Daily Archives: October 22, 2023

‘Techno-Optimism’ is Not Something You Should Believe In Current … – Current Affairs

Posted: October 22, 2023 at 9:55 am

Billionaire tech investor Marc Andreessen recently published a manifesto for techno-optimism, a worldview that contends technology will solve all of humanitys problems and create a world of infinite abundance for all. Andreessens manifesto is so extreme that it has been heavily criticized even in the tech sector. It accuses anyone who opposes the unrestricted development of AI of having blood on their hands (since AI will save lives, meaning that if you slow down its development, you are essentially a murderer). It quotes favorably from Italian fascist Filippo Tommaso Marinetti in envisioning a race of technologically-augmented supermen and conquerors. It condemns socialism in favor of merit and achievement and treats social responsibility, trust and safety, risk management, and even sustainable development goals as enemy ideas.

Andreessens manifesto comes across as unhinged and manic. It is, in fact, more a religious catechism than a manifesto. It is filled with We believe assertions that lay out the core of the Techno-Optimist faith. For example:

Are any of these beliefs substantiated by actual evidence? Do we get convincing proof, or even substantive argument, that human wants and needs are infinite or that every single material problem can be solved by technology? No. All we get is assertion, even around highly dubious claims about human nature and the workings of free markets. For instance, Andreessen claims that free markets are the only sensible way to organize society in part because humans are motivated by the selfish pursuit of money:

David Friedman points out that people only do things for other people for three reasons love, money, or force. Love doesnt scale, so the economy can only run on money or force. The force experiment has been run and found wanting. Lets stick with money.

But whether or not David Friedman says people only do things for other people for three reasons, empirical evidence suggests that people actually often do things for other people out of a sense of perceived fairness. Scientists who study statistically valid samples of actual humans, instead of projecting from their own inclinations or observations of their abnormally greed-motivated peers, find that humans evolved to beas Frans de Waal observedmoral beings to the core. Andreessen is not interested in evidence, though. He makes this clear at the end of his manifesto, which says that in lieu of detailed endnotes and citations, read the work of these people, and you too will become a Techno-Optimist, before listing a series of figures ranging from anonymous Twitter accounts (e.g., @BasedBeffJezos, @bayeslord) to right-wing economists (Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Sowell).

It would be easy to dismiss Andreessens manifesto as the frenzied ranting of another rich man who thinks that the depth and correctness of ones opinions on political and social matters exist in proportion to ones net worth. But Andreessens techno-optimism is hardly new, unique, or persuasive. (Optimism has always been a tool used by the powerful to advance their interests.) In this particular philosophy, growth and technology have magical problem-solving capabilities, and if we pursue them relentlessly, we will eliminate the need to ask any deeper questions (such as growth toward what? or technology that does what? or, crucially, how the benefits are allocated, i.e. growth and tech for whom?). The optimism in techno-optimism is the idea that we can be confident that the future will be a certain way without having to do much work ourselves to make sure it is that way. The cult-like chanting of the god-word technology is typically an attempt to evade the political (i.e., ethical) work of deciding how to justly allocate harms and benefits. Andreessen is unashamed about this: he explicitly rejects the need for socially responsible technology and the precautionary principle. He doesnt spend a moment dealing with the many serious dangers that people have highlighted around current artificial intelligence technology (such as its capacity to propagate racial biases or manufacture hoaxes and lies at breathtaking speeds). For Andreessen, we dont need to think about which technologies to develop or how to develop them responsibly. The invisible hand of the free market knows best.

Faith is indeed the appropriate word for this kind of optimism, which is a totally unjustified confidence in ones ability to know how the future will unfold. Is it actually the case that all of our problems can be solved by technology? That question is never considered, because in a catechism it doesnt have to be. After all, we believe that all problems can be solved by technology. For Andreessen, belief is enough. (Likewise, he believes that it is OK for the global population to reach 50 billion, therefore there is no need to prove that the Earth can sustain this population.)

What happens when Andreessens confident beliefs are actually put to the test? Is he right that capitalist markets and technology create abundance for all? To assess the credibility of that claim, we can examine how real-world abundance has been allocated by greed-driven markets in practice. Take, for instance, our global food system. We produce more than enough calories to feed all humanswhich is to say that our total food supply is adequatebut 77 percent of global farmland fattens livestock to make meat for the wealthy, and rich-world pets seem to have better food securitythan 2.37 billion people (nearly one in three humans do not have access to adequate food, according to the U.N.). Meanwhile, 150 million kids are stunted by malnutrition, and we waste enough grain to feed 1.9 billion people annually in the production of environmentally disastrous biofuels. And under the guise of enhancing market efficiency, some of the worlds richest people and institutions, like hedge-funders and elite university endowments, invest (which is to say gamble) in food commodity markets. We can see clearlywithout elaborate economistic euphemismsthat the market ensures that greedy ghouls are profiting by taking calories out of the mouths of the planets poorest and most vulnerable children.

The chart on the left shows the steady global supply of calories per person, which bears no relation to the rollercoaster ride of food commodity prices on the right.

