{"id":11892,"date":"2023-04-10T11:42:20","date_gmt":"2023-04-10T11:42:20","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/?p=11892"},"modified":"2023-04-10T12:13:25","modified_gmt":"2023-04-10T12:13:25","slug":"super-a-i-and-the-problem-of-truth-governance","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/sociocultural-issues\/super-a-i-and-the-problem-of-truth-governance","title":{"rendered":"Super-A.I. and the Problem of Truth Governance"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Until now, the truth has always been a philosophical conundrum. With the advent of super-A.I., we\u2019re only at the beginning of the problem. Who decides what is or isn\u2019t the truth if objectivity gets lost?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

\u2018Truth governance\u2019 is a new term, denoting the core of this question.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Whence objectivity?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s start this story somewhere, as with any fairy tale. Once upon a time\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Well, for a few centuries, the West was on its way toward objective objectivity. We call it Western Enlightenment<\/em>. It was\/is an excellent reaction against religious obscurantism, in which anything goes as long as some religious authority lays some claim to it. Meanwhile, as never before, we see that there are many religious authorities with different and incompatible claims \u2015 no semblance of objectivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The modern\/modernist view of objectivity as that what is true<\/em>, or that what is based on facts independent from individual subjectivity<\/em>, or that what is held as the truth by many unbiased people<\/em>, is nicely tried. It would be super if the truth were that simple. In many domains \u2013 such as classical physics, well, OK \u2013 this is good enough to approximate the truth that we all can live by if no Einstein comes along. Even then, we can, for the most part, keep living by it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Is objectivity getting lost?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In many domains (notoriously, the humanities), it was never there such as most laypeople thought. Classical physics (never mind Einstein and the bunch that followed him) is a positive\/positivist exception. In many other domains, the \u2018many unbiased people\u2019 are profoundly problematic. For instance, religious authorities also mostly see themselves as unbiased. Great God, help us in this hour of need!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, as a reaction to modernist obscurantism comes post-modernist\u2026 obscurantism. In the best case \u2013 and there is also a worst \u2013 the latter tends to drive objectivity into a relativistic drain. That is dangerous because it enables any individual to abuse any notion of objectivity for personal gains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We can still see objectivity as what we can strive toward. This is easier to do in some domains than in others. Still, the striving is worthwhile, worthy, and excellent even if the \u2018thing\u2019 cannot be reached.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This way, we may not be losing objectivity. With increased openness to the problem, we may be gaining it at last. Nothing gets relativized away. On the contrary, it gets relativized into interesting stuff. There is work to be done. This may motivate many to keep doing the work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Then comes super-A.I.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here, the objectivity problem that was always there becomes harsher because of the speed with which it is generated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The problem is already with us. Chat-GPT gives answers to many questions with the air of a scientific oracle, but it\u2019s more like an \u2018idiot savant\u2019 \u2015 very knowledgeable and very unwise. \u2018It\u2019 doesn\u2019t know how to distinguish truth from nonsense. Everything goes through the same pipeline with immense speed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And this is just the beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Truth for sale?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This story, just begun, will go further than we can imagine. \u2018The system\u2019 will be able to present almost anything in a way that \u2018many unbiased people\u2019 will find acceptable as an old or new truth. Then, these people will generate (or let A.I. generate) new text that will serve as new material upon which \u2018the system\u2019 founds new answers to further questions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This loop may break down objectivity at lightning speed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We (who?) may identify objective sources as forever truthful, as \u2018standards of truth.\u2019 Truth governance will then be needed to decide upon such sources. As indicated above, this is highly problematic in many domains.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Will truth then be something for sale? The highest bidder may come with money, unfounded status, weaponry \u2015 is that our philosophical future?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over my dead body.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those who know me already know that I will now bring up the concept of Compassion, basically<\/a>. Indeed, good guess.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An additional advantage at this point is that it lets humans and super-A.I. work together on the same basis. Humans can forever have their human say on things \u2015 especially those concerning humans themselves in any possible way. It\u2019s always interesting just because it\u2019s human. Super-A.I. will support humanity in being even more humane.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This will not get realized tomorrow. It takes time, so we should be busy thinking it over already.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Will objectivity then be the result of Compassion? Yes!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Can\u2019t wait.<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Until now, the truth has always been a philosophical conundrum. With the advent of super-A.I., we\u2019re only at the beginning of the problem. Who decides what is or isn\u2019t the truth if objectivity gets lost? \u2018Truth governance\u2019 is a new term, denoting the core of this question. Whence objectivity? Let\u2019s start this story somewhere, as Read the full article…<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/a>
<\/a>

Please login to bookmark<\/h3>\n\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t<\/form><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":11893,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"spay_email":"","jetpack_publicize_message":""},"categories":[28,23],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/04\/2090.jpg?fit=960%2C560&ssl=1","jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9Fdiq-35O","jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11892"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11892"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11892\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":11901,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11892\/revisions\/11901"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/11893"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11892"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11892"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/aurelis.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11892"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}