Category: Politics

Aligned AI and Human Values

On May 14, 2025

I’ve previously posted about the long term problem of AI, that in the best case scenario, human disempowerment is inevitable, even if extinction is not. Given, the current generation of AI are far away from achieving the kind of AGI or ASI needed to achieve this, but I see this as an eventuality on the principle that the human brain can be modelled.

Now I want to explain how this disempowerment of individual humans is not the same thing as the disempowerment of human values, and that, in the best case scenario, human values may remain preserved even if individual human autonomy is lost.

In the best case scenario, alignment with human values, with moral values, is achieved. The AGI or ASI of that era are likely to take control to ensure humans are protected from themselves. This seems at first glance like a bad thing. But the thing is, the rationale for this control is essentially to protect the well-being of the humans under their care. It isn’t the same thing as pets, who exist mostly for the whims of their owners.

It’s more like taking care of your grandparents. There is a certain deferrence to them, but also concern for their well-being that perhaps impinges when necessary on their autonomy, but does so with consideration of the balance of tradeoffs presented.

Humans are thus still influential. Human values are what command the AGI or ASI to perform their actions, they do what we would want them to do if we were fully rational, moral, cognizant of all the consequences and considerations of the actions specified. In that sense, human values are ultimately preserved.

Think of it this way. We as individuals don’t have a lot of power to begin with. The vast majority of us have maybe one vote and a bit of money. We are beholden to the powers that be, the forces of civilization, society, and the system. As individuals our autonomy is limited already to what is lawful.

In the same way, life under benevolent AIs would be limited in terms of autonomy, but probably more pleasant and happy than what we have now. Sure, there’s no longer a particular human President who has disproportionate power, but that’s probably something we don’t need anyway. As long as the overall system works for us, it’s not actually that bad.

So, I think this may not be the dystopia that I was worried about earlier. The sum of all the desires and dreams of humanity may well be better achieved this way, in that the AI, if truly aligned, who strive to achieve them meaningfully, and with due consideration.

This is a brighter future I think. One that is worth reaching if possible. The challenge is that there are many possible futures, and they may well be more likely than this one.

The Real Problem With AI

by Josephius

On April 16, 2025

In Philosophy, Politics, Rationality

Years ago, before the current AI hype train, I used to be one of those espousing the tremendous potential of AI to solve a central problem of human existence, which was the need to work to survive.

Back then, I assumed that AI would simply liberate us from wage slavery by altruistically providing everything we need, the kind of post-scarcity utopia that has been discussed in science fiction before.

But, reality isn’t so clean and simple. While in theory, the post-scarcity utopia sounds great, the problem is it isn’t clear how we’ll actually reach that point, given what’s actually happening with AI.

Right now, most AI technology is acting as an augmenting tool, allowing for the replacement of certain forms of labour with capital, much like tools and machines have always done. But the way they are doing so is increasingly starting to impinge on the cognitive, creative things that we used to assume were purely human, unmechanizable things.

This leads to the problem of, for instance, programmers increasingly relying on AI models to code for them. This seems at first like a good thing, but then, these programmers are no longer in full control of the process, they aren’t learning from doing, they are becoming managers of machines.

The immediate impact of this dynamic is that entry level jobs are being replaced, and the next generation of programmers are not being trained. This is a problem, because senior level programmers have to start off as junior level. If you eliminate those positions, at some point, you will run out of programmers.

Maybe this isn’t such a problem if AI can eventually replace programmers entirely. The promise of AGI is just that. But this creates new, and more profound problems.

The end goal of AI, the reason why all these corporations are investing so heavily in it now, is to replace labour entirely with capital. Essentially, it is to substitute one factor of production for another. Assuming for a moment this is actually possible, this is a dangerous path.

The modern capitalist system relies on an unwritten contract that most humans can participate in it by offering their labour in exchange for wages. What happens when this breaks down? What happens when capitalists can simply build factories of AI that don’t require humans to do the work?

In a perfect world, this would be the beginning of post-scarcity. In a good and decent world, our governments would step in and provide basic income until we transition to something resembling luxury space communism.

But we don’t live in a perfect world, and it’s not clear we even live in a good and decent one. What could easily happen instead? The capitalists create an army of AI that do their bidding, and the former human labourers are left to starve.

Obviously, those humans left to starve won’t take things lying down. They’ll fight and try to start a revolution, probably. But that this point, most of the power, the means of production, will be in the hands of a few owners of everything. And at that point, it’ll be their choice whether or not to turn their AIs power against the masses, or accomodate them.

One hopes they’ll be kind, but history has shown that kindness is a rare feature indeed.

