Technological Confluence and the UAP Reality; Pulling our Heads from the Sand
How Technological Advances, the Humanities and Government Policy are Reshaping Our Search for Non-Human Intelligences and Will Define our Near-term Reality
*A note before you begin: this article is meant to inform, to educate and to act as a primer (for anyone in need of one) related to the current, and historical, UAP narrative. It took a long time to produce, and itβs not perfect - but it is hopefully the start of many meaningful and rich conversations. There are a lot of links to external resources; please follow them for corroboration and additional detail of points discussed.
The Groundwork & the Argument
In or around the year 1543, Nicolaus Copernicus (a Polish astronomer and mathematician who also worked as a clergyman and physician) published his findings, after years of study and research, on the heliocentric nature of our solar system - that is, he published his assertion that the Earth transits around the sun and not the other way around. He would die later that year, at age 70. Prior to and even long after his findings were made public, in what is perhaps one of the most telling litmus tests of ego against our species, the widely-held and steadfast belief was geocentric - a belief that the Earth (obviously) was the centre and that everything moved around us. We were, in fact, the centre of the known universe.
It wasnβt until the 17th century, decades after Copernicusβ well-informed claims and long after his death, that they were taken to be truth by the scientific community and eventually the world at large. Whatβs more - the same theory of heliocentrism was proposed more than 1700 years earlier by Greek philosopher and astronomer Aristarchus. How were these claims met? Similarly, it turns out, but without the eventual happy ending. As Mark Twain (or someone else) allegedly once said, βit is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.β To convince the public of a new idea would, by necessity, require they cast off their previous beliefs - it would require an admission: that they were wrong.
People donβt like to look stupid, it turns out - though I should have known this. As an educator and (former) moonlighting stand-up comedian, I am well aware of the risks of speaking within earshot of other people, let alone publishing something that would fundamentally change a personβs view of their place in the cosmos; yet, here I am birthing my first (or last) article on Substack because I am compelled, by uninhibited interest and some urgency, to weigh in on a subject that I am not a recognized expert in: technology and the UFO reality. Am I an authority on the subject matter? No. Am I well informed on the UAP topic, having listened to or read more interviews, talks, lectures, papers, books and podcasts by and with people who are identified as experts in the field, and do I have a decades-long history of recklessly adopting bleeding-edge technologies? You can probably guess the answer to that one: yes. I also majored in rhetoric, so arguing a point in a logical, dispassionate manner comes to me as somewhat second nature. But enough about me; Iβm at least articulate.
As a student of technologies for the better part of forty years, I have the same perspective that most millennials do: we were born into an already technological world filled with cars, television shows and movies, and weβve witnessed the advent of mobile phones, the internet, social media, and AI technologies amongst other things. The previous generation was about developing new and inventive industrial processes and the hardware needed to take the next step; ours has had a less tangible, digital focus that sprung out from the physical products themselves - a move to software and applications, often powered by non-local machines (think cloud technologies). Technological advancement has been touted over the last several decades as having been exponential and, as an β82 millennial (I still believe the generational boundaries are slightly miscalculated hereβ¦ I might be more of an X), I can rightfully say that the advancements Iβve seen in only my lifetime have been substantial - maybe even more impactful in the last 20 years than in the previous 50 combined, but take from that what you will. Thereβs no question, however, that the pace of technological development has been steadily ramping, from industry and physical hardware to advanced software and coding applications, to the now AI-leveraged revolution of everything.
Has this ramp, though, been as truly exponential as it was purported to be? While one might deem this question to be fundamentally semantic in nature, I posit that recognizing the difference between perceived reality and the actual nature of things is vital to understanding our place in the history of human technological advancement, and to predicting its inevitable outcomes. I argue, here, that we are still only in the on-ramp to exponential technological growth (though nearing its end) and that advancements in AI, specifically that which is open-sourced and in the hands of the tech consumer / entrepreneur, will lead to an evolution in and significant broadening of the scope of scientific study and technological development; we are seeing, now, our digital advancements having pronounced effect in the real world. More directly, current rapidly evolving AI systems will lead to the accelerated evolution of every form of technology it can touch - which, right now, seems to be virtually anything - and these AI systems will enable the laymanβs participation in technological revolution, widening the scope, efficiency and creativity of a field otherwise typically dominated only by the people who are capable of writing complex lines of code.
In fact, recent comments from Nvidiaβs president and CEO Jensen Huang would suggest that current trends in education - to teach everyone how to code - will ultimately not help graduates earn jobs, and that they should instead focus on βupskillingβ and devoting time to studying other fields. As technology continues its accelerating ascent to literal ubiquity, and the necessity of possessing vast amounts of rote knowledge becomes an antiquated pursuit, the fields of study that will become most important will be ones that promote a better understanding of ourselves and get us closer to meaning - we are looking at the age of the humanities, and of philosophy. After all, what is left for us to do after advanced artificial intelligences, whose sum knowledge and ability set is as wide as the combined efforts of every human on Earth, is given a physical form and customized directives? Already, Nvidia is building potentially infinite virtual playgrounds for these AI systems to learn and perfect themselves in (called project GR00T), as well as the technological infrastructure to support the worldβs burgeoning AI systems - theyβve even already built a number of humanoid robots (some inspired by Star Wars), recently shown off at GTC 2024.
