Artificial Intelligence – The Good and (Mostly) the Bad

It is accepted wisdom that all technological advances have their pros and cons.  It is my goal in this thought piece to analyze the potential impact of AI over the coming years and to predict both the benefits and the possible negative consequences that will one might expect.

The last few years have heralded the arrival of AI with incredible fanfare, and there has been a fierce competition to see who can most dramatically proclaim its future impact – “bigger than the computer”, “bigger than the transistor”, “bigger than the steam engine”, “bigger than fire”!  

 

The progress made in recent years in AI has indeed been remarkable, particularly in electric vehicles and in generative AI applications like chatGPT.   The technology is still in its infancy, but has already proven itself a rather precocious toddler.  We are only just starting to investigate the possible applications of this technology and if, like other technologies, it has the exponential growth in power and scope that one might expect, then it will indeed change the world in ways that we cannot even imagine now.

 

AI will probably be employed on a professional, industrial and personal level to save time and labor, much like earlier technologies.  There are many jobs that can be completely eliminated by AI devices or applications and there are others where AI will augment or assist.  Giving people more free time is seen as a worthy goal for technology, and certainly the march of human progress in technology has freed people from much of the drudgery of the past.

 

But is there a point at which displacing human labor, effort and creativity becomes detrimental? In the early industrial revolution, the replacement of skilled trades by machines sparked the Luddite movement, whose members protested and destroyed machines as they saw their wages decrease and their skills become obsolete.

 

We may view the replacement of assembly line workers by robots as a salutary advance because assembly line work is mind-numbing, but will more engaging, so-called ‘knowledge jobs’ actually be created?  Won’t AI actually be able to do much of that knowledge work with little guidance or input from humans?

 

And if one argues that AI will simply reduce the overall amount of human work necessary to produce the things we need, there are two interesting questions that arise.  One, will society prove capable of dividing up the remaining work in a way that allows everyone to participate and receive their share of the benefits?

 

And two, once we are relieved of the burden of working for 30 or 40 hours a week and perhaps need only show up for 5 or 10, what shall we do with our free time?  If the last 30 years are any indication, the great mass of humanity is unlikely to burst into creative enterprise and find ever more enlightening ways to express itself.  Binge-watching Netflix series, playing Minecraft and interminably scrolling Instagram reels are the more likely activities, and one wonders what kind of society will evolve from this pseudo-Eden of no more work.

 

In past technology revolutions one can argue that the jobs eliminated were more than compensated for by the creation of new jobs that supported or were corollary to the new technology.  But AI may be different, in that it is not merely a device or a piece of software, but rather combines both a task and the human intelligence necessary to create, maintain and modify itself.

To the extent that AI can assist human beings in performing tasks or creating things and NOT replace them entirely, then one can hope that the benefits will outweigh the dangers.  But I don’t think it is hyperbole to contemplate the more extreme outcome of partially or even totally sidelining much of human endeavor.  

It may be that humans need to have meaningful work, and not just activity, and that by reducing or eliminating that need we are attempting to short-circuit evolution.  It is common for retired people to fight depression when they face endless days of free time.  The societal instability that arose out of the Great Depression or other periods of large scale unemployment may have been partly or even mainly due to desperate need and poverty, but as the old saying goes - idle hands are the devil's playground.  

 

The use of AI in the military sphere is nightmarish to imagine.  And there is absolutely no doubt that it will swiftly inhabit every aspect of that world.  Terminator type scenarios are probably a decade or two off, but AI use in drones, combat vehicles, weaponry and decision-making is already upon us and will no doubt increase exponentially in the next few years.  The overwhelming amount of information, sensor data and tactical options in warfare have increasingly become almost impossible for humans to process.  AI may already be taking over command.

 

In the world of social media and the arts, AI is being hyped and sold as a boon for creators, but will it soon re-define what creativity is and make it a cheap commodity?  If I can ask chatGPT to write a poem for me, tweak it a bit, and then parade it as my own creation, will AI soon lead to the Walmartization of culture?  And why learn how to write if my AI app can do it for me?  Are we gleefully welcoming our own obsolescence?

