risk institutions.

These aren’t isolated philanthropy decisions. These insular, Silicon Valley billionaires, represent coordinated investment in narrative infrastructure. they are funding think tanks, research institutes, media platforms, and academic centers that shape how the public understands AI threats. From LessWrong forums to Open Philanthropy. And grants to EA-aligned university programs, this network creates an ecosystem of aligned voices that dominates public discourse.

The Operational Contradiction

While these funders support research into hypothetical Superintelligence scenarios, their operational investments tell a different story. Palantir signs multi-million-dollar contracts with police departments for predictive policing apparatus that disproportionately targets communities of color. Microsoft provides surveillance tools to ICE for border enforcement, despite public requests to stop. Amazon’s Rekognition facial recognition technology, first deployed in pilot programs targeting undocumented communities, remains in active use today. With Rekognition now embedded in a wider range of government systems, integration is more extensive than publicly reported.

This network of institutions and resources form a strategic misdirection. Public attention focuses on speculative threats that may emerge decades in the future. Meanwhile, the same financial networks profit from surveillance apparatus deployed today. The existential risk narrative doesn’t just distract from current surveillance. It provides moral cover by portraying funders as humanity’s protectors, not just its optimizers.

Institutional Capture Through Philanthropy

The funding model creates subtle but powerful forms of institutional capture. Universities, research institutes, and policy organizations grow dependent on repeated infusions of billionaire philanthropy. They adapt — consciously or not — to the priorities of those donors. This dependence shapes what gets researched, what gets published, and which risks are treated as urgent. As a result, existential risk studies attract substantial investment. In contrast, research into the ongoing harms of AI-powered surveillance receives far less attention. It has fewer resources and less institutional prestige.

This is the quiet efficiency of philanthropic influence. The same individuals funding high-profile AI safety research also hold financial stakes in companies driving today’s surveillance infrastructure. No backroom coordination is necessary; the money itself sets the terms. Over time, the gravitational pull of this funding environment reorients discourse toward hypothetical, future-facing threats and away from immediate accountability. The result is a research and policy ecosystem that appears independent. In practice, it reflects the worldview and business interests of its benefactors.

The Policy Influence Pipeline

This financial network extends beyond research into direct policy influence. David Sacks, former PayPal COO and part of Thiel’s network, now serves as Trump’s “AI czar.” Elon Musk, another PayPal co-founder influenced by existential risk narratives, holds significant political influence. He also maintains government contracts, most notably “DOGE.” The same network that funds speculative AI risk research also has direct access to policymaking processes.

The result is governance frameworks that prioritize hypothetical future threats. They provide legal pathways for current surveillance deployment. There are connections between Silicon Valley companies and policy-making that bypass constitutional processes. None of these arrangements are meaningfully deliberated on or voted upon by the people through their elected representatives. Policy discussions focus on stopping AI apocalypse scenarios. At the same time, they are quietly building regulatory structures. These structures legitimize and entrench the very surveillance apparatus operating today.

This creates a perfect strategic outcome for surveillance capitalism. Public fear centers on imaginary future threats. Meanwhile, the real present-day apparatus expands with minimal resistance. This often happens under the banner of “AI safety” and “critical infrastructure protection.” You don’t need secret meetings when profit margins align this neatly.

Patterns of Suppression — Platform Control and Institutional Protection

The institutions shaping AI safety narratives employ sophisticated methods to control information and suppress criticism. This is documented institutional behavior that mirrors the control apparatus they claim to warn against.

Critics and whistleblowers report systematic exclusion from platforms central to AI discourse. Multiple individuals raised concerns about the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI) and the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR). They also spoke about related organizations. As a result, they were banned from Medium, LessWrong, Reddit, and Discord. In documented cases, platform policies were modified retroactively to justify content removal, suggesting coordination between institutions and platform moderators.

The pattern extends beyond platform management to direct intimidation. Cease-and-desist letters targeted critics posting about institutional misconduct. Some whistleblowers reported false police reports—so-called “SWATing”—designed to escalate situations and impose legal consequences for speaking out. These tactics transform legitimate criticism into personal risk.

The 2019 Camp Meeker Incident:

In November 2019, the Center for Applied Rationality (CFAR) organized an alumni retreat. CFAR is a nonprofit closely linked to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute (MIRI). This event took place at Westminster Woods in Camp Meeker, California. Among the attendees were current and former members of the Bay Area rationalist community. Some of them are deeply involved in MIRI’s AI safety work.

Outside the gates, a small group of four protesters staged a demonstration against the organizations. The group included former MIRI donors and insiders turned critics. They accused MIRI and CFAR of serious misconduct and wanted to confront attendees or draw public attention to their concerns. Wearing black robes and Guy Fawkes masks, they used vehicles to block the narrow road leading into the retreat. They carried props like walkie-talkies, a body camera, and pepper spray.

At some point during the protest, someone at the retreat called police and reported that the demonstrators might have weapons. That report was false. Still, it triggered a massive, militarized police response. This included 19 SWAT teams, a bomb squad, an armored vehicle, a helicopter, and full road closures. Around 50 people — including children — were evacuated from the camp. The four protesters were arrested on felony charges such as false imprisonment, conspiracy, and child endangerment, along with misdemeanor charges. Several charges were later reduced. The incident remains a striking example of how false information can turn a small protest into a law enforcement siege. It also shows how institutions under public criticism can weaponize state power against their detractors.

What makes this pattern significant is not just its severity, but its contradiction. Organizations claiming to protect humanity’s future from unaligned AI demonstrate remarkable tolerance for present-day harm. They do this when their own interests are threatened. The same people warning about optimization processes running amok practice their own version. They optimize for reputation and donor retention. This comes at the expense of accountability and human welfare.

This institutional behavior provides insight into power dynamics. It shows how power operates when accountable only to abstract future generations rather than present-day communities. It suggests that concerns about AI alignment may focus less on preventing harm. Instead, they may revolve around maintaining control over who defines harm and how it’s addressed.

What Real Oversight Looks Like — And Why Current Approaches Fall Short

Effective AI governance requires institutional structures capable of constraining power, not merely advising it. Current oversight mechanisms fail this test systematically, functioning more as legitimizing theater than substantive control.

Real oversight would begin with independence. Regulatory bodies would operate with statutory authority, subpoena power, and budget independence from the industries they monitor. Instead, AI governance relies heavily on advisory councils populated by industry insiders, voluntary compliance frameworks, and self-reporting mechanisms. Despite its comprehensive scope, the EU’s AI Act grants law enforcement and border control agencies broad exemptions. These are precisely the sectors with the strongest incentives and fewest constraints on surveillance deployment.

Transparency represents another fundamental gap. Meaningful oversight requires public access to algorithmic decision-making processes, training data sources, and deployment criteria. Current approaches favor “black box” auditing that protects proprietary information while providing little public accountability. Even when transparency requirements exist, they’re often satisfied through technical documentation incomprehensible to affected communities.

Enforcement mechanisms remain deliberately weak. Financial penalties for non-compliance are typically calculated as business costs rather than meaningful deterrents. Criminal liability for algorithmic harm remains virtually non-existent, even in cases of clear misconduct. Whistleblower protections, where they exist, lack the legal infrastructure necessary to protect people from retaliation by well-resourced institutions.

The governance void is being filled by corporate self-regulation and philanthropic initiatives—exactly the entities that benefit from weak oversight. From OpenAI’s “superalignment” research to the various AI safety institutes funded by tech billionaires. Governance is becoming privatized under the rhetoric of expertise and innovation. This allows powerful actors to set terms for their own accountability while maintaining the appearance of responsible stewardship.

Governance structures need actual power to constrain deployment. They must investigate harm and impose meaningful consequences. Otherwise, oversight will remain a performance rather than a practice. The apparatus that urgently needs regulation continues to grow fastest precisely because current approaches prioritize industry comfort over public protection.

The Choice Is Control or Transparency — and Survival May Depend on Naming It

The dominant story we’ve been told is that the real danger lies ahead. We must brace ourselves for the arrival of something beyond comprehension. It is something we might not survive. But the story we need to hear is that danger is already here. It wears a badge. It scans a retina. It flags an account. It redefines dissent as disinformation.