Those huge price swings, which harmed the global poor, were driven by commodity speculation, not by the fundamentals of supply and demand. Clearly, the market is not producing morally acceptable outcomes here. Does this not mock the fine Enlightenment philosophizing about equal human dignity among all? More importantly, does this provide justification for Andreessens doctrine of market- and tech-driven optimism? How does this argument about the efficiency of the markets look to the eyes of the worlds poorest and least powerful people? Only the absurdly blinkered could imagine that our global food abundance is used rationally or efficientlynever mind ethically. Is there any reason to expect Andreessens techno-capital machine will allocate any other kind of abundance in a better or more morally justifiable manner?

One concrete example of how capitalist-controlled technology is actually used is the Covid crisis, where profits have been placed above the lives of the poor. The moral fiasco of vaccine apartheidwhereby rich countries hoarded vaccines and refused to waive intellectual property patent rights so that lower-income countries might produce affordable vaccine for their populationshas been linked to more than a million avoidable deaths (even today, according to the U.N. and the W.H.O., two-thirds of people in low-income countries remain unvaccinated against Covid). That was on top of an already inadequate and unjust healthcare system for the worlds population overall. Scholars estimate that 15.6 million excess deaths per year could be prevented through universal global healthcare and public health measures. (The climate crisis has also created a deadly battle over howand for whomour technologies will be used, as four billion people face health-threatening heat by 2030.)

Do any of these preventable deaths or harms appear at all in Andreessens calculus? No. Instead, he perversely focuses on the fear that the deceleration of AI will cost lives, likening AI skeptics to murderers. But the market, as we have seen, already kills millions by allocating goods and services according to ability to pay rather than need. The loss of life due to not developing AI sufficiently is merely speculative, while the avoidable deaths of people who have fallen victim to the markets are already well documented. By Andreessens logic, we ought to consider these millions of deaths to be mass murder by markets, which arent historically rare.1 To ignore so many deaths happening now is absurd and cruel.

The markets distribution is grotesquely unfair, and this fact undercuts Andreessens faith that the techno-capital machine is not anti-humanin fact, it may be the most pro-human thing there is. It serves us. The techno-capital machine works for us. All the machines work for us. The machines, in fact, do not work for us automatically, even if they could be put to humane use. To quote an astute insight from science fiction legend Ted Chiang, Most of our fears or anxieties about technology are best understood as fears or anxiety about how capitalism will use technology against us. Without a suitable political and social context, technology will often be used against those with the least power.

It is also always crucial to probe the meaning of human and us. Us often means me and people like mein this case, rich humans. (See, for instance, Steven Pinkers claim that we are insufficiently grateful for human progress, which implicitly excludes those who do not experience its upsides.) If poor humans cant meet market prices, they get a far less pro-human fate: death by preventable disease.

A common claim often pushed by rich elites like Andreessen is that market growth is solving global poverty. As Andreessen puts it, markets are by far the most effective way to lift vast numbers of people out of poverty. But Andreessen is wrong, and these ideas are wildly misleading.

For instance, the income gains made by the worlds people in recent years have been anything but fair. World Inequality Database data show that from 2009 to 2019, the aggregate global personal income pie grew by $37 trillion. Of that, the top 10 percent took $8.7 trillion (24 percent) while the bottom 10 percent got $25 billion (0.07 percent). Thats not a typo. The poor got 0.07 percent, about 350 times less than the rich.

Claims that global growth is lifting people out of poverty do not square with the following figures. Zooming in on the World Inequality Data reveals that average annual individual income gains in that decade for top versus bottom ten-percent earners were $1,800 and $5. Five dollars a year is 1.3 cents per daya far less laudable feat than Andreessen et al. celebrate. Its hard to argue that $5 added to the extreme poverty level of $6942 per year is really an escape from anything.

Now lets consider what would happen if we redistributed some of those earnings from top to bottoma thought experiment I wrote about in Jacobin last year. If just 5 percent of these top 10-percenter gains were redistributed, the bottom 10 percent would gain $90. Theyd escape poverty 18 times better than their current gain of $5 which is to say that theres so much more we could be doing to increase the resources available to the poor.

Now lets say our aim were to end extreme poverty without delay. This could be achieved. The World Inequality Lab (WIL) has calculated that a tiny wealth tax on the obscenely wealthy (those who have at least $100 million) would net $581 billionthats almost triple the amount of current global aid. The same tax on all millionaires would net $1.6 trillion. Thats more than enough resources to get the job done pronto.

But under the greed-driven, market growth method that Andreessen advocates, the poor will just have to wait. It takes around $1,400 of global income growth to put an extra $1 into the hands of a person at the global bottom. This is an enormously inefficient method! It also amounts to hundreds of times more in gains for the already rich, thus making this approach more about perpetuating inequality than about alleviating poverty.

The truth here is that the improvement in extreme poverty levelsthe metric so beloved by progress-cheering elites and which is shown on the left belowis nothing more than, as I have stated before, a tiny fig leaf barely concealing an ugly truth. The data couldnt be clearer: the GDP per capita gap between rich and poor nations, as shown by the figure below on the right, is growing, not shrinking.

And without robust redistribution, as U.N.s Olivier De Schutter notes, it would take 200 years to eradicate poverty under a $5 a day line, assuming empirical market growth rates. It is therefore grotesque for anyone to claim that this situation ought to be seen as good news for humanity, especially when we note that $5 per day amounts to one-eighth Americas already too-low poverty line, and in each and every one of those 200 years, gains for the global rich will be hundreds of times greater than for the poor. Two hundred years amounts to eight generations of people being denied an appallingly low level of resources so that the rich can get richer.