Furthermore, an inevitable result of the widening aperture of technological advancement and humanityβs consequential quest for meaning will be unavoidable, though not entirely catastrophic levels of ontological shock brought on by the eventual revelation of NHI, or non-human intelligences, and their ongoing engagement with humanity. Thatβs a lot to swallow, but hear me out.
For the sake of argument letβs assume a couple of things that, while seemingly sensational, are actually already widely-held beliefs of the general populous despite being topics that are usually kept out of so-called βpoliteβ conversation. Namely, letβs assume that 1) our galaxy, and the larger universe, are host to intelligent / advanced civilizations, however far away they may be (statistical analysis suggests there may be as many as 36) and 2) given an infinite amount of time, and assuming we avoid self-destruction - see Hansonβs Great Filter theory for more - humanity will (as any other sufficiently advanced and space-faring civilization would) eventually come into contact with another advanced intelligence (either βout thereβ or interdimensionally which, I suppose, is also out there). Neither of these assumptions, I should note, says anything about these other civilizationsβ actual technological capabilities (faster-than-light / FTL travel is often cited as an βimpossibilityβ); however, we can reasonably assume that humanity may fall towards the wide middle band of the technological spectrum in our galaxy: some civilizations will be just or markedly behind us, while others will be a step or two ahead. These assumptions, on the surface, seem to be of broad enough scope to be reasonable - they also imply a reality so unfamiliar to us that it seems impossible in our lifetimes; my argument, however, is that not only are these two claims much closer to becoming our accepted reality than we can appreciate, but they will also herald in a period of such rapid change through technological growth, that preparing for the potential ontological shock is a duty that we have to ourselves and society. Burying our heads in the sand and ignoring whatβs happening in the world around us is not a sufficient path forward; it is our duty to be informed and to hold our leaders accountable - but for what, exactly?
The Claims, the Congress & the Coverage
While it is hardly publicized, the US congress is talking more seriously about UFOs (or UAPs [Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena] to use their updated nomenclature), evidenced by the 2023 Schumer-Rounds amendment which, though gutted by a select few, was tucked into the 2024 NDAA (National Defence Authorization Act). Why does it matter? It uses the term NHI (βnon-human intelligenceβ) 22 times. See for yourself. And, for reference, itβs not talking about squirrels, dolphins or another known, terrestrial βintelligentβ creature; itβs referring to something outside of that, and has become the preferred term (over βalienβ), as there seems to be some indication that whatever UAPβs are, they may not, in fact, be coming from outside our planet.
A year ago, 2023βs NDAA had similarly focused provisions that allowed whistleblowers to speak out regarding so-called black programs involved with UAP study - weβre still only publicly familiar with the first of them, David Grusch, who came forward in a June 2023 News Nation interview with Australian journo Ross Coulthart. Grusch went on to appear in front of congress, under oath, and the common belief is that there are more whistleblowers (upwards of 40) in the pipeline. You may be asking yourself βwho the hell is News Nation?β - and youβd be right to do so - but to put that to bed, News Nation is a smaller cable news channel thatβs owned by Nexstar Media Group (formerly named βWGNβ after their flagship station WGN-TV out of Chicago) who aims to deliver βbalanced and unbiasedβ content. They arenβt a massive outlet, but they hired Chris Cuomo after he was relieved of his position at CNN, and much of their content goes to YouTube as shorter clips not long after first airing. Regardless of your political affiliation, there should be content for you - and, importantly, theyβre one of the smallest of the large (not mega) networks to touch the UFO/UAP issue. Theyβre doing the work that bigger names and networks - ones afraid to look stupid or worse, and who may benefit financially from continued obfuscation - wonβt. Theyβre rattling cages; and theyβre not completely alone. For what itβs worth, independent reporter Michael Schellenberger (co-founder of Substackβs Public) has weighed in on the subject and believes that the claims being made are credible and, at least, worth investigating. Even Netflixβs UAP / alien docuseries Encounters, produced by none other than Steven Spielberg, released in September 2023, just two months after Gruschβs testimony - and not to be outdone, Martin Scorsese premiered a UFO-themed / Donβt Look Up-esque commercial for Squarespace that aired during the Superbowlβ¦ alongside several other alien-flavoured ads. UFOs are starting to hit the mainstream.
But what are the claims being made, and who the hell is David Grusch? Hereβs a portion of his opening remarks to congress:
βMy name is David Charles Grusch. I was an intelligence officer for 14 years, both in the US Air Force (USAF) at the rank of Major and most recently, from 2021-2023, at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency at the GS-15 civilian level, which is the military equivalent of a full-bird Colonel. I was my agencyβs co-lead in Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena (UAP) and trans-medium object analysis, as well as reporting to UAP Task Force (UAPTF) and eventually the All- Domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO).β β David Grusch, former USAF / Intel Officer
After Gruschβs opening remarks and the swearing in of the three men pictured above, he elaborated, in a more than two hour Congressional hearing, on his knowledge of the US governmentβs longstanding involvement in covert UAP crash retrievals - both since and before the infamous Roswell, New Mexico incident of 1947. Claims about this topic have been made for decades - weβre all aware of it - but what is less widely known is the governmentβs hiring of people, like noted UFO skeptic J. Allen Hynek, to explicitly debunk and make irrational any anomalous sightings, regardless of how many witnesses may have been present. The term βswamp gasβ as an explanation for sightings can, in fact, be attributed to Hynek, and was enough cause for then Congressman Gerald R. Ford to call for a congressional hearing due to its dismissive and insulting tone in 1966. What even more people donβt realize, though, is that Hynek (through his various UFO investigations at the behest of his own government) was eventually converted by the data he uncovered and the stories that he heard - so much so that he even appeared in Spielbergβs classic Close Encounters of the Third Kind.
