Thread
I think this is right, and that the "debunking hype" narrative is something of a red herring. I can see why it might seem like low-hanging fruit: it's easier to recognize and call out falsehoods, etc.
The "overblown hype" narrative is also typically credited with creating the first AI winter, so there are good historical reasons for thinking this could be a successful approach this time around.
But I'm thinking about the last FLI open letter, and the radical contrast in the community response this time around. Same hype-driven tech bro community was promoting both letters. What changed?
What changed is pretty obvious. The previous letter pits the SV tech industry against the military industrial complex, whereas the current letter pits the tech industry against itself, and right at the start of a new tech boom.
In other words, while the previous letter takes the perspective of a community united against pressures from *outside* industrial and political forces, the new letter targets actors within the same competitive markets, and expects them to present a united front.
So it's not surprising that no one is happy with the new letter. The letter was designed to be divisive. And in a highly competitive environment, such divisions are merely opportunities to exploit.
The "debunking hype" critique doesn't help much with overcoming these divisions or providing a unified narrative of resistance.
Instead, the critique has merely locked onto another division it hopes to exploit, thereby feeding the cycle.
Instead, the critique has merely locked onto another division it hopes to exploit, thereby feeding the cycle.
Calling this critique a red herring isn't meant as a defense of the TESCREAL ideologies. These views are undoubtedly bogus. But their widespread presence is mostly symptomatic of broader ideological and infrastructural failures. They aren't the source or cause of the harm.
Consider the analogy between TESCREAL ideologies and their influence on big tech, and Christian ideologies and their impact on the abortion debate.
The anti-abortion movement is overwhelmingly Christian, but a pro-choice attack on Christian ideology would be a huge mistake.
The anti-abortion movement is overwhelmingly Christian, but a pro-choice attack on Christian ideology would be a huge mistake.
To be clear, some Christian ideologies are extremely problematic and deserve an informed critique. But that critique is mostly independent of the aims of pro-choice activists.
If there were sufficient laws protecting a woman's bodily autonomy, those ideologies wouldn't matter.
If there were sufficient laws protecting a woman's bodily autonomy, those ideologies wouldn't matter.
Similarly, if there were sufficient regulation of the tech industry protecting the public interest, then it wouldn't matter if a bunch of SV dorks believed in silicon gods.
Their belief in silicon gods is not stopping us from regulating the tech industry.
Their belief in silicon gods is not stopping us from regulating the tech industry.
Just as pro-choice activists don't need to convince their opponents that their god doesn't exist to motivate their political ends, the parallel arguments in AI Ethics are also more or less besides the point.
The analogy can be taken further. Rather than seeing Christian ideologies as *responsible* for the anti-abortion movement, it's better to appreciate how these ideologies are themselves exploited by ideological nihilists to consolidate and direct power.
Similarly, the TESCREAL ideologues are mostly useful idiots whose presence helps to diffuse and obscure a more organized resistance movement that could actually threaten big tech monopolies.
Because that's how red herrings are supposed to work.
Because that's how red herrings are supposed to work.
Again, I'm not saying that we should ignore TESCREAL ideologues. I'm just saying that tearing down this ideology is tangential at best to the issues we're currently facing, and we shouldn't mistake the mythos for the target.
There are other reasons to be skeptical of the critique of TESCREAL ideologies. Often these critiques deploy formulations of agency, humanity, thought, etc. that are narrow, exclusive, and essentializing, swapping one bad ideology for another.