The idea that market progress is closing the rich-poor gap is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy, an elite-flattering story. The global economy, which is run by gangster financial institutions, has no real mechanism for alleviating inequality and poverty, and there are no grounds to support optimism that it will create universal abundance if left to its own devices. That so many believe capitalism is making fantastic progress against poverty by showering the poor with trickle-down blessings testifies to a spectacularly successful cover-up. Disguising rapacious global profiteering as anti-poverty do-gooding is genius PR, and Andreessen is just the latest to parrot this delusional assertion that the markets will alleviate poverty.

We have seen that the assertion that a techno-capital machine will produce an infinite upward spiral of abundance has no grounding in the world of fact. It is a pleasant fantasy that exists in the minds of believers and keeps them from having to ask hard questions about how we can actually create economies that produce a decent standard of living for all without imperiling the planet.

Optimism expresses unwarranted confidence that the worlds problems will somehow be solved without our having to do the difficult work of coming up with (and implementing) political solutions ourselves. It is worth emphasizing that optimismtechno or otherwiseis always a dangerous philosophy. This becomes clear by looking at how the word has evolved conceptually over time.

Optimism was coined by 17th-century polymath Gottfried Leibniz, who used the term to mean that we live in literally the best of all possible worlds. Leibnizs argument that this had to be absolutely the best of all possible worlds had been meant in both a moral and a mathematical sense. He was a god-and-math smitten genius; in his teens he imagined settling all philosophical debates using a purely logical language that an arithmetical machine could process. He and his Enlightenment peers harbored vast hope for what math-driven thinking could do. To Leibniz it was obvious that the god-ordained order of nature operates by maxima and minima. By Gods very nature, his creation must do the most good at the cost of the least evil. Thus, all that exists is part of the divine plan, and all evil serves Gods greater good (albeit in often mysterious ways). This calculus-like optimizing and economizing imagery was vital to casting all woes as necessary evils. Philosophical poet Alexander Pope, in perhaps the 18th centurys favorite poem, stated the dont-worry-be-happy doctrine similarly, asserting that One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right.

Then comes Voltaire, who saw both these views as obviously preposterous. Far from benign, these ideas were, to his mind, dangerous. In his famous 1759 novella Candide, or Optimism, he mercilessly lampooned these ideas and popularized optimism as an insult. In the novella, throughout Candides many ordeals, his tutor (every young aristocrat had one back then), Dr. Pangloss, applies strict optimism: all events, crises included, are for the best. Even Pangloss acquisition of syphilis is deemed positive, since the pathogen came with the plunder that brought chocolate to Europe. Voltaire saw that optimism could easily sanction a numbing indifference to human suffering. It was a worldview plausible only to young aristocrats born into blessings and privilege.

As Voltaire warned, the idea of an all-for-the-best grand plan has long been used to justify inaction in the face of suffering. Examples abound. For instance, titan of early economics Reverend Thomas Malthus decried conventional charitymisery and starvation were Gods provident checks on the poor, to keep them from reproducing like rabbits. Providence was better served by toil in harsh for-profit workhouses. Charles Dickens wrote Hard Times to attack the scientific cruelty (a phrase from Karl Polanyi) of economists who advocated that workhouses served the all-for-the-best optimistic grand plan. Dickens skewers a character who felt the Good Samaritan was a bad economist. Up to well into the 19th century, economics, often thought of as a rational and neutral science, was heavily influenced by theology. Of course, resource allocation is always a deeply moral endeavor, even when supposedly inspired by heavenly plans or hidden under earthly mathematical schemes. But that morality need not be dictated by the doctrines of a particular religion.

Similarly concerning, economics as currently practiced often presents itself as morally neutral. As Freakonomics authors Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner put it, Morality, it could be argued, represents the way that people would like the world to work whereas economics represents how it actually does work. For Andreessen, it seems that worshiping thein his viewomnipotent and omniscient market is central to his religious cult of techno-optimism.

Many economists and market optimists like Andreessen now sanction a similar scientific cruelty. Like Pangloss, todays pro-market pundits in effect preach that present material suffering is just part of the grand plan on the road to a bright future. Its a seductive message to the contemporary equivalents of Voltaires smug upbeat aristocrats. Like Leibniz, todays Optimists urge the continuation of staggeringly unjust but self-serving systems. Their equivalent of a best-of-all-possible outcomes is the rational resource allocations of the great Invisible Hand. The economy is seen as a mathematical optimization scheme, which operates with qualities tantamount to omniscience and quasi-omnipotence. Indeed, thats precisely how Andreessen speaks of it, repeating the idea that no human has sufficient information to question the Invisible Hand judgements.

But this notion of Market Providence is, of course, riddled with deep anti-poor biases. To the market gods, your ability to avoid material suffering, never mind aspire to happiness, should be granted strictly in accordance with your demonstrated market virtues, expressed solely in cold hard cash. Thats the core doctrine of trickle-down market theology. But as the Federal Reserves own Jeremy Rudd wrote: the primary role of mainstream economics is to provide an apologetics for a criminally oppressive, unsustainable, and unjust social order.

