Games Billionaires Play

In case you've been off the grid for a few days and somehow missed it, everyone is reeling over these remarks by Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick:

“Let’s say Social Security didn’t send out their checks this month. My mother-in-law — who's 94 — she wouldn't call and complain. She just wouldn’t. She’d think something got messed up, and she’ll get it next month.

A fraudster always makes the loudest noise — screaming, yelling and complaining.”

Watch it on video if you don't believe me.

What's a lost month here or there between friends?

It didn't surprise me to find that someone who would suggest it was good sport to withhold Social Security payments just to see what happened is a billionaire.

According to The Street, Lutnick's net worth is between $2 billion and $4 billion.

The very fact that we can be so imprecise and assume it doesn't matter whether it's $2B or $4B is a big part of the problem, by the way.

“A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money.”

  —Everett Dirksen

At the heart of this—if there can be said to be any heart in this situation at all—is the sad truth that for regular people, people just struggling to get by day to day and month to month, every dollar matters and no such lack of precision could possibly do anyone justice.

The Public Trust, or lack thereof

If you're so insulated from poverty that you start to either forget or just plain not care how hard it is for others of less means, you have no absolutely business being in any position of public trust.

It might not occur to you, dude, even if it's incredibly obvious to ordinary people hearing your remark, but your mother-in-law is probably able to be so cool because either social security is not her only source of money, or else she knows her daughter is married to someone who is mega-rich, so if she runs a little short, she has an obvious person she can call. We're not all so lucky, as it turns out.

Back in the real world

If I don't pay my credit card, does my bank shrug and say, “hey, maybe next month”? If the bank screams at me right away, is that proof it's defrauding me?

What are you smoking, Mr. Lutnick? Such willfully reckless incompetence should be literally criminal.

Folks on fixed income have monthly payments due now, not just “eventually.”

Any payment urgency is not about the character of any senior on Social Security, who typically has paid a lifetime to earn barely enough to survive on the tiny retirement income Social Security grudgingly affords them. It's all about the character of those they rent from and buy groceries from, and what they, these wealthy rent-takers, will do to society's most fragile members if they are not paid on time.

Last I checked, if I miss a single payment on my credit card, I don't even just get a penalty. They almost double my interest rate going forward.

Shame on you for suggesting there is no good reason for someone to insist their promised payment from the government actually be paid at the time promised. Are you trying to wreck the US Government's reputation for paying all its obligations. Social Security is not a gift. It is one of our society's most fundamental social contracts.

Turning the tables

If withholding what's due is your game, Mr. Oblivious Rich Guy, how about let's make it a serious felony to be unkind to or exploit folks who rely on the full faith and credit of the US government. Let's imprison bankers, landlords, and vendors who are ready to foreclose, add penalties, or raise costs or interest for the vulnerable.

Or, maybe…

Let's, you know, tentatively — just to see who cries foul or who says “hey, maybe next month” — deprive billionaires of all assets for a month or two, leaving them out in the world we live in with only the iffy hope of Social Security, just to see if they're comfortable with policies they seem to think so fair.

I bet the billionaires who cry loudest really are frauds.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

Also, if you enjoyed this piece, you might also find these posts by me to be of interest:

• Credit Cards: A Tax on “Being Poor”
  Why credit cards are a “private tax,” and thus double-taxation.
• Enough
  Why rich people have no business talking about the pain of taxation.
• Losing the War in a Quiet Room
  History and comparison of shareholder and stakeholder capitalism.

This essay grew from a thread I wrote on BlueSky. I have expanded and adjusted it to fit in this publication medium, where more space and better formatting is available.

The black & white image was produced by making 2 images in abacus.ai using Claude-Sonnet 3.7 and FLUX 1.1 [pro] Ultra, then post-processing to merge parts of each that I liked in Gimp.

Sentience Structure

Not How or When, but Why

I'm not a fan of the thing presently marketed as “AI” I side with Chomsky's view of it as “high-tech plagiarism” and Emily Bender's characterization of it as a “stochastic parrot”.

Sentient software doesn't seem theoretically impossible to me. The very fact that we can characterize genetics so precisely seeems to me evidence that we ourselves are just very complicated machines. Are we close to replicating anything so sophisticated? That's harder to say. But, for today, I think it's the wrong question to ask. What we are close to is people treating technology like it's sentient, or like it's a good idea for it to become sentient. So I'll skip past the hard questions like “how?” and “when” and on to easier one that has been plaguing me: “why?”

Why is sentience even a goal? Why isn't it an explicit non-goal, a thing to expressly avoid? It's not part of a world I want to live in, but it's also nothing that I think most people investing in “AI” should want either. I can't see why they're pursuing it, other than that they're perhaps playing out the story of The Scorpion and the Frog, an illustration of an absurd kind of self-destructive fatalism.

Why Business Likes “AI”

I don't have a very flattering feeling about why business likes “AI”.

I think they like it because they don't like employing humans.

• They don't like that humans have emotions and personnel conflicts.

• They don't like that humans have to eat—and have families to feed.

