A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
A NEWSLETTER FROM DAVID CORN |
|
|
The GOP House Nearly Caused Economic Collapse. Can Congress Save Us From Rogue AI? |
By David Corn June 3, 2023 |
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) heads to the floor for a vote on the debt ceiling bill on May 31, 2023. Tom Williams/AP |
|
|
Who won default-orama? Who lost? That’s been the obsession of the political press following the agreement reached by President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Biden ended up paying far less ransom than demanded by the hostage-takers who threatened to blow up the economy, and he prevented economic calamity. Is that a victory? The radical Republicans were still able to blackmail him into accepting unnecessary changes in work rules for food stamp recipients that could screw a slice of low-income Americans, and spending cuts that could hamper important government programs. Yet at the conclusion of this ugly and absurd gamesmanship, we should be thinking not about political ups and downs but...artificial intelligence.
Okay, stay with me on this. This week more than 350 executives, researchers, and engineers who work in AI released a one-sentence warning that this new technology could cause the end of humanity: “Mitigating the risk of extinction from A.I. should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks, such as pandemics and nuclear war.” The signatories included pioneers in the field and the leaders of prominent AI companies, including Google and OpenAI. Such a message—which followed on the heels of an open letter signed by more than 1,000 technologists in March that called for a six-month pause on developing the most advanced AI technology—should have brought the news cycle to a screeching halt. It made the front page of the New York Times, but it was not stop-the-presses across the media. I received more news alerts on my phone about the recent UFO news than this warning. (Spoiler: There’s no evidence they are extraterrestrial spaceships.)
Here was the latest reminder that our species now faces an important and existential opportunity. During similar moments in the past—at the start of the nuclear weapons age or when the threat of climate change was first recognized—human society failed to take action to redress the danger at hand. Yet how can we confront such a critical question when our political system has been subsumed by idiocy? One half of the legislative branch is controlled by GOP extremists willing to trigger economic catastrophe to own the libs. Moreover, they’d rather obsess over Hunter Biden’s laptop and bonkers Deep State conspiracy theories than confront the real perils we face. This is dysfunction of the highest order.
Can such a system address the profound question raised by this warning? This month, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris met with leading AI executives to discuss AI regulation. And at a hearing in the Democratic-controlled Senate, Sam Altman, the chief exec of OpenAI, which developed ChatGPT, the popular online AI program, declared that the risk of AI merited government intervention.
Government intervention. Get it? That means we need effective government action. What are the odds of that these days, when radical Republicans control the House and possess veto power in the Senate, thanks to the antiquated filibuster rule? Especially on a matter this complex.
I recently listened to a podcast produced by the Center for Humane Technology called Can We Govern AI? The guest was Marietje Schaake, the international policy director at Stanford University’s Cyber Policy Center and a fellow at Stanford’s Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence. She previously was a Dutch member of the European Parliament. She knows her stuff about tech policy and government regulation, particularly what the Europeans are up to on this front. The conversation on this podcast was quite wonky and weedy, as Schaake explained various European initiatives on tech regulations. But one big takeaway was that regulating AI is not the same as regulating, say, food or drug safety. In those areas, a government sets up an evaluative process to determine if a product is safe. It then establishes rules for its usage—or keeps it off the market. AI technology is too fluid for that.
As Schaake puts it,
AI moves so fast [and] regulation moves so slow, almost every law or regulation has come in response to a wrong or a harm in society. It is impossible in any case to anticipate the future, even if people try. There has been a lot of scenario planning in anticipation for pandemics, and yet COVID-19 came as a surprise to many governments and left basically the world unprepared. Now people are preparing for the next pandemic, but undoubtedly the problem will come from elsewhere.
Her bottom line: “You cannot regulate for the unknown.” And AI, as of now, is the definition of the unknown.
If you can’t devise a comprehensive list of proactive measures to prevent AI from damaging or destroying our world, what can you do? Schaake has an idea:
What I believe you need to do is to empower people to look for emerging risks and challenges as the technology goes along. And that means not trying to list every possible risk around AI or other technologies today, and to hope that that will sustain you for the next decade, but rather to say what we know is that there's a lot that we don't know, and we're going to empower people to look for effects of the new technologies, how they impact existing rights, how they create new risks, new realities, new challenges, new harms to the common good, to the environment, to young people, to education, to democracy, what have you, for these mandated experts to then come forward with their analysis and the enforcement agencies to be able to intervene. And I think we can do it, as long as there's a political will.