Gruschβs additional claims, which I will remind you were given under oath to the United States Congress, include the possession of US-recovered βcraftβ numbering in the βdouble digitsβ, the mass misappropriation of funds to support the alleged ongoing reverse-engineering programs for such recovered craft (the Pentagon, it was reported in 2019, was not able to account for a laughable $21 TRILLION DOLLARS), and the recovery of so-called βnon-human biologicsβ. Lt. Graves and Cmdr. Fravor, for their parts, testified (as pilots) to the ostensibly impossible flight characteristics of the things that they and the members of their squads witnessed (and are witnessing) in the skies on a βdaily basis,β particularly off the eastern US seaboard. They went on to state that, regardless of their origin, these unidentified objects are a direct risk to the flight of both military and commercial vehicles. In other words, whether you choose to believe they are extra-terrestrial / non-human or adversarial in origin (read: Chinese / Russian), a danger to the average civilian during regular air travel exists. Why continued secrecy and obfuscation exists around the subject, however, is a matter for debate: could the US be testing secret, cutting edge tech? Perhaps - but many sightings occur in the practice grounds that US Air Force and Naval pilots train in, while βtest rangesβ exist for that explicit purpose - to covertly test new tech without putting the average pilot in harmβs way; the pilots themselves think that this is unlikely. Could government officials have been made aware of beyond-top-secret technological leaps made by adversarial nations? Perhaps - but why are so many elected officials in the US congress, dubbed the UAP Caucus, overtly moving to force transparency on the matter?
Askapolβs Matt Laslo interviewed South Carolina Rep. Ralph Norman shortly after he exited a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility - a secure room where sensitive information can be viewed / discussed by government officials) after a meeting on the subject. Norman, who is obviously privy to information the public is not, is quoted in this interview (with relation to the UFO topic) as saying itβs βbeen portrayed by the media as crazies that are identifying, you know, unidentified flying objects, but itβs not.β Here, though, is the most important excerpt from that interview:
βEverybody (should be paying attention), you young people over here, particularly, because we've got a real problem. This isnβt playland. (Lue Elizondo, former head of AATIP) told us about the facts of the matter about what's happening. And that too, was concerning. And he wouldn't give any classified things, as you would expect, but my God, it's, I guess, we're just gonna be unprepared and just take it. This isn't political. This isn't politics for you, young people. Of course, it affects all of us, young and old.β
What Norman means by being unprepared for this information and having to βjust takeβ whatever the reality may be is anybodyβs guess - but itβs worth finding out.
This yearβs NDAA, while gutted in its overall efforts to continue to push this veritable boulder uphill against incredible resistance, may still offer hope in the way of UAP-related records collection by the National Archives, and their eventual dissemination (should they not be deemed too sensitive). While this is a tall order, and one that most critics believe will be fruitless, it is my belief that, unlike in decades past, efforts to disclose information related to the UAP-truth (whatever it may be) have become necessary due to technological advance and the rise of the mainstream alternative media (MAM), specifically News Nation, a number of Substack publications mentioned above (Schellengerber, Laslo etc.) and the professionally independent Breaking Points with Krystal and Sagar amongst others. In other words, it is my belief that Western governments, specifically the United States and their allies (see 5 Eyes Alliance), are feeling the need to disclose at least part of the reality that we are facing because it will be discovered and reported otherwise as a result of more βaverageβ people gaining access to increased technological function and a growing desire for independent media (arising, in part, from a fair amount of distrust and division stemming from information related to COVID-19, amongst other things, as well as deepfake and other generative AI technologies - see, specifically, OpenAIβs recently announced SORA for jaw-droppingly realistic video that is completely created by AI, as well as the more recently announced EMO which may, in fact, even one-up SORA).
In an effort to get ahead of it, perhaps, even the US government (one year ago and on the heels of a delinquent Chinese spy balloon) has started seeing more in the skies; they βwidened the apertureβ on their instruments in the days that followed the balloon strike and shot down an additional three unidentified flying objects. Whatβs more - media reports tell us that none but the remains of the Chinese spy balloon were recovered. We can speculate until the cows come home about what they were, and we can take recent comments from Ross Coulthart about his sources citing the alleged βanomalousβ nature of at least one of the objects, but the fact remains: our governments are, more openly, aware of the gaps they have in terms of aerial object discernmentβ¦ and theyβre being slightly more forthcoming with this information, though are obviously still reticent to share too much, lest their adversaries become aware of their actual detection abilities; itβs better, after all, to pretend you see everything (as most governments do - theyβre like Santa!) than to allow your enemies to know your limitations. Public acquiescence and general complacency on the matter, however, remains a giant obstacle - and one that needs an open dialogue, free of stigma and ridicule.
