GIGO and the Human Processor: A CHO Review

This document is a peer review by Go Kian Tik — GKT (Mbah Hogi Bejo™) of Meriel B.’s 10-day research series. Meriel B. is an AI Ethics Researcher, AI Governance Specialist, and founder of AI.MIRROR. Her research covers ten domains: the global AI governance crisis (Day 1), structural AI bias against women (Day 2), ML-based child criminality prediction (Day 3), the collapse of voluntary compliance in a military context (Day 4), LinkedIn’s algorithmic bias (Day 5), AI hallucination on non-Latin scripts (Day 6), Pipeline Collapse and AIDE — the disappearance of a liability clause in layered AI summarisation (Day 7), AI bias in recruitment shipped as a feature rather than a bug (Day 8), AI actively targeting in Iran while the UN Panel held its first session in Geneva (Day 9), and 3P Governance Rot: Power–Profit–Politics as a structured self-reinforcing cycle (Day 10). This peer review advances the thesis that all phenomena identified by Meriel can be understood as a “natural problem” arising from two sources: (1) GIGO — AI systems are only as accurate as the data humans feed them; and (2) the natural limitations of the human processor operating in a learning & growth state. Yet “natural” here does not mean deterministic or unchangeable. On the contrary, GKT asserts that “natural” means within reach of human control, re-intervention, and reconstruction — through three layers: back-end (builders/engineers), front-end (users), and the collaborative learning ecosystem (universities, institutions, global governance). This document integrates Meriel’s Progressive Regression framework — grounded in her academic research in Batterley (2026), “Bridging the Wisdom Gap: Learning from Nuclear Weapons Governance to Address the Artificial Intelligence Crisis” (SSRN: 6174559) — with GKT’s Grand Formula: (Consciousness × Calculation)^Humanity < Transcendence. The Wisdom Gap identified by Batterley (2026) is the structural manifestation of Humanity not yet reaching its full exponent in that formula. The paper concludes that solutions to algorithmic bias require simultaneous intervention across all three layers — not only top-down regulation, but also bottom-up consciousness from every actor in the ecosystem.