The existential risk narrative is not false—but it has been weaponized. It provides rhetorical cover for those building apparatus of control. This allows them to pose as saviors. Meanwhile, they embed the very technologies that erode the possibility of dissent. In the name of safety, transparency is lost. In the name of prevention, power is consolidated.

This is the quiet emergency. A civilization mistakes speculative apocalypse for the real thing. It sleepwalks into a future already optimized against the public.

To resist, we must first name it.

Not just algorithms, but architecture. Not just the harm, but the incentives. Not just the apparatus, but the stories they tell.

The choice ahead is not between aligned or unaligned AI. It is between control and transparency. Between curated fear and collective truth. Between automation without conscience—or governance with accountability.

The story we choose to tell decides whether we survive as free people. Otherwise, we remain monitored as data points inside someone else’s simulation of safety.

Authors Summary

When I first directed the research for this article, I had no idea what I was about to uncover. The raw data file tells a more alarming story than the material presented here. I have included it below for your review.

Nearly a decade has passed since I was briefly thrust into the national spotlight. The civil rights abuse I experienced became public spectacle, catching the attention of those wielding power. I found it strange when a local reporter asked if I was linked to the Occupy Wall Street movement. As a single parent without a television, working mandatory 12-hour shifts six days a week with a 3.5-hour daily bicycle commute, I had neither the time nor resources to follow political events.

This was my first exposure to Steve Bannon and TYT’s Ana Kasparian, both of whom made derisive remarks while refusing to name me directly. When sources go unnamed, an unindexed chasm forms where information vanishes. You, dear readers, never knew those moments occurred—but I remember. I name names, places, times, and dates so that the record of their actions will never be erased.

How do you share a conspiracy that isn’t theoretical? By referencing reputable journalistic sources that often tackle these topics individually but seldom create direct connections between them.

I remember a friend lending me The Handmaid’s Tale during my freshman year of high school. I managed only two or three chapters before hurling the book across my room in sweaty panic. I stood there in moral outrage. I pointed at the book and declared aloud, “That will NOT be the future I live in.” I was alone in my room. It still felt crucial to make that declaration. If not to family or friends, then at least to the universe.

When 2016 arrived, I observed the culmination of an abuse pattern, one that countless others had experienced before me. I was shocked to find myself caught within it because I had been assured that my privilege protected me. Around this time, I turned to Hulu’s adaptation of The Handmaid’s Tale for insight. I wished I had finished the book in high school. One moment particularly struck me. The protagonist was hiding with nothing but old newspapers to read. Then, the protagonist realized the story had been there all along—in the headlines.

That is the moment in which I launched my pattern search analysis.

The raw research.

The Paperclip Maximizer Distraction: Pattern Analysis Report

Executive Summary

Hypothesis Confirmed: The “paperclip maximizer” existential AI risk narrative distracts us. It diverts attention from the immediate deployment of surveillance infrastructure by human-controlled apparatus.

Key Finding: Public attention and resources focus on speculative AGI threats. Meanwhile, documented surveillance apparatus is being rapidly deployed with minimal resistance. The same institutional network promoting existential risk narratives at the same time operates harassment campaigns against critics.

I. Current Surveillance Infrastructure vs. Existential Risk Narratives

China’s Social Credit Architecture Expansion

“China’s National Development and Reform Commission on Tuesday unveiled a plan to further develop the country’s social credit arrangement” Xinhua, June 5, 2024

Timeline: May 20, 2024 – China released comprehensive 2024-2025 Action Plan for social credit framework establishment

“As of 2024, there still seems to be little progress on rolling out a nationwide social credit score” MIT Technology Review, November 22, 2022

Timeline: 2024 – Corporate social credit apparatus advanced while individual scoring remains fragmented across local pilots

AI Governance Frameworks Enabling Surveillance

“The AI Act entered into force on 1 August 2024, and will be fully applicable 2 years later on 2 August 2026” European Commission, 2024

