RevolutionZ
RevolutionZ
Ep 353 Genoa, Sex Trafficking, Self Censoring, Parecon Ignored, and AI Is No Joke
Episode 353 of RevolutionZ examines two seemingly unrelated but equally disruptive forces: the marginalization of participatory economics and the existential threat of artificial intelligence. But first, a visit to Genoa's dockworkers threatening to shut down Israel shipments, America's sex trafficking being addressed incompletely, and activist self censoring doing Trump's work for him.
On the headline topics, for over five decades, a persistent but small bunch have advocated for participatory economics—a vision that rejects the inequitable remuneration, authoritarian decision-making, corporate division of labor, central planning and markets and proposes in their place equitable remuneration, self management, balanced job complexes and participatory planning. The topic, why does this vision remain largely ignored by mainstream leftist discourse. Is the silence merely the natural skepticism that greets any new idea, or does it reflect something deeper—perhaps even the uncomfortable truth that many progressive institutions themselves maintain the very power structures participatory economics challenges?
On topic two, while many progressives dismiss AI as "just another tool" or even "a bad joke," this episode notes its unprecedented development trajectory. From barely performing elementary math to solving complex problems better than humans, from blather to eloquence, AI's capabilities are expanding exponentially. The threats are multifaceted: mass job displacement, potential rogue behavior, use for surveillance and repression, ecological damage from energy consumption, and the gradual replacement of uniquely human activities that give our lives meaning.
Both participatory economics and AI concerns represent fundamental challenges to established power structures and conventional thinking. The resistance to engaging seriously with either topic stems from a combination of vested interests, habitual thinking, and perhaps a fear of considering truly revolutionary change. By bringing these issues into conversation, the episode invites us to reconsider blind spots and imagine alternative futures where economic systems serve human flourishing rather than perpetuating hierarchy.
How might our economic vision change if we truly embraced participatory principles? What guardrails must we establish around AI before its development outpaces our ability to control it? These questions demand urgent attention as we navigate our agendas in increasingly confusing times.
Hello, my name is Michael Albert and I am the host of the podcast that's titled Revolution Z. This is our 353rd consecutive episode. It is only tangentially about fighting onrushing fascism, israeli-us genocide against Palestine and global ecological dissolution, though those are the main dangers that are on my mind. I was going to address all that, or part of it anyway, for the gazillionth time, but sitting at the microphone I decided this week I didn't have anything pressing to say about it that I hadn't already said, so I needed another focus. So, despite that, resisting Trumpian fascism, genocide and ecological collapse perpetually occupy my thoughts. I will here take up two other questions why is participatory economics largely ignored, and why is artificial intelligence no joke? Oh hell, I can't help myself. So, before I embark on those two topics, italian dockworkers in Genoa have issued a threat Indeed, by the time you hear this, it may be known quite widely and ready to explode.
Speaker 1:Here's a translation of the speech of one of the dockworker leaders in Genoa, which I was sent by email and then checked via an online search to verify that the sentiments exist. Checked via an online search to verify that the sentiments exist. The speech marked the departure of the ships of the current flotilla heading for Gaza, which includes many boats carrying tons and tons of food and materials. So the quote, quote I want this to be clear to everyone, really to everyone Around mid-September, these boats will arrive near the coast of Gaza, close to the critical zone. If we lose contact with our boats, with our comrades, even for just 20 minutes, we will block all of Europe. I've written it down so I won't forget it. Together with our union, together with all the dock workers who stand with us, together with the whole city of Genoa. From this region, 13,000 to 14,000 containers leave every year for Israel. Not a single nail will leave anymore. We will launch an international strike, we will block the roads, we will block the schools, we will block everything. Our young women and men must come back without a scratch, and all this cargo, which belongs to the people and is going to the people, must reach its destination down to the very last box. Agenda. Hmm, wait to this episode's immediate agenda. Wait a minute, not so fast.
