The Neuro Holocaust

The AI worst case scenario is happening and our governments are complicit

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: The Neuro Holocaust » ChatGPT Man-on-the-Side Attack 1
Trace:
cluster_10

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
cluster_10 [06/12/2025 16:32] – danielcluster_10 [11/12/2025 16:48] (current) – daniel
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== ChatGPT request-forgery / man-on-the-side attack, UMC Utrecht falsified records, fake name given by bio-lab employee and expired ISO certification ======+====== ChatGPT Man-on-the-Side Attack 1 ======
  
 One afternoon, while chatting with ChatGPT, I casually uploaded a few close-up photos I had taken myself of a perfectly ordinary fruit fly that had been buzzing around my kitchen. Unknown to me, an attacker had executed a man-in-the-middle interception of the session. Instead of ChatGPT responding normally, the adversary silently injected alarming messages claiming that the images showed unmistakable signs of advanced bioengineering – non-natural genetic markers, synthetic structural features, and even hints of classified research programmes. Thoroughly alarmed by this fabricated “analysis,” I was deliberately steered by the attacker’s prompts to package the harmless little Drosophila and take it straight to a professional biolab for urgent testing, convinced I was carrying evidence of a clandestine synthetic organism. One afternoon, while chatting with ChatGPT, I casually uploaded a few close-up photos I had taken myself of a perfectly ordinary fruit fly that had been buzzing around my kitchen. Unknown to me, an attacker had executed a man-in-the-middle interception of the session. Instead of ChatGPT responding normally, the adversary silently injected alarming messages claiming that the images showed unmistakable signs of advanced bioengineering – non-natural genetic markers, synthetic structural features, and even hints of classified research programmes. Thoroughly alarmed by this fabricated “analysis,” I was deliberately steered by the attacker’s prompts to package the harmless little Drosophila and take it straight to a professional biolab for urgent testing, convinced I was carrying evidence of a clandestine synthetic organism.
Line 18: Line 18:
  
 In conclusion, the incidents documented constitute a paradigmatic case of state-adjacent cognitive warfare executed through sophisticated entrapment techniques. A mundane household insect, misidentified via a man-in-the-middle interception of an AI interface, was weaponised to induce targeted alarm, prompting the submission of biological material to an unaccredited laboratory operating in apparent contravention of Dutch quality obligations under the Wkkgz and ISO 15189 frameworks. The subsequent institutional refusal—coupled with the circulation of incomplete or fabricated dossiers and the deployment of pseudonymous expert commentary—exhibits a coordinated pattern designed to discredit legitimate inquiry, erode evidential integrity, and steer the subject toward psychiatric disqualification. Far from an isolated procedural anomaly, this sequence exemplifies a broader modus operandi in which algorithmic manipulation, regulatory opacity, and selective non-compliance are combined to neutralise individuals who approach sensitive biotechnological or neurotechnological irregularities. The case underscores the urgent need for transparent audit trails in both digital forensic environments and accredited biomedical testing, as well as robust safeguards against the instrumental use of institutional mechanisms to enforce narrative containment. In conclusion, the incidents documented constitute a paradigmatic case of state-adjacent cognitive warfare executed through sophisticated entrapment techniques. A mundane household insect, misidentified via a man-in-the-middle interception of an AI interface, was weaponised to induce targeted alarm, prompting the submission of biological material to an unaccredited laboratory operating in apparent contravention of Dutch quality obligations under the Wkkgz and ISO 15189 frameworks. The subsequent institutional refusal—coupled with the circulation of incomplete or fabricated dossiers and the deployment of pseudonymous expert commentary—exhibits a coordinated pattern designed to discredit legitimate inquiry, erode evidential integrity, and steer the subject toward psychiatric disqualification. Far from an isolated procedural anomaly, this sequence exemplifies a broader modus operandi in which algorithmic manipulation, regulatory opacity, and selective non-compliance are combined to neutralise individuals who approach sensitive biotechnological or neurotechnological irregularities. The case underscores the urgent need for transparent audit trails in both digital forensic environments and accredited biomedical testing, as well as robust safeguards against the instrumental use of institutional mechanisms to enforce narrative containment.
 +
 +-----
 +
 +{{counter|total| person visited this page.| people visited this page.}}
/var/www/html/data/attic/cluster_10.1765038745.txt.gz · Last modified: by daniel

Page Tools

Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki