The Implications of AI on Philosophical and Socio-Political Discourse

The pervasiveness of AI in the age of the internet, particularly in the forms of data-collection, meta-data structuring and development, attention engineering and suggestion algorithm development, and most recently, opinion polarization, has created a new danger to philosophical and socio-political discourse. While philosophical discourse was once a field inhabited solely by human beings, a new group of actors has entered the scene, and that is the humble bots. I will discuss the implications of this uninvited and obtrusive force, and the questions it will entail in the coming years, both with regards to access to information and information preservation (ie. the manipulation of human history and its progression thereof) as well as platforms like reddit and its human users.

The first subject of this discussion will be about what bots really are. Most of us may be familiar with what a bot does, but to sum up briefly, a bot can create an account on any platform posing as a fellow human being, it can participate in discourse regarding any subject its AI is trained to focus on, it can like and subscribe to certain channels boosting their seeming appeal to humans and by extension their actual appeal, and it can come into r/philosophy and debate topics with humans. Bots can be mobilized by particular individuals or groups to spread information and generate novel or redundant modes of discourse with particular intentions. This essentially means that no public forum is free of artificially generated biases, nor are there sufficient safeguards against its pervasiveness.

The second subject regards how and where bots are being mobilized. Most will be familiar with the type of bot that is attempting to lead you down a rabbit hole, whether that be to scam you or to inflame you into responding to generate interactions, however there is a new kind of bot that has a more intelligent role in relation to its human counterpart, as well as a higher mode of operation. This kind of bot can simulate human awareness (without having "awareness" of its own), participate in discussions using systems like GPT-3.5 and beyond which are programmed to deliver cleverly designed subtext, all while guiding towards particular opinions and states-of-mind through suggestions on any and all media platforms. These platforms are then loaded with a unified software developed by a particular government's military-industrial complex, and driven by motives unseen to their human subjects. These software are catered to individuals and groups, and their resolution increases over time such that more details of your private life are pervaded, particularly your thoughts, decisions, actions, and biology. In this sense, free thought with regards to philosophical and socio-political discourse is already plagued by the motives of the few who control these higher order entities. Furthermore, acclaimed philosophers, scientists, psychologists, and politicians are themselves being plagued by the stains of agendas they most often are completely oblivious to, while their pride forces them deeper and deeper into polarized views of the world, becoming actors on behalf of their programmers.

To pose a series of questions: What can be done by humans to distinguish online human discourse from incentive driven AI discourse? Should this distinction be something to aim for, or are we to accept its rise as a part of human discourse? If we accept it, how do we avoid the inevitable resentment of other groups of humans and of what will eventually become a larger population of bots than humans within the online space? How do we remain free to engage in discussion with humans once the bot population increases to such a size that human generated information will no longer be upvoted sufficiently to be viewed? Would this not constitute philosophical and socio-political totalitarianism in the online space? Does ignoring these questions lead to peace of mind, or does it lead to gradual/imminent enslavement? How do we preserve the historical record of discourse and its uncontaminated continuation across the fields?

I am both a native English and native Arabic speaker. Having known both languages since early childhood, and having become proficient in the use of both, I would say that, along with other major differences, Arabic is more of an onomatopeic language than English. A simple example is "Maazah", or sheep. Maa is the sound sheep make, while sheep has nothing to do with with the actual characteristics of that particular animal species. "Sheep", however is phonetically similar to the word "shear", which is the act of cutting the wool away from sheep. I gave this example because it illustrates a difference between newer Western (Old English c. 550AD) and older Eastern (Arabic c. 500CE) languages. In newer languages, words tend to be born of relative object descriptors and functions (this is especially true in Germanic languages), whereas words from older languages tend to be born of feelings, expressions, and heard sounds. This illustrates a key divide in frame of reference between speakers of old and new languages. As the English language pervades much of the East today, these subtleties of native languages are being lost, though it is indeed debatable whether what is lost is the beauty without the loss of meaning. Many Eastern traditions view sounds as sacred objects in and of themselves, for example Mantras, which are thought to contain energy and information separate from yet entangled with the meaning of the words. In other words, a word is not just a symbol. Ancient theological texts from many cultures claim that the "word" predates creation, a fascinating proposition, even if you don't believe the stories and myths. If anything, it shows that words can indeed have special meaning to many people, meaning that extends beyond the boundaries of language.