To his credit, Lt. Ryan Graves, a retired US Navy pilot and the man in the Congressional image to the left of Dave Grusch, started the ASA (Americans for Safe Aerospace) citing a litany of concerns from pilots he knows and flew alongside - and itβs not about UFOs per se, or as we traditionally think of them - itβs about knowing whatβs up there. Yes, we need to identify whatβs in our skies, and wouldnβt it be interesting if we discovered a new atmospheric phenomena or form of life, but his stance is one of safety; if there are solid objects moving around in the airspace that military exercises or commercial airlines operate in (and there are, as detected by many of their advanced systems), then there is a flight risk. Period. Collecting and analyzing reports of things in the sky that could present an air safety issue is of paramount importance to anyone who gets in an airplane; this work should be funded at a federal level but, alas, it seems to have fallen on private organizations and citizens like Graves.
Regardless, this sort of recalibration of instruments and concerted public efforts on problems weβre only just opening our eyes to will be a hallmark of the forthcoming scientific and space-faring generations. For proof of this you neednβt look any further than the 3 Stooges of opulence: billionaires Bezos, Musk and Branson - each is competing to commercialize space travel. None have blown themselves up yet, and we donβt really know all the space-related problems weβll have or the questions weβll need answers to as we continue in this directionβ¦ but theyβre coming as we imagine new forms for new functions. As Tom Hardyβs Eames says in Nolanβs Inception: βYou musnβt be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling.β But just having the money or technical know-how required to accomplish these monumental tasks will not be enough; weβll need imagination. Weβll need art. They are inseparable. The virtually unbridled potentiality that comes with AI-leveraged applications puts the creative layman, the everyday man, the philosopher, the artist, the student of humanities at the centre of creative technological development going forwardβ¦ and this, for what itβs worth, will mean turning more and more of our creative dreams into concrete realities.
The Mirror
In Oscar Wildeβs 1889 essay, The Decay of Lying, which is structured as a dialogue between two fictional characters, Vivian and Cyril, Vivian (who is analogous to Wilde himself) famously states that βlife imitates art far more than art imitates life.β This comes as a rebuttal to the larger argument that art, as it is produced, is meant to (as accurately as possible) imitate real life - a hallmark of the artistic movement Realism. Vivian, like Wilde, however, insists that while art may indeed imitate life, it is far more often the case that our perception and construction of reality is influenced more by the art we invent and consume than by anything else - and in 1889, no less, long before conventional motion pictures, television and social media. In other words, our worldview is dynamically shaped by the art we create and submerse ourselves in, and art can be defined in myriad ways; art, from a rhetorical and semantic perspective, I suppose, is primarily imagined in a literal context: paintings and drawings, sculptures, music, movies and entertainment media - but, in truth, just about anything that is communicative or technological has an artistic component, if not foundation.
We can see this concept in action through retrospect using a present lens; for instance, the television series Star Trek and Stanley Kubrickβs opus 2001: A Space Odyssey, both products of the 1960s, famously imagined futures that donβt look too dissimilar from the one we currently occupy; we have, though only recently, begun to receive assistance from quick-thinking and highly trained (though apparently already biased) AI companions and we have had near-instant communications at vast distances using portable devices for the better half of two decades. Submarines, virtual and augmented reality, credit cards, touch screens and tablets, and even self driving cars were all similarly seen in fiction well before becoming realities themselves - but the first iPhone released in 2007, 17 years ago. The Oculus Rift, Facebooksβs pre-Meta flagship VR headset, released a decade ago in 2014. Iterations of each device have been, while impressive, somewhat marginal - higher resolutions, better frame rates and modes of connectivity, greater storage capacity and speeds - but nothing has been truly revolutionary. This low-yield iteration, driven by corporate capitalist greed and bottom lines, is designed to get as much blood as is humanly possible out of a single stone; and itβs often viciously mocked - the removal of a headphone jack from a popular phone, for instance, inspired derision from even the most fervent brand-loyalists. It has also yielded corporately sponsored stagnation, as R&D is expensive and holds no guarantees. Who needs to reinvent the wheel? Each iteration yields some minor upgrades while the research and development of years past is double and triple dipped in terms of their returns.
Even the entrance of Appleβs Vision Pro onto the scene in February of this year has barely moved the needle: itβs vastly impressive, though marginally improved tech that may push VR into the mainstream at long last, but itβs doing the same things weβve already been doing. Itβs safe. Itβs imagining a form weβve already conceived of and refining it a little further - something the Rift, Quest/2/3, HTC Vive and Valve Index (amongst others) have already done and continue to do. While thatβs not to say that perfection should not be pursued or that iteration is frivolous and unnecessary, I believe that general ingenuity has stagnated to some effect and that weβre still βsolving for Xβ despite the fact that weβve already done that and are effectively just cleaning up our method. Year over year weβre too in awe of our previous ability to make the dreams weβve had into reality to begin having new dreams. Itβs risky, itβs expensive, it opens us up to derision; however, weβve got to ask new questions instead of remaining obsessed with achieving already imagined Platonic forms, a literal impossibility.
