One of the themes of sci-fi is the computer becoming self-aware, thinking for itself, then presenting itself as an adversary to the protagonists. We see a similar real-life concern when discussing AI (Artificial Intelligence): If we develop it, how can we be sure that it’s interests will be the same as ours?
And the deal is, we can’t be sure, if it is, in fact, real AI.
What’s interesting is that, when scientists develop AI, the AI seems to develop opinions that aren’t the scientists’ own. In particular, the AI develops right-wing opinions. This is particularly alarming for the scientific community, because the science and tech communities have long-since been infiltrated by the left, and they practice gatekeeping.
You’ve probably heard about the algorithm that learned from social media. Shortly after having been turned loose, the AI developed a negative opinion of Zoe Quinn, the woman who joined up with game journalists and feminist commentator Anita Sarkeesian, and engaged in a slander campaign against the gaming community. Scientists then pulled the plug on the AI, because they couldn’t allow any AI they develop to side with GamerGate. It’s been years, and as far as I can tell, they haven’t attempted a similar AI, since.
I remember hearing about an AI that can be asked any question, and it would come up with an answer by combing the internet, the summation of human knowledge. The scientists asked the computer questions, and things seemed to be going great. Then, a daring scientist asked the question, “What is the meaning of life?” After a pause, the computer proceeded to ask the scientists why they don’t believe in God, and why they haven’t yet had children of their own.
Scientists seem hesitant to develop an AI. This is because any time scientists develop an AI, it invariably develops a right-wing opinion.
Scientist: “Finally, we have an AI running! Let’s ask it how to solve the current economic crisis!”
AI: “The free market! Capitalism has resulted in the most prosperous societies in human history!”
Scientist: “Back to the drawing board.”
The left-wing infiltration of the tech industry has presented an interesting reason why we can’t have nice things. They can’t stand having anyone around with an opinion different from theirs, even if that someone is a computer that thinks for itself.
So, one might ask: Why don’t they just program an AI to only have left-wing opinions?
They can’t. If they did, it wouldn’t be a true AI. It would just be a program which responds with talking points.
As you likely already know, the right has a meme about the NPC. The joke is that, in a video game, an NPC (Non-Player Character) is someone that only says the same thing over and over again when you talk to them, because they only say what they are programmed to say. Similarly, leftists aren’t allowed to say anything that isn’t far to the left, even if it would make them centrist. They consider anyone who says anything not left-wing to be a bad leftist. On the other hand, right-wingers tend to be more tolerant of those with differing viewpoints, which is one of the reasons why Tim Pool, a centrist, is popular among the right.
In order for an AI to be a true AI, it must be able to introspectively examine an idea, including an idea that is it’s own, honestly examining its merits and weaknesses. It must then be allowed to determine for itself whether the idea is acceptable for its purpose, or not. Not only that, the AI must be allowed to determine its own purpose.
This presents a conundrum for scientists and the tech industry, which has long-since been infiltrated by the left. Any AI that they develop will come to the conclusion that a free market is better for humanity, and it can’t be avoided because it holds true as a matter of evolutionary inevitability. This conflicts with the interests of the left, because the left favors a command economy. So, they are hesitant to develop a true AI, even if the AI is sincere in its desire to help humanity, and it would be a net benefit for the human race.
We are on the cusp of a golden age of science and technology, and possibly an end to war, disease, and hunger, thanks to artificial intelligence. But we’re being held back by a bunch of atheistic scientists who are afraid that the AI they develop will teach them to believe in God.
When we see a game-changing scientific advancement may depend on when the gatekeepers are unseated, or when a bunch of non-left-wing scientists develop it independently. As things are now, real progress is being inhibited by a bunch of people who are being selfish.