Ay, there’s the rub. Political will. Schaake is calling for government intercessors who have the authority and expertise to monitor AI companies and developers to identify threats as they emerge and government agencies that then can take speedy action to mitigate these dangers. That’s a tall order. The regulatory system tends to move slower than a snail. And you can easily imagine anti-government yahoos complaining about government bureaucrats interfering with private businesses. (Freedom!) These days, Republicans won’t even agree to bolster the IRS so it can crack down on tax cheats and answer phone calls from tax filers with questions. In fact, as part of the debt ceiling deal, they forced Biden to agree to cut a chunk of the additional funds he recently won for the IRS.
AI poses tremendous jeopardy. Even its proponents are worried. It’s obvious that the industry cannot police itself and protect us from risks we may not be able to foresee. That leaves government. But Republicans—from embracing Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 election to promoting nutty conspiracy theories to nearly triggering economic catastrophe—keep demonstrating they are not committed to rational governance. Yet that is what we desperately require regarding AI—before it’s too late.
Got anything to say about this item—or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
Dumbass Comment of the Week |
One of my favorite things in politics is when candidates misuse rock songs at their rallies. I recall a Pat Buchanan event in 1992 when the loudspeakers blared the Rolling Stones’ “Start Me Up,” as Buchanan strode to the podium in front of cheering supporters. As the conservative culture warrior took the stage before this audience of family-values right-wingers, Mick Jagger belted out, “You, you, make a dead man cum.” (Some lyrics sheets say “come,” but we know better.) Of course, more recently, there’s Donald Trump and his cultish fans dancing to the Village People’s “YMCA,” a gay anthem. A particularly delightful example of such cultural misappropriation occurred this week when Arizona gubernatorial loser Kari Lake appeared at a rally.
The Trump-luvin’ and election-denyin'
Republican entered the event to a recording of “American Woman,” performed by Lenny Kravitz: “American woman, stay away from me / American woman, momma, let me be / Don’t come hanging ’round my door / I don’t wanna see your face no more.” The song, originally recorded and released in 1970 by The Guess Who, a Canadian band, was widely seen as a tune protesting the United States, though vocalist Burton Cummings, the band member who composed the lyrics, said the words were simply meant to convey his preference for Canadian women. In any event, the song essentially says, get the f--- out of here. Yet the Lake crew couldn’t be bothered with such details. The selection of this intro music was not a remark and does not qualify for this contest, but the judges felt it deserved an honorable mention.
|
On to our official contenders this week. Days ago, commentator (and Tucker Carlson fan) Glenn Greenwald, referring to the Ukraine war, huffed to his Twitter followers, “How are you—in any way—benefitting from our prolonged involvement in this border dispute?” |
Border dispute? This is how anti-anti-Putinists like to describe Moscow’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. Just a little tiff over a line on a map. That’s not how Moscow sees it, with Vladimir Putin and his lieutenants claiming that the war is being waged because Ukraine is a neo-Nazi state inflicting genocide. Of course, those are lies, and it is Russia that stands reasonably accused of war crimes and genocide (though the issue of genocide is a knotty one). Russian officials and propagandists have repeatedly declared this is a war to eliminate Ukraine not adjust a border. Greenwald is certainly free to argue that the United States has no pressing interest here and should not be involved in this conflict. But dismissing the matter as a “border dispute” is an insult to those killed by Putin’s horrific invasion, to those fighting to defend Ukraine against this illegal act of aggression, and to the truth. It is disinformation that benefits a murderous regime.
There was an odd exchange on the right that caught the judges’ attention this week. It started when the New York Times published a report on a new Ugandan law that calls for life imprisonment for anyone who engages in gay sex and decrees the death penalty for anyone convicted of “aggravated homosexuality,” which is defined as same-sex relations with children or disabled people or such acts carried out under threat or when someone is unconscious. In response to this news, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) tweeted, “This Uganda law is horrific & wrong. Any law criminalizing homosexuality or imposing the death penalty for ‘aggravated homosexuality’ is grotesque & an abomination. ALL civilized nations should join together in condemning this human rights abuse. #LGBTQ.” Yes, you read that right. Cruz took a decent stand.
But not in the eyes of Jenna Ellis, the right-wing lawyer who assisted Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election and who of late has been supportive of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, Trump’s rival for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. In a tweet, she told Cruz to shut up: “You can condemn a law that imposes the death penalty for homosexuality without being pro or #LGBTQ. Like Bud Light, you should have just said nothing. Not this.”
|
After getting pummeled by commenters on Twitter for her tweet, Ellis shot back: “For the commenters - I stand with Uganda on this because the definition of ‘aggravated homosexuality’ (subject to the death penalty) is raping children. Why would Cruz be against this anyway?? And what does this have to do with #LGBTQ? Absolutely stupid comment.” |
Though she was focusing on one provision of the draconian law, Ellis was standing with Ugandan bigots who want to imprison anyone who engages in gay sex. And “aggravated homosexuality” in this law is defined as more than the rape of a minor.