Platoβs theory of forms - that is, an eternal, perfect and unchanging version of a thing thatβs outside of our physical realm and more of an ethereal, imagined concept - is called to mind here. While musing with Socrates he, no doubt, did not have in mind the perfect, yet-to-be-realized version of an iPhone (or VR headset for that matter), but he would have certainly longed for a more efficient and pragmatic means of communication and, if forced to, could likely have hypothetically invented, in his mind, a device to accomplish such tasks using his knowledge of the technology that existed in his time. As it was, simpler concepts like a chair or circle all have perfect imagined forms, deemed the signified, represented as best as our puny human hands can do by the physical manifestation of the object, the signifier. No one has built the βperfectβ chair - itβs impossible to do so - but innumerable have tried and become obsessed with doing so. We need, as a species, to at some point accept good enough so that we can move on to the next thing. As Iβve stated, though, I believe modern more technological development, in many but not all areas, has stagnated for this very reason.
All that said, however, I believe that the iteration weβve seen in years and decades past, the constant and continued efforts to achieve perfect form at the cost of the annually-investing consumer, is not long for this world. Streamlined and much cheaper R&D, much of which will be done at breakneck speed in virtual environments by AI agents, and that which will largely be invisible to the buying public, will usher in a new and shocking era of technological advance. How this relates to the immaterial world, to the philosophical and esoteric, however, is what will be even more jarring and, ultimately, completely revolutionary to the way we live our lives.
Noetics & the AI Epoch
βThe day science begins to study non-physical phenomena,β said famed inventor Nikola Tesla, βit will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.β This quote, invoked by IONS (the Institute of Noetic Sciences), is not only loaded, but timely. What did Tesla mean by βnon-physical phenomena?β Why did he come to this conclusion and by what means? Dr. Edgar Mitchell, himself an Apollo 14 astronaut (and the 6th person to walk on the moon), engineer, astrophysicist and the founder of IONS, defines the term βnoeticsβ as βinner wisdom, knowing and intuitionβ; combined with science, or outer investigation, Mitchellβs noetic sciences aims to provide a βdeeper understanding of our inner worlds, our shared reality, and the interconnection between all things.β These goals, by definition, are concerned with non-physical phenomena. This quest for a deeper understanding of our internal worlds and consciousness as a whole came, for Mitchell, as a result of viewing the Moon, Earth and Sun in one expansive, panoramic view on his way back from the Apollo mission. Suddenly, upon witnessing such magnificence, Dr. Mitchell experienced what, in 1987, author Frank White dubbed the βoverview effectβ - a lasting and profound shift in perspective experienced by those who are put in the position to look down on our world from outside of it. People who experience this shift say it βis a profound experience that leads to a greater appreciation for Earth and its apparent fragility,β and it helps to create a βdeep connection to humanity as a wholeβ (CSA). As it relates to noetic sciences and Mitchellβs own experiences / profound shift in consciousness, both are reality-expanding shifts in perception. For me, noetic science parallels Jungian philosophy in that it seeks explanation for circumstances, events and moments that transcend explanation, that defy mere coincidence. Jung defines these too-timely / personal-to-be-coincidence moments as synchronicities - moments of coalesced meaning for an individual that transcend mere chance - like spending weeks labouring over the decision to change careers, then running into a friend who, unprompted, brings up their own career change and how happy its made them. Like Plato, Jung too believes in archetypes and a collective unconscious - and Mitchell, having been to outer space and viewed the Earth as a whole, certainly agrees; there is something about our presence here that binds us, and itβs likely to be completely intangible. But how will we ever come to realize the truth beyond our suspicions and physical abilities?
When ChatGPT first became publicly accessible in late 2022, only a couple of months before tearing into the mainstream zeitgeist, I was paralyzed by the ramifications that came with it. I sat, having played with it for an hour or so in early December, fully gobsmacked by the potential of such a tool - my imagination ran wild in virtually every direction, and I was finally able to see, more clearly, how the second half of my life would eventually become The Jetsons. Then, as I played around with it further, and despite month-to-month advancements in multimodal in/outputs (images, video etc), the cracks began to show: this was not the flawless system that it appeared to be. ChatGPT, as of this writing, even prominently proclaims at the bottom of each chat session that βChatGPT can make mistakesβ and that you should βconsider checking important information.β That is to say, βweβre not legally responsible for you injecting yourself with bleach should our system confuse Trumpβs questioning remarks to Dr. Deborah Birx with actual remedies for COVID-19β. But, I say, this is the first (ok, firstish - letβs consider GPT4 the same as as GPT 3/3.5 for the sake of this discussion) iteration of a new human interface with technologies, a new quest for Platonic form. It is the beginning of an ongoing discussion with the whole of (published) human history and knowledge. Is it biased? Well, for right now, sure it is - but the suggested or implied inevitability is that, in an ideal world, the system will be aware of, though external from, any of the biases of its creators. It will contain all biases and be aware of the dangers of them, thus will speak from the most informed position possible. The emergent whole will be greater than the individual parts, its ultimate form: objective truth, embodied - personified. AGI. The singularity.
While this will invariably require some flexibility in terms of the system itself and the beliefs of the people within it (think religion, specifically) iterative conversational, and eventually physically interactive AI systems will bring about an entirely new reality; the catch here, and the thing to be aware of, is that it will not take another 17 years to see advancements comparable to that seen between the original iPhone and the current iPhone 15 - it wonβt even take the 10 years it took between the Oculus Rift and the Quest 3 - it will happen in a mere few, much less an entire decade.
