Republican Hyperpartisanship And The Epstein Coverup
Inside the mailbag: Artificial intelligence ... Filibuster ... Chuck Schumer
Max M.: It seems to me that Democrats are leaving an enormous number of votes on the table by not taking a more aggressive stance against AI. Popular anxiety about future employment opportunities is already simmering, and that simmer will likely reach a boiling point within the decade. For every middle manager who praises AI’s increased efficiency outcomes, there are at least ten workers who fear its job-destroying potential. (Meanwhile, Republicans have chosen the laissez-faire path of “creative destruction” as far as AI goes.) Obviously the party would have to debate and refine the white-paper details of a policy approach. But directionally speaking, shouldn’t they at least be signaling a more anti-AI posture, with policy details to come later on?
Can’t overstate how much I agree with this. You can spot the hidden hand of big-money influence in how elites treat things like A.I. and crypto as presumptively unstoppable, and responsive to genuine need in the world, as if the public already agrees that those technologies should be the future. In reality, people hate these things, and for good reason.
Your point about job displacement is a good one. How many politically active Dems wish they’d been a bit less unquestioningly enthusiastic about free trade? The political calculus here strikes me as similar, and morally clearer: Republicans run the country, they have aligned themselves with the avatars of A.I., and given those men free hands. At the very least, Democrats should maintain distance, so that Republicans are the ones exposed when the pitchfork mob gathers.
Perhaps the rule of thumb should be that Democrats tasked with regulating industry should look beyond bloodless economic analysis (will this increase productivity and national wealth?) to consider abstract (and in some sense conservative) questions: will this make our society more enjoyable? More culturally vibrant?
But A.I.’s harm potential is so much larger than job displacement.
A.I. is (in many easily imagined use cases) a weapon of war. The idea that it should be principally a private-sector industry is extremely non-obvious to me, just as common sense tells me SpaceX should not be a privately owned and operated company.
It’s also a force-multiplier for loneliness. It gives people who have already been developmentally harmed by the technology status quo a much larger supply of slop to scroll through, a much larger supply of manipulative propaganda to cook their brains in, a much larger supply of pornographic material, and a much more life-like illusion that communicating with a computer is the same thing as socializing.
Add it all up, and it’s hard to make the case that A.I.’s potential to automate a bunch of functions and increase returns to productivity will outweigh its harms. Being very wary about all this isn’t just good politics, it’s the humane posture.
Ellis Weiner: What does the GOP think it’s doing?
Going to court to keep people from eating. Keeping the government shut down. Keeping the House shut down in an obvious attempt to suppress evidence of pedophilia. Pressing to make health care unaffordable for 20 million people--which is guaranteed to offend millions more. Doing nothing to counter an increasingly erratic, mendacious Trump, whose polling sinks daily and whose reponse is to be seen fiddling--on the golf course, wrecking the East Wing, bragging about his bathrooms--while Rome burns. Supporting indefensible ICE brutality. And so on.
If the cruelty is the point, then to what end? Does the GOP establishment really think chaos and dysfunction and corruption is a winning hand? … Is EVERYBODY waiting for Trump to drop dead before they’ll begin to address all this? I don’t get it.
Here’s a key to understanding Republican behavior: In the Gingrich era, Republicans adopted a kind of double-or-nothing mindset about being all in against the Democrats, all the time—and it has paid off for them pretty handsomely.
Republicans may have multiple motives for, or mixed personal feelings about, the many inexplicable decisions they’ve made these past several weeks, but they all fit this pattern: Nothing is worse than letting Democrats dictate terms. And in almost all of the instances, you see how total obstinance vis-a-vis Democrats—even when common sense militates for cooperation—reflects real cunning.
Consider: