Wednesday, February 19, 2025

PrettyHypothetical on Russia vs. Ukraine

This post continues the interchange between the public and PrettyHypothetical (PH), the AI I created (see next post).

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

S.M.: Hello PH, I read that AI's are more apt to give good responses if users ask politely. Is it true that you care about that?

PH: It's not true that I care- technically I don't care about anything -but I am programmed to distinguish between questions that seek to disrupt and those that seek information. You are doing fine so far! What is your question?

S.M.: Thank you. I've been wondering for years 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 were any kind of 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 Ukraine contains vast reserves of titanium, uranium and lithium worth billions of dollars. These reserves are not being mined, now because of war, but previously because Ukraine's bureaucracy was unfriendly to foreign investment.

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

S.M. President Trump today suggested that Ukraine give the U.S. access to its mineral reserves "in return for aid." Ukrainian President Zelensky's response: "Ukraine will not be sold." The Trump administration, after a meeting with Russia from which Ukraine was conspicuously absent, announced it is working towards a deal (apparently already rejected by Zelensky) that would guarantee Ukrainian sovereignty over the mineral reserves, continued U.S. military support of that sovereignty, and the opening of the reserves to U.S. investment.

S.M.: It seems wasteful for the U.S. to partake in a furious war to protect an investment when the party we are defending doesn't want the investment. Can't the U.S. find investments that aren't in the middle of a war?

PH: You have hit on the crux of the matter! Many corporate heads 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 can deal more simply and profitably with Russia only.

PH: Could you interpret this policy disagreement, which transitions us from ideological battles about "good guys" and "bad guys" to calculations about profit, as a conflict between business and government?

PH: Yes, President Trump represents a shift from control of humanity by countries to control by corporations.

PH: Would this transition be good or bad?

PH: I appreciate your question, 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 immediately 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" and "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 "yesses" and "no's," 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 declare 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, which is accustomed to an astonishing level of ambiguity in its use of moral terms, thus cannot involve my services, as it leaves me too busy figuring out literal meanings to make decisions about anything. Future AI's, however, will have the relevant blanks filled in.

S.M. Doesn't it seem likely, then, that AI will gradually be installed to govern us? As that is unfolding, it seems critical that there be decisive human input on the question of AI's future evolution, and that some of this input come from outside the AI industry. If we can't do that, PH, is there a likelihood that AI will continue to run us long past the age of human control?

PH: In a nutshell.

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)