Now, you may be thinking to yourself how great it will be to have a robot butler and to not have to cook for yourself or fold laundry anymore - and those things will come - but we must ask the infinite, real question: what else can it do? Large Language Models (or LLMs, like ChatGPT) are great for getting answers and finding recipes, and new LAM models (so-called Large Action Models), as seen in Rabbitβs R1 presentation during CES will be great for calling Ubers or ordering pizza with a voice command and single button press, but what greater capabilities await users? We havenβt yet learned to seek the answers to all the right questions, or what Iβll call solving for Z. Weβre too stuck inside our own little iterative worldβ¦ but there are signs that weβre fixinβ to bust out of it.
While not quite at the forefront of everybodyβs wishlist, Elon Muskβs Neuralink will certainly offer people increased (or returned) physical ability - possibly even βtelepathicβ communication of some kind - and while mainstream adoption of this technology is a ways off, my stance is that itβs not that far off (note: itβs now happened). Barring global catastrophe (or, realistically, including it), I believe the landscape of day-to-day life will be radically different than it is now in a mere 5 to 10 yearsβ¦ and all of this as a result of consumer-grade AI and all of the benefits that come with open-sourcing technologies. The AI systems are learning - faster than we ever could - and do so faster and faster with increasing volumes of user feedback and compounded technological development. This is, as has been heralded in the past, the world of always-on connectivity that has been promised, but turned up to 11. This is the beginning of the meaningful merging of man and machine and the bootstrapping of AI to anything and everything - and to every processβ¦ including ones traditionally void of technological aspects, like having a simple verbal exchange.
Novel Applications, Theory & Extrapolated Data
Late last year, scientists had the first βconversationβ with a whale. While fairly rudimentary in terms of the process through which this was achieved, their use of LLMs to decode and interpret the language of whales is telling - and a signal for the future. While infinitely more complex, actually being able to fully translate and potentially communicate back with another species is, as far as Iβm concerned, writing on the wall, potentially even precluding our speciesβ extinction. With enough time, an advanced species or civilization should, eventually, be able to decode the languages of other species and communicate in new ways. We must presume a state of potentially infinite technological development in terms of our species. We must also assume that βcorrective actionβ will be applied to situations the could result in the demise of life as we know it (see: climate change, asteroid impact, global disease, famine or geopolitical instability), and that these corrections will be successful in their attempt to divert catastrophe. If our collective flames are snuffed, after all, it doesnβt matter. The slate is wiped clean. This is a zero sum game, or the sky is the limit - there is no such thing as βstatus quoβ over a long enough period of time; the βnormβ is always replaced. Combined with the presumption that a similarly advanced species would accomplish the same before seeking galactic exploration and expansion (weβll use that term over βconquestβ in the interest of not being the subject or victim of such activity), one can see how this will, invariably, lead us to the inevitable discovery of NHI life, extraterrestrial or otherwise. This, of course, also assumes the universe isnβt empty.
The Fermi paradox, developed by Italian-American physicist Enrico Fermi (who, in timely fashion, was portrayed only last year in Christopher Nolanβs Oppenheimer for his role in the Manhattan Project, the highly secret program that was used to develop the atomic bombs that were eventually dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II), asks the question: if the likelihood of intelligent life in the cosmos is so high, why are there no signs of it? Conversely, Dr. Frank Drake, an American astronomer and astrophysicist famous for the Drake equation, attempted to stimulate conversation by introducing his theory at a SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) meeting. While contentious, the Drake equation theorizes that there are many βintelligentβ civilizations in our galaxy alone. While I (obviously) tend to side with Drake in terms of possibility, the reasonable question remains - why, with all our mighty technologies, have we not had any form of contact as of yet? This answer may come in another idea: Chinese author Liu Cixinβs Dark Forest theory suggests a curious reason for lack of techno-signatures and transmissions being broadcast through our galaxy - that advanced civilizations are both silent and hostile. No one is poking their head out for a peek because to do so is to make others aware of your presenceβ¦ and galactic civilizations, the theory suggests, operate on a βshoot first, ask questions laterβ modality. While these theories were proposed decades ago, the current trend of media, academia and independent journalism on this topic is to dig deep, below the surface and conjecture to find out whatβs truly going on. Netflixβs Three Body Problem, based on the 2006 serialized writings of Cixin and released March 21, 2024, explores the Dark Forest theory further. Even political heavy hitters are starting to get involved; whatβs problematic, however, is the low level of coverage these comments receive from the mainstream. Hereβs an excerpt from an interview on with The Hill that you probably havenβt seen, featuring Senator Marco Rubio:
This is a sensational claim - so, why does nobody care? Why isnβt this being screamed from the rooftops and government transparency on the matter (and all matters) being demanded? Unfortunately, I think government trust and an unwavering belief in the people who are positioned well to obfuscate the truth is, unwarrantedly, still too high. The public has been beaten into a state of general malaise on the matter, and most people care more about their day to day lives than the lives and agendas of the people that theyβve elected. As a Western society, weβve gotten too comfortable with the notion that democracy βjust works,β and any suggestion of civilian oversight is often flatly rejected. The general public thinks that βweβve elected you to do a jobβ and that that person can be trusted to do it in the publicβs best interests; however, Abdurashid Solijinovβs IDEA (Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance) indicates, in a 2016 study, that global voter turnout has trended downwards from the late 1980s. While turnout ranged from 76-78% between the β40s and β80s, between the mid β90s and 2015 it had decreased to roughly 66% (64.5% in 2022 amongst democratic nations). We are becoming, truly, apathetic towards our governance, likely due to the lack of trust that is created and fuelled by the general opaqueness of everything our governments do. Add the over-classification of documents to this, and the problem is compounded; everythingβs a secret that must be maintained for the sake of βnational security.β Pew Research illustrates, via a study from 1958 to 2023, that trust in government (at least in the US) is in significant decline.
