#706 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday July 14)
“The real problem of humanity is the following: We have Paleolithic emotions, medieval institutions and godlike technology. And it is terrifically dangerous, and it is now approaching a point of crisis overall.”
― Edward O. Wilson
Good morning and Happy Bastille Day!
In a seminar I recently attended about artificial technology, a woman across the room shared the above quotation of the great biologist, known for tackling issues of biodiversity. It encapsulates my concerns regarding the rapidity and complexity of the advances of technologies and the challenges we face.
Technology is moving at a breakneck pace. It is a scary proposition that offers both opportunity and danger. I often wonder whether things like social media, initially touted as bringing us all together as a community, is a greater risk than benefit. Similarly, I wonder whether Artificial Intelligence is a miraculous tool or a devastating weapon. Time will tell, but without rules, guardrails and intelligent collective agreement on how these are used, we are lost.
I do not believe the answer lies in limiting the development of technologies. For reasons of commercial competitiveness, as well as national security, we cannot allow ourselves to lose the edge the United States possesses in these areas. Further development is inevitable and we should be at the leading edge of that development. The devil is, of course, in the details. How we address the application of these technologies, how we protect our people—particularly our children—from the harmful effects of these technologies is creating an “all hands on deck moment.”
Changing technology has been with us for millennia and will continue so long as we are around. The only constant that history has to offer is that there is constant change. Throughout human history, people have lived their lives a certain way and then along comes something so disruptive as to challenge the existing assumptions and how people behave. Further, it challenges the ways in which society orders itself. Some seize on a technology to expand their power, while others use it to expand their wealth. But other things come from technological advancement. I am reminded of the book Guns, Germs and Steel, by Jared Diamond. Whoever “owns” a technology first will utilize that technology for its advantage. Sometimes revolutions come out of these advances—from the beginnings of the printing press came Martin Luther, nailing his theses on papal indulgences to the door of the Wittenberg church. Mass printing brought about pamphleteering that, ultimately, facilitated revolutions in America, France and elsewhere. Some technologies, like radio and television, brought art, entertainment, learning, and news to people across the globe and in previously distant communities far from where the “news” was being made. Throughout history, people have seized upon technology to improve their lives. And they also have seized upon technology to gain advantage and dominance, and even to suppress, oppress and victimize.
Many compare the advent of social media and Artificial Intelligence to the emergence of the printing press. Whenever a new technology comes along, there is an initial fear of the technology (sometimes including movements like Luddites, who actually eschewed use of the technology). There follows a period where society catches up by determining how best to distribute the technology and profit from that technology. Additionally, society is able to constrain that technology when those who wield disproportional power need to be constrained. In the case of the printing press or the mechanization of labor, their widespread use spread slowly enough for society to integrate their disruptions. It took a while for the regulation of the workplace, the breaking of monopolies, and the diminishment of the power of the robber barons. Yet the legal and societal constraints occurred soon enough and utilizing the social and legal tools available, to minimize the most corrosive effects. In the case of social media and Artificial Intelligence, things are moving far too quickly for an ordered response.
As Wilson notes, we are paleolithic in our appetites. We are simple in our wants and we pursue our self-interest within the constraints imposed by society. There are things that we can and cannot do and these “cans and can’ts” are there to ensure harm is not caused (or at least kept at a minimum). It is true that the technologies with which we are dealing are god-like in their extraordinary powers to bring people of like mind together and to enhance social interactions. But that “bringing together” can be either good and bad. And the speech that is set free to circulate can be destructive.
Sadly, our institutions are, as Wilson says, medieval. Our institutions are designed to be slow-moving and deliberate. The founders ensured this by creating a federal system—one with checks and balances. They foresaw that Interest groups (“factions,” as Madison and Hamilton described them) were the bane of a free society. The natural impulses of people would be to create factions and then pursue their self-interest, at the expense of the greater good. These natural human impulses could be controlled through the checks and balances of institutions established to give voice to all factions, including those in the minority.
In the case of earlier technological advances, the existing mechanisms of government were able to exercise some control and provide guard rails to harness the otherwise rampart capitalistic and self-interested impulses of human behaviors. But the creaky instruments of government often seem incapable of moving with alacrity, forward thinking or purpose.
Meanwhile, our current creaky system works mightily to address the challenges of social media and AI. And the internet media giants claim they have instituted infrastructures designed to protect people from the worst outrages that the Internet poses, and they purport to welcome regulation. There are three fundamental problems with this.
First, as much as they maintain they are against the spread of mis- and dis-information and hate speech, they are huge behemoths that seem (by their own admission) unwilling or unable to do much about it. They say they have far too many people on their platforms, posting far too many things to be regulated. To that, I say “perhaps they should be smaller.” But if they are so big, and if it is so difficult to moderate all the posts, how about starting with some simple things. To wit, requiring all those who post to demonstrate they are humans and not bots. The technology exists. Then how about if we require those who post to self-regulate in some way, perhaps by providing self-categorization and subjecting to regulation based upon their designation. Second, they are at cross-purposes with us. It is common knowledge that they want “eyes” on their sites as long as possible, so that advertising opportunities are increased. And the best way to gain eyes is to publish the most outrageous things (typically reposted at a rate 7x that of non-outrageous content). Their very profit motive works against them doing the right thing. Third, they are protected to a greater extent than the print and televised media, who are subject to civil responsibility for that which they republish. Some modification of Section 230 is in order. It was adopted in the mid-90s, when the industry was young and much of the present world could not even be imagined.
Then, of course, there is the monopoly power of the political marketplace. These same institutions, who practically plead for responsible regulation, are funding legions of lobbyists and contributing to campaigns with the objective of preserving Section 230 and otherwise thwarting responsible regulation. While Mark Zuckerberg and Meta claim they are waiting for Washington to regulate them, they paid over $19MM to lobbyists last year, whose job it is to further Meta’s profitmaking objectives. This doesn’t even count contributions to candidates and Political Action Committees.
Further, as long as the legislature is comprised of those unable to comprehend these issues, or who are unwilling to do so, or sufficiently incentivized by money in politics to refuse to do so, things get worse. One can hardly imagine Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell debating the details of technological regulation, as one can hardly imagine them utilizing the latest technologies!
I don’t believe that those who control the media companies are nefarious members of some cabal set out to destroy us. To the contrary, I believe they understand the issues. But their motivation for profit exceeds their motivation to be good citizens. As a point of reference, they know that social media is preying upon the immaturity, insecurity, and greatest fears of college age youth. They know that depression and anxiety are rampant in the communities of teens and 20-somethings. We know that self-harm, contemplations of suicide, drug use, and other maladies and their increase can be traced back to the internet. There are technologies out there that can act to thwart the descent into doom scrolling. But they have balanced their civic duty against that to their shareholders and the venture capitalists. And profit is winning.
The sooner we can establish guard rails, responsibility and liability (both to the companies and their leaders), the quicker we can move on and use the tools for good. We need to get our medieval institutions working overtime to resolve the dangers posed by recent “god-like” technical advances, controlling our primeval instincts, and allowing our society to benefit from these advances.
Have a great day,
Glenn