In 1847, Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis made a revolutionary yet simple observation: when doctors washed their hands between patients, mortality rates plummeted. Despite the clear evidence, his peers ridiculed his insistence on hand hygiene. It took decades for the medical community to accept what now seems obvious—that unexamined contaminants could have devastating consequences.
Today, we face a similar paradigm shift in artificial intelligence. Generative AI is transforming business operations, creating enormous potential for personalized service and productivity. However, as organizations embrace these systems, they face a critical truth: Generative AI is only as good as responsibility for the data it’s built on—though in a more nuanced way than one might expect.
Like compost nurturing an apple tree, or a library of autobiographies nurturing a historian, even “messy” data can yield valuable results when properly processed and combined with the right foundational models. The key lies not in obsessing over perfectly pristine inputs, but in understanding how to cultivate and transform our data responsibly.
Just as invisible pathogens could compromise patient health in Semmelweis’s era, hidden data quality issues can corrupt AI outputs, leading to outcomes that erode user trust and increase exposure to costly regulatory risks, known as in integrity breaches.
Inrupt’s security technologist Bruce Schneier has argued that accountability must be embedded into AI systems from the ground up. Without secure foundations and a clear chain of accountability, AI risks amplifying existing vulnerabilities and eroding public trust in technology. These insights echo the need for strong data hygiene practices as the backbone of trustworthy AI systems.
Why Data Hygiene Matters for Generative AI
High-quality AI relies on thoughtful data curation, yet data hygiene is often misunderstood. It’s not about achieving pristine, sanitized datasets—rather, like a well-maintained compost heap that transforms organic matter into rich soil, proper data hygiene is about creating the right conditions for AI to flourish. When data isn’t properly processed and validated, it becomes an Achilles’ heel, introducing biases and inaccuracies that compromise every decision an AI model makes. Schneier’s focus on “security by design” underscores the importance of treating data hygiene as a foundational element of AI development—not just a compliance checkbox.
While organizations bear much of the responsibility for maintaining clean and reliable data, empowering users to take control of their own data introduces an equally critical layer of accuracy and trust. When users store, manage, and validate their data through personal “wallets”—secure, digital spaces governed by the W3C’s Solid standards—data quality improves at its source.
This dual focus on organizational and individual accountability ensures that both enterprises and users contribute to cleaner, more transparent datasets. Schneier’s call for systems that prioritize user agency resonates strongly with this approach, aligning user empowerment with the broader goals of data hygiene in AI.
Navigating Regulatory Compliance with the DSA and DMA Standards
With European regulations like the Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA), expectations for AI data management have heightened. These regulations emphasize transparency, accountability, and user rights, aiming to prevent data misuse and improve oversight. To comply, companies must adopt data hygiene strategies that go beyond basic checklists.
As Schneier pointed out, transparency without robust security measures is insufficient. Organizations need solutions that incorporate encryption, access controls, and explicit consent management to ensure data remains secure, transparent, and traceable. By addressing these regulatory requirements proactively, businesses can not only avoid compliance issues but also position themselves as trusted custodians of user data.
Moving Forward with Responsible Data Practices
Generative AI has tremendous potential, but only when its data foundation is built on trust, integrity, and responsibility. Just as Semmelweis’s hand-washing protocols eventually became medical doctrine, proper data hygiene must become standard practice in AI development. Schneier’s insights remind us that proactive accountability—where security and transparency are integrated into the system itself—is critical for AI systems to thrive.
By adopting tools like Solid, organizations can establish a practical, user-centric approach to managing data responsibly. Now is the time for companies to implement data practices that are not only effective but also ethically grounded, setting a course for AI that respects individuals and upholds the highest standards of integrity.
The future of generative AI lies in its ability to enhance trust, accountability, and innovation simultaneously. As Bruce Schneier and others have emphasized, embedding security and transparency into the very fabric of AI systems is no longer optional—it’s imperative. Businesses that prioritize robust data hygiene practices, empower users with control over their data, and embrace regulations like the DSA and DMA, are not only mitigating risks but also leading the charge towards a more ethical AI landscape.
