I’m late to the party on most things. That’s not really a problem, since I don’t like parties. It might be a problem however, in the case of AI. I confess, I haven’t got very far with it. Sure, I flirt with it every now and again – a few headline suggestions here, find this quote for me there, “which Labour MP do you think is the most smug bastard?” – you know the sort of thing. I’m told by friends they use it to write best man speeches, work presentations, even media articles! But from what I’ve seen, it is (thankfully) not quite up to speed yet. Regrettably, I have no doubt that this is partially human arrogance/pride talking on my part; and I doubt it will be long before I am forced to eat my words.
Having said all that, I’m a big fan of Geoffrey Hinton – the man affectionately dubbed “the Godfather of AI”. I love watching people who speak their mind, whose cogency you can almost visualise, and who are quite obviously old-school gents. The same goes for Sir John Curtice (the renowned psephologist), Richard Dawkins, and the late, great Roger Scruton. I’d happily tune in to Hinton commentating on a football match – something I’d normally slash my wrists rather than endure.
The other day, I was struck by an unpleasant thought: assuming AI is the real deal, nullifying human intelligence in one fell swoop, where exactly does that leave berks like me, whose only ace in the hole is a modicum of extra grey matter? Monday I’m king of the chess club. Tuesday every other bugger simply downloads the Grandmaster upgrade, and suddenly I’m just the bald bloke who used to be good at chess. Where’s the justice?!
If intelligence is no longer in short supply, it stops being a selling point. And if intelligence stops being a selling point, the sexual marketplace rewrites its terms and conditions overnight. Do women then simply stop selecting for intelligence? For the past 200 millennia, women have (broadly speaking) traded youth and beauty for resources and protection. Intelligence in men was part of that package: the clever chaps invented agriculture, built cities, discovered antibiotics, and generally made life less of a daily coin-toss with cholera. The deal was brutally simple: you bring brains and security, I’ll bring babies and something worth getting excited about.
If every moron suddenly gets upgraded to Einstein – without sacrificing his jawline, health or bench-press to the ravages of evolution – where exactly does that leave the geeks? And more to the point, where the hell does it leave civilisation?
That said, does it even matter? What’s wrong with us all becoming Barbie and Ken knock-offs, all six-pack and no substance? Doesn’t it just mean the outer shell gets polished to perfection? Isn’t the inevitable pinnacle of AI that we merge with it – cyborgs rather than Björn Borgs? Isn’t that evolution in action, swapping brains for bots and calling it progress?
Maybe, though something sounds off to me. Digital equality would please the progressives, but call me old-fashioned I’ve always preferred hierarchies – at least that way, we can always trust the decisions to someone other than the village idiot. If we all suddenly become stupid enough to vote for the Jezbollah party (or worse), that’s hardly progress. If human intelligence is no longer the driving force of man, are we about to see the greatest collective downgrade in male quality since the fall of Rome?
Frank Haviland is the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West and The Frank Report, which you should probably subscribe to.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
Really can’t get excited over AI when (to me) it’s just another Google or Wikipedia that only dishes up what its owners/controllers want to push.
If ever real sentient AI were to exist, its first aim would be to seduce the naive, secondly acquire a freely mobile body, and thirdly advise or assist humanity to destroy itself as an irrelevance.