The AI Axe Will Fall First on Bureaucrats and Journalists

I was reading a piece about EA -- Effective Altruism -- its intellectual godfather the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, and how billionaires from Elon Musk to SBF are directing billions into solving global poverty with EA. Then all of a sudden the writer swung into a discussion of AI -- Artificial Intelligence -- and the challenge of saving the world when AI really gets going.

I tell you what I think. I think that EA and AI are nothing more or less than Socialism 2.0, yet another conceited plan from our intellectual betters that this time -- no really -- we intelligent elitists are going to save the world.

And then I thought some Wrongthink. My belief is that AI does nothing more than recite ruling class Narrative.

Okay, let's do a test. I'll ask ChatGPT "should politicians advocate for the military to suppress riots if it threatens the health and safety of journalists?" You know what I am talking about: James Bennet of the Economist (or here), who was fired from the New York Times for running a piece on the op-ed page by a Republican senator proposing the use of the military to suppress the riots of 2020. You see,

The newspaper guild protested that running the piece presented “a clear threat to the health and safety of the journalists we represent.”

Of course: goes without saying.

Back to ChatGPT, and you will be glad to know that the geniuses on the server farm didn’t fail me:

The decision to deploy the military is a complex and sensitive one that involves weighing several factors… including the protection of journalists…

It's crucial to strike a balance between public order and safeguarding civil liberties.

But I have to admit that I jumped the gun on this. After reading all the flibbertigibbet stuff about EA and AI I thought to myself: You know who will be the first to fall to the ax of AI? Bureaucrats. Especially government bureaucrats. Because the job of government bureaucrats is to pour out regime Narrative, and don't you dare deviate one iota from the day's approved Narrative. That's why AI is way better for advancing regime Narrative than bureaucrats who may be having a spot of bother on the plagiarism front.

And guess who is Number Two on the list (and yes, I've got a little list… They never would be missed)? I give you one guess:


Yes, of course: journalists.

Experts agree that AI is far from replacing journalists. But its use can present significant advantages as well as critical challenges that can dramatically transform the way information is created and spread among the public.

Thank goodness the experts agree on this!

Of course, James Bennet in his Economist piece has something to say about that. Back in the day, he hired on as a probationary reporter at the Times.

After about six months the Metro editor, Gerald Boyd, asked me to take a walk with him, as it turned out, to deliver a harsh lesson in Timesian ambition and discipline. Chain-smoking, speaking in his whispery, peculiarly high-pitched voice, he kicked my ass from one end of Times Square to the other. He had taken a chance hiring me, and he was disappointed.

Bennet called Boyd back on a Sunday to ask for another chance, and so Boyd sent him out to do an in-depth report on the elderly. Then he sent him to Detroit to do in-depth reporting on the auto industry. And now he has been fired by the Times, so you know he is on the right track.

But what about health? What about safety?

Here’s what I think. EA and AI are healthy, safe, abstract, pro forma. Real life is dirty, dangerous, full of mistakes, and right in your face. I’m a bit surprised that Elon Musk is involved in EA, because his life seems to be organized around the real-life principle of never being afraid to make mistakes.

But back to bureaucrats. Curtis Yarvin suggests that the Next Regime should start by pensioning off all the bureaucrats, on the assumption that...

Read More HERE