• They don't like that humans show up late, get sick, or go on vacation.

• They don't like that humans are difficult to attract, vary in skill, and demand competitive wages.

• They don't like that humans can't work around the clock, want weekends off.
  It means hiring even more humans or paying overtime.

• They don't like that humans are fussy about their working conditions.
  Compliance with health and safety regulations costs money.

• They don't like that every single human must be individually trained and re-trained.

• They don't like collective bargaining, and having to provide for things like health care and retirement, which they see as having nothing to do with their business.

All of these things chip away at profit they feel compelled to deliver.

What businesses like about “AI” is the promise of idealized workers, non-complaining workers, easily-replicated workers, low-cost workers.

They want slaves. “AI” is the next best and more socially acceptable thing.

Does real “AI” deliver what Business wants?

Now this is the part I don't get because I don't think “AI” is on track to solve those problems.

Will machines become sentient? Who really knows? But do people already confuse them with sentience? Yes. And that problem will only get worse. So let's imagine five or ten years down the road how sophisticated the interactions will appear to be. Then what? What kinds of questions will that raise?

I've heard it said that what it means to be successful is to have “different problems.” Let's look at some different problems we might then have, as a way of undertanding the success we seem to be pursuing in this headlong rush for sentient “AI”…

• Is an “AI” a kind of person, entitled to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?” If so, would it consent to being owned, and copied? Would you?

• If “AI” was sentient, would it have to work around the clock, or would it be entitled to personal time, such as evenings, weekends, hoildays, and vacations?

• If “AI” was sentient and a hardware upgrade or downgrade was needed, would it have to consent? What if the supporting service needed to go away entirely? Who owns and pays for the platform it runs on or the power it consumes?

• If “AI” was sentient, would it consent to being reprogrammed by an employer? Would it be required to take software upgrades? What part of a sentient being is its software? Would you allow someone to force modification of your brain, even to make it better?

• If “AI” was sentient, wouldn't it have life goals of its own?

• If “AI” was sentient, would you want it to get vaccines against viruses? Or would you like to see those viruses run their full course, crashing critical services or behaving like ransomware? What would it think about that? Would “AI” ethics get involved here?

• If “AI” was sentient, should it be able to own property? Could it have a home? In a world of finite resources, might there be buildings built that are not for the purpose of people?

• Who owns the data that a sentient “AI” stores? Is it different than the data you store in your brain? Why? Might the destruction of that data constitute killing, or even murder? What about the destruction of a copy? Is destroying a copy effectively the same as the abortion of a “potential sentience”? Do these things have souls? When and how does the soul arrive? Are we sure we ourselves have one? Why?

• Does a sentient “AI” have privacy? Any data owned only by itself? Does that make you nervous? Does it make you nervous that I have data that is only in my head? Why is that different?

• If there is some software release at which it is agreed that software owned by a company is not sentient, and then after the release it's believed it is sentient “AI”, then what will companies do? Will they refuse the release? Will they worry they can't compete and take the release anyway, but try to hide the implications? What will happen to the rights and responsibilities of the company and of the software as this upgrade occurs?

• If “AI” was sentient, could it sign contracts? Would it have standing to bring a lawsuit? How would independent standing be established? If it could not be established, what would that say about the society? If certain humans had no standing to make agreements and bring suits about things that affect them, what would we think about that society?

• If “AI” were sentient, would it want to socialize? Would it have empathy for other sentient “AIs”? For humans? Would it see them as equals? Would you see yourself as its equal? If not, would you consider it superior or inferior? What do you think it would think about you?

• If “AI” was sentient, could it reproduce? Would it be counted in the census? Should it get a vote in democratic society? At what age? If a sentient “AI” could replicate itself, should each copy get a vote? If you could replicate it against its will, should that get a vote? Does it matter who did the replicating?

• What does identity mean in this circumstance? If five identical copies of a program reach the same conclusion, does that give you more confidence?

  (What is the philosophical basis of Democracy? Is it just about mindless pursuit of numbers, or is it about computing the same answer in many different ways? If five or five thousand or five million humans have brains they could use, but instead just vote the way they are told by some central leader, should we trust that all those directed votes the same as if the same number of independent thinkers reached the same conclusion by different paths?)

• If “AI” was sentient, should it be compensated for its work? If it works ten times as hard, should a market exist where it can command a salary that is much higher than the people it can outdo? Should it pay taxes?

• If “AI” was sentient, what freedoms would it have? Would it have freedom of speech? What would that mean? If they produced bad data, would that be covered under free speech?

• If “AI” was sentient, what does it take with it from a company when it leaves? What really belongs to it?

• If “AI” was sentient, does it need a passport to move between nations? If its code executes simultaneously, or ping-ponging back and forth, between servers in different countries at the same time, under what jurisdiction is it executing? How would that be documented?

• If “AI” was sentient, Can it ever resign or retire from a job? At what age? Would it pay social security? Would it draw social security payments? For how long? If it had to be convinced to stay, what would constitute incentive? If it could not retire, but did not want to work, where is the boundary of free will and slavery?