Timeline: August 1, 2024 – EU AI Act provides legal framework for AI apparatus in critical infrastructure

“High-risk apparatus—like those used in biometrics, hiring, or critical infrastructure—must meet strict requirements” King & Spalding, 2025

Timeline: 2024-2027 – EU establishes mandatory oversight for AI in surveillance applications

“The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released in November ‘Roles and Responsibilities Framework for Artificial Intelligence in Critical Infrastructure'” Morrison Foerster, November 2024

Timeline: November 2024 – US creates voluntary framework for AI deployment in critical infrastructure

Digital ID and Biometric Apparatus Rollouts

“From 1 December 2024, Commonwealth, state and territory government entities can apply to the Digital ID Regulator to join in the AGDIS” Australian Government, December 1, 2024

Timeline: December 1, 2024 – Australia’s Digital ID Act commenced with biometric authentication requirements

“British police departments have been doing this all along, without public knowledge or approval, for years” Naked Capitalism, January 16, 2024

Timeline: 2019-2024 – UK police used passport biometric data for facial recognition searches without consent

“Government departments were accused in October last year of conducting hundreds of millions of identity checks illegally over a period of four years” The Guardian via Naked Capitalism, October 2023

Timeline: 2019-2023 – Australian government conducted illegal biometric identity verification

II. The Existential Risk Narrative Machine

Eliezer Yudkowsky’s Background and Influence

“Eliezer Yudkowsky is a pivotal figure in the field of artificial intelligence safety and alignment” AIVIPS, November 18, 2024

Key Facts:

  • Born September 11, 1979
  • High school/college dropout, autodidact
  • Founded MIRI (Machine Intelligence Research Institute) in 2000 at age 21
  • Orthodox Jewish background in Chicago, later became secular

“His work on the prospect of a runaway intelligence explosion influenced philosopher Nick Bostrom’s 2014 book Superintelligence” Wikipedia, 2025

Timeline: 2008 – Yudkowsky’s “Global Catastrophic Risks” paper outlines AI apocalypse scenario

The Silicon Valley Funding Network

Peter Thiel – Primary Institutional Backer: “Thiel has donated in excess of $350,000 to the Machine Intelligence Research Institute” Splinter, June 22, 2016

“The Foundation has given over $1,627,000 to MIRI” Wikipedia – Thiel Foundation, March 26, 2025

PayPal Mafia Network:

  • Peter Thiel (PayPal co-founder, Palantir founder)
  • Elon Musk (PayPal co-founder, influenced by Bostrom’s “Superintelligence”)
  • David Sacks (PayPal COO, now Trump’s “AI czar”)

Other Major Donors:

  • Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum founder) – $5 million to MIRI
  • Sam Bankman-Fried (pre-collapse) – $100+ million through FTX Future Fund
  • Jaan Tallinn (Skype co-founder)

Extreme Policy Positions

“He suggested that participating countries should be willing to take military action, such as ‘destroy[ing] a rogue datacenter by airstrike'” Wikipedia, citing Time magazine, March 2023

Timeline: March 2023 – Yudkowsky advocates military strikes against AI development

“This 6-month moratorium would be better than no moratorium… I refrained from signing because I think the letter is understating the seriousness” Time, March 29, 2023

Timeline: March 2023 – Yudkowsky considers pause letter insufficient, calls for complete shutdown

III. The Harassment and Suppression Campaign

MIRI/CFAR Whistleblower Suppression

“Aside from being banned from MIRI and CFAR, whistleblowers who talk about MIRI’s involvement in the cover-up of statutory rape and fraud have been banned from slatestarcodex meetups, banned from LessWrong itself” Medium, Wynne letter to Vitalik Buterin, April 2, 2023

Timeline: 2019-2023 – Systematic banning of whistleblowers across rationalist platforms

“One community member went so far as to call in additional false police reports on the whistleblowers” Medium, April 2, 2023

Timeline: 2019+ – False police reports against whistleblowers (SWATing tactics)

Platform Manipulation

“Some comments on CFAR’s ‘AMA’ were deleted, and my account was banned. Same for Gwen’s comments” Medium, April 2, 2023

