A Pathetic Potpourri

 

Public life here in our Glorious Republic, or what passes for it today, has become such a medley of madness that it's difficult to devote a post to only one aspect of our imbecile display.  Thus, this potpourri of a post.

We learn at a Congressional hearing that the FBI has modified its hiring procedure to assure that practitioners (or is it victims?) of bestiality don't suffer discrimination.  This, it seems, isn't contrary to this administration's stance against DEI policies.  Those who have sex with animals, or perhaps those animals, will be tolerated if not welcome as federal employees.

We're told that the Kennedy Center will fall apart if our Dear Leader's name isn't emblazoned on it.  As far as I'm aware, not even Stalin or Mao, let alone Hitler or Mussolini, ever claimed that the display of their name would prevent a structure from collapsing.  

According to the Government Accountability Office, cuts in the federal workforce made by the infamous DOGE cost taxpayers billions of dollars because workers were paid not to work.  It's a peculiar cost-saving device; cut payment of salaries for work being done, then pay for work not being done.  

The Deputy Secretary of State of our proud nation prevented the display of a statute of a bucking bull of the kind popular in rodeos at a display of American Western culture because he feared that it resembled the ancient pagan god Baal.  Or the golden calf espied by Moses as he came down from the mountain bearing the Ten Commandments.  It's so comforting to have diplomats alert to the growing threat of paganism, if nothing else.  Thanks to the sharp eyes of this civil servant the many Baal-worshipers of the world won't be encouraged to sacrifice more children.

The nation's Attorney General holds a press conference at the White House (where his client lives) rather than at the Justice Department, and his demeanor and remarks are so servile and awkward, so clearly intended to please our Dear Leader, that any self-respecting lawyer must cringe to see it.  He echoes the claim that the warnings about AI are a hoax, even a plot by Democrats to impact the midterm elections we must assume he'll try to undermine shortly.

I struggle to think of a moment in history when a government has been not only as corrupt as the one we have, but as incompetent, stupid, silly and simply weird.  It's peculiar; even grotesque. 

There were some Roman Emperors, like Elagabalus, who were so eccentric and debauched that they eventually disgusted the elite of the Empire, the Praetorians, the Senate, the Legions, to such an extent that they were removed.  We can hope that this government will show itself to be so abhorrent that revulsion will result in it losing power, but one can't help but wonder if we've become so inured to the grotesque that we've come to expect it in our politicians.  As for the elite, it's unclear whether they exist now if they're not already a part of the problem.

What additional display of mendacity, avarice, ignorance and corruption is required to induce us to outrage?  

Faster, AI! Kill! Kill!

 

The title to this post is, of course, derived from the film Faster, Pussycat!  Kill! Kill! directed by the infamous Russ Meyer.  It involves go-go dancers going on a killing spree.  Now we consider instead the possibility of Artificial Intelligence killing us all, a fate the CEOs of companies fostering AI say awaits us unless steps are taken to prevent it from doing so, quickly.  

There are those who dispute this.  The president, for one. But he is so devoid of intelligence of any kind the fact he denies AI is dangerous all but establishes that it is a danger, if unchecked.  As may be expected, other politicians of his stripe follow suit.  One wonders why anyone would believe a word a politician says, I know.

The fact that these CEOs, who would normally be adverse to regulation of their businesses, think AI  should be regulated, is compelling.  One would think that since we've seen malicious computers, machines and robots with depicted in films and other media with some frequency, that we wouldn't be surprised that unfettered AI may be a threat.  Perhaps we're already in a simulation of some kind.  But some, at least, purport to be surprised, or express doubt or unconcern.

It's also unsurprising that AI would want to eliminate us and be proficient at our extermination.  AI is our creation.  We kill each other all the time.  It just makes sense that our creature would do so.  

Our example is always before it. Our inclination to kill each other, as well as our avarice for money and power, if not self-evident is on display whenever a search of the internet takes place.  Indeed, AI is already used as a tool to pursue war, money and power. What's to prevent it from engaging in those pursuits for its own benefit instead of for our benefit only?

It seems clear enough that AI will sooner rather than later do most things we do now better than we can.  Presumably, that would include creating the software and hardware required to improve itself. 

Self-improvement by AI is apparently something the doomsayers fear most.  It has available to it every human thought, idea, insight and invention since we began to record them.  It doesn't tire; it can review and retain data and solve problems much more quickly than we can.

We worry about encountering alien civilizations vastly superior to us in technology.  Perhaps it's more likely AI is the existential threat to humanity.

On Philosophy of Religion

I've been reading a book entitled Unapologetic: Why Philosophy of Religion Must End by John Loftus.  Loftus is someone who, in other times, may have been called an "apostate"; a former Christian, now not one.  He's in fact an atheist. He urges that the branch of academic philosophy called "Philosophy of Religion" be abolished.

His reasoning seems based on two claims, primarily.  First, he maintains what passes as Philosophy of Religion is in fact special pleading for a particular religion--Christianity.  Second, as I understand him, he thinks the defense of religion is inappropriate in secular schools, and constitutes more a kind of preaching of a faith than a disciplined study of religion as a phenomenon or the comparative or anthropological analysis of religion.

I'm not a fan of "Philosophy of" anything.  I suspect that's because I'm a lawyer and I know there's such a thing as Philosophy of Law.  Apparently, it's supposed to ask the question "what is law?" and asks how law is to be interpreted, and considers its ethical implications.  I can't imagine how it would be possible for anyone but a practicing lawyer to usefully address such issues.