Speaker 1:Yesterday, which was Wednesday, I watched the press conference of Epstein survivors from Washington DC. Today, which is Thursday, I looked at all my internet feeds and directly at many sites. So far, only a day along, there is not much progressive left coverage or even mainstream coverage other than of Trump saying it is all a hoax and while what little coverage there is does a good job of reporting the words and mood of the event, which everyone could see on YouTube. The commentaries I saw didn't make any connection of the case to patriarchy writ large or to systemic relations of any kind. It is as if misogyny and its systemic roots and features is off the table. Excoriate bad guys who are dead, but at any rate not public pillars of power. That's acceptable. Well within the limits that restrict who can be named, it is acceptable. I very much hope I am wrong about all that that by the time you hear this coverage has become deeper.
Speaker 1:This isn't about an evil dead person, epstein, nor is it about his live lady assistant Maxwell. They are proximate actors. But this is a massive manifestation of denigration, denial and violence against women perpetrated over many years and, most critically, with wide elite participation and suppression. It isn't just disgusting like a serial rapist is disgusting. It isn't some kind of deviant exception, save perhaps in its duration and its scale. It is instead indicative. It is like what the Me Too movement unearthed, but I think in some significant ways it is, if it's possible, even worse and larger, with roughly 735,000 rapes last year. You might think, okay, there is lots of disgusting violence. Horrible, but so it goes. What the Epstein-Trump et al survivors are revealing behind the oft-ignored statistics is the extent of elite and judicial indifference or outright involvement in producing the statistics, and the price its targets endure. It is horrendously horrible enough for male Hollywood or corporate power to exploit women seeking movie roles or trying to do their jobs in other professions. This current situation is that ugliness, plus directly manipulating and dominating children. To then see Marjorie Taylor Greene at the press conference pretending to support the survivors for personal political gain was nauseating. But I also had to wonder where were other women from government and men as well, who were sincerely offering serious solidarity and support? Yes, there were other things going on that day as well, but really shouldn't this arouse outrage that then extends into broader analysis and program? I hope to see progressives and radicals by the time you hear this episode, who not just demand that Trump open the Epstein files but who propel disgust over the events into warranted attention to ongoing sexism and misogyny, to the structure called patriarchy, which, I have to say, I think is incredibly contributory to the fascist trends unfolding here in the US and elsewhere, as if patriarchy wasn't bad enough even just unto itself.
Speaker 1:Okay, so now on to this episode's featured topics. Or wait, no one more other topic. First, I got a phone call from a close friend. We talked about current trends and possibilities, as we had many times before. Along the way, he pointed out that a large proportion of activists who he encounters are censoring their own words and deeds. They do this to prevent Trump from assaulting them. That is, they do precisely what Trump wants. They limit their own dissent so that Trump doesn't repress them Because he doesn't need to, because they restrain themselves. But also on law firms, university trustee meetings, overly cautious organizations and many utterances and actions of virtually all Republicans and many Democrats. And then there is media.
Speaker 1:Trump is obviously a trickster thug. When something he wishes to do is seriously unpopular, he distracts us from addressing it. He shifts our attention elsewhere with some gaudy, greedy act. We understand the trick, and even though media plays his game right along with him, we leftists try to orient ourselves to what is literally important, not just for today, but for all days going forward. But Trump is also a thug. He creates fear and hopes. We will restrict ourselves. It is understandable that we feel fear, though one can exaggerate it beyond all reason. It is understandable but also severely self-defeating. For immigrants to be cautious is one thing. For lawyers, elected officials and also local students and activists to be overly cautious is another thing. To translate concern or fear into submission does Trump's work for him. We've got to better understand his behavior, its reach and its limits and as well to steel ourselves up to not abide and instead to resist his instructions.
Speaker 1:Back to this episode's intended topics, this time for real First economic vision, then AI as a real and major problem. Some time back, a friend asked me why there was so much silence about participatory economics from folks in a position to be heard. Why, he asked, did he and his friends find Power Econ and its supporting logic so compelling, while left journals, organizations and commentators overwhelmingly say extremely little, if anything at all, about it? I felt I should try to answer. My first reaction was a bit self-serving, because you have actually considered it, thought about it, paying attention. They haven't done that, but why? Well, my second unrelated reaction was to construct an analogy that may or may not resonate.