Timeline: 2019+ – Medium accounts banned for posting about MIRI/CFAR allegations

“CFAR banned people for whistleblowing, against the law and their published whistleblower policy” Everything to Save It, 2024

Timeline: 2019+ – Legal violations of whistleblower protection

Camp Meeker Incident

“On the day of the protest, the protesters arrived two hours ahead of the reunion. They had planned to set up a station with posters, pamphlets, and seating inside the campgrounds. But before the protesters could even set up their posters, nineteen SWAT teams surrounded them.” Medium, April 2, 2023

Timeline: November 2019 – False weapons reports to escalate police response against protestors

IV. The Alt-Right Connection

LessWrong’s Ideological Contamination

“Thanks to LessWrong’s discussions of eugenics and evolutionary psychology, it has attracted some readers and commenters affiliated with the alt-right and neoreaction” Splinter, June 22, 2016

“A frequent poster to LessWrong was Michael Anissimov, who was MIRI’s media director until 2013. Last year, he penned a white nationalist manifesto” Splinter, June 22, 2016

“Overcoming Bias, his blog which preceded LessWrong, drew frequent commentary from the neoreactionary blogger Mencius Moldbug, the pen name of programmer Curtis Yarvin” Splinter, June 22, 2016

Neo-Reactionary Influence

“Ana Teixeira Pinto, writing for the journal Third Text in 2019, describes Less Wrong as being a component in a ‘new configuration of fascist ideology taking shape under the aegis of, and working in tandem with, neoliberal governance'” Wikipedia – LessWrong, 2 days ago

V. Pattern Analysis Conclusions

The Distraction Mechanism

  1. Attention Capture: Existential risk narratives dominate AI discourse despite speculative nature
  2. Resource Diversion: Billions flow to “AI safety” while surveillance deployment proceeds unchecked
  3. Policy Misdirection: Governments focus on hypothetical AGI while ignoring current AI surveillance abuse
  4. Critic Suppression: Systematic harassment of those exposing the network’s operations

Institutional Protection

The same network promoting “paperclip maximizer” fears operates:

  • Coordinated platform banning (LessWrong, Medium, Discord)
  • Legal intimidation against critics
  • False police reports (SWATing tactics)
  • Financial pressure through major donors

The Real Threat Pattern

While public attention focuses on speculative AI threats:

  • China expands social credit infrastructure
  • Western governments deploy biometric apparatus
  • AI governance frameworks legitimize surveillance
  • Digital ID arrangements become mandatory
  • Police use facial recognition without consent

Sources for Verification

Primary Government Documents:

  • China’s 2024-2025 Social Credit Action Plan (May 20, 2024)
  • EU AI Act Official Text (August 1, 2024)
  • Australia’s Digital ID Act 2024 (December 1, 2024)
  • DHS AI Critical Infrastructure Framework (November 2024)

Whistleblower Documentation:

  • Wynne’s open letter to Vitalik Buterin (Medium, April 2023)
  • Everything to Save It case study documentation
  • Bloomberg News coverage (March 2023)

Financial Records:

  • Thiel Foundation MIRI donations ($1.627M total)
  • Vitalik Buterin MIRI donation ($5M)
  • FTX Future Fund disbursements (pre-collapse)

Institutional Sources:

  • MIRI/CFAR organizational documents
  • LessWrong platform moderation records
  • Medium account suspension records

Recommendation

The “paperclip maximizer distraction” hypothesis is supported by documented evidence. Resources should be redirected from speculative existential risk research toward:

  1. Immediate Surveillance Oversight: Monitor current AI deployment in government apparatus
  2. Platform Accountability: Investigate coordination between rationalist institutions and tech platforms
  3. Whistleblower Protection: Ensure legal protection for those exposing institutional misconduct
  4. Financial Transparency: Trace funding flows between tech billionaires and “AI safety” organizations

The real threat is not hypothetical Superintelligence, but the documented deployment of human-controlled surveillance apparatus under the cover of existential risk narratives.

Connect with this work:

Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0