Insightful piece on technological pacing and the dangerous illusion of ethical neutrality. When systems scale faster than institutional comprehension, who establishes the boundary of what can be empirically validated before deployment? I explored this boundary in a philosophical dialogue on testability: https://gzambrano.substack.com/p/the-limit-of-the-testable-a-dialogue-in-three-acts
It’s interesting to see that responses are dependent on “underlying intuitions about AI”. This is the cultural side - the aesthetics of AI (in a broad sense), how events are constituted, what they mean. We jump to ethics before considering h how people are making sense of the “events” of AI.
If our species is to survive it will only after the root causes of our predicament , greed and ensuing competition, are recognized as such. If those two have until the onset of the Industrial Revolution been the condition of the species surviving and progressing - see the "survival of the fittest" theory - now that our planet is overpopulated, they must be kept on leash by a global authority. Even the CEOs of AI companies seem to be asking for it. Let us not wait until they would have to be locked up. The future, if we still have one, will bow to religions promoting birth control, and restraint, sobriety, in production and consumption. Which sounds much like Animism, as well as some forms of updated Buddhism and Christianity compatible with state managed economy..
Outstanding philosophical essay with genuine depth. When induction relies entirely on past statistical regularity, what grants our models the right to claim causal necessity about tomorrow? We explore Hume's ghost in modern machine epistemology on our page: https://gzambrano.substack.com/p/humes-ghost-in-the-machine-an-epistemology-for-the-artificial-intelligence-era
Insightful piece on technological pacing and the dangerous illusion of ethical neutrality. When systems scale faster than institutional comprehension, who establishes the boundary of what can be empirically validated before deployment? I explored this boundary in a philosophical dialogue on testability: https://gzambrano.substack.com/p/the-limit-of-the-testable-a-dialogue-in-three-acts
It’s interesting to see that responses are dependent on “underlying intuitions about AI”. This is the cultural side - the aesthetics of AI (in a broad sense), how events are constituted, what they mean. We jump to ethics before considering h how people are making sense of the “events” of AI.
If our species is to survive it will only after the root causes of our predicament , greed and ensuing competition, are recognized as such. If those two have until the onset of the Industrial Revolution been the condition of the species surviving and progressing - see the "survival of the fittest" theory - now that our planet is overpopulated, they must be kept on leash by a global authority. Even the CEOs of AI companies seem to be asking for it. Let us not wait until they would have to be locked up. The future, if we still have one, will bow to religions promoting birth control, and restraint, sobriety, in production and consumption. Which sounds much like Animism, as well as some forms of updated Buddhism and Christianity compatible with state managed economy..