Eight years ago, I wrote about a dominant and pernicious ideology that features two components:ย
Component one: that we are living in a administrative regime built on technocratic rationality whose Prime Directive is, unlike the one in the Star Trek universe, one of empowerment rather than restraint. I call it the Oppenheimer Principle, because when the physicist Robert Oppenheimer was having his security clearance re-examined during the McCarthy era, he commented, in response to a question about his motives, โWhen you see something that is technically sweet, you go ahead and do it and argue about what to do about it only after youโve had your technical success. That is the way it was with the atomic bomb.โ
The topic of that essay was the prosthetic reconstruction of bodies and certain incoherent justifications thereof, so I went on: โWe change bodies and restructure child-rearing practices not because all such phenomena are socially constructed but because we can โ because itโs โtechnically sweet.โโ Then:
My use of the word โweโ in that last sentence leads to component two of the ideology under scrutiny here: Those who look forward to a future of increasing technological manipulation of human beings, and of other biological organisms, always imagine themselves as the Controllers, not the controlled; they always identify with the position of power. And so they forget evolutionary history, they forget biology, they forget the disasters that can come from following the Oppenheimer Principle โ they forget everything that might serve to remind them of constraints on the power they have โฆ or fondly imagine they have.
In light of current debates about the development of AI โ debates that have become more heated in the wake of an open letter pleading with AI researchers to pause their experiments and take some time to think about the implications โ the power of the Oppenheimer Principle has become more evident than ever. And itโs important, I think, to understand what in this context is making it so powerful.
Before I go any further, let me note that the term Artificial Intelligence may cover a very broad range of endeavors. Here I am discussing a recently emergent wing of the overall AI enterprise, the wing devoted to imitating or counterfeiting actions that most human beings think of as distinctively human: conversation, image-making (through drawing, painting, or photography), and music-making.
I think whatโs happening in the development of these counterfeits โ and in the resistance to asking hard questions about them โ is the Silicon Valley version of what the great economist Thorstein Veblen called โtrained incapacity.โ As Robert K. Merton explains in a famous essay on โBureaucratic Structure and Personality,โ Veblenโs phrase describes a phenomenon identified also by John Dewey โ though Dewey called it โoccupational psychosisโ โ and by Daniel Warnotte โ though Warnotte called it โDรฉformation professionnelle.โ It is curious that this same phenomenon gets described repeatedly by our major social scientists; that suggests that it is a powerful and widespread phenomenon indeed.ย
Peggy Noonan recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal of the leaders of the major Silicon Valley companies,
I am sure that as individuals they have their own private ethical commitments, their own faiths perhaps. Surely as human beings they have consciences, but consciences have to be formed by something, shaped and made mature. Itโs never been clear to me from their actions what shaped theirs. I have come to see them the past 40 years as, speaking generally, morally and ethically shallowโuniquely self-seeking and not at all preoccupied with potential harms done to others through their decisions. Also some are sociopaths.
I want to make a stronger argument: that the distinctive โoccupational psychosisโ of Silicon Valley is sociopathy โ the kind of sociopathy embedded in the Oppenheimer Principle. The people in charge at Google and Meta and (outside Silicon Valley) Microsoft, and at the less well-known companies that are being used by the mega-companies, have been deformed by their profession in ways that prevent them from perceiving, acknowledging, and acting responsibly in relation to the consequences of their research. They have a trained incapacity to think morally. They are by virtue of their narrowly technical education and the strong incentives of their profession moral idiots.
The ignorance of the technocratic moral idiot is exemplified by Sam Altman of OpenAI โ an increasingly typical Silicon Valley type, with a thin veneer of moral self-congratulation imperfectly obscuring a thick layer of obedience to perverse incentives. โIf youโre making AI, it is potentially very good, potentially very terrible,โ but โThe way to get it right is to have people engage with it, explore these systems, study them, to learn how to make them safe.โ He canโt even imagine that โthe way to get it rightโ might be not to do it at all. (See Scott Alexander on the Safe Uncertainty Fallacy: We have absolutely no idea what will result from this technological development, therefore everything will be fine.) The Oppenheimer Principle trumps all.
These people arenโt going to fix themselves. As Jonathan Haidt (among others) has often pointed out โ e.g. here โ the big social media companies know just how much damage their platforms are doing, especially to teenage girls, but they do not care. As Justin E. H. Smith has noted, social media platforms are โinhuman by design,โ and some of the big companies are tearing off the fig leaf by dissolving their ethics teams. Deepfakes featuring Donald Trump or the Pope are totally cool, but Chairman Xi gets a free pass, because โฆ well, just follow the money.