The stakes are high, but the rewards are even greater. By championing responsible data practices, organizations can harness the transformative power of generative AI while maintaining the trust of their users and the integrity of their operations. The time to act is now—building AI systems on a foundation of well-cultivated data is the key to unlocking AI’s full potential in a way that benefits everyone.
This 1756 advertisement in a British paper is revealing. Slavery concepts held by the English show that those providing education and presumably other material needs believed they were owed loyalty, completely missing the fundamental human desire for freedom.
Masters were sometimes baffled at their slave’s flight.
Take Squire Walker’s 14-year-old “black Negro boy” who escaped in London on May 31, 1756.
He had fled “without the least provocation,” the squire’s ad in the Public Advertiser read the next day. “Born in his house . . . handsome, strong, and well built . . . christen’d by the Name of Thomas Walk, kept at School to learn to read, write and Cypher, at great expense,” the ad continued. He had even made off with the “Gold-laced Hat that I used to wear.”
Nearly 50 years later, after abolition of slavery was obvious to most of the world (e.g. ending by 1833 for England), a completely tone-deaf advertisement by Andrew Jackson in 1804 America shows notable differences….
Looking at the barbarity of Jackson’s “Stop the Steal” campaign, we can see stark differences from Squire Walker’s 1756 notice. While Walker emphasized the education and care supposedly given to Thomas Walk, Jackson’s advertisement shows no such pretense of benevolence.
As I said before, abolition was writing on the wall by this time. It was ending everywhere. In 1807, America passed the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves, a federal law that would take effect almost immediately. This, instead of ending slavery (as Lincoln famously later pointed out it should have, using his debates with Douglas) led to an industry surrounding rape of American Black women to produce humans as property.
The contrasting approaches in the ads reveal how enslavers in America thus were so incredibly different in the history of slavery, pushing a regression from human relationship with those enslaved towards a rapidly worsening mechanized, industrialized system of human trafficking replete with ethnic cleansing and genocide:
While Walker seemed baffled by ingratitude from someone he’d “invested in” through education, Jackson takes a coin-operated transactional approach with rewards for capture without any confusion about why someone would flee being treated so poorly.
Jackson’s broader treatment of enslaved people demonstrates this brutal pragmatism. He exploited Black freedmen by falsely promising pay and respect when he needed their military service. After they delivered victory, he denied these promises, stripped them of weapons and rights, and claimed their achievements as his own. This pattern of using American Blacks when convenient and then actively working to diminish their freedoms characterizes Jackson’s approach.
Jackson’s declaration of martial law in New Orleans, jailing of critics (including a US District Court Judge), and attempts at press censorship suggest an authoritarian approach that is consistent with his later political tactics.
The juxtaposition is particularly telling: Walker’s advertisement reflects a paternalistic delusion where enslavers believed providing education created an obligation of loyalty. Jackson’s advertisement, however, shows no such pretense – just the raw exercise of power and ownership without the veneer of “benefits provided.”
While Walker boasted about Thomas Walk’s abilities to read, write and “cypher,” Jackson’s advertisement focuses on physical descriptions and monetary rewards, showing a shift from pretending slavery had mutual benefits to deliberate, unmasked coercion.
Notably, Jackson’s claims of military success in New Orleans were in fact stolen from free Black men who comprised over 50% of the force, in order to build political power that he would then use to strip all American Black rights and horrifically corrupt and expand slavery.
After the 1815 victory at New Orleans, Jackson ordered the valorous American Black troops banned from their own city and commanded enslaved soldiers return to slavery immediately rather than granting the freedom he had promised them if they would do his fighting for him. After riding his stolen valor of false military glory to the presidency, Jackson implemented policies that intensified and expanded American slavery to unprecedented levels of cruelty in human history.
His economic policy to rapidly juice wealth for slave owners at the expense of actual working men was predictably disastrous. Removal of federal deposits from the Bank of the United States and subsequent placement in unregulated state banks fueled rampant speculation, particularly in slave-backed securities and land for cotton plantations. This deliberate financial deregulation, combined with his aggressive expansion of slave territories through militant deportations of ethnic cleansing (forced Native American removal), created the perfect conditions for the market Panic of 1837.