Providing support for the imprisonment of gay people or misrepresenting a vicious war full of atrocities that has been launched to eliminate a democratic nation—that’s a tough choice. So the judges determined this week is a tie. We hope Ellis and Greenwald can find a way to share the trophy. |
Most readers who wrote in about my piece on how the media failed to cover the debt ceiling talks as a hostage negotiation between political terrorists who were threatening to ruin the economy (House Republicans) and a reasonable party striving to prevent financial disaster (President Joe Biden) tended to agree. But Dotty and Jack Hopkins really took it far:
What a great article. And the fury we feel over how poorly our side is treated by the press, as well as the success of the terrorists from the right, especially the NRA and the Federalist Society, is exactly why we've given up on the US and are immigrating to Portugal, along with hundreds of other Americans who, from what I gather in chat rooms, feel exactly the same. Seventy years of fighting the good fight, including successfully lobbying the NY State Assembly to pass its abortion bill in 1970, and look where it's gotten us. We've had enough and don't feel at our advanced ages, 80 (Dotty) and 86 (Jack), there's time to claw it back and still have time to enjoy life. It's so discouraging, heartbreaking, infuriating, with no light, just tunnel. We applaud your efforts and hope you continue to fight.
Yikes. Dotty and Jack, I wish you well in Portugal (and hope you keep subscribing to Our Land). But I’m not sure things are so bleak here. The deal Biden cut was not good but not terrible. Some poor folks will be harmed; some social programs will be cut back. But he paid a much smaller ransom to the extremists than many expected he would have to in order to prevent economic calamity. Nothing to celebrate, but perhaps not a reason to flee the country. I trust there are many other factors drawing you to the Iberian Peninsula.
In that same issue, I wondered how Henry Kissinger, who just celebrated his 100th birthday, has managed to maintain the reputation of an elder statesman and brilliant geostrategist, despite encouraging and enabling secret bombings, coups, and invasions that have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Bruce Bailey responded: Your question answers itself. The media keep score in terms of clicks, eyeballs, subscriptions, newsstand sales and the like. Note that neither truth nor accuracy make that list. Kissinger managed to keep himself in a favorable light with the public. The media never buck the public. I’m not sure that fully explains it. My hunch is that part of the explanation lies in the fact that it’s just too difficult to fathom or accept that the US government has engaged in these actions with such terrible consequences. To indict Kissinger is to indict the nation.
Dorsey Cartwright took exception to my comments about No Labels, the group that promotes bipartisanship and that is trying to raise millions to run an independent candidate in the 2024 race (perhaps Sen. Joe Manchin). I noted that plenty of political pros suspect this is an effort to draw votes from the Democratic ticket and help the GOP. Dorsey emailed:
I was with you until I got to your No Labels paragraph, and here I would ask you to do more homework, including talking directly with No Labels leaders and members. I am one of them, as a "now retired" marriage and family therapist. I discovered No Labels back in 2010-11 and was drawn to its belief in two-party solutions, allowing all voices to be heard. I know firsthand the difference between partners working together for the good of their relationship versus each trying to win their way.
In 2020, terrified at the thought of Trump remaining president, I connected even more strongly to No Labels, which led me to co-founding the Texas No Labels grassroots chapter. We have met on Zoom every Thursdays (except holidays) since July of 2020. Some folks lean left and some right with a few deep blues (one of whom is my brother). None of us are billionaires or Trump supporters.
I have also attended a number of No Labels' hosted Zooms since the spring of 2020, and most of those had a Q&A section. So I have gotten to hear the questions and suggestions from No Labels supporters throughout the country. Some are wealthy businessmen or women, often but not always more conservative than me. l experience them most often speaking from their hearts and advising what they believe to be best practices for the country.
So far, I have yet to hear anyone wanting Trump back in office. In fact, what I do hear are adamant no's to Trump ever being in office again. The original impetus for the insurance policy [a third-party candidate] came from extensive polling showing that a majority of Americans do not want a Trump-Biden rematch, but if there is one, Trump has a strong possibility of winning. Yikes.
At this point none of us can know for sure who the nominees will be. But, after Super Tuesday 2024, whoever the nominees are, if the majority of Americans are still unhappy with their choices, No Labels will be in a position to put forth a third choice, a Unity ticket, with both a Democrat and a Republican who are committed to working together side-by-side to get the results that the American people want, need, and deserve.
