Artificial Intelligence (AI) - The Monsters, The Fraud, and The Conspiracy

The Monsters:

Do you remember this?

https://aistatement.com/

This statement. “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war”, was issued by AI experts in 2023, including CEOs of AI behemoths such as Open AI and Anthropic, as well as Geoffrey Hinton, who is considered the Godfather of AI.

While some form of AI has existed for decades – Siri came in 2012 - AI in the form of a generative large language model (LLM) was released into the world as Chat GPT in 2022. Other such iterations of AI such as Anthropic and Open AI soon followed.

So, we, that is all of us, were told by AI scientists who worked on the development of AI in establishments like Open AI and Chat GPT, as well as the CEOs, that AI could evolve so that it could kill all humans at some point. They must have known of this risk when they approved the release. Of course, the end of Humanity hasn’t happened yet, and it will never happen courtesy of AI, for reasons outlined below. Before dealing with AI’s significant limitations, we need to ask this question…

How was it that something that was considered a risk to the existence of humanity by its developers, and by those in charge of the related private companies that led its development, was released into the world without massive and sustained testing to make sure, to the degree possible, that this risk could not manifest itself in the actual elimination of all humans, everywhere?

These companies didn’t have to release generative LLM AI into the world. They did it to try to beat each other to the promised massive profits that would ensue should the world adopt AI, much as we adopted the internet itself. The answer to this question seems clear…

Generative LLM AI was released into the world by CEO’s of companies that had a clear understanding that they could be risking the existence of humanity, solely in pursuit of profit.

The term you are looking for is “monster”, although that doesn’t quite do it. This wasn’t just criminal negligence. In fact, we don’t have a crime to fit what these people did. To make money, as far as they knew, they knowingly risked killing all of us.

Incidentally, the board here at Mewetree.blogspot.com asked Chat GPT if there are any examples from history where a single decision made only in pursuit of profit resulted in a risk to the lives of all humans. Chat GPT could only come up with one example - the release of generative LLM AI. Fair is fair - we here at Mewetree.blogspot.com hereby give AI a nod for honesty.

It will never happen, and here’s why…

The Fraud:

Artificial Intelligence isn’t intelligent.

Applying the word “intelligence” to AI, to the extent that it implies that it is actually intelligent, was and is fraudulent. 

Words mean things. Here is what “intelligence” means – “the ability to learn, understand, and make judgements or have opinions that are based on reason.” 

Let’s look at each bolded and italicized aspect in turn and compare to what AI actually does.

“Learn” means, “to get new knowledge of skill in a subject or activity.” AI doesn’t do this. It accesses the changing and evolving mass of human knowledge available on the internet and spits out data that responds to whatever question it has been asked. Learning requires volition (i.e. “get”.) AI has none. Without the questions being asked, it is entirely at stasis. 

“Understand” means, “to know the meaning of something that someone says”. The key term here is “know” which means “to have information in your mind.” AI doesn’t have information in its mind because AI doesn’t have a mind (confirmed by Chat GPT), so it doesn’t, and cannot “know”. Ergo, it cannot “understand”.

“Make Judgements” means, “to make a decision or form an opinion about someone or something after thinking carefully.” The key term here is “thinking” which means “activity of using your mind to consider something.” As we have seen, AI doesn’t have a mind. Ergo, it cannot think, so it cannot make judgments.

“Have opinions” means, to have “a thought or belief about something or someone”. The key terms here are “thought” and “belief”. Thought means thinking, and we have seen that thinking requires a mind. “Belief” means “the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true.” AI does not have a mind, so it cannot think, and it also cannot feel so it can’t have beliefs, therefore it cannot have opinions.

“Reason” means, “the ability of a healthy mind to think and make judgments, especially based on practical facts”. As we have seen, AI does not have a mind. It doesn’t do anything based on reason.

AI does literally nothing that constitutes the core elements of the definition of “intelligence”. It is not intelligent. Any suggestion to the contrary is fraudulent.

The Conspiracy:

AI is tremendously helpful if kept within this realm…

"The best uses of AI involve automating mundane tasks, boosting creativity, enhancing data analysis, and improving decision-making across daily life and work, from summarizing emails and generating code to diagnosing diseases, creating art, and tackling global issues like climate change and hunger. AI excels at personalizing experiences (recommendations, chatbots), optimizing complex systems (manufacturing, cybersecurity), and providing powerful tools for education, healthcare (cancer screening, drug discovery), and accessibility for people with disabilities." (Google AI)

When it comes to this stuff, it has no equal. This is massive progress. But the intelligence behind this is Human, not Artificial.

Without an active intelligence, AI will never smite all Humans. The AI developers and CEOs of AI companies must know this. So, they took the supposed risk inherent to all Humanity in releasing AI because they knew there was no such risk, this because AI isn’t actually intelligent. There was no crime committed here, but maybe there was something else that was entirely normal.

Query - Why did they issue the dire warning noted at the start of this blog, and many other similar warnings?

AI was released into a world with no regulations whatsoever. A declaration by AI developers and CEOs of AI companies that their product could kill everyone on the planet would get them a very important seat at the table when regulations were being drafted to deal with the threat. Having portrayed themselves both as the experts, as well as the harbingers of doom, were they setting themselves up for a profitable round of regulatory capture?

“Regulatory capture” is this, “Regulatory capture is when a government agency, meant to serve the public interest, starts acting in favor of the industry it's supposed to regulate, often due to close relationships, lobbying, and the "revolving door" of personnel between industry and government, resulting in rules that benefit the industry over consumers or the public. This leads to policies that protect established firms, stifle competition, or ignore public welfare for private gain, as seen with examples like financial or pharmaceutical industries.” (Google AI)

The key points are in bold. Companies that seek regulatory capture try to co-opt government into killing their competition and enabling them to maximize profits.

