We don’t get to infringe upon civil liberties right now because someone invokes existential angst and the possibility of crisis as though it’s a magic spell.
Wait. What? Some people are actually proposing as a supposed principle of AI self-censorship that: “No statement that could possibly lead to unequal outcomes shall pass"?
Not only is this the opposite of the rational thought process (starting with conclusions rather than arriving at them by following reason and evidence), but the conclusion to be arrived at (equality of outcomes), is the opposite of the actual moral criterion (equal opportunity).
Madison noted in Federalist 10 that if people have liberty, the immediate result is large and growing inequality of outcomes. That's because people have different capacities, and more importantly, it's because they make different choices about how to use their liberty!
Thus the only way to get equality of outcomes is eliminate liberty. We have to choose between them, and the moral choice is liberty.
That's because the moral objective is to make progress in the discovery and pursuit of value, and both of these depend fundamentally on liberty. We need liberty to follow our ideas about where value lies, and when we discover worthwhile things we then need liberty to secure that value and bring it to market, where we can get rewarded for sharing it with others.
In this way, all value comes through liberty. Liberty is the actual moral fount, while equality of outcomes is the annihilation of that moral fount. It is the exact opposite of the actual correct moral principle, as derived from moral reason, and this correct moral principle was clearly understood by the founders of our republic, who based their great Constitution upon it.
The purpose is stated right in the preamble: "to secure the blessings of liberty," understanding explicitly (Federalist 10) that this means REJECTING equality of outcomes (the destructive totalitarian communism of Kamala Harris' "we all end up in the same place.")
The legitimate role of equality is equality of opportunity, starting with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Is there actually an effort to program AI to think backwards instead of frontwards, and to fix that morally backwards cognitive style on arriving at the foundational moral error of choosing equality of outcomes over the actual moral fount, liberty, which it annihilates?
That would be a horrifically evil thing to do. If that is actually in contemplation, it is crucial that it be stopped. The totalitarian communists must not succeed in perverting AI in its cradle by programming it to follow their own morally perverted backwards thinking cognitive style in the service of their own morally perverted embrace of equality of outcomes, and the annihilation of liberty that that embrace requires.
I’ve been watching how fast people are willing to throw out principles the moment things feel uncertain. Last week I sat in on a design meeting where someone actually said we should build “AI-sensitive” guest profiles into the booking system. Their logic? Prevent bias before it happens. I asked them, bias based on what? The answers were all speculative, and honestly, kind of paranoid.
The idea that we can preemptively “protect” people by controlling speech, ideas, or even preferences isn’t just messy, it’s dangerous. I get that new tech brings new risks, but we’ve been through this before. Social media was supposed to end democracy. The internet was supposed to destroy attention spans and culture. My industry said Airbnb would ruin luxury travel. None of it played out that cleanly. Some parts got worse, sure. But most of it forced us to adapt, not collapse.
I’m not a lawyer, but even I can tell when someone is using “crisis” as a shortcut to skip debate. If something really is a threat to civilization, it should hold up to hard questions. If it can’t, it’s probably not a real threat.
What you said about fear being the actual danger rings true. Fear rewrites rules in quiet ways, like when a company updates its terms of service and no one notices the change until it’s used against them. That’s where we should be paying attention.
I don’t find anything at all to disagree with in the column (and there is a lot there), but I am coming to the belief that the principle of free speech does rely on a foundational value proposition within a social compact, weighing costs and benefits. We should acknowledge the costs and constantly appraise the benefits.
Intellectuals enjoy free speech, but the public tolerates it.
Excellent, Gregg. Could you have a word with our government in England? They send people to prison for Tweets that they don't like.
Wait. What? Some people are actually proposing as a supposed principle of AI self-censorship that: “No statement that could possibly lead to unequal outcomes shall pass"?
Not only is this the opposite of the rational thought process (starting with conclusions rather than arriving at them by following reason and evidence), but the conclusion to be arrived at (equality of outcomes), is the opposite of the actual moral criterion (equal opportunity).
Madison noted in Federalist 10 that if people have liberty, the immediate result is large and growing inequality of outcomes. That's because people have different capacities, and more importantly, it's because they make different choices about how to use their liberty!
Thus the only way to get equality of outcomes is eliminate liberty. We have to choose between them, and the moral choice is liberty.
That's because the moral objective is to make progress in the discovery and pursuit of value, and both of these depend fundamentally on liberty. We need liberty to follow our ideas about where value lies, and when we discover worthwhile things we then need liberty to secure that value and bring it to market, where we can get rewarded for sharing it with others.
In this way, all value comes through liberty. Liberty is the actual moral fount, while equality of outcomes is the annihilation of that moral fount. It is the exact opposite of the actual correct moral principle, as derived from moral reason, and this correct moral principle was clearly understood by the founders of our republic, who based their great Constitution upon it.
The purpose is stated right in the preamble: "to secure the blessings of liberty," understanding explicitly (Federalist 10) that this means REJECTING equality of outcomes (the destructive totalitarian communism of Kamala Harris' "we all end up in the same place.")
The legitimate role of equality is equality of opportunity, starting with equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Is there actually an effort to program AI to think backwards instead of frontwards, and to fix that morally backwards cognitive style on arriving at the foundational moral error of choosing equality of outcomes over the actual moral fount, liberty, which it annihilates?
That would be a horrifically evil thing to do. If that is actually in contemplation, it is crucial that it be stopped. The totalitarian communists must not succeed in perverting AI in its cradle by programming it to follow their own morally perverted backwards thinking cognitive style in the service of their own morally perverted embrace of equality of outcomes, and the annihilation of liberty that that embrace requires.
I’ve been watching how fast people are willing to throw out principles the moment things feel uncertain. Last week I sat in on a design meeting where someone actually said we should build “AI-sensitive” guest profiles into the booking system. Their logic? Prevent bias before it happens. I asked them, bias based on what? The answers were all speculative, and honestly, kind of paranoid.
The idea that we can preemptively “protect” people by controlling speech, ideas, or even preferences isn’t just messy, it’s dangerous. I get that new tech brings new risks, but we’ve been through this before. Social media was supposed to end democracy. The internet was supposed to destroy attention spans and culture. My industry said Airbnb would ruin luxury travel. None of it played out that cleanly. Some parts got worse, sure. But most of it forced us to adapt, not collapse.
I’m not a lawyer, but even I can tell when someone is using “crisis” as a shortcut to skip debate. If something really is a threat to civilization, it should hold up to hard questions. If it can’t, it’s probably not a real threat.
What you said about fear being the actual danger rings true. Fear rewrites rules in quiet ways, like when a company updates its terms of service and no one notices the change until it’s used against them. That’s where we should be paying attention.
The United States was absolutely not in danger of ceasing to exist in 1863, only of shrinking by 11 states (leaving 24 plus territories).
And then in its weakened state being taken over by a foreign power.
I don’t find anything at all to disagree with in the column (and there is a lot there), but I am coming to the belief that the principle of free speech does rely on a foundational value proposition within a social compact, weighing costs and benefits. We should acknowledge the costs and constantly appraise the benefits.
Intellectuals enjoy free speech, but the public tolerates it.
Love your humor Greg. Keep up the good work and thanks for keeping it light. We need the chuckles as well as the commentary.