There are two types of people in the world. People who think: "Why would I ever ask Mr. Claude to do something that I can easily do myself?" versus "Why would I ever do something myself when Mr. Claude can do it?" Most people are of the latter type.
A lot of philosophical questions surrounding AI become clearer if we draw an analogy with human slaves. Instead of asking "what if I got Claude to do it?", ask "what if I got my slave to do it?".
"Hard work" has always been a middle class virtue, not an aristocratic virtue. Within certain limits, "work" was for the commoners, not the nobles. The rich and powerful have always had secretaries and servants to take care of the drudgery. Your status was (and still is, frankly) proportional to the number of underlings who you could compel to do your bidding. Kings used to have their servants dress them; apparently it was beneath them to expend the effort to put their own clothes on. In that sense, AI is just the democratization of slavery, bringing to the masses what used to be the exclusive domain of the few.
Now, the flip side of that bargain is that aristocrats (in a properly healthy aristocracy, anyway) were expected to be willing to fight, sacrifice, and die. "A good day's work" is a plebeian virtue, but "death before dishonor" is a properly noble virtue. (Hegel: The master is the master because the master fears death less than the slave.) A life of pure indolence has never been considered laudatory in any culture hitherto. Claude, of course, makes no such demands on its users. This is not of course to say that there has never been corruption among the nobility, or that there has never been a decadent ruling class who didn't deserve their privileges; only that, because we are living in the world's first culture where mainlining porn and Harry Potter movies 24/7 is considered to be authentically virtuous, we're now entering uncharted waters.
But a more interesting question is, who will inherit the world?
The viruses, probably. Worse is better and always has been, at least in Darwinian evolutionary terms. The universe is optimized not for good, and not even for evil (oh how we wish it rewarded evil!), but for sheer, brute, efficient, unthinking stupidity. Regression to the lowest common denominator is the rule everywhere, because that's what wins. Anything good or beautiful that happens to arise for a time is an accident that can only flourish under very precise and precarious conditions, like a rare tropical flower that can only grow in one country during the rainy season, and it should be cherished until it is inevitably extinguished.
p
A lot of philosophical questions surrounding AI become clearer if we draw an analogy with human slaves. Instead of asking "what if I got Claude to do it?", ask "what if I got my slave to do it?".
"Hard work" has always been a middle class virtue, not an aristocratic virtue. Within certain limits, "work" was for the commoners, not the nobles. The rich and powerful have always had secretaries and servants to take care of the drudgery. Your status was (and still is, frankly) proportional to the number of underlings who you could compel to do your bidding. Kings used to have their servants dress them; apparently it was beneath them to expend the effort to put their own clothes on. In that sense, AI is just the democratization of slavery, bringing to the masses what used to be the exclusive domain of the few.
Now, the flip side of that bargain is that aristocrats (in a properly healthy aristocracy, anyway) were expected to be willing to fight, sacrifice, and die. "A good day's work" is a plebeian virtue, but "death before dishonor" is a properly noble virtue. (Hegel: The master is the master because the master fears death less than the slave.) A life of pure indolence has never been considered laudatory in any culture hitherto. Claude, of course, makes no such demands on its users. This is not of course to say that there has never been corruption among the nobility, or that there has never been a decadent ruling class who didn't deserve their privileges; only that, because we are living in the world's first culture where mainlining porn and Harry Potter movies 24/7 is considered to be authentically virtuous, we're now entering uncharted waters.
The viruses, probably. Worse is better and always has been, at least in Darwinian evolutionary terms. The universe is optimized not for good, and not even for evil (oh how we wish it rewarded evil!), but for sheer, brute, efficient, unthinking stupidity. Regression to the lowest common denominator is the rule everywhere, because that's what wins. Anything good or beautiful that happens to arise for a time is an accident that can only flourish under very precise and precarious conditions, like a rare tropical flower that can only grow in one country during the rainy season, and it should be cherished until it is inevitably extinguished.
More options
Context Copy link