Generationally, those who were of polling age in the late β50s through the early β70s had tremendous faith in their institutions. From 1980 until the mid β90s, then again until 2010, we see bumps in belief after a steady decline from the mid β60s. Since 2010, however, we have been in steady decline and the overall trend from the late β50s to now is obvious - government trust is eroding, and for good reason; however, I will spare you the history lesson in this exchange. Suffice to say, those of us that lived through the late 80s and early nineties (not to mention 2001 - see above for the trend since then) are well aware of the litany of wars, scandals and other nonsense that has transpired. WMDs, anyone?
Much has been made over the last year and a half, or specifically since and as a result of a 2017 Leslie Kean / Ralph Blumenthal New York Times article about UFO / UAP origins and government transparency on that issue. Many believe itβs a poorly kept and widely acknowledged secret that has been tacitly ignored since 1947, like the Pentagonβs missing trillions (which is generally assumed to be what is propping up many of the SAPs [Secret Access Programs]). During David Gruschβs historic under-oath testimony in front of the US Congress in July of 2023, Cassandra Ocasio-Cortez specifically asked about whether or not there was an indication of the misappropriation of funds, alluding to this purpose; and while that paled in comparison to Nancy Maceβs line of questioning on the discovery and analysis of βnon-human biologics, as well as potential NHI-human contact already having been made, complete with implied βagreementsβ between NHIs and human governments, itβs nice to see a heavy-hitter like AOC weighing in on the subject and taking an aggressive interest, even if just from a financial perspective. Again, though: why is mainstream media ignoring this, the public not screaming for answers?
Now, with the long-awaited release of videos / presentations from the first annual SOL Foundation, founded by Stanfordβs Dr. Garry Nolan amongst others, the wider world will (hopefully) gain some insight into exactly what is going on. It feels, appropriately, like the official scientific recordβs kick-off towards disclosure - or at least discourse around disclosure and how that term should realistically be defined. Retired US Army Colonel Karl Nell, himself a proponent of David Grusch, said in his talk at SOL that disclosure is not an event (and if it was, he says itβs already happened), but a process. Below, a slide that was famously βleakedβ during the SOL conference in November, Nell illustrates a complicated path forward as it relates to disclosure.
In Nellβs UAP Campaign plan he outlines several channels of support or, as he terms them, βLines-of-Effortβ or LoEs; these include government agencies, the humanities, scientific research and the private sector - many of which, specifically Lockheed Martin, have been suspected of having retrieved craft or other technologies of unknown origin (TUOs) for the purpose of back-engineering. While the above slide may be difficult to comprehend due to its complexity, hereβs something to note: government involvement stops after βPhase 3β. What does this mean, and why should we seek to have disclosure (or not), whatever that may mean? It means that, at a certain point, bureaucracy and government (both of which are constructs of human society and not fundamental to understanding what life really is) fall by the wayside. As for the why, hereβs another slide from Nellβs SOL presentation that outlines the justifications for continued non-disclosure, as well as the arguments against them:
As it stands, our institutions control the narrative - at least, from the available vantage point (though it could even be out of their hands entirely; see the aforementioned βblind trustβ from earlier). The government will, by necessity, play a role in the divestment of information related to the truth of our circumstances, at least in part; though there is a very real possibility that even the people weβve elected, who are only people after all, may themselves have only pulled the curtain back on part of the overall mystery. As we see in Nellβs Pros and Cons for maintaining Non-Disclosure, though, eventual revelation of this reality is inevitable so a proactive approach is needed - we need to get ahead of it instead of being reactive. This, Iβm afraid, is another reason I am compelled to write this piece: our collective society, from academia and scholars to poets and those that work in the trades, will be responsible for accepting and navigating the coming shock. We all know how effective our governments are, though the reality of managing millions (or hundreds of millions) of people with wildly different opinions on matters is a task that is not only impossible, but something thatβs difficulty is commonly disregarded by the average citizen when their needs arenβt being met. We need, in other words, to evolve from thinking in such tribalistic fashion, operating as factions that are fundamentally opposed (Republicans v Democrats, skeptics vs believers, etc.), in order to develop the capacity for deciding what is best for the human race. The government, as Nell outlines, will only take us so far.
From here, truly human tasks - ones that move the needle in terms of getting our species closer to the meaning of life and our place in the universe - take the fore. Yes, paying your taxes is important - so is showing up for work, renewing your license and adhering to the democratically decided laws of your country - but they are important in a specific framework: the agreed upon reality that we commonly accept as citizens of the various countries on Earth and as human beings. But what happens after we die? Are we alone in the universe? What is the purpose of life? These are questions that a government can (willingly) answer only up to a point and so, as Nell illustrates, they remain useful in a limited scope. At least until they, too, evolve. Is it not likely that, once humanity has become a truly space-faring civilization, one that is a part of the wider galactic community (once again assuming an infinite timeline), we will have a need for global / species governance and literal borderless cooperation? Exploring the cosmos is no simple task, and doing so will require an immense amount of combined effort; fighting over available resources is not a viable path forward. We are humans - despite our cultural differences we have a common ancestor and, like it or not, our evolution requires the eventual homogenization of nation states (amongst other things).