Speaker 1:Suppose a couple of folks with respectable left credentials and left practice, wrote a book purporting to reveal how feminism was in fact, during its whole duration, on balance an oppressive system which, though its supporters were well motivated and while it included various crucial insights, also elevated the well-being of a new subset of men, leaving women as a group perhaps free from the worst excesses of current misogyny, but still subordinate to these new men and suffering new excesses. Or suppose a couple of other leftists wrote a book purporting to reveal how anti-racism, during its entire duration, and though its supporters were well-intentioned and though it had crucial insights, was on balance a mechanism for enshrining a new race, above various other communities, ethnicities and races, which constituencies might find themselves freed from the worst ravages of white supremacy, but still below that newly enshrined race. Of course such critics, propounding such things, would be wrong, but this is a hypothetical scenario to consider. So suppose the authors of these critical works went another step to show how these past feelings were made inevitable by the very conceptual frameworks, values and institutional agendas of feminism and anti-racism. Suppose they claimed these ideologies obscured their demonstrated, ultimately oppressive agendas, even from many of their own advocates. Suppose they then offered a new kinship or cultural paradigm and vision that they claimed were true to feminism's and anti-racism's stated values and aspirations and would, unlike the flawed formulations of the past, replace sexism and racism and authoritarianism with real liberation rather than with new. Would we then expect overwhelming silence in progressive outlets regarding these arguments and claims? Or would we expect loud and aggressive defense of existing modes of feminist and anti-racist allegiance, as well as serious assessment of the new observations and visions to see if the proposed new alternatives had any merit or were totally dismissible? As expected, I would expect the latter major attention, wouldn't you? And that's what my friends asking about the relative quiet regarding participatory economy expected regarding it but didn't encounter. Let me be still more explicit. Suppose two activists let's call them Bell and Manning wrote a book explaining how contemporary anti-racism was destined to elevate new racial elites. Would people in anti-racist movements take notice? And if Bell and Manning offered a new paradigm and vision for cultural relations, very different from any currently held, would people try to assess its merits, certainly expecting to find little, but looking to be sure there is another possibility.
Speaker 1:Given the admittedly far-out nature of the hypothetical claims, people might think Bell and Manning had lost their minds. I myself might well think something like that, encountering such a situation. Also, many individuals might prefer to avoid a needless confrontation with Bell or Manning, figuring these otherwise insightful leftists would see their error soon enough and their deviation from good sense would go away. I might well have that reaction too. We don't have to spend time on this, they would think. Many, including me, might reason that way. We'll wait, and if the new view gains any serious advocacy, that will be time enough to give it a look.
Speaker 1:Of course, if most people took that approach to major innovations, then initial progress for any seriously disruptive new views would be quite slow but still in time some would pay attention. And if Bell and Manning persisted and remained otherwise seemingly quite sensible, doing valued things, and if they piled up evidence and argument in additional books, articles, interviews etc. Then more people would pay attention and advocates of past ways would either overcome the new ideas or discover their weight and validity. Similarly, suppose Shulamith and Lydia offered claims that there are flaws in feminism that would elevate a new sector of men over women and also offered a new vision for kinship relations. New sector of men over women and also offered a new vision for kinship relations. The parallel works pretty well, and so in this case too, we might expect attention to be given to their dissident claims, even if only after some delay. And then serious debate would ensue, with resolution, one way or the other being sought.
Speaker 1:But why might assessment take some time in both cases? Well, anti-racists and feminists might initially be reticent to even hear that their approaches were flawed, as most of us tend to aggressively defend long-hauled views. And, even more, all of us want to avoid needless time wasted on crazy new notions coming from without or even from within. But anti-racist and feminist agendas of trying to liberate people from racism and sexism would presumably dominate this reticence, even if only over a period of months, or perhaps a year or two, so that then some prominent and visible anti-racist and feminist would pay attention to the critics. Prominent and visible anti-racists and feminists would pay attention to the critics, assess and debate the new views and thereby convincingly reject them or, less likely, if the views proved compelling and valuable, spread them more widely as investigation continued.
