Tonight (November 27), I'm appearing at the Toronto Metro Reference Library with Facebook whistleblower Frances Haugen.
On November 29, I'm at NYC's Strand Books with my novel The Lost Cause, a solarpunk tale of hope and danger that Rebecca Solnit called "completely delightful."
Last week's spectacular OpenAI soap-opera hijacked the attention of millions of normal, productive people and nonsensually crammed them full of the fine details of the debate between "Effective Altruism" (doomers) and "Effective Accelerationism" (AKA e/acc), a genuinely absurd debate that was allegedly at the center of the drama.
Very broadly speaking: the Effective Altruists are doomers, who believe that Large Language Models (AKA "spicy autocomplete") will someday become so advanced that it could wake up and annihilate or enslave the human race. To prevent this, we need to employ "AI Safety" – measures that will turn superintelligence into a servant or a partner, nor an adversary.
Contrast this with the Effective Accelerationists, who also believe that LLMs will someday become superintelligences with the potential to annihilate or enslave humanity – but they nevertheless advocate for faster AI development, with fewer "safety" measures, in order to produce an "upward spiral" in the "techno-capital machine."
Once-and-future OpenAI CEO Altman is said to be an accelerationists who was forced out of the company by the Altruists, who were subsequently bested, ousted, and replaced by Larry fucking Summers. This, we're told, is the ideological battle over AI: should cautiously progress our LLMs into superintelligences with safety in mind, or go full speed ahead and trust to market forces to tame and harness the superintelligences to come?
This "AI debate" is pretty stupid, proceeding as it does from the foregone conclusion that adding compute power and data to the next-word-predictor program will eventually create a conscious being, which will then inevitably become a superbeing. This is a proposition akin to the idea that if we keep breeding faster and faster horses, we'll get a locomotive:
As Molly White writes, this isn't much of a debate. The "two sides" of this debate are as similar as Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Yes, they're arrayed against each other in battle, so furious with each other that they're tearing their hair out. But for people who don't take any of this mystical nonsense about spontaneous consciousness arising from applied statistics seriously, these two sides are nearly indistinguishable, sharing as they do this extremely weird belief. The fact that they've split into warring factions on its particulars is less important than their unified belief in the certain coming of the paperclip-maximizing apocalypse:
White points out that there's another, much more distinct side in this AI debate – as different and distant from Dee and Dum as a Beamish Boy and a Jabberwork. This is the side of AI Ethics – the side that worries about "today’s issues of ghost labor, algorithmic bias, and erosion of the rights of artists and others." As White says, shifting the debate to existential risk from a future, hypothetical superintelligence "is incredibly convenient for the powerful individuals and companies who stand to profit from AI."
After all, both sides plan to make money selling AI tools to corporations, whose track record in deploying algorithmic "decision support" systems and other AI-based automation is pretty poor – like the claims-evaluation engine that Cigna uses to deny insurance claims:
On a graph that plots the various positions on AI, the two groups of weirdos who disagree about how to create the inevitable superintelligence are effectively standing on the same spot, and the people who worry about the actual way that AI harms actual people right now are about a million miles away from that spot.
There's that old programmer joke, "There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand binary and those who don't." But of course, that joke could just as well be, "There are 10 kinds of people, those who understand ternary, those who understand binary, and those who don't understand either":
What's more, the joke could be, "there are 10 kinds of people, those who understand hexadecenary, those who understand pentadecenary, those who understand tetradecenary [und so weiter] those who understand ternary, those who understand binary, and those who don't." That is to say, a "polarized" debate often has people who hold positions so far from the ones everyone is talking about that those belligerents' concerns are basically indistinguishable from one another.
The act of identifying these distant positions is a radical opening up of possibilities. Take the indigenous philosopher chief Red Jacket's response to the Christian missionaries who sought permission to proselytize to Red Jacket's people:
https://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5790/
Red Jacket's whole rebuttal is a superb dunk, but it gets especially interesting where he points to the sectarian differences among Christians as evidence against the missionary's claim to having a single true faith, and in favor of the idea that his own people's traditional faith could be co-equal among Christian doctrines.
The split that White identifies isn't a split about whether AI tools can be useful. Plenty of us AI skeptics are happy to stipulate that there are good uses for AI. For example, I'm 100% in favor of the Human Rights Data Analysis Group using an LLM to classify and extract information from the Innocence Project New Orleans' wrongful conviction case files:
Automating "extracting officer information from documents – specifically, the officer's name and the role the officer played in the wrongful conviction" was a key step to freeing innocent people from prison, and an LLM allowed HRDAG – a tiny, cash-strapped, excellent nonprofit – to make a giant leap forward in a vital project. I'm a donor to HRDAG and you should donate to them too:
https://hrdag.networkforgood.com/
Good data-analysis is key to addressing many of our thorniest, most pressing problems. As Ben Goldacre recounts in his inaugural Oxford lecture, it is both possible and desirable to build ethical, privacy-preserving systems for analyzing the most sensitive personal data (NHS patient records) that yield scores of solid, ground-breaking medical and scientific insights:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-eaV8SWdjQ
The difference between this kind of work – HRDAG's exoneration work and Goldacre's medical research – and the approach that OpenAI and its competitors take boils down to how they treat humans. The former treats all humans as worthy of respect and consideration. The latter treats humans as instruments – for profit in the short term, and for creating a hypothetical superintelligence in the (very) long term.
