Show notes
Everybody seems to be scared of artificial intelligence. Or maybe the press makes it seem like everybody is scared of artificial intelligence.AI is going to take our jobs. AI is going to replace artists. AI is going to manipulate elections. AI is going to become smarter than us. Eventually AI is going to destroy civilization.Why are we always doing this?Why do human beings always think civilization is about to end?In my lifetime, first it was nuclear war. We are all going to die. Then the millennium change. Everything is going to stop working. Computers are going to fail. Civilization is going to fall apart. Then climate change. Now AI is going to destroy us all.Before that, people thought Halley’s Comet was going to poison everybody.In 1910, scientists detected cyanogen gas in the comet’s tail. Earth was going to pass through it. People bought gas masks and supposed remedies. Newspapers ran with it. There was real dread that this thing in the sky might kill everybody.Then Earth passed through the tail.And nothing happened.That does not mean every warning is stupid. Nuclear war was a real danger. It still is. Y2K was a real computer problem. People spent years fixing it. Climate change is real. AI is going to create real problems.But we have this habit of moving really quickly from, this could be bad, to, this could end civilization.And I keep coming back to the same thing.Every day has enough worry of its own.Do not tax your life with the forethought of grief.Enjoy the hard work of staying alive while you can.There is that Wendell Berry poem, The Peace of Wild Things. I am paraphrasing it, but it is something like: when I wake at night and worry about my life or my children’s future, I go lie down by the water, among the wild things who do not tax their lives with the forethought of grief.That phrase is just right.The forethought of grief.We do that all the time. We grieve things that have not happened yet. We suffer tomorrow before tomorrow gets here.What happens to my children?What happens to the climate?What happens if the Russians launch?What happens if the computers stop working?What happens if the machine becomes smarter than us?And some of those are reasonable questions. But at some point, you are just paying today for grief that may never come.That does not mean do nothing.Take climate change.Climate change is not going to kill every person on Earth. Do you know what might kill a lot of people? Doing nothing to prepare for climate change.If we need to shore up buildings, improve infrastructure, strengthen the electrical grid, prepare for drought, fires, flooding, storms, then do those things.That is useful.Sitting around worrying that civilization is going to collapse is not useful.Worry is not preparation.And I think AI is the same way.There are reasonable guardrails we can put around artificial intelligence without acting like the machine itself is evil.Start with personal responsibility.No fake lewd photographs or videos using another person’s likeness. That should be illegal.Not because AI made the image.Because you used somebody else’s face to hurt them.If an AI system hacks another company and causes millions of dollars in damage, somebody is responsible for that. “The AI did it” cannot become some excuse that means nobody is liable.A person deployed it. A company built it. Somebody authorized it to do something.Now, I do not think the AI company should automatically be responsible every time somebody misuses a model. That would be ridiculous.If the company demonstrated reasonable guardrails, reasonable security, reasonable efforts to prevent abuse, then no, they should not automatically be liable because somebody found a way around those protections.But if they knew there was a problem, knew their model was being used to do something harmful, had reasonable ways to stop it, and ignored it, then responsibility starts to move back toward the company.That would make AI companies pay attention really quickly.Not because somebody wrote a vague ethics statement.Because there would be consequences.There would be damages.There would be liability.And in a messed-up twist, I am not against the use of AI for military action.I do not think that is contradictory.The military already uses force that would be illegal in ordinary civilian life. The question is who is responsible.If an autonomous or semi-autonomous system strikes a target, somebody in the chain of command still owns that decision.