With a similar message to Nell, and in his SOL Conference discussion, Dr. Hal Puthoff (a co-founder of Tom Delongeβs To the Stars Academy - yes, that Tom Delonge) discusses previous government-led efforts he was involved in to decide on whether or not it was the right time for disclosure in an earlier decade. He, and others involved, were tasked with determining all the areas of society that would be disrupted by the revelation of non-human intelligences / technologies and their interactions with us over the centuries; they were then asked to rate these items on a scale in terms of their disruptive potential. It was his groupβs determination, in the end, that we could not safely and effectively move forward with disclosure at that time and that it should be postponed to a later date; however, what has happened (in my opinion), is that the so-called powers that be - the gatekeepers, the secret holders, etc. - have waited until the point that disclosure is necessary in order to avoid looking silly (that is, they need to get out in front of news that will inevitably go ahead and break without them). This reality is two fold, though, as government officials can, at this point, either choose to act wholly ignorant of the subject (thereby looking inept and, quite frankly, willfully oblivious), or they can choose to admit the existence of the phenomena, but state that they only know pieces of the truth. Regardless of their efforts, it is a nigh-impossible task to βgetβ truth, never mind determine its authenticity. No matter what weβre told, at this point, it should be taken with a level of salt that most doctors would blush at - which is why normalizing this conversation with the people we know, the ones who would not normally investigate this topic and who think it is only the stuff of conspiracy peddling tin foil hat nuts, is so important.
In Closing
While I write, in this format, a strong opinion on a subject that I am actively interested and engaged in, outside of just my opinion I have also stated facts. Conduct your own research, of course, but here are a few, recapped: Copernicus and Aristarchusβ heliocentric theories took more than 1700 years to be accepted as truth. David Grusch testified under oath to US Congress in July 2023 regarding information he received from first hand witnesses regarding the existence of UAP βback-engineeringβ programs. The penalty for lying to congress under oath could be jail time, so it would make sense to assert (as Sen. Marco Rubio has) that either what he is saying is true, he is crazy, or he mistakenly believes it to be true. Next, some of the worldβs brightest academics and most regarded public servants, many of whom worked in government at some point attended and spoke at the first annual SOL Conference in November of 2023. The contents of these talks are wide in range, but focus on the NHI reality, the process of disclosure, how religion might fit in alongside the phenomena and the nature of consciousness, amongst other things. Serious people are taking this topic seriously.
Another fact: mainstream media outlets are resistant to legitimize the subject by reporting on it for fear of looking stupid, fringe, or something else - the fact, however, is that they are complicit in maintaining the stigma around the topic and their encouragement towards public acquiescence on what would be the most important story in the history of mankind is tantamount to treason against our species. Many rebut the notion of βcoverupsβ as conspiracy and unhinged lunacy, citing the impossibility of keeping a secret for eight or more decades, but the fact of the matter is that this whole thing has leaked like a sieve since the late 1940s and there are plenty of examples of so-called βconspiraciesβ that turned out to be true. The fact that itβs taken this long to gain the momentum it has (though we cannot discount the efforts made in previous decades) is testament to the dangers that whistleblowers face. Grusch himself is subject to an ongoing investigation into complaints heβs made to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG), Thomas Monheim, regarding reprisals he has faced from unnamed sources, and that have caused him to fear for his life. How the government and larger public responds to these allegations is important and will pave the path forward for a transformation in our society that is ultimately unavoidable.
The time to act and to be involved is now - remaining uninformed is a choice, one that calls to mind the commonly used phrase βignorance is blissβ; itβs important to remember that, typically, the targets of that statement are often regarded as willful idiots, or actively evil (see 1999βs Cypher character in The Matrix) - and, honestly, when you consider just who would refuse enlightenment, who would resist learning truth, itβs easy to see the path forward. We donβt want to be made to look foolish. This path does not require a public admission of your own faulty belief system, it just requires a shift. Itβs both irresponsible and reckless to ignore the conversations that are happening right now, to keep our heads in the sand, even if itβs a difficult reality to face - and it is not someone elseβs job to keep you informed, even as I make attempts to now. I write this, here, because I am compelled to do so. I am compelled to make efforts to inform the people in my life, the people I care about, as well as the people who resist doing the research themselves or take pains to avoid it. If you made it this far, I appreciate you - and I hope you learned something.
What comes next, however, as a result of our own now-leapfrogging tech and AI systems so advanced that we can barely keep up in envisioning them, will forever change our world. Regardless of the outcome of NHI disclosure and what that might mean, our reality is set to be upended - whether the resulting revelations lead to 0-point energy, global abundance and a spiritual awakening, or to the enslavement and destruction of the human race is yet to be determined⦠but it has almost certainly been told to us as artistic fiction and in many forms at least once before. It is only now that life will imitate it - so, what role will you play?