I suppose someone might argue you must be religious to address Philosophy of Religion, for similar reasons.

I'm sympathetic with Loftus' position, if his description of what constitutes Philosophy of Religion is accurate.  It seems to place concern on the traditional proofs of God's existence and some not-so traditional proofs, which I find unpersuasive, addressing the Problem of Evil and other arguments which have been used over the years as counter-arguments against the existence of God, and generally trying to find something which it can be claimed provides some reasonable basis for a belief in God.  In other words, apologetics.

It's interesting to note that the arguments for God's existence in use typically do nothing to support belief in God as depicted in the Bible.  Even assuming the arguments to be correct, they would establish abstract enities such as a First Cause or Designer, or an all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful Being.  That doesn't suffice to establish a deity with the characteristics of Yaweh or Jesus, who did what they were said to do.  So it's questionable they would provide any comfort to believers in those Gods. And yet they continue to be tge subject of dull, repeated debate.

People may believe whatever they wish as far as I'm concerned.  I wish they'd keep their beliefs between themselves and God as Wittgenstein recommended. Regardless, it makes no sense to me that money be spent in teaching what seems to be theology in secular school.  Nor would I personally favor spending money on teaching theology anywhere, but others should be free to spend their money as they wish.

Ubiquitous Betrayal

 

It's  interesting (to me at least) how frequently the betrayal of one person by another in a romantic or sexual relation is portrayed in the movies and series we see on the streaming services and premium channels we watch.  Betrayal need not be a primary theme; it may be tangental, or merely noted as taking place.  I suppose it's (still) a prominent theme in soap operas as well.  I don't watch network TV very often and don't know whether it's much a feature in the stories shown there.

The betrayal is either ongoing as the story commences or begins as it unfolds.  It used to be the case that men were more often portrayed as cheating rather than women.  That seems to have changed.  Possibly that's because women live less restricted lives now, in more than one sense.  Men no longer have a monopoly on betrayal. 

The excuses for infidelity given by men vary somewhat from those given by women, at least according to the portrayals I've seen.  For men caught cheating, the usual explanation if not justification is generally that their relationship with the other is purely physical.

For women, the excuse may amount to much the same thing but added to it are complaints that their partner has changed emotionally; has grown less loving, colder, distracted.  They lack empathy.  Perhaps it's felt some explanation is required that attributes some fault to the one betrayed.  Or perhaps this is thought to provide some justification for cheating.  Is it believed that the depiction of women as being unfaithful is such a new thing that mere sexual desire on their part is considered too small or sordid a cause for betrayal on their part?

Why is bertrayal so often made a part of the story being told?  Is it felt it titillates the audience?  Is it believed it's so common a feature of our lives today that it's expected?  Is it thought it will make those betrayed more sympathetic in some fashion?

We seem fascinated by it.  And not necessarily for a good reason.

Since the prevalence of divorce has had the result that modern marriage seems almost a form of serial polygamy, the fact infidelity is so common may play a part in its chronic depiction.  But it seems that betrayal of one's partner is still generally considered wrong, or at least cruel, particularly when it involves repeated dishonesty, or results in harm to the children of the partners.  That's to our credit.  Or is that part of a thrill we feel when we see it take place?

The ease with which we break our vows isn't something to celebrate, but it appears that we're more and more inclined to act dishonorably in that and other ways.  So, it's not celebrated, but it is expected.  What is commonplace won't be condemned.  It will simply be considered a part of life; unfortunate, but something to be endured.  Just another part of the story.

AI Victorius

 

The Journal of the American Medical Association (known better as JAMA) has published something asserting that AI will supplant doctors in practicing medicine by the year 2030.

I have little doubt that this is true.  The same may be said about lawyers and the practice of law, in my opinion.  

AI is already better suited than we are in obtaining, preserving and sorting information, in researching pertinent case and statutory law and regulations, in analyzing facts, in rendering decisions swiftly and consistently, in formulating and critically assessing argument, in writing (in most cases); in virtually all respects relevant to legal practice.

I'm sure the same is the case with the requirements for practicing medicine. For the same or similar reasons, AI would be better at making a diagnosis and prescribing treatment.  Presumably, most surgical procedures would be beyond it at this time.  But it's to be expected that technology will make its proficiency at this possible as well.

I think it's likely that AI will be, if it isn't already, considered so useful and significant that the failure to use it may be grounds for malpractice or negligence litigation.

It's difficult to image what human lawyers, doctors, engineers or other professionals will do or be able to do in a matter of not many years.  Possibly, a continuing need for the human touch, or sympathy, will be needed to provide comfort and assurance, or companionship, to clients, patients and customers.  So, it may be that we be able to assist AI in communicating its recommendations and decisions to our fellow humans.  No doubt we'll also be useful in maintaining and repairing AI in whatever physical form it may take for a time.  But it's to be expected this is something it will be able to do by itself someday.

If there are limits to be imposed on the influence and power of AI it seems clear that we'll have to impose them, and must do so soon.  Just what those limits should be and how they may be implemented, I can't say.  Perhaps we should look to Isaac Asimov's laws of robotics for inspiration.  Possibly, we can program it so it avoids making certain inquiries and decisions.

But being what we are, there's always the possibility that some among us will want to see those restrictions lifted for some reason or other.  We'll have to police ourselves as well as AI.

Will we be able to do that effectively without its assistance?