Andreessens manifesto is a perfect example of a bundle of ideas that have been called TESCREAL by mile Torres and Timnit Gebru (this acronym stands for transhumanism, extropianism, singularitarianism, cosmism, rationalism, Effective Altruism, and longtermism). According to these ideas, humanity is on a trajectory toward some great technological miracle that will massively augment human capacities and produce endless abundance for all. The ideas themselves often come uncomfortably close to those of classical eugenics (see Andreessens quotation of a fascist and belief in Nietzschean supermen). In practice, they seem likely to produce a dystopia that only a billionaire could love. But sadly, the billionaires who believe this stuff have a great deal of power in our world as it exists.

In a way, it is a good thing that Andreessen wrote and published his manifesto. It lays bare what the planet is up against. These are the beliefs that many of the aspiring masters of the universe hold. They preach a dangerous faith in technology and capitalist markets and are unwilling to consider any of the disastrous drawbacks produced by poorly-designed tech and unregulated markets. They dismiss socialism as the enemy of growth and abundance, waving away all considerations of justice and equality. They are utterly detached from the real-world conditions of peoples lives (TechCrunch asked, When was the last time Marc Andreessen talked to a poor person?). Like any other monomaniacal faithin which doubters are seen as enemies and beliefs are accepted without evidencethis package of beliefs is deeply threatening to any moral persons vision of a just and sustainable future for humans and all that inhabit the planet. As Voltaire knew, optimism is typically a demon in disguise.

See the article here:

'Techno-Optimism' is Not Something You Should Believe In Current ... - Current Affairs

Posted in Extropianism | Comments Off on ‘Techno-Optimism’ is Not Something You Should Believe In Current … – Current Affairs

Moringa: Benefits, Side Effects And Risks Forbes Health – Forbes

Posted: at 9:54 am

While moringa is neither approved nor regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the plant can reportedly provide a number of health benefits for its users.

Moringa (in food form) contains a number of essential vitamins, explains Escobar, including vitamins A, B2, B6, B12, C, D and E. This superfood is also a reliable source of iron and magnesium, she adds. Moringa contains calcium and zinc as well.

People utilize moringa seed oil for various dermatological conditions, explains Wheeler. The oil has anti-inflammatory properties that can [help] reduce oxidative stress, which can assist in wound healing and decrease skin inflammation.

A 2020 study in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology suggests that when applied topically, moringa oil can be effective in reducing inflammation in inflammatory skin conditions .

A 2022 study in Frontiers in Nutrition suggests moringa oleifera contains a number of enzymes thought to help prevent the aging of the skin . It can be added to a facial treatment to be applied topically, explains Connie Pretula, a certified nutritional practitioner based in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Moringa leaves are high in plant polyphenols, which makes them high in antioxidants and means they provide anti-inflammatory benefits, says Pretula. They contain vitamins A and C, which are both beneficial for the skin, and studies show they can help to slow the aging process by reducing oxidative stress in the body.

One 2020 study in Complementary Therapies in Medicine reports that when taken in a powdered leaf form, moringa can help regulate blood sugar levels. While the study suggests that moringa may be effective in addressing diabetes specifically, more research is needed to prove its efficacy in relation to this condition .

2020 research exploring the effects of moringa on blood pressure in participants who consumed large amounts of salt found the plant compound helped lower both diastolic and systolic blood pressure readings within two hours of supplementation. However, more studies are needed before moringa can be officially recommended as a blood pressure management supplement.

Moringa leaves contain [a] healthy [amount of] fiber and have shown to decrease constipation, says Wheeler. A 2019 study in Food Research International highlights the dietary fiber contained in moringa oleifera in the form of oligosaccharides, a type of carbohydrate .

A 2019 study in Food & Function, meanwhile, noted that the fermentation of moringa oleifera during the digestion process encouraged the growth of healthy colonic bacteria .

Moringa has anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties that can [potentially] help fight off diseases and illnesses, explains Escobar. Studies suggest moringa may have a positive effect on the immune system by balancing inflammation in the body and eliminating pathogens like bacteria, fungi, viruses and parasites .

A 2021 study of 200 people living with HIV measured participants CD4 (a type of white blood cell that fights infection) after taking moringa oleifera supplements. The researchers observed increases in participants CD4 counts after taking the supplement .

Visit link:

Moringa: Benefits, Side Effects And Risks Forbes Health - Forbes

Posted in Food Supplements | Comments Off on Moringa: Benefits, Side Effects And Risks Forbes Health – Forbes

From streaming wars to superintelligence with John Oliver & Calum … – KNEWS – The English Edition of Kathimerini Cyprus

Posted: at 9:54 am

In the heart of the ever-evolving tech and academic landscape, the 6th Digital Agenda Cyprus Summit brought together a constellation of leading figures. This event, dedicated to unraveling the mysteries of the digital realm, welcomed Professor John Oliver and AI authority Calum Chace, whose captivating presentations delved into the intense "streaming wars" and the impending AI revolution, respectively.

At the summit, Professor John Oliver took center stage with his engaging presentation, "The Fog of 'Streaming' Wars." He illuminated the fierce competition among streaming behemoths, such as Netflix, Prime Video, and Disney Plus, collectively known as the "streaming wars." Oliver offered a deep dive into the strategies essential for these platforms to thrive individually, underlining the distinct growth journeys of Netflix and Disney Plus over the past three years.

Oliver emphasized a burgeoning industry trend consolidation. Corporate strategies, he underscored, now pivot around profitability, economies of scale, and operational efficiency. Mergers and acquisitions have become pivotal for growth, as leading players leverage their might to manage prices and costs, capitalizing on economies of scale. This approach results in more efficient market access, increased profitability, and reduced customer prices.