What followed from his ideas of elite wealth generation instead was one of the worst economic depressions in American history to that point. He created a five-year disaster born directly from the intertwined forces of financial recklessness and his commitment to white supremacist fever dreams of unregulated exploitation of Americans (expanding the slave economy).
The catastrophic economic collapse revealed the fundamental instability of Jackson’s whole vision: an America built on territorial conquest, extraction of wealth through human trafficking in the state-sanctioned rape of Black women, and unchecked “coin” speculation using humans as bits of property.
This evolution of a dangerous and deceitful regression in an American President illustrates how, despite abolition movements gaining ground worldwide for the century prior, American slavery became even more cruelly and nakedly exploitative due to men like Andrew Jackson, dropping even an Old-World paternalistic facade of any care at all for humanity.
Andrew Jackson often is associated with threatening to ignore the law, particularly regarding his conflict with the Justice system itself. The most famous instance involves his response to the 1832 case Worcester v. Georgia.
The U.S. Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, had ruled that the state of Georgia could not impose its laws on the Cherokee Nation and that the Cherokee people were entitled to their lands under federal protection. Sensible, I know.
However, the horribly corrupt and deceitful Jackson, who was a strong proponent of rushed barbaric deportations, reportedly responded to the ruling with the declaration he was above the law.
President Jackson was one of the most, if not the most unjust, immoral and corrupt leaders in American history
Although Jackson’s exact diatribe may not be definitively recorded, the essence of his position reflected his unwillingness to abide by a court ruling. Jackson was not inclined to allow a decision he unilaterally disagreed with.
Jackson cruelly ordered the execution of his own men during the War of 1812. As President he destabilized the financial system and economy so badly that a banking panic in 1837 drove the country rapidy into severe depression that lasted until 1844.
Thus, his administration continued with forced removal of the Cherokee people, known as the Trail of Tears, despite the ruling to halt immediately. The Jackson deportation has since been recognized as mass armed arrest to push non-whites into concentration camps for ethnic cleansing.
…we will get clear of all Indians in Mississippi, and have a white population in their stead.
This incident is emblematic of the tension between Jackson and the judicial branch, where a President simply ignored the Court’s authority. His ignorance caused great suffering, foreshadowing today’s latest challenge in U.S. checks and balances.
Each president is allowed to select their preferred carpet and drapery colors, as well as statues and portraits. On Monday, President Donald Trump brought a portrait of Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, back to the Oval Office.
The White House has said, as if to invoke the racist, immoral ghost of Jackson, it will ignore the Justice system and maybe even try to impeach judges who disagree with Trump.
Chief Justice John Roberts pushed back on President Donald Trump’s escalating rhetoric against the federal judiciary on Tuesday in a highly unusual statement that appeared to be aimed at the president’s call to impeach judges who rule against him. […] Trump is attempting to invoke a 1798 law that allows the federal government to expedite deportations of citizens of a “hostile nation” in times of war or when an enemy attempts an “invasion or predatory incursion” into the United States. […] Roberts’ statement Tuesday was similar to a rebuke the chief justice issued in 2018, when he responded to Trump’s remarks by saying that, “we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”
The political impeachment threat to judges goes back even earlier to 1804, when Federalist judge Samuel Chase was accused of bias. The US Senate has in total considered only 15 judges for impeachment since the country’s founding. Of those, only eight were found guilty in a US Senate trial, as you can see here:
March 2025 the Tesla driverless experience is still blind to objects and humans in the road. Arguably it has only gotten worse as the company intentionally removed critical safety equipment, slashing costs despite known risks to life and property. Source: Screen grab from Mark Rober video
Tesla’s response of course to findings like this has never been to address safety concerns with engineering, but instead a barrage of debate tactics and threats. Thus, it’s time again to watch the masterclass in military intelligence methods unleashing their usual terminological obfuscation/smoke game.
