Read on Twitter
I& #39;m always grateful for David& #39;s references--he& #39;s an encyclopedic source on the philosophy of AI & robotics. I just want to note how this angle may fuel important philosophical debates, but remain orthogonal to my particular project (1/15--apologies in advance for the length!) https://twitter.com/David_Gunkel/status/1322540200300584960">https://twitter.com/David_Gun...
One of the major purposes of my "New Laws" book is to connect political economy & metaphysical commitments, via interpretive/hermeneutic social science. A hermeneutic circle helps us understand the particular in the context of the general, and vice versa.
In my case, I started the project exploring what it would mean to prioritize labor over capital, for the very long term. That led to some "laws of robotics" recommending that we design/adopt AI that raises the value of certain labor.
But it is hard to maintain the priority of labor over capital within a normative system that erases the boundary between machines & persons. Professions of concerns about "robot workers" remind me of Becker& #39;s trick with "human capital" ( https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/the-problem-with-human-capital/):">https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureco...
a strategic blurring of lines necessary to promote a humane political economy. So my project doesn& #39;t require me to be "objectively right" about what simulation/artificiality denote (indeed, it& #39;s hard to see how one could be so; they& #39;re essentially contested concepts).
Rather, I critique imitations of deeply (if not uniquely) human qualities by entities that don& #39;t share predicaments (such as embodiment & mortality) that humans do, based on analysis of what society is (& becomes) if we invest in such imitations. e.g.: https://reallifemag.com/more-than-a-feeling/">https://reallifemag.com/more-than...
The "new laws" are about building a better society ("here& #39;s AI & robotics we should invest in"), rather than diagnosing or forecasting ("here& #39;s what is & what& #39;s coming, get ready for it"). They& #39;re about planning for industrial policy, not prediction of what markets will bring.
In that way, the book& #39;s political economy (toward social democracy and planning) fits its metaphysical commitment to the distinctiveness & priority of the human. That& #39;s the hermeneutic circle--the metaphysics make sense in terms of the politics/economics, & vice versa.
My general sense is that, in the opposite direction, a singularitarian blurring of the human/machine distinction fits with & supports accelerationist capitalism (see, e.g., https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tedchiang/the-real-danger-to-civilization-isnt-ai-its-runaway)">https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/t... far better than social democracy/planning.
The blurring of that distinctiveness could be the foundation for the view: "well, yes, climate change may greatly reduce human population, but advanced robots are just as valuable & can survive it...& #39;so it goes,& #39; evolutionarily," reducing the urgency of human-preserving response.
I am not saying such fatalistic quiescence is required by singularitarian or physicalist commitments. But scholars like @jasonwblakely expertly show the anti-humanist dimensions of such a blurring project, & I think it& #39;s a serious enough danger that I want to resist it.
Thus I value the "real," and strict lines between humans & robots, not just from some easily contestable metaphysics, but also from a perspective that analyzes how philosophical views affect social organization, and vice versa.
On method, I like this language from Boesche on Tocqueville: "society seems to resemble a delicately balanced mobile in which every aspect settles into its position as a result of the composite influence of every other. Laws, religion, art, architecture, economic considerations,
...language, literature, and so forth, lean upon
one another....[Though] the image of a mobile may be modern, the idea supporting this image is at least as old as Plato." #metadata_info_tab_contents">https://www.jstor.org/stable/191010?seq=1 #metadata_info_tab_contents">https://www.jstor.org/stable/19...
So yes, I& #39;ll cop to that form of Platonism, more methodological than metaphysical.
one another....[Though] the image of a mobile may be modern, the idea supporting this image is at least as old as Plato." #metadata_info_tab_contents">https://www.jstor.org/stable/191010?seq=1 #metadata_info_tab_contents">https://www.jstor.org/stable/19...
So yes, I& #39;ll cop to that form of Platonism, more methodological than metaphysical.
The book is an invitation to reconsider how political economy affects values, & vice versa. It& #39;s only one interpretation of our broader predicament. But I hope that it helps inform & strengthen a community of researchers & activists committed to advancing human well-being.