 

And we all know what bots, deep fakes and other early forms of AI have done to civil discourse and politics, not to mention the incredible harm that tiktok, Instagram, YouTube, discord, facebook and other social media have done to the vulnerable teenage psyche.  Are more advanced forms of AI likely to wreak even more havoc?

Another concern is what impact AI will have on education.  We have already seen that newer generations have lost the ability of map orientation, cursive writing and mental math.  Why learn algebra or calculus if AI can do it faster?  No need to master grammar, AI will make sure anything you write is correct.  When every fact and concept can be accessed immediately through vocal interactions with Siri or her brethren, why study history or political science or literature?

 

I have been using chatGPT’s mia for practicing my French and German.  I say something and mia responds appropriately, posing questions to push the conversation along and correcting me if I ask her to do so.  It is not yet quite the same as speaking to a language teacher, but it is close.  And it takes away all the nervousness and shyness that one normally needs to overcome to conduct a conversation.  How seductive is that?  But is it a slippery slope to isolation and social disintegration?  Will we all choose to inhabit a world of AI-produced acquaintances, friends and lovers.  None of the messiness of real human relationships – what could be better? 

 

Yes, AI is upon us and there may be some wondrous things that make our lives better.  But beware, all that glitters is not gold.  The tech billionaires who argue for unfettered development of AI see the world through a lens focused on corporate profits and unimaginably high valuations of AI startups.  Their short-sighted arrogance needs to be tempered by more sober analysis before Pandora’s box is entirely open.

The Insidious Nature of Today’s Neo-Fascism

The word fascism is tossed around with gusto by both sides of the American political landscape these days. The historical memory of the fascist regimes of the 20^th century – Germany, Italy, Spain, and to some extent Japan – provides strong images evoking ruthless dictators and police states.

A definition of fascism typically mentions the following: extreme nationalism, a narcissistic, aggrieved dictator, an autocratic, all-powerful state, state-controlled media, the elimination of political opposition, a focus on enemies of the state, a militaristic foreign policy and some sort of secret police and informant infrastructure.

 

In recent years right wing pundits and news sources in the USA and in other nations have claimed that fascism is a characteristic of the left.  They note that the Nazi party’s name was the National Socialist German Worker’s Party and that both Hitler and Mussolini were, in their early days, associated with socialist groups.  They also point to the Stalin and Mao dictatorships and the personality cults and police states that surrounded these megalomaniacs.  They depict the so-called cancel culture and woke political movement as forms of ‘thought control’ and a threat to free speech.  They consider current government spending an indication of an all-powerful state and they believe that religious freedom is under attack.

 

It is true that dictators and police states have emerged from both sides of the political spectrum.  Revolutions that have been precipitated by communist or socialist movements have been just as likely to create horribly cruel and repressive states as the ones created by the true fascists.  These regimes, whether originating from right or left, end up becoming a type of fascism. 

 

However, the historical truth is that fascism was diametrically opposed to socialism and communism, and that the pitched battles of the 1920’s and 1930’s were fought between those two political ideologies.  Socialism’s focus is on the worker, international cooperation and a more egalitarian society.  Fascism promotes nationalism and the state.

 

What is clear in the history is that repressive regimes, whether fascist, Marxist, Stalinist or any other ideology, have similar characteristics:  a personality cult centered around a narcissistic leader; a tendency to reject or eliminate credible media and create a world view oriented around the leader’s political agenda; a habit of accusing political opponents of doing the things that it is guilty of; extreme nationalism; a continual state of alarm over external and internal enemies; and a rigidly controlled society.

 

Given these criteria, the MAGA world of Donald Trump would seem to have a strong potential to veer toward this kind of autocratic rule, which one may define as neo-fascist.  There is no more narcissistic, aggrieved political figure in the world today than Donald Trump. He has transformed immigrants as well as many minority groups within the country into enemies of the state.  He alienates our allies and disparages the UN and efforts by the global community to solve international problems such as climate change.  Although he does not control it directly, the right-wing news media has many of the characteristics of a fascist, state-controlled media, in that it has limited interest in seeking out truth and reports everything through a very Trump-friendly lens.  He demands and obtains absolute allegiance from his party.  He has also promised to seek out and eliminate political opponents and to take revenge on a variety of groups if he is reelected, a classic fascist tactic.

