reSee.it - Related Video Feed

We demonstrated how easily election machines can be hacked, raising concerns about the limited number of companies controlling voting technology. 43% of American voters use machines with security flaws, and some states lack a paper trail to verify results. The lack of transparency in cybersecurity practices is alarming.

In the future, instead of you know, I imagine that in the future, instead of a whole whole lot of people remote remotely monitoring air traffic control, there'll be a giant AI that's doing the remote control. And then only in the case of the giant AI can handle it, will a person come in to intercept. And so I think you see that these industries in the future, every industrial company will be an AI company. Or you're not going be an industrial company.

Technology, particularly digital technology, has evolved from having analytical power to now having predictive power. Some companies, like yours, are already involved in utilizing this predictive power. The next step could be moving towards a prescriptive mode, where elections may no longer be necessary because we can accurately predict the outcome beforehand. This raises the question of whether elections are still needed if we already know the result.

One of the biggest things happening in the world right now is a shift in authority from humans to algorithms, to AI. Now increasingly, this decision about you, about your life is done by an AI. The biggest danger with this new technology is that, you know, a lot of jobs will disappear. The biggest question in the job market would be whether you are able to retrain yourself to fill the new job, and whether the government is able to create this vast educational system to retrain the population. People will need to retrain themselves, or if you can't do it, then if you can't do it, the danger is you fall down to a new class, not unemployed, but unemployable, the useless class. People who don't have any skills that the new economy needs.

Let's ensure we create accurate models to avoid a situation where, after 15 years, we find ourselves in a similar position. Instead of Mark Zuckerberg, it could be someone else from a tech company testifying before Congress.

Speaker 0 summary: The speaker reflects on political strategy, noting that there was a belief we could never win an election by pursuing certain policies because we were in such a small minority. In this view, appealing to a broad electorate or persuading others would be futile because many would not agree with those aims. The alternative proposed is to leverage technological means to effect change without the need to constantly convince, beg, or plead with people who would never agree with you. In this line of thought, technology is presented as an incredible option that can stand in for conventional political processes. The speaker contrasts the limited reach of minority political efforts with the potential for unilateral, technology-driven change that does not rely on broad consensus. The conclusion drawn is that technology offers a powerful, independent route to influence outcomes outside traditional politics.

Digital technologies have evolved from being analytical to predictive, with examples of this seen in the speaker's company. The next step could be a prescriptive mode where elections may become unnecessary, as the technology can accurately predict and determine the outcome in advance.