Speaker 1:My point is if the hypothetical innovations of Bell and Manning or of Shulamith and Lydia proved untenable under criticism, they would pass. But if they were robust and seemed to withstand criticism, and if their criticisms of prior views also seemed robust and valid, and if their visions really were innovative and did prove worthy and compelling in time, some minds would change, and then some more, and so on. Could anything we are missing have continued to impede that progression in these, of course, hypothetical scenarios? Well, suppose almost all those in position to visibly publicly react to the new views and to propel debate over them in their periodicals or organizations or other visible venues of considerable impact had reasons beyond skepticism of the new views and beyond their long allegiance to old ones, to avoid the discussion entirely. Suppose, just suppose they were in the constituency that Bell and Manning or that Shulamith and Lydia revealed to be the beneficiaries or the likely beneficiaries of proposed anti-racism and proposed feminism.
Speaker 1:Suppose that within left institutions and organizations there were leaders benefiting from these old views and that the new ideas and claims, they would have reason to not want the new views to spread and so even reasons to prevent them from rising to visibility, eliciting debate and leading to new agendas. As a matter of fact, precisely this occurred roughly 60 years ago, when the issue wasn't a hypothetical critique of feminism or of anti-racism but the re-elevation of those two orientations to radical prominence. In the first place, resistance by beneficiaries or just habitual defenders of old sexist and racist ways, was largely overcome by women in black movements pressing on for their ideas and demands despite dismissal by elevated men and whites. So far, then, it seems plausible that, on the one hand, new and unusual ideas typically take considerable time to find an audience, especially if they are quite discordant with what has gone before. And this is so even when the only obstacle to their doing so is skepticism and loyalty to past views. On the other hand, beyond that, innovation may take nearly forever even to get a minor hearing if factors other than warranted doubt stand in the way.
Speaker 1:Of course, the above hypothetical stories about Bell, manning, shulamith and Lydia are just that hypothetical, imaginary, unreal stories may pertain to contemporary feminism and contemporary anti-racism. Neither framework is seeking to remove current dominating groups, only to maintain the subordination of races or genders to new masters, and no one I am aware of has even suggested that is the case, much less seriously argued that the tendency flows from the conceptual underpinnings of those stances, much less carefully offered proposed replacements meant to do better. No one versed in feminism or anti-racism, and who is visibly involved with otherwise sensible thoughts and activities, has ever even contemplated making such claims, much less done so. Contemplated making such claims much less done so. However, if some Bell, manning, shulamith and Lydia did so, how long would it take for advocates of the assaulted old viewpoints to seriously assess and, I believe, to convincingly reveal the flaws of the assaults or, if I'm wrong about that, to come around to realize their merits? It's a hard question to answer. Maybe a couple of weeks, maybe a month, maybe a couple of years, don't you think? But certainly not never. And that's why my friends ask me about the resounding silence and, in their view, when it isn't silence, the resounding misplaced and even knee-jerk dismissiveness, without serious consideration regarding the participatory critique of key aspects of Marxist theory and especially of the 20th century socialist vision. Are they wrong to ask? I don't think so. I think it's a good question, not regarding kinship or cultural community, but regarding economics.
Speaker 1:Decades ago, robin Hanell and I put forth views analogous to the hypothesized ones imagined above. We claimed that the old way of viewing and acting on class issues was not and is not accurately aimed at the liberation of workers from all subordination to classes. Above the liberation of workers from all subordination to classes. Above. We claimed instead that, in practice, traditional Marxist and Leninist conceptions elevate a new coordinator class which monopolizes, empowering skills, talents and circumstances, and which exists above workers. And we claimed as well that the traditional, preponderant Marxist and Leninist frameworks hide this third class from easy visibility and that they therefore claim to be something they are not.
