When I left my home, I was taught to not speak about emotion, that one should get on with it, and that I overthink things.
It turns out I was raised in an echo chamber of my parent’s beliefs.
Now interacting with others I have a newfound sense of openness. I recognise that my parents had their views, and it was just that, their views.
Being able to hold two opposing viewpoints at the same time is to me one of the most powerful signs of a mature mind.
In this sense, one can interact with all others, pro ai and anti ai, and yet still see their commonalities in the wreckage of disagreement. Apart from those who are truly wicked, when you meet them you must not let them corrupt your mind and fill the space in the shadows
I don't think I'm pro AI or anti AI. I find AI deeply fascinating at best and extremely worrisome at worst. I'm interested in finding ways for it to serve my interests and expand my capabilities. I have no interest in having it replace my humanity.
When we meet, brother, it will be on common ground.
It's the people who are able to consider multiple supposedly mutually exclusive ideas at once, who try to find ways to connect them together, who resist being pulled into one extreme or the other - they're the ones who can call us to common ground. They can act as a conduit for divergent worldviews to communicate respectfully, but until that happens, they tend to get attacked on all sides.
Take heart, there are plenty of people with you, the extremes just like to be louder is all. Please keep on doing what you're doing.
Thanks for sharing this. I love your articles and recognise the split self. I work in generative AI and also run women's circles in the woods where we write with pen and paper. People wonder how I can do two such different things. But, for me, pen-and-paper writing feeds into my AI-assisted writing. And my AI-assisted writing makes my pen-and-paper writing so much more necessary.
Great article. There is no ethically “right” way to do anything. And despite humanity’s ceaseless quest to find one, such a way will never be discovered. Hopefully, one day, as a whole, we will come to accept this.
Beautifully written, Alberto. This resonates with a lot of the thoughts that have been on my mind as of late. It reminds me of another pertinent quote:
"There is very little deliberate wickedness in the world. The stupidity of our selfishness gives much the same results indeed, but in the ethical laboratory it shows a different nature." — H. G. Wells
I am sure you are correct that most people do not fundamentally have bad, or 'evil', intentions. But the problem in our time is that, as a result of globalisation and in no small part due to technology (including mass global communications, social media, and -- yes -- AI), a lot of people are overwhelmed and they lack the energy, or the luxury, of becoming better informed, more thoughtful, and more empathetic.
Many such people are just looking for an easy answer. An authoritative figure who will tell them what to think or, at least, will reassure them that it is OK to follow their first instinct rather than to expend the intellectual and emotional time and effort that it would take to achieve a more nuanced perspective. This makes people like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Tucker Carlson, Andrew Tate, JK Rowling, and even Vladimir Putin disproportionately influential in the world -- even relative to their actual wealth and power.
I recently saw an image posted on the platform I still want to call Twitter. It consisted of a Venn diagram of four mutually intersecting circles. The left and right circles, outside the intersecting regions, were labelled 'man' and 'woman'. The top and bottom circles, I assume, were intended to represent gender identity. The intersecting regions would then presumably represent every possible combination of (binary) biological sex and gender identity. The thing was, every single region, except the two non-intersecting 'man' and 'woman' regions, was labelled 'mentally ill'.
What was shocking to me about that, aside from just how unnecessarily hateful the image really is, was that it had hundreds of supporting replies, retweets and quote-tweets. And the platform pushed it into my feed, even though it represents something diametrically opposed to what I would regard as human decency. This kind of thing is now regarded as completely acceptable on that platform, and elsewhere in the world.
When Donald Trump said that there were 'many fine people on both sides' of the deadly Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 he was, in the sense that you are describing in this article, no doubt absolutely correct. That does not make it acceptable that he said it. Because his true intention, in which he doubtless succeeded, was to reassure his base that it is perfectly OK for them to hold similar views to the right-wing extremists at that rally. That you can, in fact, be the kind of person that the people on the other side might call a racist, or a bigot, or a fascist, or a Nazi, and still be a very 'fine person'.