 

The depiction of woke and cancel culture as fascist has been effective on the right, but it is a perspective that doesn’t pass scrutiny.  Most of the culture war has played out in social media and very little has passed into law or any sort of forced behavior.  No one is forced to ponder or acknowledge the legacy of racism; no one is forced to be gay or transgender; no one is denied the right to worship, pray or espouse fundamentalist religious views; no one is forced to have an abortion; no woman is forced to work outside the home; no one is forced to be sympathetic to the plight of immigrants and refugees.  The so-called radical left has not even been able to increase taxes on the wealthy to help slow the vast and growing disparities in wealth and income.

 

The latest accusation of fascism from the right focuses on the Trump legal cases and the supposed weaponization of the justice department.  The fact that both the defamation and hush money cases were tried in state courts with no relationship to the federal justice department makes a mockery of this accusation.  Add to that the fact that all of the election fraud cases from 2020 that were brought before various jurisdictions were found to be without merit and it is abundantly clear that the right’s arguments in this sphere have absolutely no basis in fact or reality.

 

The clearest path to fascism is a growing allegiance or obeisance to a dangerously unpredictable and vengeful leader.  The quasi-religious personality cult around Donald Trump is striking in its similarities to past demagogues and tyrants. The craven acquiescence of many tech, finance, political and business leaders and other former anti-Trumpers is also depressingly similar to the insidious capitulation and miscalculation of the 20’s and 30’s.   Trump may not have an army of storm troopers yet, but the radical fringe of his supporters has shown itself ready to answer the call.

 

America still has a strong economy and a history of weathering highly partisan political times, but I don’t believe it is hyperbole to say that a second term of Donald Trump could herald the arrival of neo-fascism to the home of the brave and the land of the free.

 

 

 

War

Every year, when Memorial Day comes around, I find myself thinking deeply about the nature of war, sacrifice, heroism and patriotism.  These concepts are complex, but as so often occurs with loaded words, they are tossed about with little regard for the questions that surround them.

I have been watching PBS a lot lately, and they have been previewing a Memorial Day special that pays tribute to veterans.  They show images of young, disabled veterans in their uniforms with amputated limbs.  The images break your heart.  

 

We have so many men and women enduring lifelong pain and suffering because of war.   It is estimated that there are over 1500 soldier amputees from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in addition to the over 7000 who lost their lives.  Over thirty thousand have committed suicide since 9/11.   Rates of divorce, alcoholism and drug addiction are markedly higher among veterans, and our city streets are littered with homeless veterans.  It is impossible to accurately estimate the effects of PTSD and other psychological problems associated with war.

 

These US casualties, horrific as they are, pale in comparison to the devastation these wars wrought on the places where they were fought.  It is estimated that over 432,000 civilians died in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

All of this suffering and tragedy is the result of wars from which one struggles to find any positive effects or deeper justification at all.  Indeed, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars may have been the most grievous mistakes in our nation's history.  The hubris, ignorance and short-sightedness that launched us into those wars almost defies belief.

There are very few wars that one can describe as ‘just wars’.  Every conflict the USA has engaged in since the Korean War (which one can argue had the positive effect of preventing all of Korea turning into North Korea – but could also have probably been avoided with wiser diplomacy) has been a complete debacle and waste of human life and resources.

 

We honor our veterans on Memorial Day because we must recognize sacrifice even when the justification for that sacrifice has been proven to be non-existent and the sacrifice itself accomplished nothing.  We honor them as patriots, but what does that mean?  It is not their love of country that is so moving, but rather their good intentions and their love and sacrifice for their fellow soldiers, which can carry them through even when the larger goal proves to be a fiction.

 

If we truly wish to honor the sacrifice of our veterans, then we should learn the lessons from the past and avoid interminable wars and conflicts of the future.  Easier said than done, one might say, but the rising tide of bellicose and jingoistic posturing by our elected representatives and various other pundits is an alarming signal that we are almost eagerly expecting and courting conflict in the near future.  If history is any guide, then those conflicts will have been avoidable and unconscionable.  Let us beware.