In a surprising twist, Oliver also examined the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on streaming platforms. He highlighted the paradoxical effect of the crisis, using Disney Plus as an example, which experienced a surge in subscribers during the pandemic, only to encounter unique challenges in the post-pandemic landscape.

Concurrently, Calum Chace embarked on an exploration of the challenges and promises of artificial intelligence. Chace painted a picture of a future where machines might achieve human-level cognition within the next few decades, potentially ushering in the era of superintelligence.

With an engaging and informative style, Chace urged the audience to grapple with the profound implications of AI, positioning it as our most potent technology. He left the audience contemplating the pivotal question of humanity's role in a world potentially steered by superintelligence.

Chace's discourse extended to the vital role that AI could play in shaping our future, sparking discussions about which decisions should be entrusted to machines and which should remain in the hands of humans. The impact of AI on the job market was scrutinized, with a particular focus on economic singularity and technological unemployment. Chace also explored the prospect of a technological singularity looming on the horizon.

The 6th Digital Agenda Cyprus Summit illuminated two pivotal subjects that are molding our digital landscape. Professor John Oliver's insightful presentation shed light on the fierce strategies within the streaming industry, while Calum Chace's thought-provoking discourse urged attendees to contemplate the future of AI and its transformative potential.

As we navigate the ever-evolving digital terrain, the summit stands as a significant milestone. It provides a guiding light for stakeholders seeking to adapt and thrive in this rapidly changing world. Our journey is only beginning, with the promise of even more technological marvels on the horizon.

Read this article:

From streaming wars to superintelligence with John Oliver & Calum ... - KNEWS - The English Edition of Kathimerini Cyprus

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on From streaming wars to superintelligence with John Oliver & Calum … – KNEWS – The English Edition of Kathimerini Cyprus

Reckoning with self-destruction in Oppenheimer, Indiana Jones, and … – The Christian Century

Posted: at 9:54 am

This has been quite the movie season to meditate on the ways our intellectual and technological hubris might destroy us. In the seventh and penultimate installment of the Mission: Impossible franchiseMission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One (directed by Christopher McQuarrie)Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is on a rogue mission to stop sentient artificial intelligence from destroying the world. In Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny (directed by James Mangold) Nazis are seeking a nearly 3,000-year-old dial, created by Archimedes, that may allow time travel. With it, the outcome of history as we know it could be reversed, along with the progress of democracy (though I am not sure we need time travel for that, unfortunately).

Despite the high-tech gadgets and high-octane physical stunts on display in both movies, they each offer an old-fashioned fantasy about the power of the human body and will to overcome disembodied technology. Even as the superintelligence eludes every world government and manipulates some of the worlds most deadly superspies to work on its behalf, it is Tom Cruises leaping, running, climbing body that will stop it. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) must lace up his boots, grab his whip, and hurtle his own aging body through both space and time.

In each case human ingenuity has pushed the frontiers of thought to their absolute limits, and in each case our very species, our planet, and our deepest ideals might be destroyed as a result. Which might be why I couldnt stop thinking about Ethan Hunt and Indiana Jones when I finally settled down to watch Oppenheimer, Christopher Nolans three-hour epic biopic of J. Robert Oppenheimer, the man who ushered the world into the atomic age.

Oppenheimer is a serious movie in a way the other two can never quite be, burdened as they are with the bells and whistles and car chase quotas their franchises demand. Whereas Mission: Impossible and Indiana Jones are both about the fantasy of the men who will save us from the apocalypse of our own making, Oppenheimer is about the man who pushed the frontiers of human thought to their breaking point in the first place. Indeed, the story Oppenheimer is telling is the origin story of modernitys deep-seated fear: that our own intelligence will ultimately destroy us.

As the title suggests, the film isnt a birds-eye view of the atomic age but rather one mans life story. We follow Oppenheimer from his time as a student in Europe (and his early struggles with depression and anxiety), the founding of the first theoretical physics department in the US, his recruitment to run the Manhattan Project, the successful building and deployment of the first nuclear bombs, and his eventual fall from grace with accusations of un-American activity. These bare facts are layered with moral complexities. His commitment to deterring Hitler by building a nuclear bomb before the Nazis do is counterposed to the subtle and persistent antisemitism that defined his precarious position in postwar America. The sheer exhilaration of chasing down an intellectual problem to the end is tempered with the regret and bitterness of realizing that the problem he solved unleashed species-destroying power in the hands of people he could not control.

Although Nolan uses plenty of special effects and makes movies on a blockbuster scale, to most of his fans his films are anti-blockbusters: intellectually dense, artful puzzles of nonlinear timelines and cerebral meditations. Oppenheimer is more restrained in this regard than many of his earlier films, but it still bears the marks of his signature style. The movie announces its seriousness in a somber palate of gray, brown, and atom-rending red, an unrelenting and at times almost stiflingly ominous musical score, and disjointed visual effects that signal Oppenheimers occasionally fractured inner life. The story is told in two competing timelines that jump forward and backward in time without explanation. One, shot in color, is the story told from Oppenheimers perspective. The other, in black-and-white, is a different version of events told from the perspective of Lewis Strauss (Robert Downey Jr.), eventual atomic energy adviser to Eisenhower, outspoken advocate of developing the hydrogen bomb, and Oppenheimers nemesis in the later part of his life.