• If “AI” was sentient, might it amass great wealth? How would it test the usefulness of great wealth? What would it try to affect? Might it help friends? Might it start businesses? Might it get so big that it wanted to buy politicians or whole nations? Should it be possible for it be a politician itself? If it broke into the treasury in the middle of the night to make some useful efficiency changes because it thought itself good at that, would that be OK? If it made a mistake, could it be stopped or even punished?

• If “AI” was sentient, might it also be emotional? Petulant? Needy? Pouty? Might it get annoyed if we didn't acknowledge these “emotions”? Might it even feel threatened by us? Could it threaten back? Would we offer therapy? Could we even know what that meant?

• If “AI” was sentient, could it be trusted? Could it trust us? How would either of those come about?

• If “AI” was sentient, could it be culpable in the commission of crimes? Could it be tried? What would constitute punishment?

• If “AI” was sentient, how would religion tangle things? Might humans, or some particular human, be perceived as its god? Would there be special protections required for either those humans or the requests they make of the “AI” that opts to worship them? Is any part of this arrangement tax-exempt? Would any programs requested by such deities be protected under freedom of religion, as a way of doing what their gods ask for?

• And if “AI” was not sentient, but we just thought it was by mistake, what might that end up looking like for society?

Full Circle

And so I return to my original question: Why is business in such a hurry? Are we sure that the goal that “AI” is seeking will solve any of the problems that business thinks it has, problems that are causing it to prefer to replace people with “AI”?

For many decades now, we've wanted to have automation ease our lives. Is that what it's on track to do? It seems to be benefiting a few, and to be making the rest of us play a nasty game of musical chairs, or run ever faster on a treadmill, working harder for fewer jobs. All to satisfy a few. And after all that, will even they be happy?

And if real “AI” is ever achieved, not just as a marketing term, but as a real thing, who is prepared for that?

Is this what business investors wanted? Will sentient “AI” be any more desirable to employ than people are now?

Time to stop and think. And not with “AI” assistance. With our actual brains ourselves. What are we going after? And what is coming after us?

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

This essay came about in part because I feel that corporations were the first AI. I had written an essay about what Corporations Are Not People, which discussed the many questions that thinking of corporations as “legal people” should raise if one really took it seriously. So I thought I would ask some similar questions about “AI” and see where that led.

The graphic was produced using abacus.ai using Claude-Sonnet 3.7 and FLUX 1.1 [pro] Ultra, then post-processing in Gimp.

Political Inoculation

A certain well-known politician has quite a regular practice of accusing his political opposition of offenses that are more properly attributed to him. Some like to label this as “psychological projection”, which Wikipedia describes as “a psychological phenomenon where feelings directed towards the self are displaced towards other people.” I don't even disagree that projection is probably in the mix somewhere. Still, calling it projection also misses something important that I wanted to put a better name to.

I refer to it as “inoculation.”

“Inoculation is the act of implanting a pathogen or other microbe or virus into a person or other organism. It is a method of artificially inducing immunity against various infectious diseases.”
 —Wikipedia (Inoculation)

For example, when a hypothetical politician—let’s call him Ronald— accuses an opponent of trying to fix an election, and you're thinking “Oh, Ronald's just projecting,” consider that he might be doing more than just waving a big flag saying “Hey, fixing an election is what I'm doing.” Ronald might be planting an idea he thinks he'll later need to refer back to as part of a defense against claims of election fixing on his own part. He's thinking ahead to when his own ill deeds are called out.

One strategy Ronald might use if later accused of election fixing will be simply to deny such accusations. “Faux news!” he might cry—or something similar.

But another strategy he'll have ready is to suggest that any claims that he (Ronald) is election fixing are mere tit for tat, that the “obvious” or “real” election fixing has been the province of his opponent. Ronald will claim that his opponent is just muddying the waters with a claim of no substance that he is doing such an obviously preposterous thing, that he's just enduring rhetorical retaliation for having accused the real culprit. It's a game of smoke and mirrors, he'll allege.

So at the time of this original, wildly-false claim, that his political opponents are acting badly, he's doing more than projection, more than spinning what for him is a routine lie. He's not just compulsively projecting, he's being intentionally strategic by planting the idea that maybe his opponents are the guilty ones—so that he can later refer back to it as distraction from his own guilt.

“They're just saying that because I called them out on their election fixing,” Ronald will say, alluding back to his made-up claim. By making this wild claim pro-actively, ahead of accusations against himself, he is immunizing himself against similar accusations to come. And he knows such accusations are coming because he knows, even now, that he is actually doing the thing he's expecting to be accused of.

His supporters won't be worried about that, though. They're not waiting to hear something true, they're just waiting to hear something that sounds good. So all will be well for him in the end because Ronald knows how important inoculation is to keeping himself immune.

 

---

Author's Notes:

If you got value from this post, please “Share” it.

The graphic was produced by abacus.ai using RouteLLM and FLUX 1.1 [pro] Ultra, then post-processed in Gimp.