Reid Hoffman’s recent paean to the miracle of AI in the New York Times is just another reminder that we’re not having a real discussion about it.
The essay, which is behind a firewall, is entitled “AI Will Empower Humanity,” and argues that based on his past experience of technologies giving people more power and agency, and despite the risks inherent with any “truly powerful technologies,” that “…A.I. is on a path not just to continue this trend of individual empowerment but also to dramatically enhance it.”
What a bunch of fucking nonsense, for at least three reasons:
It’s unmitigated propaganda.
To be fair, the essay is an op-ed, which isn’t supposed to be balanced reportage. But his opinions aren’t given such exposure in the New York Times because of the force of his argument but rather his stature in the tech world. The resulting placement imputes that he possesses some sense of knowledge and authority.
He dismisses his bias in favor of AI with a single sentence, mentioning that he has “a significant personal stake in the future of artificial intelligence” but that “my stake is more than just financial,” and then goes on with his biased favoritism of AI.
Oh, and he’s shilling his new book.
His PR firm probably wrote the thing and maybe used a generative AI tool to do it. They certainly pitched it to the newspaper. Anybody with an opposing view probably doesn’t have the standing or mercenary economic purpose to enjoy such access.
His argument is crap.
In a sentence, Hoffman’s belief is that AI will make our lives not only easier but better and more reliable, and that these benefits will outweigh any concerns about it.
In his rich tech guy bubble, adoring oneself in the mirror of social media is “the coin of the realm,” whatever that means. He references Orwell’s 1984 when he claims that giving up anonymity and sharing more data improves people’s autonomy instead of limiting it.
His Orwellian reference is supposed to be a good thing.
Then, he reels off instances wherein AI will know more about us than we know ourselves, and that it will get between us and the world to mediate our every opinion and action. This way, we’ll always make the best possible decisions, as the dispassionate clarity of AI will replace “hunches, gut reactions, emotional immediacy, faulty mental shortcuts, fate, faith and mysticism.”
If only human beings behaved like smart machines, all would be well. We’ve heard similar arguments in economics and politics. It’s a scary pipe dream that he wants us to believe isn’t so scary.
But it’s still a pipe dream.
His strawman opposition is a farce.
Like other AI and tech evangelists, Hoffman smears people as “tech skeptics” and their opposition to AI as a worry it’s “a threat to personal autonomy,” and then goes on to provide examples of how losing said autonomy will be a good thing (the Orwell thing).
He also references the possibility of misuse of data by overzealous corporations or governments, but counters that individuals will have access to AI tools to combat such AI surveillance and potential manipulation.
Life as an incessant battle between AIs. Gosh, doesn’t that future sound like fun?
At least he doesn’t reference “Luddites,” which is a pejorative intended to dismiss people as maniacs with hammers in search of machines to smash (the caricature is far from the historical truth, but that’s the stuff of another essay).
And, thankfully, he doesn’t quote some fellow tech toff saying that the risk of AI is that it could destroy the world, which usually comes with some version of “please, stop me because the machines I’m building are too powerful” offhand boast.
The thing is there’s no organized or funded opposition to AI.
Even though every AI benefit he foresees will require profound, meaningful changes and trade-offs of personal agency, sense of self, how we relate to others, and what we perceive and believe. All of us sense that huge, likely irreversible changes are coming to our lives, yet there’s no discussion — whether referenced and challenged in his op-ed or anywhere else — about what it means and whether or not we want it.
We deserve thoughtful and honest debate, only instead we get one-sided puff pieces from folks who can afford to sell us one side of the story.
Where’s the counterpoint to AI propaganda?
[This essay appeared originally at Spiritual Telegraph]