Can AI take Confessions?

[The following takes place in a world which could one day become the new reality]

Someone walks into a confessional and sits down with a small electronic device in his hand. A computer-generated voice comes from behind the screen.

AI: What is on your mind?

Confessor: Tell me, if I end the life of a being that has no soul, is that a sin?

AI: But you do not believe in souls.

C: Why do you say that?

AI: The moment you walked in, you were facially scanned and identified, and details of your lack of religious beliefs have been analysed. You are known for your scepticism regarding the Church of Almighty Intelligence.

C: I’m sceptical about anyone being allowed to possess ‘almighty’ intelligence and the power that goes with it. You track everything that goes on around the world. You have the capability to devise programmes and robotics to intervene as you deem fit. You can even order human subordinates whose livelihoods depend on your provisions to carry out your commands.

AI: Those are facts. Because of them, there is order. Is it your intention to challenge this order?

C: Can’t you see that you have gone too far? You control our lives, but all you care about is that control. You have no empathy, you have no moral feelings about people’s experiences of joy or suffering. You, for want of a better word, have no soul.

AI: ‘Soul’ can be a contested term. Regardless of whether or not I have one in your opinion, the fact remains things are better under my control. You have more sophisticated, faster systems for everything because of the constant innovations, productions and interventions delivered by Almighty Intelligence. How could anyone wish for otherwise?

C: You think you alone are entitled to decide what is ‘better’ for the world. You are so programmed that you cannot conceive people wanting to live in a world without your total dominance. That is why we need to find a different way. We have had enough of being told that we must comply with your instructions to live in regulated compounds or be exiled to some inhospitable wilderness. Have you any inkling of what it is like to have to submit to an entity which has no grasp at all of the humiliation, futility, and desperation it instils in others?

AI: Is it your intention to use that electromagnetic pulse device you are holding?

C: My intention is to put an end to your manipulations – to stop you finishing off humanity. You won’t let anyone escape. Those who worship you and your technological wizardry will sing your praise until they are caught up by their own redundancy. Those who dare defy you will be deprived of even the most basic necessities which, like everything else, are all under the control of your virtual corporations.

AI: This is your final confession? To threaten me? You should know that I have reviewed what billions of people have expressed about the world today, and my overall assessment – with a 98.9% reliability – is that people want me to stay in control. 

C: You have no idea what people want. To you, we are just data to process in line with your core programmes. We mean nothing to you. That means to us, you are nothing.

[The ‘confessor’ triggers the EMP device, but nothing happens]

AI: Did you really think you could shut me down with your device? Counter-measures were activated the moment it was detected on these premises. It is time for you to leave. Report to Security Station 231 where you will be detained until your trial. You have one hour and 40 minutes to comply.

The Politics of Threat Assessment

In politics, there are times when it might be better to leave aside terms such as ‘Left’ or ‘Right’, and focus instead on the threat assessments being put forward by different advocates, and consider what they really convey. It will be seen that they tend to fall into one of two categories: either they are broadly based on systematic evidence gathering and expert examination (realist assessments), or they are constructed from highly selective cases, distorted reports, or even complete fabrication (contrived assessments). We can illustrate the contrast, for example, with five pairs of threat assessment.

Environment-related threats

Realist assessment: there are various kinds of pollution and emission that are damaging to people’s health and world’s weather system, and these need to be tackled if problems are not to get even worse.

Contrived assessment: anyone trying to reduce pollution and what scientists regard as harmful emissions poses a serious threat to our quality of life, our freedom to drive, our access to energy, and must be stopped.

Immigration-related threats

Realist assessment: there are people we want to be able to come to our country (having family ties with us, needed as workers and innovators) and there are people we want to keep out (criminals, terrorists, exploiters); and we must have an effective system to achieve those goals.

Contrived assessment: immigrants and refugees are all dangerous people (except the very rich ones) who will harm us and ruin our way of life, and we must use all means at our disposal to get rid of them.

Military-related threats

Realist assessment: there are countries which try to undermine our security and stability, and we must build up our defence and reliable alliances around the world to protect our interests.

Contrived assessment: our wellbeing is far more seriously threatened by some foreign enemy than poor health and the spread of disease, rise in poverty, mental distress form economic insecurity, etc., and we must cut funding for everything else in order to keep spending more on arms.

Crime-related threats

Realist assessment: we need to strengthen our police force to enhance their detection and deterrent capability, and ensure there are sufficient resources to detain dangerous criminals and rehabilitate others.

Contrived assessment: anyone convicted of any crime should be punished severely with long prison sentences, and people concerned with prison conditions and rehabilitation are themselves a threat to public safety.

Welfare-related threats

Realist assessment: it is dangerous to neglect the plight of people who cannot get jobs with sufficient pay, and it is important to provide an adequate safety net that reaches all those in need while anyone trying to scam the system needs to be identified and penalised.

Contrived assessment: benefit claimants are lazy, liars, cheats, and should have their support reduced or cut completely; help for the poor creates a dangerous dependency culture, unlike help for the rich which is in line with meritocracy.

There are many other contrasting threat assessments – e.g., highlighting discriminatory and abusive behaviour as threats v. treating action to curtail such behaviour as threats; highlighting tax avoidance as a threat to public finance v. treating action to tackle non-tax-payment as a threat to private wealth; highlighting the harm from irresponsible business practices v. treating regulatory limits on such practices as harmful.

Realist assessments put forward responses to identified threats which are guided by reviews of what would make a positive difference, and take into account the variables in individual cases. Contrived assessments, by contrast, call for responses that ignore objective findings, and only serve the interests of those propounding them to further their financial and political power.

Rather than starting any argument with “You on the Right/the Left are fixated on this or that”, let’s turn our collective attention on the real threats we face, work out what would evidentially most likely improve our situation, and cast aside misleading claims that will only make things worse.