21–30 of 157 posts
here is an idea: instead of sacrificing AI maybe we should sacrifice organized governments.
My guess is that we are about to see "No True Scotsman" very soon after I post this.
AI is only in a supporting role here. It's massive data collection and storage at low cost that's the problem. Machine learning just helps to digest the data. Tech has solved the problem of previous attempts at Big Brother - you just couldn't afford enough watchers to watch everybody all the time. Now, you can. It's even profitable.
And tech will also solve the power problem of autocratic regimes. Right now, a dictator can't control every single individual in the country on their own. They need police that can search your apt at 5am because you made a blog post critical of the government. They need lawyers to convict you, prison guards, etc. In such regimes, the dictator still has to put people into places of power so that the will of the dictat…
AI is only in a supporting role here. It's massive data collection and storage at low cost that's the problem. Machine learning just helps to digest the data. Tech has solved the problem of previous attempts at Big Brother - you just couldn't afford enough watchers to watch everybody all the time. Now, you can. It's even profitable.
Dictators have one mind; Oligarchies have a handful, or scores. AI (as is, not scify) is (I think) a multiplier or leverage for a mind. The open societies differentiation is potentially millions or billions of minds. To realise that differentiation open societies have to create a population that has it's own mind, and develop a substrate that supports individual thinking, and of course manage the interaction and flow…
Like with any tool the real victors will be those who adapt it to solve basic immediate problems: a utility.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And tech will also solve the power problem of autocratic regimes. Right now, a dictator can't control every single individual in the country on their own. They need police that can search your apt at 5am because you made a blog post critical of the government. They need lawyers to convict you, prison guards, etc. In such regimes, the dictator still has to put people into places of power so that the will of the dictat…
The exertion of control doesn’t even have to be blatant or physical. If social credit is a determining factor in an individual’s ability to function effectively in society, e.g. by way of credit ratings and access to opportune employment, there’s a clear risk of increased self-censorship and conformance, thereby debilitating serious political opposition even in its infancy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And tech will also solve the power problem of autocratic regimes. Right now, a dictator can't control every single individual in the country on their own. They need police that can search your apt at 5am because you made a blog post critical of the government. They need lawyers to convict you, prison guards, etc. In such regimes, the dictator still has to put people into places of power so that the will of the dictat…
The technology isn't a fundamental change, it's just a more deadly weapon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And tech will also solve the power problem of autocratic regimes. Right now, a dictator can't control every single individual in the country on their own. They need police that can search your apt at 5am because you made a blog post critical of the government. They need lawyers to convict you, prison guards, etc. In such regimes, the dictator still has to put people into places of power so that the will of the dictat…
The exertion of control doesn’t even have to be blatant or physical. If social credit is a determining factor in an individual’s ability to function effectively in society, e.g. by way of credit ratings and access to opportune employment, there’s a clear risk of increased self-censorship and conformance, thereby debilitating serious political opposition even in its infancy.
This reminds me of the "Do artifacts have politics" paper by Langdon Winner [1]. He argues that technologies have inherent political traits. Nuclear power is considered to be supportive of autocratic political systems since nuclear power plants need centralized planning and networks to be effective. Solar power is considered democratic since anyone can harness it. It's an interesting paper and definitely worth a read…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The technology isn't a fundamental change, it's just a more deadly weapon.
It's not more deadly. Weapons of mass destruction already exist. The difference isn't increased ability to do harm, it's increased ability to target harm. It's no fun being dictator when all your subjects are dead, so old-fashioned WMDs are of limited use. Sufficiently advanced AI lets you selectively kill the troublemakers without harming the compliant subjects, and without having to rely on potential competitors fo…