The media machine [using Soviet scaffolding repurposed by KGB officers to run their Russian dictatorship] seeks to not only provide an alternative narrative with a Russian version of events, but also to cause general confusion and question the whole notion of the truth. It provides varying accounts of events, often based in truth, that work to sow discord and confusion.
This is not a theoretical experience for American engineers working on safety reports, this has been a long-time fundamental public safety issue by design.
Everyone knows the Kremlin seeks to use information to deny, deceive, and confuse… You could spend every hour of every day trying to bat down every lie, to the point where you don’t achieve anything else. And that’s exactly what the Kremlin wants
An engineer’s hands are tied up with truckloads of misdirection and misinformation so they can’t possibly do engineering? A truth-teller delivering transparent results is accused of manipulation by the biggest manipulators, up is down, math and physics no longer can be real… in the fog of information warfare. We know how and why many people will die, until we’re facing a tidal wave of “nothing is real” attacks.
March 2025 a Tesla autopilot still runs over children like it’s 2016, with sensors unable to handle normal road conditions as if negligent by design. Over 50 people have so far been killed by Tesla autopilot flaws.
Notably the angry mob spins their attacks as a “defense” strategy to protect their assets, their way of life, as if they are the real victims and not the people who will be killed by design. They’re blasting information weapons out into the Internet with a claim to be protecting something they consider so valuable, so critical to their own survival, any lives lost by others (e.g. killed by Tesla) get reframed as just collateral damage.
A Tesla balloon designed to be made of lead has a “good” reason for never getting off the ground…
Consider the irony. A Tesla vision failure means it can’t “see” a child mannequin and runs it over without any regard for human life. Tesla defenders don’t “see” this as design failure, but rather focus on what they can “see” as an attack by anyone who dares to speak the truth of exactly how and why a child would be killed.
It’s a kind of consistency in trained and limited vision, an inability to process real outcomes, that’s a result of military-like basic training about who deserves to live or die.
“You’ll Believe What We Tell You To” Say Tesla PK Shock Troops
Tribune.com.pk’s recent mob-rule-sounding propaganda blast attacking Mark Rober’s Tesla test is a perfect example of how the military intelligence of an unnamed nation state can unleash weaponized words to deflect meaningful criticism to float the stock value underpinning one of their key foreign assets.
The techniques we’re seeing mirror Soviet “Operation Infektion” that falsely claimed AIDS was a US bioweapon – a playbook preserved and upgraded by those who deployed it originally. Despite having an economy smaller than Italy’s, this nation maintains disproportionate global influence operations, as essential to its power as oil revenues. Like inheriting a Cold War nuclear arsenal then repurposing it for neighborhood extortion, former intelligence operatives now running a dictatorship deploy their keyboard armies against threats to their investments. Tesla’s terminology battles represent just one theater in this broader campaign – flooding discourse with confusion to exhaust experts and undermine regulation. The ultimate goal remains unchanged: enable rapid wealth extraction by using asymmetric information attacks to prevent accountability for preventable harms and deaths.
With that in mind, thousands of keyboard warriors from an unknown country are now on a campaign to attack Rober as if he “misrepresented Tesla” because he supposedly tested “Autopilot” not “Full Self-Driving”, as if any of those words have actual meaning and a distinction matters when the fundamental issue is Tesla in 2025 demonstrates the complete failure to detect a wall and mannequins it claimed a decade ago to be a solved problem. More to the point, Tesla claimed it would be the first to solve this safety issue and be the most safe car on the road, placing itself above all other designs and engineers unequivocally and without exception.
Tesla fails 50% of the safety tests, meaning three child mannequins were run over by its flawed camera-only driverless system, compared with a car wisely using LiDAR. Source: Screen grab from Mark Rober video
Here’s the absurd logic at work, just to make clear how cruel and cynical the military intelligence system is at pushing Tesla into certain death of Americans (remember for purposes of information warfare severity, millions of people died during the Cold War from its targeted application):
Tesla markets the term “Autopilot” without shame in 2016, announcing autopilot capabilities removing any need for a human by 2017, and their CEO repeatedly states that anyone criticizing autopilot with caution about adoption should be held responsible for deaths — BECAUSE AUTOPILOT IS SOLD AS CAPABLE OF PREVENTING DEATH
People start to die because they trust Tesla marketing, with two fatal crashes immediately in 2016 and a pedestrian dead in 2018…
Tesla starts to passively criticize Autopilot itself by 2020, announcing “Full Self-Driving” that will do what Autopilot was sold to do.