The problem with that is... no, you can't. And that brings me, finally, to my point about this article. Because while I understand and very much appreciate everything you say here, I think that ultimately you are wrong. You do not need to reconcile anything within yourself, because the problem is not within you. You are an intelligent, deeply reflective person who is willing to do the necessary work to reach an informed and nuanced view on the matters about which you write. But, let's be honest, that is a very great luxury and a sign of your (and my) relative privilege in this world. The conflict you feel is not internal. Your identity, and your view of the world, is coherent and whole. You are, in fact, responding to a polarising conflict that exists entirely in the external world, and is beyond your control. You may want to reflect on why you experience this as an internal conflict.
I would suggest that you might be making a mistake in trying to be overly empathetic to the people on both sides who hold conflicting views on the issues that you cover. You cannot always, even with the very best-- rather than the worst -- of intentions, be like Trump and say that there are 'many fine people on both sides'. Because sometimes that is not the point. Because when enough basically 'fine people' hold sufficiently hateful or destructive views, their fundamental 'goodness' is completely irrelevant. At the risk of forfeiting the debate by mentioning the guy with the toothbrush moustache, I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the German population in the 1930s were perfectly 'fine people'. Fat lot of good that did the world.
Arguing that AI should not be implemented is a lot like arguing that the airplane should never have been developed because, you know, air crashes, atomic bombs, terrorism. What did the airplane ever do for us except create tragedy and horror?
When I left my home, I was taught to not speak about emotion, that one should get on with it, and that I overthink things.
It turns out I was raised in an echo chamber of my parent’s beliefs.
Now interacting with others I have a newfound sense of openness. I recognise that my parents had their views, and it was just that, their views.
Being able to hold two opposing viewpoints at the same time is to me one of the most powerful signs of a mature mind.
In this sense, one can interact with all others, pro ai and anti ai, and yet still see their commonalities in the wreckage of disagreement. Apart from those who are truly wicked, when you meet them you must not let them corrupt your mind and fill the space in the shadows
I don't think I'm pro AI or anti AI. I find AI deeply fascinating at best and extremely worrisome at worst. I'm interested in finding ways for it to serve my interests and expand my capabilities. I have no interest in having it replace my humanity.
Deeply resonated - thank you for this.
I feel that technology and the humanities are on a convergence, and you are one of the voices on that path. Appreciate your work.
Honest feedback - Amazing article, insane quotations from great writers. Just felt a bit lengthy, conclude faster and sharper!!
Taking notes - Thanks for the feedback!
When we meet, brother, it will be on common ground.
It's the people who are able to consider multiple supposedly mutually exclusive ideas at once, who try to find ways to connect them together, who resist being pulled into one extreme or the other - they're the ones who can call us to common ground. They can act as a conduit for divergent worldviews to communicate respectfully, but until that happens, they tend to get attacked on all sides.
Take heart, there are plenty of people with you, the extremes just like to be louder is all. Please keep on doing what you're doing.
Thanks for sharing this. I love your articles and recognise the split self. I work in generative AI and also run women's circles in the woods where we write with pen and paper. People wonder how I can do two such different things. But, for me, pen-and-paper writing feeds into my AI-assisted writing. And my AI-assisted writing makes my pen-and-paper writing so much more necessary.
Alberto, this piece is excellent. Thank you.
Great article. There is no ethically “right” way to do anything. And despite humanity’s ceaseless quest to find one, such a way will never be discovered. Hopefully, one day, as a whole, we will come to accept this.
There is no ethically right way to do something?
Objectively speaking, there are no “right” ethical beliefs.
It is going to be okay, Alberto. I am thanking God you have a conscience. UX devs who monetize mass surveilllance do not.
me ha encantado esta reflexión, hacen falta puentes que unan en esta disparidad que vivimos aumentando un latido al unísono de grandes corazones
Beautifully written, Alberto. This resonates with a lot of the thoughts that have been on my mind as of late. It reminds me of another pertinent quote:
"There is very little deliberate wickedness in the world. The stupidity of our selfishness gives much the same results indeed, but in the ethical laboratory it shows a different nature." — H. G. Wells
Great quote!