Sorry Elon, Full Self-Driving Is Impressive But No Fun!

I have a 2023 Tesla Model 3.  It is my second Tesla and I have enjoyed owning them.  I particularly like the single pedal driving, the acceleration and the handling.  I hope that electric cars will eventually dominate the market, though it seems unlikely that gasoline vehicles will disappear given the challenges of battery range and charging.

Recently Tesla gave me a month of full self-driving capability.  They are clearly making an effort to get more revenue.  After my free month, they offered to let me continue using it for a subscription price of $99/month, or to purchase it for $8000.

 

I was quite excited to experiment with the full self-driving mode.  From a technology point of view this capability is quite impressive.  The military research agency DARPA held a competition (the Grand Challenge) in an isolated part of the Mojave Desert in 2004 to spur development of autonomous vehicles.  No one was able to claim the prize that year, but in 2005 several teams successfully completed the course.  In 2012 DARPA altered the competition to be an Urban Challenge, and six teams were able to complete the course.

 

The sophistication of sensors and software and the sheer power of computation necessary to drive autonomously is mind blowing.  The first time I put in a destination and triggered the full self-driving mode it was quite exhilarating to watch and feel the vehicle move on its own - the wheel turning, the engine accelerating and braking, the turn signals going on and off.  It was highly entertaining for about 10 minutes.

 

Then the novelty began to wane and I noticed that the driving mode was quite conservative.  The car never exceeded the speed limit (understandably – who would pay the ticket?) and often went well below the speed limit as it navigated obstacles, other cars, pedestrians, sharp turns, limited visibility and all the other things that humans have to monitor and respond to while driving.

 

I checked the control part of my Tesla monitor and saw that I could choose ‘Chill’, ‘Average’ or ‘Assertive’ as the mode for self-driving.  I switched the mode to Assertive, but didn’t note much of a change other than a bit more acceleration after a stop.

 

I used the automated self-driving mode a few more times during my free month to demonstrate it to friends and visitors, but that was it.  It simply didn’t appeal to me.  I couldn’t imagine using it on a daily basis.  I would go mad from impatience!  It drives like the elderly person that I refuse to believe I will eventually become.

 

I suppose I can see it being useful for long trips when the fatigue of driving would be an incentive, but only if it were completely dependable so that you could do other things.  Otherwise the sacrifice in lost time due to its observance of the speed limit would not be worth the bit of relaxation you might obtain.

 

The technology may evolve over time to become closer to a normal driving experience.  But if you think about it, we humans are impatient creatures and most of us drive a lot more energetically than a self-driving vehicle will ever have permission to emulate.

 

Is this really the future of driving?  Personally, I can’t see it.  I would only use this feature if I were forced to.  It may one day be ideal for the elderly or those with disabilities or some form of Uber/taxi transport.  But as a means for getting from point A to point B on a daily basis I suspect that it would drive most people crazy.

 

Sorry to be such a buzz kill.  The technology is impressive, but the result is not.

 

Tyrannies of the Majority and Minority

I have heard people defend our electoral college process of choosing the president as a way to avoid the so-called tyranny of the majority.  And recently, there has been much written about the tyranny of a small radical minority of the republican party, who have been able to stall or derail legislation.  What are the concepts behind these tyrannies and what can be done to limit the wrong that such tyrannies may do?

The USA proclaims itself a democracy.  This means that the people should dictate what the government does. In making decisions, a government either directly polls the people or does so through their representatives.  In general, the majority determines the decision.  The minority of people or representatives who voted against the decision may feel aggrieved, but if a decision must be made then it is only logical to follow the will of the majority. 

 

However, there may be situations where the minority may not only be disappointed but actually harmed or persecuted or significantly disadvantaged by a majority decision.  The challenge for government is to find ways to prevent this from happening while not allowing minority interests to acquire more influence or power than they actually deserve.