Speaker 1:And we went the next step as well. We offered a different logic and framework and especially a different institutional vision called participatory economics, to replace the coordinator-serving visions called socialism by both their Marxist and Leninist advocates and by their capitalism-defending opponents as well. And we claim the old visions are unable to fulfill the stated and, most often, deeply desired agenda of economic activists to attain a classless condition, and that the new participatory economic vision could attain that still worthy aim. We also describe direct implications of all this for current practice and controversies such as consternation about the class composition of the left, matters of the diminution of attention to class on the left, confusions about Trump's substantial working class support and other such issues. Over the years we, even with others, worked to display some of the participatory economic structures in practical undertakings, revealing their efficiency and moral logic in everyday use. We offered all this, starting somewhat over 50 years ago and speeding up and escalating, as well as falling off at various moments since and in the face of a mostly incredibly loud silence and a soft and sometimes barely discernible bit of critical and sometimes supportive reviews. We persisted reviews. We persisted.
Speaker 1:Advocates did grow in number, but not among people with prominence and in position to engage in serious discussion, exploration or debate. Of course this might have been because Robin and I, and then anyone who became entranced by the new perspective, were delusional. But has that been the case? If it was the case, wouldn't we expect out front demonstrations of our foolishness that took apart our actual claims? Instead, every criticism of the new ideas what few have been offered we responded to In each case. There was no further reply to our response. Almost every time the criticism was of things we never said or of imputed implications never evidenced. In contrast, every defense of all positions, what few were offered, we assessed Again. In every case there was no further reply. At no time was there major attention and, most important, most of our case and our claims went utterly unnoticed. Sort of ghosted Criticisms would be about views or claims imputed to the participatory perspective which, however, weren't part of it. Yes, book jackets over the years have carried some wonderfully positive quotations from notable left figures, but that was the extent of support from them or from any visible and respected sources, not serious assessment.
Speaker 1:And so we are back at the question that is put to me every so often, and again, most recently, just a few days ago. Why isn't participatory economics either confronted by advocates of current approaches to traditional Marxist class analysis and to familiar economic vision and convincingly demonstrated to be fatally flawed due to its actual concepts and claims? Or, if that can't be done, why isn't it seriously investigated as a new and desirable conception and vision to pursue for the economy? For that matter, among all those who feel there is no serious economic vision being offered by anti-capitalists, but who really want one again, why isn't the participatory case assessed on its merits? Is this all because it just takes a long time for these things to happen? Has reasonable skepticism been the only obstacle keeping major writers and activist influencers, so to speak, from paying attention and deciding whether they wish to support or reject participatory economics, based on assessing its actual claims and arguments, as opposed to simply ignoring it or dismissing it with rather ridiculous knee-jerk assertions like it has too many meetings and has the example of their diffidence in turn, prevented widespread discussion and subsequent dismissal of the new stance or its celebration it could be.
Speaker 1:History is full of instances, even in the hard sciences, that have fewer social pressures and vested interests, operating of ideas and insights and even major breakthroughs lying fallow for decades for these type reasons. Or is it that in addition to these type benign and understandable, though frustrating, dynamics, there is also a less benign problem? Has the fact that participatory economics challenges hierarchical divisions of labor, inequitable modes of remuneration and authoritarian modes of decision-making that many on the left benefit from and consider worthy been an additional impediment to its gaining a serious hearing? Has this kind of dynamic contributed to preventing not only allegiance but even serious assessment? Has the fact that advocating participatory economy implies a need for left and progressive projects of all kinds to pay serious attention to their internal division of labor, their apportionment of influence and decision-making, and their allocation of rewards and conditions of work cause those at the top of these structures to be reticent to pay attention to the vision, for fear that it may turn out to have weight and may engender processes contrary to their wishes. Maybe they don't even explicitly ignore or dismiss it, but just do so as a matter of habit.