Decisions about these matters have to be taken out of the hands of avaricious professionally-deformed sociopaths. And thatโs why lawsuits like this one matter.ย
Increasingly, wave after wave of young people reaches adulthood armed with pop-Butlerism via university and Tumblr alike. No wonder growing numbers long to edit their meat avatars as they might their online ones, and that this isnโt confined to young girls pursuing unattainable beauty ideals. Reddit hosts anecdotal reports from individuals who decided to transition after using the digital funhouse mirror to feminise themselves, and deciding they liked that look better.
But the trouble is that this is only true until you log off. The digital age holds out a promise of total emancipation from material reality โ one that, in politics, is now driving an increasingly bitter divide between those who can sustain this illusion and those still forced to deal with the real world. And, implicitly, weโre told we can apply this digital Prometheanism to our bodies, too. But it doesnโt work: the gap between protean sex-swap fantasy and sutured, bleeding, often complication-filled reality can be the stuff of nightmares โ one thatโs now prompting a surge of lawsuits. All that happens is that we open up a new, futile (but still highly profitable) war of attrition against our own nature.ย
As I have often noted, the highlighted phrase is absolutely key. Maybe one way to talk to people who have been captured by the allure of transformation-by-biotech is to ask them to think about all the really cool things they could do with that money. (Though, come to think of it, Iโm sure they expect insurance โ i.e., everyone contributing insurance premiums โ to pay for whatever they want.)ย
Over at Plough, the tag is: Another life is possible. This ought to be a mantra for most of us. We can live in defiance of the mandates of technocracy and metaphysical capitalism; we canโt make those demonic Powers go away, and we probably canโt live uninfluenced by them โ but we can reduce their power over our lives, one small step at a time. Independence is not gained in an instant, but I think thereโs a growing body of people who want it.ย
Thereโs a funny passage in James Pogueโs recent report on right-wingers relocating to the West:ย
Resistance to โglobalismโ is a new organizing force of right-wing politics. โThese people at the World Economic Forum,โ DeSantis told the National Conservatism Conference in September, โthey just view us as a bunch of peasants. I can tell you, things like the World Economic Forum are dead on arrival in the state of Florida.โ It could have been Alex Jones talking.ย
Well, maybe. But it certainly couldโve been Bernie Sanders talking. And isnโt that noteworthy?ย
It would be nice if people found it so. Recently Michelle Goldberg wrote about recent studies showing the damage that social media platforms are doing to the mental health of young people โ but as soon as some politicians on the right called attention to those studies, reactive nitwits on the left, of which there are many, fled to alternative explanations. Because Josh Hawley canโt be allowed to make a valid point about anything, now can he? Goldberg:ย
The idea that unaccountable corporate behemoths are harming kids with their products shouldnโt be a hard one for liberals to accept, even if figures like Hawley believe it as well. Iโm not sure if banning social media for young people is the right way to start fixing the psychic catastrophe engulfing so many kids. But weโre not going to find any fix at all if we simply start with our political priors and work backward.
If people โ people on social media all the freaking time, naturally โ could manage to take a few minutesโ break from their Pavlovian virtual cages, they might discover the possibility of consensus โ consensus on the vital necessity to restrain the predatory megacorporations that are destroying our society, and, if their recent adventures in chatbots are any indication, are very much looking for new worlds to ruin.ย
Any day I can take a step back from my political priors, take a step back from absorption in Technopoly, take a step back from the commodification of myself, is a good day. That some of us find that extremely difficult is perhaps a good Lenten meditation.ย
Culture as Metastasis โ by Mary Harrington:
All the way back in 1994, Baudrillard could see that the emerging culture after the revolutionary โorgyโ of the 1960s was one increasingly free of any grounding in material causality, constraint, or telos. He characterises art, sexuality and finance alike in these terms, sketching how each of these domains has become a kind of metastasising domain that refers only to itself:
โOurs is a society founded on proliferation, on growth which continues even though it cannot be measured against any clear goals [โฆ] There is no better analogy here than the metastatic process in cancer: a loss of the bodyโs organic ground rules such that a given group of cells is able to deploy its incoercible and murderous vitality, to defy genetic programming and to proliferate endlessly.โย
In Baudrillardโs view, stagnation is also endless, directionless self-replication: โwhere there is stasis, there is metastasisโ. He could be writing today, about the endless recycling that now dominates the culture industries โ a model of production that realises, at scale, what that since-vanished visionary of fandom-first culture recycling envisaged back in my noughties wilderness years.