Through channels, the source of Q-anon yesterday was discovered to be a computer algorithm developed by an Indonesian IT firm for the purpose of investigating mass ideological control.
The algorithm, known according to “circles D” as the “cued response query AI” (hence the ‘Q-anonymous’), was borrowed out of a small and unpublicized hack into an early form of what came to be known as Grammarly for word auto-correct employed in various online instruments. The protocol for machine learning involved with how to learn spelling appears to have a close relationship to how human beings understand what constitutes a freind or family member as opposed to someone distant or merely an acquaintance.
The program was written using the same structural mechanisms as the Postmodern Generator (each time you hit ‘refresh’ it will spontaneously generate a somewhat plausible appearing argumentative paper that is completely non-sense. Check it out.)
— see my comments/blogposts about the issues and potential of AI involving this kind of technology. They are about 3 years ago, but I can’t remember the name of the posts! Lol –
According to “D leak”, the Q-anon algorithm used the discourse generating protocol similar to the PM generator yet with modified clausal semantic and contextual lineage parameters. Marketing algorithms chose the sites to begin messaging.
In short, according to the source, from the apparent effectiveness of the Sokal Hoax and others similar, it was hypothesized that the syntax strength (and semantic coherence) of the discourse generation if reduced might be even more effective at generating assent and agreement than the PM generator, or the Sokal paper. As well, due to the loose restraints of the common internet and the ideal of free speech and communication of ideas, along with the general intellectual lack of purpose, ignorance and ‘desire to be in the know’ which characterizes most regular (non-academic) person involvements, such enigmatic assertions might serve to function as a kind of social cohesion catalyst not dissimilar to that which arise and are implemented by institutional religion, cults, or any ideological group for that matter
It appears to have been more of a success than anticipated, for, what actually occurred was a social cohesion which, as part of the cohesion, saw an “other” which was limiting freedom (and being non-patriotic) whereas the algorithm was indeed functioning (in a way) to control people’s ability to form sensibly linked ideas which then motivated them to cohere and then toward action. The actual activity, though, was not anticipated, and most likely, D imagined, will be part of the next phase of the CRQ endeavor, if not some other firm’s.
The source of this information requested to remain, of course, anonymous.
I, myself, know nothing.
But it is indeed interesting. To say the least!
Leave a Reply