Speaker 1:I am not the person to judge. All this, I think, is the reason for near invisibility of participatory economics on the left even after all these years, due merely to the power of loyalty and skepticism that makes all new ideas a difficult sell? Or does it also have to do with class interests and habits? Or is it because the ideas suck? I don't know. I do suspect that, whichever it is, overcoming the dynamics quickly, meaning in less than many more years, on top of those already invested, will entail some subset of prominent folks and venues giving visible and open support to a widespread discussion of participatory economics so as to overcome the natural skepticism that impedes others from giving it serious time and attention. Would that be a stupid waste of time and energy? Because participatory economics is as dumb as flat earth claims, or nearly so, maybe, but maybe not. Okay, but what do I think is the case? What causes me to persist in advocacy? My friend wanted to know. Is it merely stubborn ego, identity, irrationality and even delusion? You judge.
Speaker 1:I think participatory economics, rejection of remuneration for bargaining power, property or even output per se, of authoritarian decision-making, of the corporate division of labor and of markets, as well as central planning, are all historically and logically warranted. Balance for empowerment effects and of participatory planning is all well-motivated morally, and thus claimed to be worthy and well-motivated pragmatically, and thus claimed to be viable, and I haven't heard or read anything that seems to me to refute or really even address such claims. Beneath those assertions about rejected and preferred institutions, I also think the values elevated by participatory economics—equity, solidarity, diversity, self-management and, of course, ecological balance—are similarly worthy and viable, or rather can be made so with appropriate institutions. And alongside all that, I think to recognize the importance of a class of empowered employees between labor and capital and capitalism that can rise, and indeed has risen, to ruling class status beyond capitalism is a strategically essential aspect of having an economic program that leads to classlessness. And I also feel our participatory claims regarding the importance of political, cultural and gender relations to defining economy, as well as vice versa, are valid and highly consequential.
Speaker 1:While these views, and a lot more, have characterized participatory economics and the broader participatory society stances for roughly 50 years, I do not think that they have been refuted or, for the most part, even seriously assessed or, beyond that, even perceived by the mainstream of economics that defends capitalism, of course, but also by the vast bulk of actors who abhor capitalism and who wish to attain a new economic logic and system to sustain and advance vastly improved life after capitalism. And to what do I attribute this state of affairs? Partly to the tenacity of other views capitalist and coordinatorist due to their longevity and seeming inevitability. Partly to the utility of those views to classes who have both means and inclination to obscure and muddy the new views. And partly due to the failure of advocates of participatory views which includes me to find ways to convincingly and compellingly convey the views and organize sustained support to seek to implement them. My reaction, therefore, is to keep trying until we succeed or we encounter convincing and compelling reason to believe humanity can do no better than to suffer continued inequity, class division and class rule, as well as economic destruction of ecology and thus of even the conditions of human existence.
Speaker 1:Okay, that's my long, full answer to my friend, and now, as a second planned topic and, I guess, the fifth addressed topic for this episode, I wish to return to considering AI. Why? Because, unless AI's further elaboration proves impossible for technical reasons, ai is, like ecological collapse, war and Nazification, a massive and I think perhaps even an existential threat to humanity's existence and definition, and thus, to me and to you, and especially to the generation now being born, I think, contrary to that, that many people, particularly in the left, will think I have lost my mind saying that Many feel that AI is barely more than just another tool, or even barely more than just a bad joke. It hallucinates, it mimics. It's plagiarism at large. It doesn't breathe, it doesn't bleed, it doesn't do and it can't do what we do. It is just another tool for us to use.
Speaker 1:And why do many people, particularly on the left, feel thusly? On what basis do they think things like that? One reason might be that they have a good grasp on how current and future AI works and how it will work, and when they think about that, they arrive at the dismissive assessment. A second possible reason is that, while not knowing much or even anything at all about how it works do you know how a radio or antibiotics, or even an aspirin, much less AI works? They see what it has done and what it is doing and they extrapolate that its range of activity and potentials are no threat. A third possibility is that they claim as true what they desire to be true, with little or no substantive reason for thinking that what they want the truth to be is what it will be. This can be termed magical thinking.
