Smart (part 6) - a world view we don't share

This is the sixth and final post in the Smart series where I have been exploring why so much of the writing about ‘artificial intelligence’ causes me such irritation. I’ve identified so many wordly issues with key terms like intelligence, language, agency, learning, personality, decision-making, etc. You can read previous posts here: 

• Smart (part 1) - now did things get to be smart
• Smart (part 2) - a way with words
• Smart (part 3, an interlude) - toons on AI perils
• Smart (part 4) - convincing or human hacking
• Smart (part 5) - the not-so-secret AI agents

This post will draw on all this previous content. 

Okay, it’s definitely time to stop adding to the plethora of writing about so-called ‘AI’ . 

But before I do, I must spend some time exploring some better names, more accurate names, less misleading names. Alternative names that can help us be smart about this amazing technology. Alternative names that might help us avoid selling off our future cheaply.

The market - a solution to what? Part 2

In part 1, I explored the nature of 'the market'. The word is ubiquitous but often quite vague.

So far, I have clarified 'the market' is a process for allocating resources for humans. The economy is very complex, so some simplifying ideas are essential: 'the market' simplifies ideas about the world into 'things', 'ownership' and 'utility (use value)'. 

When an old meme is perfect. Source

Knowing that, I want to explore the idea of a 'market-based solution'. To the problem of ensuring enough apples and turnips to meet the food needs of people, it seems reasonable. But for the problem of ensuring clean air for people to breathe, I can't see that as a matter of 'things', 'ownership' and 'utility'. 

So how does the market provide a solution? To answer this, I need to delve into how 'the market' process functions and how it measures success and failure.

Now, a warning: this exploration involves some nerdy, abstract, and perplexingly vague economic words. My focus, however, is not economics jargon, but the ideas about the world that economics relies on to explain the way 'the market' works. 

Economics¹ can make you feel confused and lost, but my suspicion has always been that it is deliberately opaque. So, stay with me!

In fact, as you're about to read, it is downright strange and scary.

Better - according to my circle

By guest explorer: Fred Shivvin

The series about the adjective Equal made me think about circular logic. 

I pointed out the argument used by those who set out to oppress others that they are somehow ‘better’ than them, and this justifies both their oppressive actions and their continued status as oppressors.

  

Circular logic (or circular reasoning) is used by people in ‘arguments’ to justify something they believe. 

The 'argument' starts with a point (the premise) that the person assumes is true: in this case 'I am better (superior) than you'. It assumes you already agree that this premise is true, and then no new information is provided to support that premise. You can tell it's circular logic because you can start at either word 'I' in the image and read what seems like a justification. But it's just a circle.

Some circular logic can even sound convincing, but it only convinces people who already agree with the assumed premise. For the rest of us who don’t accept the premise to start with, the argument gives us no reason to change our thinking. 

I don't happen to agree with the premise that any people are 'better' than others, so I don't agree this is the reason that some people dominate others. 

It's not logic at all. It’s a self-reinforcing circle of belief. 

This is why circular 'logic' features so often in 'arguments' about religion.

Circles of justification are extremely common. Spotting a circular argument gives me a sense of accomplishment. They are also sometimes quite alarming.