The vulnerability to "AI"-capture seems to run deepest among intellectuals - but this vulnerability extends across a very wide range of intellectual types - politicians, media executives, corporate managers, finance entrepreneurs, technocrats, academics, teachers, totalitarians, atheists and traditionally religious, New Age spiritual seekers...
Indeed, no class or kind of intellectual persons seem to have much resistance to capture.
It seems that almost all have by now succumbed; and with those who have not succumbed... well, it seems like just a matter of "not yet".
Why are intellectuals especially vulnerable?
My best guess is that intellectuals have always tended to engage with life via models; and models are abstract simplifications of the boundless complexity of reality. Such models include mathematics, sciences, politics, economics; and indeed all academic and bureaucratic subjects.
This second-hand engagement via abstract simplifications is valuable insofar as the models are useful; albeit the usefulness of a model may not have been checked, and even if a model has been checked these checks are only retrospective (can only be retrospective).
The prospective, future limitations of a model (which limitations are many and intrinsic exactly because it is an abstract simplification) are not knowable or predictable in advance; and indeed when the model has captured a person, the failures of a model will usually be denied, explained-away.
The value of intellectuals is not that they understand Life, or The World, or The Universe, or God; but that they understand the model.
Insofar as the model is useful or valued, so intellectuals are useful or valued.
But the problem, the weakness, is that intellectuals (of all kinds) so-often depend for their position and self-esteem on maintaining the special value of second-hand understandings (of all kinds).
One malign tendency among intellectuals is to assert the primacy of the model: that the model is itself The Thing being-modelled.
And another tendency is to increase the abstraction and complexity of the model, partly to protect their own expertise - e.g. to keep the model difficult enough to elude external analysis and critique, and to impress/ bamboozle/ subordinate the layman.
I mean that intellectuals are prone to elaborating or generating a complex model that covers ever-more ground.
Indeed, intellectuals tend to press their models to such a degree of complexity and abstraction, that they themselves do not understand the model in which they claim expertise.
Instead intellectuals may claim expertise in using the model.
So the situation arises that many intellectuals suffer the profound and existential disadvantages of a belief-in, a commitment to, the primacy of merely secondhand models of reality...
Yet these are models which the intellectuals themselves do not understand; instead these are models that the intellectual merely serves (or claims to serve).
This situation, although common, is wrong - is indeed evil; insofar as service to the un-understood, service to something whose nature is not known, is evil.
So-called-AI is a cluster of abstract, highly complex, and un-understandable models of reality.
There can be no expertise in understanding an "AI" model.
As such; "AI" technologies suffer all the intrinsic disadvantages of all models; but "AI" also intrinsically lack the potential value (which is a pragmatic and retrospective value) of the most valid models.
Therefore, the special vulnerability of intellectuals to capture by "AI" is in the first-place a consequence of the evil abuses of secondhand models as a way of relating to reality; secondly that "AI" models are of a model-type that cannot validly be used, since they are un-understandable.
The answer to this situation is in striving to eschew un-understandable models of reality - and to reject their primacy; and to recognize that to be useful a model must genuinely be understood.
Such a moral discipline will reject a great deal more than "AI" - but exactly that is necessary.
Because all abstract models of reality need to be simple enough that we genuinely understand them: and if we are to regard them as central to our lives, we need personally to understand them.
It is not difficult, as a mental process.
I believe that we all already-have a simple, innate and direct (because God-given) contact with primary Life and Reality.
The intellectual deception is in demanding a more comprehensive, hence too-complex, typically too abstract, understanding - than that which is understandable and knowable.
In a nutshell; modern intellectuals of all stripes and types have become experts at self-validating, self-serving, self-deception; by pretending (for advantages of self-esteem, for claimed social expediency) to understand that which they do not understand...
Which is why intellectuals are so especially vulnerable to capture by the un-understandable models of "AI".
No comments:
Post a Comment