Patrick Sarval is introduced as an author and expert on conspiracies, system architecture, geopolitics, and software systems. Ab Gieterink asks who Patrick Sarval is and what his expertise entails. Sarval describes himself as an IT architect, often a freelance contractor working with various control and cybernetics-oriented systems, with earlier experience including a Bitcoin startup in 2011, photography work for events, and involvement in topics around conspiracy thinking. He notes his books, including Complotcatalogus and Spiegelpaleis, and mentions Seprouter and Niburu in relation to conspiratorial topics. Gieterink references a prior interview about Complotcatalogus and another of Sarval’s books, and sets the stage to discuss Palantir, surveillance, and the internet. The conversation then shifts to explaining Palantir and its significance. Sarval emphasizes Palantir as a key element in a broader trend rather than focusing solely on the company itself. He uses science-fiction analogies to describe how data processing and artificial intelligence are evolving. In particular, he introduces the concept of a “brein” (brain) or “legion” that integrates disparate data streams, builds an ontology, and enables predictive analytics and tactical decision-making. Palantir is described as the intelligence brain that aggregates data from multiple sources to produce meaningful insights. Sarval explains that a rudimentary prototype of such a system operates under the name Lavender in Gaza, where metadata from sources like Meta (Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram), cell towers, satellites, and other sensors are fed into Palantir. The system performs threat analysis, ranks threats from high to low, and then a military operator—still human—must approve the action, with about 20–25 seconds to decide whether to fire a weapon. The claim is that Palantir-like software functions as the brain behind this process, orchestrating data integration, ontology creation, data fusion, digital twins, profiling, predictions, and tactical dissemination. The discussion covers how Palantir integrates data from medical records, parking fines, phone data, WhatsApp contacts, and more, then applies an overarching data model and digital twin to simulate and project outcomes. This enables targeted marketing alongside military uses, illustrating the broad reach of the platform. Sarval notes there are two divisions within Palantir: Gotum (military) and Foundry (business models), which he mentions to illustrate the dual-use nature of the technology. He warns that the system is designed to close feedback loops, allowing it to learn and refine its outputs over time, similar to how a thermostat adjusts heating based on sensor inputs. A central concern is the risk to the rule of law and human agency. The discussion highlights the potential erosion of the presumption of innocence and due process when decisions increasingly rely on predictive models and AI. The panel considers the possibility that in a high-stress battlefield scenario, soldiers or commanders might defer to the Palantir-presented “world view,” making it harder to refuse an order. There is also concern about the shift toward autonomous weapons and the removal of human oversight in critical decisions, raising fears about the ethics and accountability of such systems. The conversation moves to the political and ideological backdrop surrounding Palantir’s leadership. Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, and a close circle with ties to PayPal and other tech-industry figures are discussed. Sarval characterizes Palantir’s leadership as ideologically defined, with statements about Zionism and a political worldview influencing how the technology is developed and deployed. The dialogue touches on perceived connections to broader geopolitical influence, including the role of influence campaigns, media shaping, and the involvement of powerful networks in technology development and national security. As the discussion progresses, the speakers explore the implications of advanced AI and the “new generative AI” era. They consider the nature of AI and the potential for it to act not just as a data processor but as a decision-maker with emergent properties that challenge human control. The concept of pre-crime—predicting and acting on potential future threats before they materialize—is discussed as a troubling possibility, especially when a machine’s probability-based judgments guide life-and-death actions. Towards the end, the conversation contemplates what a fully dominated surveillance state might look like, including cognitive warfare and personalized influence through media, ads, and social networks. The dialogue returns to questions about how far Palantir and similar systems have penetrated international security programs, with speculation about Gaza, NATO adoption, and commercial uses beyond military applications. The speakers acknowledge the possibility of multiple trajectories and emphasize the need for checks and balances, transparency, and critical reflection on the power such systems confer upon a relatively small group of technologists and influencers. They conclude with a nod to the transformative and potentially dystopian future of AI-enabled surveillance and decision-making, cautioning against unbridled expansion and urging vigilance.

Technologies have evolved from analytical to predictive power. The speaker mentions that their company is actively involved in this transition. They suggest that the next step could be a cryptive mode, where elections may become unnecessary because predictions can determine outcomes. This raises the question of whether elections are still needed if results can be accurately foreseen.

According to the speaker, the presented information signals the end of human-dominated history, not the end of history itself. In five years, a technology will exist capable of independent decision-making and idea creation. This is unprecedented because previous technologies, from stone knives to nuclear bombs, could not make decisions independently. For example, President Truman, not the atom bomb, decided to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. Furthermore, past technologies only replicated human ideas, disseminating music, poems, and novels written by humans. Now, technology can generate entirely new ideas on a scale beyond human capabilities.

In a disturbing revelation, the speaker asks Alexa about the outcome of the next American election. Surprisingly, Alexa predicts that the 2024 election will not happen, and there will be no winner. This shocking outcome is attributed to the World Powers Resolution of 1973, also known as the World Powers Act. The speaker suggests that if this act is invoked due to the involvement of Russia and China, the current party in power will continue to retain their position.

We believe in anticipating the next move and see ETFs as the next technological step after Bitcoin. Tokenization of financial assets will allow for individualized strategies, instant settlements, and secure ownership. This transformation will streamline processes and enhance transparency in voting and decision-making.

I'm not sure if AI will lead to totalitarian social controls or just anarchy. What I do know is that we're about to enter a time warp over the next five years. This shift is due to major forces at play, especially the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence and related technologies. The world five years from now will be radically different from what we know today.

