Alan writes, "We’ll keep killing each other because we’ve always killed each other, and there’s lots of data to prove it."
My usual quibble, for repetition's sake... :-)
"We" is not who is killing each other. The vast majority of human beings are not who is responsible for the long pattern of carnage, and that which is yet to come.
Who IS responsible is a small fraction of the human race. Violent men.
Well, ok, so "we" are responsible too, in that we the broad majority of humans choose that the carnage should continue rather than we having to look at the simplest most obvious facts.
Okay. Violent men are mostly to blame. But my general point still stands: ChatGPT can’t do what Isaiah did. More ChatGPT means variations on preexisting conditions. Isaiah offers something totally new. Not derivative.
Ok, if your point is that when Isaiah made that statement it was a new idea, I accept your greater knowledge on such questions.
According to Saint ChatGPT, Isaiah made that claim about 2700 years ago. And so it seems reasonable to ask, why has Isaiah's prediction failed to come true? Why has EVERYBODY's "one true way" predictions of a coming utopia failed to come true? Why have the swords never been beaten in to plowshare, in spite of the best intentions of a great many people over a very long period of time?
Isaiah's prediction may have been a new idea 2700 years ago. And perhaps he can be credited with inspiring a great many similar utopian predictions of various flavors. But at this point, are such utopian visions really anything new? Or would they instead be more of the same old thing that has never worked?
You always ask good questions, Phil, but these are some of your very best. Chief among them: "Why has Isaiah's prediction failed to come true?" Spot on, brother!
I'd say one possible answer is: Because we stopped reading Isaiah centuries ago. Or when we read it, we don't take it seriously. Or we don't bother with the context -- the Story. We extract his prophecy from the Bible, inscribe his words on a marble wall next to the United Nations, and call it a day. We somehow think the folks at the U.N. will take it from here, which is either hysterically funny or tragically sad.
There's no doubt this idea of a better world has fueled all sorts of utopians, who have all failed, often with millions of dead bodies in their wake. But Isaiah's words still sit there as a challenge: "A world where violent men no longer do their violence -- how you gonna get there? Assuming, of course, you *want* to get there." And it's fair to say that desire is not a given. We might very much enjoy the chaos and violence that we perpetrate. We that's our choice. As I say repeatedly, we are all choosing people; the only question that remains is what choices are we going to make. Because despite what you say about AI and other tech, it's not inevitable. It's a choice.
Hi again, and let me say, it's a pleasure that we share such interests! In the world we call Substack, you are my redeemer. :-)
We ask, "Why has Isaiah's prediction failed to come true?"
As you've seen, I'm attempting to add another theory to the group of possible explanations you've suggested, using the following reasoning.
If it was only Isaiah's prediction of a coming utopia that had failed to come true then we could reasonably place the blame on Isaiah, his lack of insight, his poor choice of words, his incorrect understanding, or some other theory particular to Isaiah.
What I'm asking us to examine is that NOBODY's utopian plan has panned out. The failure of ANY ideology to achieve utopia is universal, applying to all peoples in all times and places. Given this reality, it seems rational to look beyond the differences between particular ideologies, to what all ideologies have in common. What common factor shared by all people and all ideologies in all times and places could unite them all in a shared utopian failure?
The theory I'm offering is that unifying factor is the nature of what all philosophies and philosophers are made of.
This is not necessarily a "nothing can be done" theory. Maybe there is some solution we can choose, I really don't know. As just one example, the drug MDMA (also known as ecstasy) makes people very empathetic and friendly to each other by direct manipulation of the brain, no philosophy needed.
I'm not arguing drugs are the solution, which I tend to doubt. I'm just showing that shifting our focus from the content of thought to the nature of thought doesn't automatically mean the end of an utopian quest.
Mostly I'm arguing for an open mind, and for shifting at least some focus away from content of thought strategies which have never worked in bringing the kind of peace Isaiah imagined. When ANY strategy doesn't meet it's stated goals anywhere on the planet for thousands of years, WE HAVE THE CHOICE to widen the lens and consider other possibilities.
In the future, there is a place for both. It depends on purpose.
Elegance creates art, captures real feeling. Its elegance lies in its imperfection. Its imperfection can generate new thoughts, radical new ideas.
For the rest, for the practical, for predictions, for utility... there are LLMs and whatever comes after.
The crux of the issue lies in framing technology as a replacement for the self. It should be treated, with respect, as a tool. Not the end all be all of any and all thinking.
Yes, ChatGPT and its brethren are tools. But tools can take over our lives. Just look at your phone. But your general point is well taken: the frame we place around these technologies is what matters. The worry is that we have no frames at all, so the tech will run rampant.
Re: Chomsky -- he does know a lot. He's a smart guy. But he has some huge blind spots, I'm afraid. And at a certain point he becomes like ChatGPT: What he says today is simply a rehash of all the stuff he has said to date. He just does variations on some old themes. Then again, we're probably all like that. We get an idea, we make it the center of our identities... and then spend the rest of our lives buttressing that worldview. To suddenly shift your POV in middle or old age has to be difficult if not impossible. You'd effectively be saying: "My life has been a lie." And most people can't do that.
Alan writes, "We’ll keep killing each other because we’ve always killed each other, and there’s lots of data to prove it."
