GB 2 Earth Consulting vs Lab
intuition-validation biotools vs bioweapons
Introduction
This online whitepaper explains the difference between the two newly proposed business vehicles to develop GB 2 Earth in its intuition-validation research and delivery:
GB 2 Earth Consulting: location tbc
GB 2 Earth Lab: preferred location in the Nordics, specifically Stockholm Sweden
The first would produce intuition-validation biotools on existing tech only, striving within the existing limitations of the same to be as intuition-friendly as currently possible.
The second would combine the same activities with brand-new operating systems, architectures, platforms, tools and chips, designed to be intuition-friendly and intuition-positive. Here, the clients would only be covert-, military-, espionage- and security-related and the products and digital services we would describe as intuition-validation bioweapons.
1. Background
Recently, with others, I was working further on structuring the pre-discovery process for GB 2 Earth and its whole range of intuition-validation projects and workstreams, using the manual/hybrid principles of NewLean for the moment:
newlean.org (password protected — please request access)
The overearching structure proposed would be flexible but firm. It would consist of a Core 1 of initial stakeholders for the foreseeable. Others would then not be able to integrate into the first stage at a later date. However, a closely integrated Core 2 would offer relevant participative rights and access which should not hinder the collaborations of future partners, corporations, governments, and related.
2. Proposed stakeholders
The proposals contemplate three different stakeholders:
1. The private investment function which would invest in the consultancy and ideas' broker company GB 2 Earth Consulting, perhaps to be located in the UK in a place yet to be determined, with the rights to license all the IP generated from now on in, including historical imagineering.
2. The security-agency sponsors and funders would conceivably get unlimited access to all the app, platform, architecture, device & chip proposals and implementations from this point onwards, including historical imagineering. This second group includes the related governments and so forth, and would constitute direct paying-clients as well as user-bases.
3. The tech partner-bases would include, to start with, one infrastructure-heavy big-tech partner only, and an already well-engaged top-tier AI corporation local to the proposed investment function.
3. My own role
Finally, in relation to my own role, this would be essentially two-part:
Founder of GB 2 Earth Consulting, the consultancy and ideas' broker, perhapss located with UK government support in the UK at a location still to be determined.
Carry out the role of a part-time PhD candidate at a university already comfortable with praxis-based study and ethnography.
The subject of the PhD, still to be duly scoped by all relevant stakeholders, would potentially be intuition as a biotool — not, here, as a bioweapon — with different applications relating to risk management, tracking and elimination (being one common denominator that could be extracted: such a focus would then include all the kinds of crime I've been discussing over recent years; but, also, things like climate change, water security, loopholes and a wider zemiology in the context of dark figure).
4. Suggested outcomes
What would ultimately be enabled as a result of all the previous is as follows:
What turns intuition validation as a biotool into intuition as a focussed bioweapon is what GB 2 Earth Lab would then proceed to scope, design, implement and supply on that covert side to those purely covert clients.
Further reading:
Below, you can click through to my recent blogpost on how to make the process of choosing ALL potential partners absolutely rigorous, professional, safe and secure in both near-term and long-term intuitionvalidation projects and workstreams — fundamentally by treating the latter exactly as if they were the most dangerous of bioweapons, which conceivably they may become:
GB 2 Earth Consulting vs Lab slide-decks
Final rationales
Why do we need the biotools versus bioweapons distinction?
Because we want to maximise the time between inventing an operational weapon and using it against the enemy without detection, and their final detecting of it and their using it back against us:
In this sense, we're not going to OpenAI/Microsoft anything we develop: there will be no unleashing of our bioweapons on the wider world. These tools we intend only to unleash on enemies such as Russia and China, preferably without them ever knowing what hit them over and over as we deepen our knowledge and capability in respect of what we are doing.
It’s not even to be ethical, though this counts for me and for many others of us in such fields.
It’s purely to keep the weapon out of the enemy's reach as long as humanly possible.
Why do we need our own truth- and problem-identification tools?
Take the Russian tank/Ukrainian drone example. Only sharply focused niche solutioning systems will work in biotools and bioweapons (what i have called intuition validation in the past):
My position is that we have to make this kind of focus absolutely profitable in two senses:
Timely — we must hit the enemy in weeks if not days of a new product/service’s conceptualisation.
Financially profitable — for our investors, tech partners, and other stakeholders.
If Steve Jobs was still with us, he'd demand exactly the same with no one knowing if it was ever going to be possible. Because nothing is possible unless you ask something to think it up. And if you don't ask them to do it, it won't be thought up, this is true.
Why do we need neurodiverse tools for solving complex problems?
Neurodiversity is already used widely in espionage and war, etc. However, it too often remains at the level of untrustworthy poachers turned gamekeepers, who almost certainly remain poachers most of the time in their off-work days
I want to make it possible for many more people to deliver, predictably, unpredictable thinking: for us all to enjoy what it might be to use neurodiverse thinking to fight extreme risk and criminality, instead of depend on this who choose to straddle both sides of the law.
And this means that people who we sometimes find it easier to trust, maybe a bit conformist because of this (and maybe unfairly, too), are enabled into accessing different ways of thinking unpredictably as suggested.
We won't then be obliged to use ex-poachers (who may not always be ex-) to fight the poachers
GB 2 Earth Consulting vs GB 2 Earth Lab — why do we need two separate vehicles?
Two reasons:
The “consulting audit” function of GB 2 Earth Consulting needs to be as impervious as possible to the influences of received technology praxis: with separate organisations, and defined different functions & missions like these, we will ensure more robust and reliable outcomes in respect of software delivery, especially of the niche kind we need to make profitable in both timelines and bottom lines.
The research mindset of GB 2 Earth Lab needs to be far more nonconformist than the more operational mindsets roles which some parts of GB 2 Earth Consulting will inevitably acquire. This can be delivered in two ways: first the rigorous “consulting audit” function already mentioned will mean tech partners don’t deliver standardised solutions for bespoke and made-to-measure needs. Secondly, a clear and permanently set of well-defined hiring policies will ensure that we hire for personal levels of nonconformity as well as historical skillsets.