As Terry Pratchett's Granny Weatherwax reminds us, this is the root of all sin: "sin is when you treat people like things":
So much of the criticism of AI misses this distinction – instead, this criticism starts by accepting the self-serving marketing claim of the "AI safety" crowd – that their software is on the verge of becoming self-aware, and is thus valuable, a good investment, and a good product to purchase. This is Lee Vinsel's "Criti-Hype": "taking press releases from startups and covering them with hellscapes":
Criti-hype and AI were made for each other. Emily M Bender is a tireless cataloger of criti-hypeists, like the newspaper reporters who breathlessly repeat " completely unsubstantiated claims (marketing)…sourced to Altman":
Bender, like White, is at pains to point out that the real debate isn't doomers vs accelerationists. That's just "billionaires throwing money at the hope of bringing about the speculative fiction stories they grew up reading – and philosophers and others feeling important by dressing these same silly ideas up in fancy words":
All of this is just a distraction from real and important scientific questions about how (and whether) to make automation tools that steer clear of Granny Weatherwax's sin of "treating people like things." Bender – a computational linguist – isn't a reactionary who hates automation for its own sake. On Mystery AI Hype Theater 3000 – the excellent podcast she co-hosts with Alex Hanna – there is a machine-generated transcript:
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2126417
There is a serious, meaty debate to be had about the costs and possibilities of different forms of automation. But the superintelligence true-believers and their criti-hyping critics keep dragging us away from these important questions and into fanciful and pointless discussions of whether and how to appease the godlike computers we will create when we disassemble the solar system and turn it into computronium.
The question of machine intelligence isn't intrinsically unserious. As a materialist, I believe that whatever makes me "me" is the result of the physics and chemistry of processes inside and around my body. My disbelief in the existence of a soul means that I'm prepared to think that it might be possible for something made by humans to replicate something like whatever process makes me "me."
Ironically, the AI doomers and accelerationists claim that they, too, are materialists – and that's why they're so consumed with the idea of machine superintelligence. But it's precisely because I'm a materialist that I understand these hypotheticals about self-aware software are less important and less urgent than the material lives of people today.
It's because I'm a materialist that my primary concerns about AI are things like the climate impact of AI data-centers and the human impact of biased, opaque, incompetent and unfit algorithmic systems – not science fiction-inspired, self-induced panics over the human race being enslaved by our robot overlords.
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
SNECKDOWN at EACC, Espai d’Art Contemporani de Castelló, Castelló, Spain (installation view)
Sam Cottington, Caspar Heinemann, Phung Tien Phan, Deborah-Joyce Holman, David Moser, Alex Dolores Salerno, Francis Whorral, Campell, Quay Quinn Wolf, Leto Ybarra
Police Leadership Calls on EACC to Rethink Arrest Tactics for Officers
The senior leadership of the National Police Service (NPS) has raised concerns about the tactics employed by the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) during the arrest of police officers. In a recent consultative meeting with the EACC leadership in Nairobi, Deputy Inspector General of Police Gilbert Masengeli urged the anti-corruption body to reconsider its approach, emphasizing the need for sensitivity when executing arrests.
Concerns Over Public Humiliation
During the meeting, Masengeli voiced concerns over the public nature of arrests and the potential harm they cause to the officers involved, their families, and the wider community. He argued that the dramatic arrests, often staged in front of the media, can lead to unnecessary humiliation and damage to the officers’ reputations, regardless of their guilt or innocence. The Deputy Inspector General called for a more thoughtful approach that considers the broader societal impact of these high-profile operations.
Rethinking Public Exposure
Masengeli also questioned the EACC’s practice of publicizing the arrests of police officers involved in corruption investigations. He pointed out that such exposure, while intended to signal the commission's commitment to fighting corruption, may often result in irreversible damage to the officers' personal and professional lives. He recommended that the EACC reassess the need for such public revelations, suggesting that they could be better handled in a manner that avoids unnecessary harm while still fulfilling the commission’s mandate.
A Call for Balanced Justice
The Deputy Inspector General stressed the importance of ensuring that the fight against corruption within the police force is pursued without compromising the dignity of the officers. While recognizing the need for accountability and transparency, he suggested that arrest tactics should be adjusted to maintain a balance between justice and respect for the individuals involved. The NPS leadership believes that addressing corruption within the police force is essential, but the process should be carried out in a way that upholds the integrity and dignity of those serving in the force.
As discussions continue, it is clear that the relationship between the police and anti-corruption agencies like the EACC remains complex. Both institutions share a common goal of ensuring integrity within the public service, but the methods used to achieve this aim are increasingly becoming a point of debate. The National Police Service’s call for more measured and considerate approaches in the arrest and public exposure of officers reflects a desire to strike a fairer balance in the fight against corruption.
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has issued a summon to National Assembly Majority Whip Silvanus Osoro, the South Mugirango MP, in response to recent statements he made during a public event in Bomet County. During this event, he appeared to acknowledge receiving bribes from fellow MPs to facilitate their overseas trips.
EACC has instructed Mr. Osoro to appear at their…
Multiple Former and Sitting Governors Face Graft Charges, 21 Others Investigated for Billions in Public Funds Theft
The Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission (EACC) has revealed that several former and sitting Governors are currently entangled in active graft cases within the court system.
These cases has raise serious concerns about corruption within Kenya’s political landscape.
Among the notable individuals facing these allegations are
Daniel Waithaka Mwangi, who served as Nyandarua Governor from 2013 to…
Anti-Corruption Court Said Ferdinand Waititu and Wife to Answer for Kes.588 Million Tender Fraud
Spotlight, the Nairobi Anti-Corruption Court has ruled that former Kiambu Governor Ferdinand Waititu aka Baba Yao and his wife Susan Wangari Ndung’u must answer to charges related to a fraudulent tender worth Kes.588 million.
The court’s decision extends to the Director of Testimony Enterprises Limited, Charles Chege, and his wife Beth Wangeci, who are involved in the same scandal.
Chief…