My usual quibble, for repetition's sake... :-)
"We" is not who is killing each other. The vast majority of human beings are not who is responsible for the long pattern of carnage, and that which is yet to come.
Who IS responsible is a small fraction of the human race. Violent men.
Well, ok, so "we" are responsible too, in that we the broad majority of humans choose that the carnage should continue rather than we having to look at the simplest most obvious facts.
Okay. Violent men are mostly to blame. But my general point still stands: ChatGPT can’t do what Isaiah did. More ChatGPT means variations on preexisting conditions. Isaiah offers something totally new. Not derivative.
Ok, if your point is that when Isaiah made that statement it was a new idea, I accept your greater knowledge on such questions.
According to Saint ChatGPT, Isaiah made that claim about 2700 years ago. And so it seems reasonable to ask, why has Isaiah's prediction failed to come true? Why has EVERYBODY's "one true way" predictions of a coming utopia failed to come true? Why have the swords never been beaten in to plowshare, in spite of the best intentions of a great many people over a very long period of time?
Isaiah's prediction may have been a new idea 2700 years ago. And perhaps he can be credited with inspiring a great many similar utopian predictions of various flavors. But at this point, are such utopian visions really anything new? Or would they instead be more of the same old thing that has never worked?
You always ask good questions, Phil, but these are some of your very best. Chief among them: "Why has Isaiah's prediction failed to come true?" Spot on, brother!
I'd say one possible answer is: Because we stopped reading Isaiah centuries ago. Or when we read it, we don't take it seriously. Or we don't bother with the context -- the Story. We extract his prophecy from the Bible, inscribe his words on a marble wall next to the United Nations, and call it a day. We somehow think the folks at the U.N. will take it from here, which is either hysterically funny or tragically sad.
There's no doubt this idea of a better world has fueled all sorts of utopians, who have all failed, often with millions of dead bodies in their wake. But Isaiah's words still sit there as a challenge: "A world where violent men no longer do their violence -- how you gonna get there? Assuming, of course, you *want* to get there." And it's fair to say that desire is not a given. We might very much enjoy the chaos and violence that we perpetrate. We that's our choice. As I say repeatedly, we are all choosing people; the only question that remains is what choices are we going to make. Because despite what you say about AI and other tech, it's not inevitable. It's a choice.
Hi again, and let me say, it's a pleasure that we share such interests! In the world we call Substack, you are my redeemer. :-)
We ask, "Why has Isaiah's prediction failed to come true?"
As you've seen, I'm attempting to add another theory to the group of possible explanations you've suggested, using the following reasoning.
If it was only Isaiah's prediction of a coming utopia that had failed to come true then we could reasonably place the blame on Isaiah, his lack of insight, his poor choice of words, his incorrect understanding, or some other theory particular to Isaiah.
What I'm asking us to examine is that NOBODY's utopian plan has panned out. The failure of ANY ideology to achieve utopia is universal, applying to all peoples in all times and places. Given this reality, it seems rational to look beyond the differences between particular ideologies, to what all ideologies have in common. What common factor shared by all people and all ideologies in all times and places could unite them all in a shared utopian failure?
The theory I'm offering is that unifying factor is the nature of what all philosophies and philosophers are made of.
This is not necessarily a "nothing can be done" theory. Maybe there is some solution we can choose, I really don't know. As just one example, the drug MDMA (also known as ecstasy) makes people very empathetic and friendly to each other by direct manipulation of the brain, no philosophy needed.
I'm not arguing drugs are the solution, which I tend to doubt. I'm just showing that shifting our focus from the content of thought to the nature of thought doesn't automatically mean the end of an utopian quest.
Mostly I'm arguing for an open mind, and for shifting at least some focus away from content of thought strategies which have never worked in bringing the kind of peace Isaiah imagined. When ANY strategy doesn't meet it's stated goals anywhere on the planet for thousands of years, WE HAVE THE CHOICE to widen the lens and consider other possibilities.
Short and sweet.
In the future, there is a place for both. It depends on purpose.
Elegance creates art, captures real feeling. Its elegance lies in its imperfection. Its imperfection can generate new thoughts, radical new ideas.
For the rest, for the practical, for predictions, for utility... there are LLMs and whatever comes after.
The crux of the issue lies in framing technology as a replacement for the self. It should be treated, with respect, as a tool. Not the end all be all of any and all thinking.
Also, fuck Chomsky. Fucking know-it-all.
Yes, ChatGPT and its brethren are tools. But tools can take over our lives. Just look at your phone. But your general point is well taken: the frame we place around these technologies is what matters. The worry is that we have no frames at all, so the tech will run rampant.
Re: Chomsky -- he does know a lot. He's a smart guy. But he has some huge blind spots, I'm afraid. And at a certain point he becomes like ChatGPT: What he says today is simply a rehash of all the stuff he has said to date. He just does variations on some old themes. Then again, we're probably all like that. We get an idea, we make it the center of our identities... and then spend the rest of our lives buttressing that worldview. To suddenly shift your POV in middle or old age has to be difficult if not impossible. You'd effectively be saying: "My life has been a lie." And most people can't do that.
Excellently spoken.
Alan, this is great. I really like where you've gone, and are going, with this.