Is this what the AI companies have been doing? We don’t know yet as AI regulation is in its infancy. If yes, this would be a completely normal activity for dominant firms in a new area of commercial endeavor. 

We shall see.

Conclusion:

What would Tom Cruise, on a donkey, wearing a fedora, in the desert look like?

Maybe this...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Understanding War and Society

The previous post looked at France and the Second World War, and explored a possible march to war by France in 1939, meaning that France actually sought war with Germany in 1939.

If this turns out to be true (i.e. once we can read internal French archives in another 100 years or so and discern what the French were really up to) what are we to make of this French march to war from the point of view of war as a policy choice and of society generally? What lessons may this have for us today?

One way to consider France’s march is to realize that there were likely two marches underway at the same time, each feeding off the other – France and Germany locked in a dance of death. The “tit-for-tat” build-up to aggression leading to war in situations like this, which sees each side issue threats and commit aggressive acts against the other ostensibly in response to the other side’s threats and aggressive acts, worked in 1939 for both parties, and it works even today. Leaders who play this game, and who issue threats or order aggressive acts “in response” can assess full well what the other side’s response will most likely be well in advance. It is a response expected and even hoped-for on the road to an escalation to war that is often desired by both parties.

Encouraging one side to resist the temptation to respond even in the face of the gravest of atrocities, and exposing purposeful escalation as a “march to war” would obviously assist in halting that very march in its tracks. Halting escalation is, in fact, the essence of peace-keeping – a real contribution to world peace. This would have availed the world nothing in 1939 however, as, assuming the French were also on the march, both sides were intent on aggression.

What to do about war? There seem to be two basic philosophical approaches to the problem.

The first approach could look at the history of marches to war for a contribution to our understanding of how nations go to war, and assert that by better understanding this process – how decisions are made, by whom and for what purpose, and how these are then translated into the mobilization of the population - perhaps we can learn how to avoid war in the future. In light of this, future questions worthy of exploration could include how information is gathered and assessed within the intelligence bureaucracies that served the French leaders who led France into war in the years leading up to 1939. In looking at this, historians would be seeking access to the “secret nation” which existed outside of public scrutiny, and to delve into how this world operates in the search for answers and possible proscriptions for the future. Should such an exploration reveal patterns of behavior common to all societies that inevitably lead to war, and methods by which these may be expunged, the service to humanity that such a turn of events would present is obvious.

A second approach could suggest otherwise - at least a modification. It may be that as the history of this period is further explored, historians may come to understand better how leaders manipulate their peoples in order to march to war, but also that as every politician - democrat and tyrant alike – knows, people can only be lead where they are willing to go. In other words, that the “secret nation” can only manipulate to a limited extent. Regarding France, note that it appeared at times that the leadership was often behind the people in terms of the march to war, not ahead of them. Was this by design, or did it represent a leadership out of control? In light of this, the questions to be explored further could center on the psychology of peoples, not the machinations of leaders and their advisors. The answers to the Human curse of war may therefore lie not at the head of society, but within its soul.

In that respect, it should be obvious that both tyrants and democrats need to justify their actions, especially over such matters as war, because popular opinion always matters to every politician, everywhere. The tremendous advantage that democratic politicians have over tyrants is a mandate to govern that permits them to set aside worry about what the people are thinking, and to just get on with the job of governing. More than that, should they lose an election and thereby lose power, they are always free to try to come back again another day – losing power for a democrat does not mean non-existence.

Democrats then, having the luxury of a mandate, have nothing to fear from letting liberty and the best in humanity flourish, including what may be a natural human pacifism. Perhaps this is the essential explanation for the fact that, generally-speaking, liberal democracies do not fight wars against one another, nor do they experience famine. In short, liberty is liberating for leaders and citizens alike, and the results benefit everyone.

Tyrants, on the other hand, who never assess the will of the people in any meaningful way, must always worry. To stay in power, they must manufacture the illusion of the positive while at the same time emphasizing the negatives that support their control, and especially the triumvirate of “fear, national crises, and enemies of the people”. This approach must always lead to a war of some sort, whether it is a war against some internal societal scourge, or actual external aggression. In matters of external aggression, tyrants mobilize their people by playing on the natural divisions and hatreds that burn in the soul of many a nation. These divisions and hatreds immediately come to be the essence of the wars that are subsequently fought, and they seriously limit the ability of tyrants to control the events that follow. In a tyranny, not even the tyrant is free.

In considering the various democratic and tyrannical motivations that both sparked the Second World War, and which governed its progress, it may be trite to say that this was much more than just a war. Once launched, it quickly became a battle between the negativity needed and encouraged by tyranny on the one side – culminating in horror that will always exist where one finds humanity led by those who are operating absent a higher morality - and the common human decency of the liberal democracies that sought to stop it.

The tragedy of the pre-war years may not be that democratic politicians sought to lead a march to war. It may be that those who could have, and who should have mobilized citizens who were willing to be led in the name of this same common human decency - that is the democratic politicians of the West - simply abandoned their duty, and in doing so permitted horror and hatred to grow and flourish, culminating in war that could have been stopped long before it happened.

Along with a better understanding of the psychology of peoples then – and, it is suggested, such an analysis should look closely at the psychology of people absent the direction of a higher morality - it may also be worth exploring how leaders in democracies sometimes come to forget their most essential duties, and the most obvious national security interests of their citizens. Interests that are easily understood by the citizens themselves.