These competing narrative arcs reframe Oppenheimers life as a tragedy destroyed by rivalry and jealousy he neither chose nor wished to engage. By giving us Strauss as a petty villain, Oppenheimer can emerge more fully as a tragic hero who was used by his society in a moment of great needand then scapegoated for his Jewishness, his genius, and his own moral qualms. But even though Oppenheimer comes to question the nuclear power he helped build, the film cannot genuinely imagine a moral universe in which humans would willingly stop technological or intellectual pursuit in the name of greater goods. This is a deeper tragedy the film is not able to fully face, enamored as it is with Oppenheimers lonely genius and the sheer magnitude of what he achieved.

We all live in Oppenheimers world now, and it is one that constantly invents the Ethan Hunts and Indiana Joneses of our fantasy stories to save us from the threat of extinction that we have ourselves created. Taken as a trifecta of movie meditations, it seems we are trapped in a loop of destruction and salvation, foisted onto the weary shoulders of lone heroes. This is good for blockbuster ticket sales, but maybe not so great for our collective imaginations. Still, maybe we can learn something from Indiana Jones. In 1969 everyone around him is fixated on the space race, eyes turned to the great technological future. True to his first calling as a professor of antiquity, his most important act of heroism is convincing anyone to pay attention to the past. If we heed his call, we might be able to look even farther past Oppenheimers story to resources that would help us imagine a world where we didnt need to be saved from our own inventions.

See the original post:

Reckoning with self-destruction in Oppenheimer, Indiana Jones, and ... - The Christian Century

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on Reckoning with self-destruction in Oppenheimer, Indiana Jones, and … – The Christian Century

How Microsoft’s CEO tackles the ethical dilemma of AI and its … – Medium

Posted: at 9:54 am

How Microsofts CEO tackles the ethical dilemma of AI and its influence on us.

AI has the potential to transform every aspect of our existence with its remarkable capabilities. It has the potential to improve our lives, solve our problems, and create new opportunities. But it also poses significant ethical challenges, such as how to ensure its fairness, accountability, and transparency, how to protect our privacy and security, and how to balance its benefits and risks.

How do we address these challenges and make sure that AI serves us, not the other way around? One of the people who has been thinking deeply about this question is Satya Nadella, the CEO of Microsoft, one of the leading technology companies in the world. In this article, we will explore Nadellas views on AI ethics and how they shape Microsofts vision and strategy.

Nadella has been vocal about the need for ethical principles to guide AI development and deployment. In 2016, he published a book called Hit Refresh, where he outlined his 10 laws of AI. These are:

These laws reflect Nadellas belief that AI must be aligned with human values and goals and that it must be accountable to the people who use it and are affected by it. They also serve as a framework for Microsofts AI initiatives and products, such as Azure Cognitive Services, Microsoft 365, and Dynamics 365.

One of the core themes of Nadellas views on AI ethics is that AI must be designed to assist humanity, not replace it. He believes that AI should augment human capabilities and empower people to achieve more, rather than automate or eliminate human tasks and roles.

For example, he has praised the use of AI in healthcare, education, and agriculture, where it can help diagnose diseases, personalize learning, and increase crop yields. He has also advocated for the use of AI in accessibility, where it can help people with disabilities or impairments to communicate, navigate, and participate in society.

Nadella has also emphasized the importance of human agency and choice in interacting with AI. He has argued that people should have control over their data and how it is used by AI systems. He has also suggested that people should have the option to opt out of certain AI features or services if they do not want them or trust them.

While Nadella is optimistic about the positive impact of AI, he is also aware of the potential dangers of AI, such as manipulation, bias, and unintended consequences. He has acknowledged that AI can be used for malicious purposes, such as cyberattacks, misinformation, or surveillance. He has also admitted that AI can have negative effects on society, such as displacing workers, amplifying inequalities, or eroding democracy.

To prevent or mitigate these dangers, Nadella has called for more research and regulation on AI ethics. He has supported the establishment of ethical standards and best practices for AI development and deployment. He has also advocated for more collaboration and dialogue among stakeholders, such as governments, businesses, academics, civil society groups, and users.

One of the most interesting aspects of Nadellas views on AI ethics is his call for moral philosophers to guide us on how to think about and use AI. He has argued that we need more than technical expertise to address the ethical challenges of AI. We also need philosophical wisdom to help us understand the moral implications and values behind our decisions and actions.

Nadella has cited several examples of moral philosophers who have influenced his thinking on AI ethics. For instance, he has mentioned John Rawls theory of justice as a way to ensure fairness and equality in society. He has also referred to Immanuel Kants categorical imperative as a way to respect human dignity and autonomy.

Nadella has also encouraged his employees and customers to read more books on philosophy and ethics. He has recommended books such as The Master Algorithm by Pedro Domingos, Weapons of Math Destruction by Cathy ONeil, Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom, and The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff.

Another way that Nadella has approached the ethical dilemma of AI is by comparing it to other powerful technologies, such as cars and airplanes, that have transformed our lives and societies. He has pointed out that these technologies have also brought benefits and risks, and that they have required rules, regulations, and safety standards to ensure their proper use and governance.

Nadella has suggested that we can learn from the history and evolution of these technologies and apply similar principles and practices to AI. For example, he has proposed that we need a drivers license for AI, which would certify that AI developers and users have the necessary skills and knowledge to use AI responsibly. He has also advocated for a flight data recorder for AI, which would record and monitor the behavior and performance of AI systems and enable auditing and accountability.