Speaker 1:At the same time, and in contrast to those who laugh at AI or who shrug about it, various other people seriously worry about AI or extol it. The worriers say mainly four things, though I and some others add a fifth concern. One AI will inexorably alter and take over countless jobs and, given our economy, polity and cultures, its doing so will reduce most of the population to social and economic irrelevance and thus total subordination. 2. Ai will itself go rogue and attack humans and attack humans. 3. Ai will be used for nefarious ends, such as surveillance, manipulation, repression and murder by powerful constituencies, governments, corporations or criminal cartels. 4. Ai will seriously worsen our prospects of avoiding ecological collapse by virtue of its extreme appetite for energy and resources. And finally, fifth, which few seem to fear, ai will steadily encroach not only on jobs but on human involvement in all manner of creative, caring and otherwise human-identified life functions, reducing severely people's range of involvement and thereby impoverishing their lives.
Speaker 1:In response to all that worry, there arises often, but not exclusively, from within the world of AI creators, two contrary stances. First, in a small minority, some say that all that is nonsense. Ai won't get much beyond where it now is. We can give it guidelines and impose regulations that will restrict misuse, we can get the best without losses. Or second. Yes, there are serious dangers, but the upside that AI can deliver means that to over-regulate, much less to pull the plug on AI, would be a horrible mistake. Ais will overcome diseases, create vast wealth we can all enjoy, extend life expectancy for all and open untold doors we haven't even yet dreamed of. So what is the current situation?
Speaker 1:Ai has grown, extended into widespread use and is developing new operational abilities at an incredible and unprecedented rate. One day it can barely do elementary math. A year later it does arcane math better than nearly anyone. One day it blathers. A year later it is eloquent. One day it can undertake no tasks of its own choosing. A year later, it can not only follow instructions but initiate actions of its own design. One day, we can ask it questions and we might get a sensible answer. A year later, it can not only answer almost anything we might ask, but also provide therapy and converse about virtually anything, casually or intimately.
Speaker 1:I admit I first took notice quite a while ago when one day it was a pathetic chess and go player. Then it was pretty good and then training itself by playing itself over and over no access to human lessons. It was by far better than the best human players in the world. Here is just one indicator of its current reach, scope and impact. And keep in mind in its current technical composition, it is barely a toddler. Will it stay a toddler or will it creep advancing? Anyway? As the indicator, google, one of the largest and most profitable corporations in the world, has dominated search for decades and makes the bulk of its revenues from selling access to its users to corporations for ad fees. Yet, despite its near-monopoly position and unmatched resources and reach, it is so worried about some other firm using AI to deliver sought information more effectively and to thereby attract away its users that it is overhauling its entire approach that has been dominant for decades in favor of itself, using AI in place of its old approach to search. Google thinks AI is no joke. As a toddler, it can replace Google's decades of development of its dominant approach. And on that topic, google is no fool.
Speaker 1:I was, and I remain, a harsh critic of social media. I think social media cripples communication, creates information silos, facilitates spying, spreads misinformation, cheapens friendship and reduces attention span. I thought it pretty much from day one, but I think that while social media, seriously flawed as it is, is nowhere near as damaging as AI use may become. Both are addictive, both promise major benefits, but the latter AI threatens almost every kind of human pursuit. Ai is already no joke regarding jobs, nefarious use and energy consumption. That's fact. Ignoring it is like ignoring global warming or social inequality or war. Very soon as its use for medical functions, day-to-day decisions, intimate conversation and companionship grows. Unless a technical or social barrier curbs all that, ai will be no joke vis-a-vis people's sense of efficacy and our evolving personalities. There's something happening here. What it is isn't exactly clear. There's a machine with a net over there. Do we jump into it, run from it or regulate it? And all that said this is Michael Albert signing off until next time for Revolution Z.