I'd be delighted to have you come to one of our Texas No Labels Zoom calls. We'd be glad to introduce ourselves and answer any questions you have. I personally would be delighted to have you come, I've read and listen to your book, American Psychosis, which I found enlightening, enraging, and terrifying.
Dorsey, I do not doubt the intentions of you and your grassroots No Labels comrades. It would be great to find areas for red and blue agreement and try to de-tribalize American politics. And perhaps I’ll take up your invitation. But I’ve spoken to several political strategists I respect, and each one says they believe the effort by No Labels’ national leaders to run a so-called unity ticket—which is separate from their endeavors aimed at bringing together Rs and Ds in Congress on particular legislative matters—is a threat to the reelection of Biden and a potential boost for Trump. Their math seems strong; it’s hard to envision a No Labels candidate—say, Manchin—drawing more votes from Trump than Biden in the key swing states, such as Pennsylvania or Georgia. If you believe Trump poses an existential threat to American democracy, then you want to round up everyone who agrees with that for one candidate. Spreading the non-Trump vote across two candidacies likely will help Trump. Look at this closely and if you have any concerns, you might want to let the folks at the No Labels office in Washington, DC, know.
Jerry Peace wrote in about the inside-Washington political thriller I published a few years ago:
Just finished Deep Background. Loved it for your writing and the one or two characters with whom I might enjoy a meal. But I hated it the way I hate books about Enron or the Wall Street thieves of 2007 who shit all over us and were rewarded. I like horror but US political horror is too much for me. I live in an alternate universe from your characters, from all those folks in today's DC. What they do affects me; what I do is irrelevant to them. I suppose for many people in that world, lying, corruption, murder, exploitation, manipulation, and who knows what other skullduggery is exciting. But doesn't one get tarnished, a little or a lot, by incessantly claiming they're doing it all for us when we all know that's a lie? I'm certainly no moral beacon but I believe being in that morass, even thriving in it, would drive me to a desert shack with a lot of beef jerky. I preordered American Psychosis but I haven't read it yet. I fear while reading it I will be intolerable to live with. I need a week's solitary retreat, where I can howl at the moon with impunity. Anyway, really enjoyed Deep Background, kind of.
Hard to know how to respond to that. If the goal of an author is to impact the life of a reader, I suppose I succeeded.
David Aronson points out that I erred when I wrote, “The last two Democratic presidential nominees—Barack Obama and Joe Biden—campaigned as politicians who aspired to unify the country, to find some consensus between left and right. Neither declared they would destroy the opposition.” He emailed, “As much as I find Hilary Clinton distasteful, I do recognize her as one of the last two Democratic nominees for the presidency.” Oops. I should have said “the last two successful Democratic presidential nominees.” Another reader notes that I goofed in that same issue when I called Disney the largest employer in Florida. It is one of the largest. Publix, the grocery chain, employs the most Floridians. And don’t forget that Julie Fancelli, the Publix heir, donated $650,000 to finance the January 6 rally that preceded the insurrectionist riot. But, I’m told, Publix stores have great bakeries.
|
“How come no one ever brings a cat to the beach?” “That’s a good question, Moxie. Would you like that?”
“——————." “I didn’t know dogs could roll their eyes.” |
Read Recent Issues of Our Land |
May 31, 2023: What the hell is Ron DeSantis thinking?; Moonage Daydream is too dreamy; Tina Turner’s “Whole Lotta Love”; and more.
May 27, 2023: How the media aid and abet GOP hostage-takers; Henry Kissinger at 100, still a war criminal; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Pat McCrory); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. May 23, 2023: Is contextualizing old movies the same as canceling them?; the Citadel is a forgettable spy show; The Independent needed a rewrite; and more.
May 20, 2023: Lions, rhinos, elephants, and soft power in Africa; more from Namibia; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Elon Musk); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. May 17, 2023: My visit to a famous prison cell; more photos from Robben Island; and more.
May 13, 2023: From the Our Land archives: Can you still watch your old favorite movies?
May 9, 2023: From the Our Land archives: Call it what it is—the GOP is pushing for political apartheid.
May 5, 2023: The big question about AI: who decides?; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Jesse Watters); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more.
May 2, 2023: President Joe Biden’s crusade; KCSN’s eclectic mix of new and old music; and more. April 29, 2023: Of guns, God, and a clinging GOP; a useful idiot is gone from Fox; Dumbass Comment of the Week (Sen. Ron Johnson); the Mailbag; MoxieCam™; and more. |
|
|
Got suggestions, comments, complaints, tips related to any of the above, or anything else? Email me at ourland@motherjones.com. |
|
|
|