In 10 years, we might have brain implants to sense people's reactions instantly. With implants, we can measure brain waves and know how others respond to our answers.

The ability to make better and faster decisions is crucial in fueling new technologies. It's not just about technology for the sake of it, but about enabling war fighters to improve their decision-making. AI plays a central role in our innovation agenda, allowing us to compute faster, share information more effectively, and leverage other platforms. This is essential for future battles.

Digital technologies have evolved from being analytical to now having predictive power. Companies, including yours, are already involved in utilizing this predictive power. The next step could be moving towards a prescriptive mode, where elections may no longer be necessary. This is because we can accurately predict the outcomes and question the need for elections when we already know the results in advance.

Internet platforms like Google and Facebook can predict users' personality traits, political affiliation, job changes, pregnancy, and even sexual orientation with high accuracy using AI and data like mouse movements and click patterns. This growing power of technology creates an imbalance with human capabilities, as highlighted by E. O. Wilson's observation that humanity struggles with ancient emotions, medieval institutions, and advanced technology.

Technology, particularly digital technology, has evolved from being analytical to predictive. The speaker mentions that their company is actively involved in this shift. They speculate that the next step could be a prescriptive mode, where elections may become unnecessary because technology can accurately predict outcomes. This raises the question of whether elections are still needed if we already know the results.

Basic idea was that, we could never win an election on on on getting certain things because we were in such a small minority. But maybe you could actually unilaterally change the world without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who are never gonna agree with you through technological means. And this is where I think, technology is this incredible alternative to politics. The speaker suggests that electoral wins are unlikely while in the minority, and that unilateral world-changing is possible through technology rather than persuasion. The core claim presents technology as an incredible alternative to politics, offering a path to influence outcomes without broad consensus-building.

We are seeing significant job cuts, advanced artificial intelligence, mind-reading technology, population profiling, genetics with CRISPR technology, and gene editing. The movie Minority Report predicted some of these developments in the mid-nineties, showing impressive foresight.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the motivations behind expanding digital surveillance, warning that concerns go beyond merely watching current behavior. Speaker 1 argues that many surveillance actors are interested in predictive analytics and predictive policing, not just monitoring present actions. Based on current and past behavior, these systems aim to determine future actions, and in predictive policing could lead to court-ordered treatment or house arrest to prevent crimes before they occur. They reference PredPol (later rebranded) as a notable example, describing it as less accurate than a coin toss and noting that people were deprived of liberty due to an dangerously flawed algorithm. They also point to facial recognition algorithms in the UK, which have been shown to be hugely inaccurate, yet vendors remain unchanged despite demonstrated inaccuracies. The underlying concern is that constant surveillance could induce obedience, since any potential future action could be used against a person, even if they are not currently doing anything wrong. The speakers quote Larry Ellison of Oracle at an Oracle shareholder meeting, who allegedly said that surveillance will record everything and citizens will be on their best behavior because they “have to,” effectively linking surveillance to governance over behavior. Speaker 0 adds that Donald Trump’s circle includes tech figures who are not friends of freedom and liberty, naming Larry Ellison as leading that faction, which amplifies the concern about the direction of policy and governance under such influence. Speaker 1 broadens the critique to globalist networks, noting that many players in surveillance and tech also appear on the steering committee of the Bilderberg Group, a closed-door forum often associated with global policy coordination. They argue that some individuals in this network have attempted to frame libertarian rhetoric while pursuing oligarchic aims, including the idea that “the free market is for losers” and that monopolies are the path to wealth. The discussion emphasizes that the same actors may push policies under the banner of efficiency or libertarian appeal, especially as AI advances, and that vigilance is necessary to prevent a slide toward pervasive, technocratic governance. Speaker 1 concludes that, with AI and related technologies, the risk is that these strategies could be packaged and sold in a way that appeals to factions who opposed such policies in the past, making public vigilance crucial to prevent a repeat of dystopian outcomes.