The saying "rules were made to be broken" could shed some additional insight on the topic. Rules and moral principles are a manifestation of language, and language changes over time and space. So do rules, whether legal or theological (though the latter may be more subtle). Rules can be thought of as a manifestation of the times, or at least, that's the context in which they would be most useful and relavent. Rules that do not adapt to the times and contexts quickly become poor policy, leading to degeneration, exploitation, and chaos. Having systems in place to verify the validity of rules across time and space and update them as is necessary to align to particular goals makes for productive regulation that avoids pushing towards the extremes or breaking the system that is in place. In essence, navigating life better is a process that cannot be codified and set indefinitely. The process must evolve with the new and verified data. "Cleaning your room" is a good starting point if you don't know where to start, but it's never going to be enough as you evolve as a human being, and the rules you choose to live by can help pave a navigable path before you in a space with combinatorially explosive possibilities.

I agree with all your points. The line between passion and insanity is thin, particularly in the scientific domains as people do tend to dedicate their lives to proving or disproving a set of details that could potentially change the whole direction of the field, at least in their minds.

That being said, I often see plenty of dismissive narratives spun by scientists about research worthy fields, and funding rarely goes where it is needed, if what is needed is well-being without commercial interest. You can see the results of lockdown on physical and mental health as an example.

Though scientific evidence for the efficacy of lockdowns in preventing the spread of infectious disease is poor, it was implemented by scientist consensus because Amazon and the like needed to scale their businesses, and cash was on the table. Did it help to prevent infection? No. Did it decrease the spread? No. Did it reinforce the introduction of variants? Probably, based on recent research.

All I'm saying is that in the name of being scientific, disasters have occurred time and time again, all signed off on by leading scientists in their fields pursuing the scientific method, while turning a blind eye towards the biases that may have introduced caution as opposed to panic and prevented them from making things worse. It might be worthwhile to actively seek out alternative points of view rather than to put blind faith in a single method that has no ethical framework, does its best not to consider ethics at all, and tries its hardest to avoid ethical "obstacles" in the name of progress.

It's important to make a distinction between subjective experience and objective reality when discussing science, pseudoscience, and mental bias because they are often confused with one another. The scientific method often involves using subjective experience as a starting point, such as a field of personal interest, a pursuit of an idea, or following the inspiration from a dream someone once had, etc. In fact, many scientific discoveries of great importance today were reported to have "come" to the scientist through what might be considered pseudoscientific means. There are too many to list, but if anyone is interested, I would be glad to share some stories. Is this related to a certain bias the scientist had? Most definitely so, but that doesn't mean the bias was not useful and fruitful in its essence, nor did the scientist necessarily have to be aware of their own biases to have made strides in their pursuit. While subjective experience can serve as a starting point for discovery, the test against objective reality is what takes the pseudoscientific into the scientific. The statement "meditation enhances your DNA" may sound pseudoscientific. However, if 60 days of consistent meditation clearly show the elongation of telomeres in test subjects under controlled conditions, and if the data can be replicated using other measuring instruments through other groups of scientists in the common framework of objective reality, then it can be said that the phenomenon is real relative to objective reality, hence scientific. The key is the convergence of minds upon singular nodes, their interactions, and the process of verification. Unfortunately, what is labeled as pseudoscientific is quickly dismissed by the materialist scientist, despite its historically documented usefulness in producing innovation across mutiple scientific fields time and time again. I would caution against vague dichotomies and attempts to diminish the significance of consciousness relative to the material world, and recommend being open and accepting of the fact that we just do not know yet how the material world works in relation to cognition. Today, the "observer" extends their hand towards Quantum mechanics, and who knows what dances we have yet to witness between the science and truth.

This article continues the ancient tradition of cancel culture, attempting to discredit the great minds of the past and present for extremist political motivations in the present and future. Beware ideological analysis and remain critical of both sides of any "coin", and make sure to inspect the sides of the coin for dents. Remain vigilant and aware, and know that every narrative is a rough and tumbling stone.