“The algorithm decided” cannot be an excuse.Somebody authorized that system. Somebody gave it the authority to act. Somebody remains responsible.That gets into the philosophy behind all of this.Sartre comes to mind.Freedom creates responsibility.You are free to choose, so you are also responsible for what you choose.You do not get to hide behind the system. Or the institution. Or the role. Or, eventually, the algorithm.John Stuart Mill fits here too.Mill’s basic idea was that people should be left free to act unless their actions harm somebody else. The state should not interfere just because an action is unusual, risky, unpopular, or offensive. The line is harm.That is pretty close to how I think about AI.Do not regulate it because it frightens people.Do not regulate it because it is new.Do not regulate it because somebody can imagine a terrible future.Regulate conduct when it causes real harm to other people.That is a much cleaner rule.If someone uses AI to commit fraud, punish the fraud.If someone uses AI to create a nonconsensual sexual image, punish that.If a company negligently deploys a system that causes foreseeable damage, hold the company responsible.But do not build a giant apparatus around every hypothetical thing the technology might someday do.You will never keep up anyway.And I think the same principle applies to corporations.Corporations have rights. They can own property. They can enter contracts. They can sue and be sued. They have legal protections.Fine.Then they also have reasonable responsibility.You do not get rights without responsibility.That applies to individuals. It should apply to companies.So maybe the philosophy is something like this:Maximum freedom, with responsibility for foreseeable harm.Let people build things.Let companies innovate.Let people use powerful tools.But when somebody gets hurt, ask the same questions we already know how to ask.Who did it?Who authorized it?Who could reasonably foresee the harm?Who failed to take reasonable precautions?Fraud is still fraud.Theft is still theft.Defamation is still defamation.Negligence is still negligence.Calling it artificial intelligence does not make responsibility disappear.And that brings me back to the larger point.Maybe AI could someday create some civilization-level danger.I do not know.But every generation seems convinced it is standing at the edge of the end.Nuclear war.The millennium.Climate catastrophe.Artificial intelligence.Before that, Halley’s Comet.At some point, you have to live.If there is something useful to do, do it.If the climate is changing and infrastructure needs to be stronger, build stronger infrastructure.If AI can be used to make fake sexual images of people, make that illegal.If AI systems can cause real damage, establish liability.If companies put reasonable guardrails in place, do not punish them automatically because somebody misused the tool anyway.Do the work that needs doing.Fix what can be fixed.Prepare where preparation actually matters.And then live.Because every day already has enough trouble of its own.There are people to love. There are things to build. There are things to repair. There are books to read. There is dinner to make. There is work to do.There is a world that is still here this morning.Do not tax your life with the forethought of grief.Enjoy the hard work of staying alive while you can.Tomorrow has enough worry of its own.SourcesPublic fear around Halley’s Comet in 1910, including concern that cyanogen gas in the comet’s tail might threaten life on Earth, and contemporary anti-comet remedies and gas masks: Library of Congress, “Halley’s Comet: Topics in Chronicling America”Wendell Berry’s “The Peace of Wild Things,” including the phrase about not taxing one’s life with the forethought of grief: Academy of American Poets, “Life Lines: Wendell Berry”“Each day has enough trouble of its own”: Matthew 6:34, New International Version, via Bible GatewayFinding satisfaction in one’s labor during the brief life God gives us, and receiving the ability to enjoy that labor as a gift: Ecclesiastes 5:18–20, New International Version, via Bible GatewayEnjoying life, doing the work before you, and doing it with all your strength while you are alive: Ecclesiastes 9:7–10, New International Version, via Bible GatewayJohn Stuart Mill’s harm principle, liberty, and the idea that coercive power is justified primarily to prevent harm to others: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “John Stuart Mill”; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy”Jean-Paul Sartre on freedom, responsibility, and bad faith: Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Jean-Paul Sartre”; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Authenticity”Corporations and other legal entities as legal persons capable of owning property, entering contracts, suing and being sued, while also carrying legal responsibilities and liabilities: Cornell Legal Information Institute, “Legal Person”; Cornell Legal Information Institute, “Artificial Person”; Cornell Legal Information Institute, “Corporation”AI risk management, governance, and reasonable safeguards designed to reduce harms while preserving flexibility and innovation: National Institute of Standards and Technology, “AI Risk Management Framework”; NIST, “Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework: Generative Artificial Intelligence Profile”Cybersecurity risks, vulnerabilities, and resilience issues involving artificial intelligence systems: National Institute of Standards and Technology, “AI Research: Security and Resilience”Autonomous weapon systems, human control, and legal and humanitarian questions surrounding machines that can select and apply force without further human intervention: International Committee of the Red Cross, “ICRC Position on Autonomous Weapon Systems” Get full access to I Believe at joelkdouglas.substack.com/subscribe