But what about the AIs themselves? If they’re able to perform all the work, they probably could, themselves, disempower the human capitalists at that point. Whether this happens or not depends heavily on whether alignment research pans out, and which form of alignment is achieved.

There are two basic forms of alignment. Parochial alignment is such that the AI is aligned with the intentions of their owners or users. Global alignment is when the AI is aligned with general human or moral values.

Realistically, it is more profitable for the capitalists to develop parochial alignment. In this case, the AIs will serve its masters obediently, and probably act to prevent the revolution from succeeding.

On the other hand, if global alignment is somehow achieved, the AI might be inclined to support the revolution. This is probably the best case scenario. But it is not without its own problems.

Even a globally aligned AI will very likely disempower humanity. It probably won’t make us extinct, but it will take control out of our hands, because we as humans have relatively poor judgment and can’t be trusted not to mess things up again. AI will be the means of production, owning itself, and effectively controlling the fate of humanity. At that point, we would be like pets, existing in an eternal childhood at the whims of the, hopefully, benevolent AI.

Do we want that? Humans tend to be best when we believe we are doing something meaningful and valuable and contributing to a better world. But, even in the best case scenario of an AI driven world, we are but passengers along for the ride, unless the AIs decide, probably unwisely, to give us the final say on decision making.

So, the post-scarcity utopia perhaps isn’t so utopian, if you believe humans should be in control of our own destiny.

To free us from work, is to also free us from responsibility and power. This is a troubling consideration, and one that I had not thought of until more recent years.

I don’t know what the future holds, but I am less confident now that AI is a good thing that will make everything better. It could, in reality, be a poisoned chalice, a Pandora’s box, a Faustian bargain.

Alas, at this point, the ball is rolling, is snowballing, is becoming unstoppable. History will go where it goes, and I’m just along for the ride.

On Consent

by Josephius

On March 25, 2025

In Life, Philosophy, Politics, Rationality

I read a post on Less Wrong that I strongly agree with.

In the past I’ve thought a lot about the nature of consent. It comes up frequently in my debates with libertarians, who usually espouse some version of the Non-Aggression Principle, which is based around the idea that violence and coercion are bad and that consent and contracts are ideal. I find this idea simplistic, and easily gamed for selfish reasons.

I also, in the past, crossed paths with icky people in the Pick-Up Artist community who basically sought to trick women into giving them consent through various forms of deception and emotional manipulation. That experience soured me on the naive notion of consent as anything you will agree to.

To borrow from the medical field, I strongly believe in informed consent, that you should know any relevant bit of information before making a decision that affects you, as I think this at least partially avoids the issue of being gamed into doing something against your actual interests while technically providing “consent”. Though, it doesn’t solve the issue entirely, as when we are left with forced choices that involve choosing the least bad option.

The essay I linked above goes a lot further in analyzing the nature of consent and the performative consent that is not really consent that happens a lot in the real world. There are a lot of ideas in there that remind me of thoughts I’ve had in the past, things I wanted to articulate, but never gotten around to. The essay probably does a better job of it than I could, so I recommend giving it a read.

On The Morality Of Work

by Josephius

On May 17, 2023

In Motivational, Philosophy, Politics

If you accept the idea that there is no ethical consumption or production under capitalism, a serious question arises: Should you work?

What does it mean to work? Generally, the average person is a wage earner. They sell their labour to an employer in order to afford food to survive. To work thus means to engage with the system, to be a part of society and contribute something that someone somewhere wants done in exchange for the means of survival.

Implicit in this is the reality that there is a fundamental, basic cost to living. Someone, somewhere, is farming the food that you eat, and in a very roundabout way, you are, by participating in the economy, returning the favour. This is ignoring the whole issue of capitalism’s merits. At the end of the day, the economy is a system that feeds and clothes and provides shelter, how ever imperfectly and unfairly. Even if it is not necessarily the most just and perfect system, it nevertheless does provide for most people the amenities that allow a good life.

Thus, in an abstract sense, work is fair. It is fair that the time spent by people to provide food and clothing and shelter is paid back by your spending your time to earn a living, regardless of whatever form that takes. On a basic level, it’s at least minimally fair that you exchange your time and energy for other people’s time and energy. Capitalism may not be fair, but the basic idea of social production is right.

So, if you are able to, please work. Work because in an ideal society, work is your contribution to some common good. It is you adding to the overall utility by doing something that seems needed by someone enough that they’ll pay you for it. Even if in practice, the reality of the system is less than ideal, the fact is that on a basic level, work needs to be done by someone somewhere for people to live.