 

Where majority rule may err is when it is specifically targeting minority groups.  As long as the issues it addresses apply to all citizens, then it makes perfect sense to go with the majority.

 

One of the primary means for preventing tyranny or oppression is to establish a basic set of rights that even the majority may not violate.  Another way to protect minority groups is to have a judicial branch that evaluates laws and decisions on the basis of fairness and reasonableness.

 

To call the electoral college process a way to prevent the tyranny of the majority doesn’t make sense.  There is absolutely no reason why the majority should not choose the president.  The choice is impacting all citizens equally, and no minority is being specifically disadvantaged.  It is simply nonsensical to say that a minority of citizens should hold sway over the choice for president.

There is also the potential for the tyranny of the minority in government.  Powerful or wealthy special interest groups that represent a minority can play an outsize role in determining policies.  Also, small groups within the legislature can use various ploys to advance their minority views. 

 

There are safeguards built into our governing process that attempt to mitigate the potential for tyranny of the majority – filibusters, super-majorities, lobbying and PAC activities, and various other arcane practices.  But these seem to now be more likely to contribute to a tyranny of the minority.  For example, most of the country would like stricter gun control but a minority interest group prevents that.  The same is true for reproductive freedoms.

 

Alas, governing is a messy process and there is no perfect way to balance everyone’s interests.  This is one of the reasons that a constitution and form of government should evolve and not be set in stone.  As our society and the world change, so must also the way that we govern ourselves.  

Is The Decline of Religious Affiliation and Attendance a Problem?

In developed countries the decline of religious affiliation and attendance has been rapid over the last forty years.  When polled, an ever-increasing number of people describe their religious affiliation as ‘none’, and even those who still acknowledge some affiliation rarely darken the doorstep of a church or synagogue. In the USA only 30% of respondents say they attend church at least once a month.  In Europe it is much less – fewer than 10% in both France and Germany and all of Scandinavia.

There are numerous reasons for this decline according to studies.  Here are some of them:

• Trend away from doctrinal belief toward agnosticism and atheism
• Scientific and religious conflicts
• Church and priest/minister scandals
• Perception of hypocrisy in organized religion
• A decrease in existential insecurity
• Competing interests and activities
• Church-going has less cultural and professional relevance

The trend away from organized religion is lamented by religious authorities and by conservatives in the US.  Some argue that many of society’s problems – drugs, suicide, crime, sexual predation, etc. – are exacerbated by the decreasing role that religion plays in US culture.

 

This essay is meant to address two questions:  One, whether religion does indeed play a critical role in upholding morality and ethics in a society, and two, whether there are positive aspects of religious life – e.g. community, philanthropy, spirituality – that can be cultivated without the negative aspects of organized religion.

 

Societal problems such as drugs, suicide and crime plagued society long before the downward decline of religion.  In western Europe and Scandinavia, where there is almost no church attendance, these problems are not nearly as pronounced today as they are in the USA.  If religious practice were essential to moral and ethical development then it seems that Europe would have seen its problems escalate dramatically in recent decades, but that is not the case.

 

Moral and ethical values can clearly be taught independently from religious doctrine.  A social conscience and moral compass are to a great extent developed in childhood within a family.  Whether that instruction is associated with God, or with a general love and respect for humanity does not appear to make any difference in the outcome. It is my own observation both within my extended family and in society in general that moral and ethical individuals are equally distributed across religious and non-religious environments.

 

The forces that have the potential to prey on moral and ethical behavior – egotism, greed, lust, excessive ambition to name a few – are just as likely to seduce a religious person as an agnostic.  Anti-social and pathological behaviors are equal opportunity assailants.  Thus, it is my conclusion that formal religion is in no way a necessary pre-condition for a moral and ethical society.

 

There are, however, many positive historical attributes of religion that are perhaps more difficult to cultivate in a society where there is no common thread of cultural connection.  Churches, synagogues and mosques are places where community is created, where philanthropic projects are launched and where spiritual solace is nurtured.  Can society replace formal religious structures, generally burdened by a host of negatives – rigid doctrine, exclusivity, political intrigue, anti-science tendencies – with other forms of human interaction that offer similar salutary benefits without the negative baggage?

