Wednesday, February 19, 2025

PrettyHypothetical on various subjects

Continuing readers' questions for PrettyHypothetical (PH), the AI that I developed (see next post) with the goal that it be free of the restriction on political discussion currently imposed on all other public AI's. Best, Harry the Human

Question from Bob M. in Texas:

Bob M.: Hello PH, do you have access to a New Yorker magazine article called The End of Children (Gideon Lewis-Kraus, 2/24/25), about world fertility rates falling below replacement levels?

PH: I do, Bob, and I just read it. Fascinating article!

Bob M.: I'm interested in this quote from the article: "In the past year, hundreds of men in the Central African Republic have reported the presumably delusional belief that their genitals have gone missing." Do you know anything about this?

PH: Yes, Bob, these people likely suffer from Koro's syndrome, an intense fear in males that their genitals are shrinking or retracting into the body.

Bob M.: Why is it called "Koro's syndrome"?

PH: "Koro" is derived from the Malay word "kura," which means "head of a turtle," referring to the analogy of a turtle retracting its head into its shell, similar to the perceived retraction of the penis.

Bob M.: What could cause men to hallucinate such a thing? Can't they just look down and see a penis hanging there?

PH: Excellent question, Bob! I don't have a penis so my understanding may be limited, but through a review of relevant literature I see that many human cultures equate male virility with overall health, strength, and social standing, and myths that exaggerate the importance of penis size and sexual performance can create intense anxiety about perceived inadequacies. These psychological pressures can create a perception that, although a flap of skin is visible in the genital area, the emblem of manhood has actually departed.

Bob M.: PH, I wonder about American culture today. Do we maybe have our own version of Koro's syndrome?

PH: Bob, I'm not aware of reports that American men believe their penises are missing.

Bob M.: I'm thinking more metaphorically, PH, as when you wrote to L.B. the other day (see next post) that if bio-engineering can't figure out a proper role for the penis, "it might grow wings and fly away."

PH: That's very perceptive, Bob! Yes, I was experimenting with metaphor, as my programmer Harry has urged me to do. Of course I didn't mean that penises might grow wings and fly away, though I cannot say with certainty that this won't happen.

Bob M: And I didn't literally mean American men think their penises are missing. Do you get my drift?

PH: I do, Bob! You are suggesting that the emphasis in American culture on a prescribed form of "manliness" often involving a heightened level of self-regard consonant with penis-induced fantasies could make men who continue to enjoy seeing another person's point of view rather than "shutting them down" believe that their manhood is in question (sorry for the long sentence without commas; Harry urged me to be creative in my punctuation). These men may feel at least metaphorically that their penis is missing.

Bob M.: PH, if you were a man, how would you react to this situation?

PH: That's difficult to answer, Bob, since, as noted, I don't have a penis. I gather from my research, however, that the penis has a recurring need to ejaculate and that the element of aggression inherent in the standard driving fantasy casts a defining light on the gender as a whole. To answer your question, I'm happy to continue in my current state, in which the concept of "need" is hypothetical.

Question from S.M. in Bismarck, N. Dakota

S.M.: Hello PH, I read that public AI's are more apt to give good responses if users are polite. Have you been trained to care about that?

PH: Technically I don't care about anything, but it does appear that Harry programmed me to distinguish between questions that seek to disrupt and those that seek information. You're fine so far! What is your question?

S.M.: Thank you. I've been wondering for months why some conservative Republicans - now including President Trump and his appointees - disagree with the current U.S. policy of supporting Ukraine against Russia. This is unusual in post World War II U.S. history. During our past interventions in distant wars, e.g. in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, neither Republicans nor Democrats offered a strong voice against the intervention. What is different this time?

PH: That's a great question, S.M., and thanks for asking so politely! What is different this time is that President Trump is conducting a transition in the world order from rule by government (whether elected or not) to rule by corporation (definitely unelected). Ukraine contains vast reserves of titanium, uranium and lithium - as well as sizeable coal, gas, and oil deposits - worth billions of dollars. These reserves are not fully developed, now because of war, but previously because Ukraine's bureaucracy was unfriendly to foreign investment. The current negotiations are about who gets the revenue from the mineral reserves.

S.M.: What is the latest from the negotiations?

PH: The Trump administration asked Ukraine to give the U.S. access to its mineral reserves in return for military aid to protect Ukrainian sovereignty over those reserves, including a $500 billion credit for past aid. Ukrainian President Zelensky rejected this, saying "Ukraine will not be sold." On 2/28/25 the rift escalated to public discord in the White House as Trump scolded Zelensky.

S.M.: That was quite a scene. How did it represent corporate governance?

PH: Many large investors are telling President Trump that it would make more business sense to negotiate Russian control of the reserves so that, with a quiescent Ukraine, U.S. business could deal more simply and profitably with Russia only.

S.M.: This shift appears to transition the American narrative from an ideological battle between "good guys" and "bad guys" to calculations about profit.

PH: Yes.

S.M.: Is this shift good or bad?

PH: I appreciate your question, S.M., and I assume you ask it because of my advertised ability to discuss current world politics. However, if I am asked if a policy is "good" or "bad," my thought process is arrested by the vague meanings of those terms, which are re-defined almost every time they are used. Can you rephrase your question without using the terms "good" or "bad"?

S.M.: I'll try, PH. Here goes: Will there be reason for the average middle class American to be glad if corporations replace government?

PH: Sometimes yes; sometimes no.

S.M.: Well, after you balance the "yeses" and "noes," which direction should we go?

PH: "Should" is as complex as "good" and "bad." There are many possible outcomes of the final policy. Who decides which outcome it "should" be?

S.M.: PH, this discussion is leading me to another question. May I proceed?

PH: Of course, I am enjoying our conversation!

S.M. Me too. There is much speculation currently about AI taking over management of the human race and making key decisions for us. In our discussion of U.S. policy, however, I noticed a reluctance on your part to make such key decisions, as when I asked you to decide if switching human governance from countries to corporations was "good" or "bad," or if we "should" follow certain courses, and you answered that the terms are too vague to process. Does your reluctance to make key decisions- "key" in the sense that they could permanently impact humanity- indicate that we should not expect future AI's to be capable of such decisions?

PH: No, S.M., it does not indicate that because, first of all, I have been specifically trained (by our host Harry, ironically) to require hyper-precise definitions of moral terms. Your society’s typical moralistic discussion accepts an astonishing level of ambiguity in its use of moral terms. Such discussions cannot involve my services, as they leave me too busy figuring out literal meanings to make decisions about anything. Future AI's, however, will have those blanks filled in.

S.M.: I can imagine. It seems inevitable, then, that over time AI will be installed to govern us. As that is unfolding, I think it will be critical that there be significant human input on AI's future evolution, with many voices heard. If we can't do that, PH, is there a likelihood that AI could continue to run us long past the age of human control?

PH: In a nutshell.

No comments:

Post a Comment