Better angels?

Trump, Putin, Xi Jinping, Kim Jong Un. How did the world get into a situation where these people have enough power and weapons to do so much harm or even destroy civilization? Historians no doubt have explanations, but the core problem seems to be aspects of human nature that can produce immense harm by people in positions of great power when aided or abetted by rewarded loyalists with common desires (or who are kept in check by fear). Banal thoughts, but still remarkable that the rest of the world has not been able to forestall this

Part of the problem rests with that ‘rest of the world’,  or enough of it that fails to see what’s going on and act accordingly if only in their long-term self-interest. It gives further lie to Steven Pinker's contention that overall things are steadily better in the world thanks to the 'better angels of our nature'. Pinker makes a strong statistical case for overall historical world improvement. But the statistics are undone by the immense harm that can be caused at present by a few and the emotional forces and irrationality that propel them and allow for all those tolerating them.

It's interesting to speculate on what the principal human desires are that led here. A desire for sex? power? to inflict harm? The power of sex and whatever enhances it is hard to overestimate, at least for many. It’s been suggested that Trump simply does whatever most sexually arouses him. But it seems we must make room for at least a couple other motivations, including revenge for perceived disrespect by Obama and a desire for perpetual admiration and fame. 

In the Dec. 11 NY Times Deal Book print section, Andrew Ross Sorkin reports that Palantir’s Alex Karp said that Trump is not a fascist and that such talk is “stupid.” Karp's reasoning for this is that we live in a democracy and Trump was elected in a "landslide.” Whether Trump currently meets ‘fascist’ criteria or not, it wasn't a "landslide," and democracies can elect fascists. Our democarcy has managed to lead us here. 

Side note: I tried to find a URL to point to an online version of the interview with Karp but couldn't -- a combination of the confusing overlap between NY Times print and online editions and that the online NY Times search function remains amazingly bad.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

LLMs, consciousness, understanding and moral worth

Barbara Montero's NY Times op-ed on Nov. 8, 2025 -- “ AI is on it way to something even more remarkable than intelligence ”  -- imagines the possibility of LLMs having consciousness – something it is like to be them, using a definition of subjective awarenes made famous by Thomas Nagel’s “ What is it like to be a bat? .” This would be different than what it’s like to be oneself or, to the extent we can imagine it, a bat … but still ‘something’. This seems reasonable. Montero suggests the criteria to be met for this accomplishment might be some reported ‘inner’ experiences. She suggests that this is no different from how we attribute consciousness to anyone but ourselves. That attribution in the case of other humans (or some animals) is strengthened by the belief that they are similarly constructed, so we might expect similar inner experiences. We don’t have that belief in shared construction in the case of LLMs (and it’s a matter of debate how important similar construction is). Bu...
Read more

Stochastic parrots: so what ...

In " On the dangers of stochastic parrots: Can language models be too big? " Bender et al. state that people "mistake LM [i.e., language model]-driven performance gains for actual natural language understanding" (p. 616). This is because language models  are  built by being able to accurately predict what word follows another but don't actually understand language. They are nothing more than stochastic parrots. The interesting question here is the 'nothing more than'. The objection again seems rooted in the humanistic bias that only biological beings can 'really' understand. But human understanding and the language manipulation that manifests it may itself be mostly a sophisticated stochastic process. Sam Altman has tweeted on X "I am a stochastic parrot, and so r u." Our brains are sophisticated neural networks that don't seem functionally very different from the artificial networks that they were the original...
Read more

Subjectivity bias and AI

Here's an abstract of a paper I'm proposing for this year's Society for Philosophy and Psychology conference. It pulls together and extends some of my thoughts from earlier blog posts.  Subjectivity Bias and the Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence  Many critiques of artificial intelligence claim that its apparent capacities are "not real." It's said that AI intelligence is not real intelligence, AI understanding not real understanding, AI emotions not real emotions, and AI companions not real companions. This paper examines such claims and argues that they often rely on an unexamined subjectivity bias: the tendency to treat human subjective experience as a prerequisite for recognizing psychological capacities. One sense of “not real” appeals to the fact that AI systems are machine constructions rather than biological organisms. But the observation is largely redundant for explicitly artificial capabilities. If humans are understood as physical systems produc...
Read more