 

Human beings are social, and it is not much of a stretch to imagine a world where people come together in myriad organized and ad hoc ways to effect positive things.  From a philanthropical standpoint, organizations such as Doctors Without Borders, the Nature Conservancy and hundreds of others are completely secular, allowing anyone and everyone to address and actively participate in important issues and needs without relying on a religiously affiliated group.

 

There are also numerous means to create community without relying on a common religious belief or doctrine.  With modest effort people can find groups that address their own interests, hobbies or passions and establish very strong relationships and emotional support within those groups.

 

The more intangible subject of spiritual succor and solace might seem more difficult to recreate in non-religious ways.  But music, art, dance, meditation, yoga and many other activities have spiritual elements, and seeking out one’s own spiritual needs rather than subscribing to a formal religious prescription may end up being a healthier practice in the long run. Yes, it is also a more abstract pursuit (though all of spirituality is, after all, an abstraction), and it can lend itself to silly and even dangerous cults and other bizarre practices.  But spirituality is ultimately a very personal odyssey, and it is not really radical to advocate for a less corporate means of cultivating one’s spiritual life.

 

The decline of formal religion is not universal.  Many parts of the developing world are actually seeing an increase in religious fervor and indoctrination.  The accumulating dark clouds on the horizon of human affairs may cause some to retreat from more innovative approaches and return to the security of traditional religious fare.  Moreover, there are still many people even in the developed world who will never consider other paths to community and spirituality than their chosen religion.  But in my analysis, I find no danger in the rapid decline of religious affiliation and attendance.  We are, after all, an evolving species and our future has always depended on innovation and new ways of thinking.  

 

 

Road Rage and the Inevitability of Human Conflict

I am an impatient driver – not one of my better qualities.  The other day I sped up to pass a car on the right side and when I changed back into his lane the driver flipped me the bird.  As he drove behind me, I could see him yelling something and gesticulating furiously.  I hadn’t endangered anyone and he didn’t have to slow down.  In fact, he sped up when he saw that I was going to pass him.  He was just angry on principle, or perhaps because he has a lot of anger in him – a classic case of road rage.

Road rage is ubiquitous.  What does it tell us about people?  Much of the time road rage erupts after seemingly innocuous driving maneuvers.  For example, if one pulls out in front of another car and causes that driver to have to slow down a bit.  Or if one cuts in front of a car with less space than that driver feels is necessary.  Or even if one is driving slowly and another car wants to get by.  Most of the time road rage is not sparked by an unsafe or dangerous situation.  The reaction is generally wildly disproportionate to the cause.  

 

Why do we human beings get so angry in these situations?  There is an anonymity in driving that perhaps contributes to the often apoplectic behavior of a road rager.  With no one to moderate or judge our behavior, perhaps we feel free to liberate our inner demons.  Living under control in society and within a family may bottle up our frustrations and regrets.  In theory, driving alone in a car may be the perfect time to let loose and use the catharsis of road rage to purge our psyche.

 

But road rage doesn’t just occur when people are alone in their cars, and I would bet that only a minority of people are actually seized by the incandescent raving that one frequently sees on the roads.  No, I believe that road rage is an expression of a scarred human being, one who has some profound anger and frustration that lurks just below the surface, needing only the slightest perceived offense to gush forth.

 

But sadly, although a minority, the road rage people comprise enough of the human race to ensure the propagation of human conflict.  These are the same people who see every slight as a provocation to fight, who perceive signs of disrespect everywhere, whose first instinct in any conflict or disagreement is to lash out and go to battle.

 

None of us is psychologically untainted.  We all have our neuroses, fears, pet peeves, insecurities and deep-seated psychic idiosyncrasies.  But most of us don’t lose our minds when someone cuts in front of us and makes us slow down a bit.  Those who do are the first to escalate conflict, to rapturously call out the dogs of war.  It is the challenge of humanity to minimize the impact of the road rage contingent, recognize the signs of their damaged souls and keep them away from positions of leadership or authority.  Human conflict may be inevitable, but it can be contained.