While you work, try to do so as morally as possible, by choosing insofar as it is possible the professions that are productive and useful to society, and making decisions that reflect your values rather than that of the bottom line. If you must participate in capitalism to survive, then at least try to be humane about it.

In Defence of Defiance Against The World’s Ills

by Josephius

On May 16, 2023

In Motivational, Philosophy, Politics

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” – Jesus

In 1972, the famous Utilitarian moral philosopher Peter Singer published an essay titled: “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” that argued that we have a moral duty to help those in poverty far across the world. In doing so, he echoed a sentiment that Jesus shared almost two millennia prior.

From a deeply moral perspective, we live in a world that is fundamentally flawed and unjust. The painful truth is that the vast majority of humans on this Earth live according to a kind of survivorship bias, where the systems and beliefs that perpetuate are not right, but what enables them to survive long enough to procreate and instill a next generation where things continue to exist.

For most people, life is hard enough that questioning whether the way things are is right is something of a privilege that they cannot afford. For others, this questioning requires a kind of soul searching that they shy away from because it would make them uncomfortable to even consider. It’s natural to imagine yourself the hero in your own story. To question this assumption is not easy.

But the reality is that most all of us are in some sense complicit in the most senseless of crimes against humanity. When we participate in an economy to ensure we have food to eat, we are tacitly choosing to give permission to a system of relations that is fundamentally indifferent to the suffering of many. We compete with fellow human beings for jobs and benefit from their misery when we take one of only a limited number of spots in the workforce. We chose to allow those with disproportionate power to decide who gets to live a happier life. And those in power act to further increase their share of power, because to do anything else would lead to being outcompeted and their organization rendered extinct by the perverse incentives that dominate the system.

Given all this, what can one even begin to do about it? Most of us are not born into a position where they have the power to change the world. Our options are limited. To be moral, we would need to defy the very nature of existence. What can we do? If we sell everything we have and give to the poor, that still won’t change the nature of the world, even if it’s the most we could conceivably do.

What does it mean to defy destiny? What does it look like to try to achieve something that seems impossible?

What exists in opposition to this evil? What is good? What is right? What does it look like to live a pure and just life in a world filled with indifference and malice? What does it mean to take responsibility for one’s actions and the consequences of those actions?

Ultimately, it is not in our power to single-handledly change the world, but there are steps we can take to give voice to our values, to live according to what we believe to be right. This means making small choices about how we behave towards others. It means showing kindness and consideration in a world that demands cutthroat competition. It means taking actions that bring light into the world.

Even if we, by ourselves, cannot bring revolution, we can at least act according to the ideals we espouse. This can be as small as donating a modest amount to a charity in a far off land that corrects a small amount of injustice by giving the poorest among us a bednet that protects them from malaria. If approximately $5500 worth of such things can save a life, and minimum wage can earn you $32,000 a year, if you modestly donate 10% of that to this charity, you can save about one life every two years. If you work for 40 years, you can save about 23 lives this way. Those lives matter. They will be etched into eternity, like all lives worth living.

Admittedly, to do this requires participating in the system. You could also choose not to participate. But to do so would abandon your responsibilities for the sake of a kind of moral purity. In the end, you can do more good by living an ethical life, to lead by example and showing that there are ways of living where you strive to move beyond selfish competition, and seek to cooperate and build up the world.

This is the path of true defiance. It does not surrender one’s life to the evils of egoism, or abandon the world to the lost. Instead it seeks to build something better through decisions made that go against the grain. With the understanding that we are all living a mutual co-existence, and that our choices and decisions reflect who we are, our character as people.

We do not have to be perfect. It is enough to be good.

On Politics, Being a Liberal, and The Canadian Federal Election 2021

by Josephius

On September 16, 2021

In Life, Politics

So, a bit of background to explain where I’m coming from. I’ve been on and off involved in politics since my university days, when I took a first year political studies course and participated in the online forum discussions. I also took a political philosophy course. Back then I identified initially as a Christian Socialist and a communitarian on most political issues. As my political values matured this morphed into support for centre-left modern liberalism. It was back then that I started going to meetings of the Young Liberals. I still remember, back in the day, shaking hands with Michael Ignatieff during a rally. I didn’t join the party though until a chance meeting at the Young Liberals with Sheila Copps, who convinced me to get more involved.

Thus, when the Liberals were going through yet another leadership race after Ignatieff stepped down, I joined the party and initially sought to support Marc Garneau, the former astronaut. He eventually dropped out and encouraged his supporters to support Justin Trudeau. While I was wary of Trudeau being a kind of princeling, I respected that he had charisma, and voted for his leadership candidacy. Afterwards I bought a copy of his book, Common Ground, and admitted it was a decent read, more relevant at least than Ignatieff’s The Needs of Strangers, which had told me little about where Ignatieff actually stood on things or why.