I am sure you are correct that most people do not fundamentally have bad, or 'evil', intentions. But the problem in our time is that, as a result of globalisation and in no small part due to technology (including mass global communications, social media, and -- yes -- AI), a lot of people are overwhelmed and they lack the energy, or the luxury, of becoming better informed, more thoughtful, and more empathetic.
Many such people are just looking for an easy answer. An authoritative figure who will tell them what to think or, at least, will reassure them that it is OK to follow their first instinct rather than to expend the intellectual and emotional time and effort that it would take to achieve a more nuanced perspective. This makes people like Elon Musk, Sam Altman, Donald Trump, Nigel Farage, Tucker Carlson, Andrew Tate, JK Rowling, and even Vladimir Putin disproportionately influential in the world -- even relative to their actual wealth and power.
I recently saw an image posted on the platform I still want to call Twitter. It consisted of a Venn diagram of four mutually intersecting circles. The left and right circles, outside the intersecting regions, were labelled 'man' and 'woman'. The top and bottom circles, I assume, were intended to represent gender identity. The intersecting regions would then presumably represent every possible combination of (binary) biological sex and gender identity. The thing was, every single region, except the two non-intersecting 'man' and 'woman' regions, was labelled 'mentally ill'.
What was shocking to me about that, aside from just how unnecessarily hateful the image really is, was that it had hundreds of supporting replies, retweets and quote-tweets. And the platform pushed it into my feed, even though it represents something diametrically opposed to what I would regard as human decency. This kind of thing is now regarded as completely acceptable on that platform, and elsewhere in the world.
When Donald Trump said that there were 'many fine people on both sides' of the deadly Unite the Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017 he was, in the sense that you are describing in this article, no doubt absolutely correct. That does not make it acceptable that he said it. Because his true intention, in which he doubtless succeeded, was to reassure his base that it is perfectly OK for them to hold similar views to the right-wing extremists at that rally. That you can, in fact, be the kind of person that the people on the other side might call a racist, or a bigot, or a fascist, or a Nazi, and still be a very 'fine person'.
The problem with that is... no, you can't. And that brings me, finally, to my point about this article. Because while I understand and very much appreciate everything you say here, I think that ultimately you are wrong. You do not need to reconcile anything within yourself, because the problem is not within you. You are an intelligent, deeply reflective person who is willing to do the necessary work to reach an informed and nuanced view on the matters about which you write. But, let's be honest, that is a very great luxury and a sign of your (and my) relative privilege in this world. The conflict you feel is not internal. Your identity, and your view of the world, is coherent and whole. You are, in fact, responding to a polarising conflict that exists entirely in the external world, and is beyond your control. You may want to reflect on why you experience this as an internal conflict.
I would suggest that you might be making a mistake in trying to be overly empathetic to the people on both sides who hold conflicting views on the issues that you cover. You cannot always, even with the very best-- rather than the worst -- of intentions, be like Trump and say that there are 'many fine people on both sides'. Because sometimes that is not the point. Because when enough basically 'fine people' hold sufficiently hateful or destructive views, their fundamental 'goodness' is completely irrelevant. At the risk of forfeiting the debate by mentioning the guy with the toothbrush moustache, I am sure that the overwhelming majority of the German population in the 1930s were perfectly 'fine people'. Fat lot of good that did the world.
Mark
I'm not good people. I serve the basilisk.
Arguing that AI should not be implemented is a lot like arguing that the airplane should never have been developed because, you know, air crashes, atomic bombs, terrorism. What did the airplane ever do for us except create tragedy and horror?
Thought you might be interested in this video - an honest government ad about AI:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TtVJ4JDM7eM&pp=ygULanVpY2UgbWVkaWE%3D
Thank you. I wish more people could understand this perspective.