Tesla in late 2024 changes the name of FSD to “supervised”, passively criticizing both Autopilot and FSD as being incapable of achieving their meaning, admitting they’ve never been using language correctly. Musk pumps even harder on the propaganda, claiming there will be ZERO CRASHES IN 2025, despite at least 52 deaths from Autopilot and FSD together so far)
Anyone testing these systems is accused of the crime that Tesla is committing, as if misuse of language is applied to anyone pointing out the misuse of language. It’s always “didn’t test the right system” because there is no actual system to test, just a shell game of opaque unaccountable abusive behavior that puts everyone in danger except Tesla.
This terminological methodology, well known to scholars of military intelligence and targeted attacks on populations, is designed for Tesla to never be held accountable. When deaths occur, the response isn’t to investigate and fix the technology, but to revise words and change definitions. When tests demonstrate failures, the reaction isn’t engineering revised and better safety systems, but semantic arguments to avoid engineering at all. Meanwhile, the body count continues to rise while Musk makes increasingly absurd safety claims detached from reality and attacks his critics with baseless claims they are doing what he does. It’s a casino mentality where he sets up mirrors and tables to unjust house rules such that anyone who dares to enter his realm can never win.
Deadly Tesla Disengagement
Learning how magicians lie is such a disappointment because the magic is lost. This is what the Electrek journalist discovered after being attacked by Tesla’s investors who demanded he believe in the magic:
NHTSA’s investigation of Tesla vehicles on Autopilot crashing into emergency vehicles on the highway found that Autopilot would disengage within less than one second prior to impact on average in the crashes that it was investigating…
Rober’s video captured this exact behavior! The magic gone in an instant. Watch carefully as the system disengages 17 frames before impact. This is a damning example of Tesla engineering designing coverups into friendly-fire situations. They built a feature to generate maximum plausible deniability to reduce their liability in a known deadly outcome they are responsible for creating. “The system wasn’t engaged during the crash” becomes the technical truth that masks the killer reality: the Tesla since 2016 promises of solving driverless completely by 2017 still fail to prevent a crash in 2025 that it should detect well in advance.
Seventeen LONG Frames Before Death
Other cars can do it today. Other cars didn’t promise to solve crashes by 2017. Tesla can’t do it today. Tesla promised to have it solved by 2017. You think it matters what words Tesla uses when they’ve proven since even before 2016 that none of their words can be trusted? Accepting their preference in terminology is like agreeing to let a toddler rewrite the dictionary in a way that helps them never be responsible for anything.
Tesla has been selling people a word salad unsafe for consumption. Their “apple” is actually a painted rock. And when someone breaks a tooth trying to bite into it, Tesla argues “this is our LOOKING apple, it can’t yet be bitten.” After many people lose their teeth Tesla announces “we have a banana for you to go with our apple.” Should someone test either the “apple” or the new “banana” they would discover both are painted rocks, to which Tesla says “forget the apple, we replaced the banana with another banana, and another one, and another one, next year the banana will be so edible nobody will break a tooth ever again”… and the next year more teeth are broken, repeating this advance fee fraud forever. It’s really no different than the 419 African email scam.
In this new safety test video by the ex-NASA engineer we see someone showing a Tesla apple for what it is, and always has been, just a painted rock. It’s a LIE that has dragged on since 2016. Because LiDAR don’t LIE. There shouldn’t be controversy in this VERY OLD NEWS. The exact opposite in fact, this video should be welcomed like how someone who just placed 154th in a group event gets congratulated. Hey Mark, welcome, and thanks for participating in something that has been operating for over ten years with the same results. Welcome to Mark, welcome into the big tent with everyone who already understands that since 2016 Tesla has been selling “driverless” for hundreds of millions and more hundreds of millions without ever providing what they had claimed from the start.
