At the conclusion of Chapter 2 (“Relationships and Things“), we considered the question of whether languages might be interpreted across species. Now I want to consider whether a particular kind of language can be used for communication between humans and machines.
Let me give you the answer right at the outset: such languages are already being used for such communications … and they already have been used for such communications for decades. Yet the degree of mutual understanding is quite low — mainly due to insufficient literacy skills among humans.
Humans generally do not understand that the existence of the machines is pretty much completely oriented towards the benefit of the companies (and other organizations) which employ these machines. Perhaps the most obvious example of this are television sets. Most humans think that these machines will somehow make their lives better (more on this further below), when in fact television sets are used exclusively for propaganda purposes. In this manner, organizations will spread messages to influence television users (the recipients of such propaganda messages) towards believing something they might not otherwise believe. These altered beliefs are supposed to trick the gullible users into taking some action through which the organizations spreading propaganda will be able to increase their profits. The basic building blocks for these propaganda systems are nonsense-strings which are granted to organizations as exclusive rights by governments or similar governing bodies. In general, all of this business is known as “trademark law“. Thus, trademarks are government-sanctioned monopolies … and these nonsense-strings are generally used liberally in the context of propaganda machines in order to psychologically manipulate the users of such technology into associating such trademarks and brands with some expected outcome, much like Pavlov’s dogs would — once sufficiently conditioned — begin salivating at the mere ring of a bell.
Such manipulation of users’ beliefs systems must not only be appropriately contextualized but also continually maintained … if these beliefs are indeed “fake news” … as the ring of a bell is not actually a stimulus which would actually warrant a dog’s salivation response (and we ought to expect that such false beliefs would normally cease to remain conditioned, if they were repeatedly proven as false). Therefore, the maintenance of such conditioned responses is a continually costly affair.
Finally, let me point out that the appropriate contextualization of the employment of these machines is absolutely crucial. If, for example, users ever consider the machines to be absurd, laughable, ridiculous or in any way at all to be suspicious or untrustworthy (or even, as I like to say: “distrustworthy“), then all bets are off regarding the efficacy of any such propaganda measures.