Finally, Nadella has shared his vision of a future where jobs are enriched by productivity and computing is embedded in the real world. He has predicted that AI will create new types of jobs and tasks that will require more creativity, collaboration, and problem-solving skills. He has also envisioned that AI will enable more natural and intuitive interactions with computers, such as voice, gesture, or vision.

Nadella has expressed his hope that AI will help us achieve more personal and professional goals, as well as social and environmental ones. He has stated that his mission is to empower every person and every organization on the planet to achieve more with AI.

In this article, we have explored Nadellas views on AI ethics and how they shape Microsofts vision and strategy. We have seen that Nadella has a balanced and nuanced perspective on AI, recognizing both its opportunities and challenges. We have also seen that Nadella has a human-centric and value-driven approach to AI, emphasizing the need for ethical principles, moral philosophy, and social responsibility.

Nadellas views on AI ethics reflect Microsofts values and goals, as well as its role and influence in the global tech landscape. They also differ from or align with other tech leaders opinions, such as Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, or Jeff Bezos. They can inspire or challenge us to think about our own relationship with AI, as well as its impact on our lives, societies, and futures.

Read more:

How Microsoft's CEO tackles the ethical dilemma of AI and its ... - Medium

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on How Microsoft’s CEO tackles the ethical dilemma of AI and its … – Medium

Managing risk: Pandemics and plagues in the age of AI – The Interpreter

Posted: at 9:53 am

Once a recurring scourge that blinded, scarred and killed millions, smallpox was eradicated by a painstaking public health effort that saw the last natural infection occur in 1977. In what some consider an instructive moment in biosecurity (rather than a mere footnote), Janet Parker, a British medical photographer, died of smallpox the following year, after being exposed to Variola virus the causative agent of smallpox while working one floor above a laboratory at Birmingham University. The incident in which she lost her life was referred to as an unnatural infection one occurring outside the usual context of infectious disease.

The orthopox genus of which Variola virus is part holds a central role in the history of infectious disease and biodefence and has had a lasting impact on human society. Mousepox, cowpox, the clumsily named monkeypox and other pox viruses are all derived from the orthopox genus.

At the end of the first Cold War, as a US-led Coalition was poised to launch Operation Desert Storm, fear of both biological and chemical warfare returned.

There are only two known places in which Variola virus remains: in a high containment laboratory in Russian Siberia, and at a secure Centre for Disease Control (CDC) facility in Atlanta in the United States. Neither the Russian Federation nor the United States have yet destroyed their smallpox stockpiles, for reasons that relate more to the strictures of geopolitics than the needs of ongoing research. At the end of the first Cold War, as a US-led Coalition was poised to launch Operation Desert Storm, fear of both biological and chemical warfare returned. Saddam Hussein had deployed mustard gas and other chemical agents against Kurdish civilians at Halabja, killing more than 5,000 people. In the years preceding that atrocity, scores of military personnel bore the brunt of blistering agents, nerve agents and other chemical weapons in Iraqs protracted war against Iran.

Biological weapons were the next presumed step on Saddams ladder of escalation should he feel threatened by the US-led Coalition that gathered in the Saudi desert after his invasion of Kuwait. The weapons program Iraqi scientists had overseen since the 1980s had brought aflatoxins and botulinum toxin to the point of weaponisation, if not deployment. Bacillus anthracis, the bacterium that causes anthrax, was a proximate concern to Coalition troops as a potential battlefield weapon. But whether Saddam had access to Variola virus was the biggest question. Smallpox, a disease with pandemic potential, was a strategic weapon with international reach, one that might even be deployed behind Coalition lines by a small team.

Fear of such a scenario returned with the onset of the global War on Terror in the early 2000s, and so governments from Europe to Australia began stockpiling smallpox vaccines for use in the event of a future attack. After the Islamic State in the Levant (ISIL) suddenly seized swathes of territory in Iraq and Syria in mid-2014, the group repeatedly deployed chemical weapons against civilians, and reportedly made attempts at acquiring biological weapons as well. In 2016, as ISILs caliphate reached its brief zenith, a Canadian scientist on the other side of the world was working to create a safer vaccine against smallpox. The researcher was engaged by a US biotech company that wanted a smallpox shot that did not carry the risk of reversion, a situation in which inoculation can cause active infection something happily not possible with most vaccines or death.

As part of this effort, the researcher needed a related orthopox virus to use as a viral vector. To this end, their team embarked on de novo synthesis of horsepox, a less pathogenic orthopox virus. This step, the reconstruction of a hitherto eradicated pox virus, became known as a Rubicon in the field of biosecurity. For the first time, an orthopox virus was created from scratch using information and material derived from purely commercial sources and it only cost around $100,000.

Horsepox was, of course, not the first virus to be rebuilt or enhanced in a laboratory setting. In 2005, a team reconstructed some of the H1N1 virus responsible for the Spanish influenza pandemic that killed between 20 and 50 million people in 1918-19, using reverse genetic techniques that were cutting-edge at the time. In 2002, another research group at the State University of New York created the first entirely artificial virus, a chemically synthesised strain of polio. A year before, in 2001, an Australian team investigating contraceptives for use on the rodent population accidentally amplified a form of ectromelia, which causes mousepox, to a point that made it resistant to available pox vaccines.