Another Brick in the Wall Tesla Can’t See
While Tesla plays word games to undermine safety, the reality remains unchanged: their low-quality consumer-grade camera-only system simply and predictably fails basic tests that LiDAR-equipped vehicles have passed for a decade. This isn’t new to anyone with a clue because engineers have been demonstrating this fundamental flaw repeatedly and dramatically (although, I’ll admit, not as dramatically as this high-production new Disney-like video). The Dawn Project and numerous safety experts have shown these exact same failures in many media formats with the same conclusive results, yet Tesla removed safety in the false name of a fictional “efficiency”.
Elon Musk… has expressed his admiration for Rand’s work, particularly “The Fountainhead.”
In Ayn Rand’s novel “The Fountainhead,” the character Dominique Francon purchases a beautiful Greek statue that she genuinely admires, then deliberately destroys it by throwing it out the window. It’s almost like Elon Musk is that character, who destroys everything he touches to prove that is better (for him) than letting it exist in a world that doesn’t appreciate him enough. Musk’s “the best part is no part” psychosis is destructive thinking that removed critical safety sensors from Tesla vehicles, despite warnings from experts. In the same way he created DOGE to force a false “efficiency” of minimal human safety, resulting in preventable deaths (targeting non-whites).
The philosophy of the malignant narcissist isn’t a mystery, the intent to deny/withhold and harm aren’t hidden. Elon Musk repeatedly implies deaths of non-white children will be consistent with his life’s eugenicist mission to generate more white people as quickly as possible.
Killing children is by design, I’m afraid. “Pro-natalists” like Musk claim they aren’t racist, but their pressure to have children is solely focused on white women, while they back policies that literally kill non-white children. He’s a eugenicist.
Tesla killing children in the road thus is the outcome of his racist game, given the majority of people at risk will statistically be non-white. DOGE eliminating USAID is projected to kill at least 3 million non-white people, far greater than Tesla death tolls. Elon Musk is consistent in his plotting to do harm to very specific groups of people.
That’s why you have to understand in the fog of information warfare that Elon Musk makes increasingly absurd claims on purpose, recently promoting the nonsense that Tesla vehicles “won’t crash” in 2025 even as Tesla crash rates have actually accelerated even faster than fleet growth, according to NHTSA data.
Key Observations: Data clearly shows that both serious incidents (orange line) and fatal incidents (pink line) are increasing at a steeper rate than the fleet size growth (blue line). This is particularly evident from 2021 onwards, where: Fleet size (blue) shows a linear growth of about 1x per year. Serious incidents (orange) show an exponential growth curve, reaching nearly 5x by 2024. Fatal incidents (pink) also show a steeper-than-linear growth, though not as dramatic as serious incidents. The divergence between the blue line (fleet growth) and the incident lines (orange and pink) indicates that incidents are indeed accelerating faster than the production/deployment of new vehicles. Source: Tesladeaths.com and NHTSA
Tesla at War, Casualties Mounting
The public deserves better than semantic games. When a vehicle can’t detect a wall or mannequins in the road, the terminology used to market its driver assistance features becomes irrelevant. The question isn’t whether it was “Autopilot” or “Full Self-Driving” that failed, but why Tesla continues to deploy systems with demonstrated safety flaws and fights regulation rather than improving their technology.
As the Tribune.pk article unwittingly reveals, we’re witnessing a coordinated effort to shift discussion from “does this system have a correct outcome” to “which term was used at the moment of failure”. That’s a shell game designed to exhaust and confuse the public while real safety concerns go unaddressed and more and more people die by design.
The truth is simple: if your vehicle that has been vehemently and angrily defended since 2016 as “driverless” still can’t detect a child in the road or a giant wall, the terms don’t really matter. Over 52 people are dead. What matters is Tesla intentionally misleads people, they’re dead, and it shouldn’t be on the road anymore. At this point, Tesla should be recognized as a foreign-backed threat even worse than domestic terrorism, literally…
