The folly of our preferences.
“It's no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti
Stuart Russell is a world-renowned computer scientist. He literally wrote the book on artificial intelligence. In a popular podcast, he pointed out some of the potential dangers of AI, as well as a way to ensure that machines remain beneficial to humans. According to Dr. Russell:
“We should not be giving the AI systems a goal. At least not one that is precisely defined and known to the AI system. Because it’s exactly when the AI system believes that it knows the objective correctly that whatever action it comes up with in furtherance of that objective… it then sort of believes that this is the correct action to do and doesn’t tolerate, necessarily, interference from people who are jumping up and down saying, ‘Stop doing that! You’re destroying the world.’”
And that makes perfect sense to me. In fact, it reminds me of people who steadfastly pursue their goals while ignoring their more intuitive, internal voice that’s saying, “Stop doing that! You’re making yourself, and others, miserable.”
Russell went on to say that AI systems should operate on three principles:
The system’s only objective is to maximize realization of human preferences.
Me: That makes sense.The system is initially uncertain as to what these preferences are.
Me: Okay, I sort of follow that logic.The ultimate source of information on human preferences is human behavior.
Me: Huh?
Yeah, he lost me on that final point because isn’t that the dominant theory of how our economic system works? Human preferences—which drive human behavior—consequently drive marketplace success. It’s called the law of supply and demand. And this system is what has created environmental devastation, an accelerating arms race (with AI-enabled technology), animal suffering, inequality, and emotionally and physically unwell people.
Instead of designing a system to maximize the process, or experience, of living—interdependence, caring, flourishing, and play—we view the economy as a dog-eat-dog, outcome-obsessed struggle. A contest in which we compete for things we think we need to survive—popularity, financial wealth, possessions, and weapons.
Today’s inflection point reveals the folly of those preferences, and the resulting extent of our social, economic and environmental challenges. It will inevitably stimulate the great debate of our time: How do we create a new theory about how the economy, and thus culture, should work? One that prioritizes sustainability, shared prosperity, and the flourishing of all life on the planet.
As Buckminster Fuller made clear years ago:
“It is now highly feasible to take care of everybody on Earth at a higher standard of living than any have ever known. It no longer has to be you or me. Selfishness is unnecessary and henceforth unrationalizable as mandated by survival.”
He also wrote:
“You never change things by fighting against the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
So let’s stop fighting and defending the old model, and let’s get to work creating a new world. And it begins at the beginning—with our personal models of reality, with our own minds, perspectives, and preferences.
Stay passionate!