What made the horsepox development such a watershed moment was the ease with which the necessary materials and genetic information were acquired. The team bought access to DNA fragments from a horsepox outbreak that occurred in Mongolia decades earlier, in 1976. A DNA synthesis company, GeneArt, was engaged to construct the DNA fragments. Hence, a small team seeking to obtain and propagate a similar pox virus with pandemic potential say, smallpox need not physically get hold of it in full form. Nor did they need access to a government-run lab, or the certification of tightly restricted procurement channels to do so. Instead, the virus could be recreated using means and material easily available to any private citizen, for minimal cost.

Such techniques, which are well established now, undeniably have many beneficial uses. At the onset of the Covid pandemic, when authorities in China were less than forthcoming with information, the genetic sequence of SARS-CoV-2 was published on the internet but only after some skittish manoeuvring by Western researchers and their colleagues based in China, who were under government pressure not to share the sequence. Belated though this development was, it allowed for scientists across the world to begin designing medical countermeasures. Similar processes are used to keep track of viral evolution during other epidemics, to monitor the emergence of new variants of concern, or to detect changes in a pathogen that could cause more severe disease.

Much has transpired in the fields of chemistry and synthetic biology since 2017, and even more has happened in the field of artificial intelligence. When chemistry, biology and AI are combined, what was achieved with horsepox by a small team of highly trained specialists could soon be done by an individual with scientific training below the level of a doctorate. Instead of horsepox or even smallpox, any such person could soon synthesise something far deadlier, such as Nipah virus. It might equally be done with a strain of avian influenza, which public health officials have long worried may one day gain the ability to spread efficiently between humans. Instead of costing $100,000, such a feat will soon require little more than $20,000, a desktop whole genome synthesiser and access to a well-informed large language model (LLM), if some of the leading personalities in generative AI are to be believed.

Some alarming conversation has been had in recent months over the potential for new artificial intelligence platforms to present existential risks. Much of this anxiety has revolved around future iterations of AI that might lead to a takeoff in artificial superintelligence that could surpass, oppress or extinguish human prosperity. But a more proximate threat is contained within the current generation of AI platforms. Some of the key figures in AI design, including Mustafa Suleyman, co-founder of Googles Deep Mind, admit that large language models accessible to the public since late 2022 have sufficient potential to aid in the construction of chemical or biological weapons.

Founded in 1984 at the height of the IranIraq war, the Australia Group initially focused on controlling precursor chemicals that were used in the unconventional weapons that killed scores of people on the IranIraq frontline.

Details on such risks have so far been mostly vague in their media descriptions. But the manner in which LLMs could aid malicious actors in this domain is simply by lowering the informational barriers to constructing pathogens. In much the same way AI platforms can be used as a wingman for fighter pilots navigating the extremes of aerial manoeuvre in combat, an LLM with access to the right literature in synthetic biology could help an individual with minimal training overcome the difficulties of creating a viable pathogen with pandemic potential. While some may scoff at this idea, it is a scenario that AI designers have been actively testing with specialists in biodefence. Their conclusion was that little more than postgraduate training in biology would be enough.

This does not mean that (another) pandemic will result from the creation of a synthetic pathogen in the coming years. Avenues for managing such risks can be found in institutions that have already proven central to the control of biological and chemical weapons. One such forum the Australia Group could be the perfect place to kickstart a new era of counter-proliferation in the age of AI.

Founded in 1984 at the height of the IranIraq war, the Australia Group (AG) initially focused on controlling precursor chemicals that were used in the unconventional weapons that killed scores of people on the IranIraq frontline. The AG has since evolved to harmonise regulation of many dual use chem-bio components via comprehensive common control lists. But the dawn of a new age in artificial intelligence, coming as it has after 20 years of frenetic progress in synthetic biology, presents new challenges. As an established forum, the Australia Group could provide an opportunity for the international community to get ahead of this new threat landscape before it is too late.

It has been nearly four years since SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, went from causing a regional epidemic in the Chinese city of Wuhan to a worldwide pandemic. At the time of writing, the question of how the virus first entered the human population remains unresolved. There are several ingredients that make both a natural zoonotic event and an unnatural, research-related infection plausible scenarios. The first ingredients relate to the changing ecologies in which viruses circulate, the increasingly intense interface between humans and animals amid growing urbanisation, and the international wildlife trade. Regarding the latter possibility, that the virus may have emerged in the course of research gone awry, it is now a well-documented fact that closely related coronaviruses were being subjected to both in-field collection and laboratory-based experimentation in the years approaching the pandemic. (Whether or not a progenitor to SARS-CoV-2 was held in any nearby facility remains in dispute.)

Whatever the case, the next pandemic may not come as a result of a research-related accident, or an innocent interaction between human and animal it may instead be a feature of future conflict. Many of the same ingredients that were present in 2017 remain in place across the world today, with the new accelerant of generative AI as an unwelcome addition. Added to this is a new era of great power competition, an ongoing terrorist threat, and the rise of new sources of political extremism. The Australia Group has the chance to act now, before we see the use of chemical or biological weapons at any of these inflection points, which are all taking place amid a new age of artificial intelligence.

Excerpt from:

Managing risk: Pandemics and plagues in the age of AI - The Interpreter

Posted in Superintelligence | Comments Off on Managing risk: Pandemics and plagues in the age of AI – The Interpreter