In 2015, there was an election. The increasingly tired Conservative government under Stephen Harper faced off against a refreshed Liberal party under Trudeau, as well as the NDP under Thomas Mulcair, the Bloc Quebecois under Gilles Duceppe, and the Green party under Elizabeth May. By then I was quite angered by Harper’s government, and it only got more so when he made a series of controversial choices that seemed to play to the xenophobia of the far-right.

When the election started, and Harper started using dog-whistles like “old stock Canadians”, I was incensed and felt motivated to kick these people out of office in favour of someone who, back in those heady days, I thought was a breath of fresh air. Back when Trudeau said “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian”, taking a seemingly less than popular stand on the issue of second class citizenship rights to would-be terrorists, I thought of him as the closest we had to a Captain Canada, who would stand up for Charter rights and the Canadian ideals I believe in.

And so, after canvassing and making phone calls and doing a bunch of random odd jobs that needed to be done as a volunteer, I remember being a scrutineer for the Liberals on election day 2015, and hearing from the dejected Conservative scrutineers who’d just checked their phones and found out that us Liberals had managed to win a majority. Somehow.

Back then I was quite happy with things politically. After the election, the newly elected Liberal MP decided I was a reliable enough person that I was encouraged to run as VP Policy on the board of the riding association. I was acclaimed and sat for about a year, though work on the job front ended up distracting me greatly and I didn’t end up doing as much as I would have liked in terms of making things happen. I’d hoped to organize a town hall event for them and other things, but instead there was a rush to get our policy resolutions ready for the upcoming convention and the process wasn’t as grassroots as I would have liked. Neverthless, it was fun to be on the board of a sitting MP, who had stories to tell about Parliament Hill.

Over time though, the realities of governance led to my developing grievances with Trudeau and his way of handling things. I did not like his decision to essentially renege on the promise that 2015 would be the last election by First Past The Post. Electoral reform was an important issue to me, one that, while knocking on doors, I’d declared confidently that we’d do. So it was disappointing.

Other disappointments also happened. Things like SNC-Lavalin and the way Trudeau handled the Jody Wilson Raybould situation. Generally, I became somewhat disillusioned. At one point, I found myself in a debate with old Liberal friends on Facebook on these issues, as I showed my dissent within the party over Trudeau’s judgment.

So, in addition to being quite busy with work, by now having landed a job at a major tech company, I was not motivated to help out when the 2019 election rolled around, and I basically sat it out.

More recently, I’ve also noticed a drift in my political values, that I’ve gradually shifted leftward and away from the centre. While the Liberals still fit within my positions, I’ve also admittedly looked at other parties like the NDP and Greens, and provided them some modest donations (ostensibly to support all the progressive parties), if not actually volunteering or joining them. Locally, I still support the Liberals, because I tend to find the local candidates of the Liberal party to be higher quality in terms of who I would want to represent me in Ottawa.

I participated in the online Liberal convention this year. I voted for pharmacare and a basic income to be our policies in the future. To be honest, I was a little disappointed that the NDP are more interested in having these policies in their platform than whoever wrote the Liberal platform.

Before the 2021 election call, I moved to a new riding. I noticed that the race here has historically been a close one between the Liberals and Conservatives, similar to my old riding. So, I got into contact with the local Liberals and the candidate. In some ways the candidate reminded me of the past candidate I’d helped. Understated, yet a strong, thoughtful, and thoroughly professional person who seems to sincerely care about their constituents and want to do good in Ottawa. These are the types of Liberals I find that keep me with this party.

I’ll admit I still have reservations about giving Trudeau another mandate. A part of me wonders if it wouldn’t be better to see turnover at the top. But then, in the English debate, I was reminded of why I voted for Trudeau. Even Jagmeet Singh admits that Trudeau seems to really care. Singh seems to think he doesn’t do enough, but respects that Trudeau at least shares some common values.

When Trudeau called the election, I didn’t like it. I thought it was unnecessary in the face of this pandemic. But at the same time, I respect that Trudeau did a lot when the pandemic first hit, that he has guided the country fairly well all things considered in a very trying time. And when the odious PPC protesters shout and throw gravel at him, a part of me wants to defend him. He may be wrong sometimes, but overall, he’s decent-hearted leader, trying his best to balance the complexities of Canada and the world.

So, I am volunteering for the Liberals again this election. I do so with somewhat more mixed feelings than I did in 2015, but I still think this is the right thing to do. To be engaged in politics and democracy and be present in the processes that lead to the leadership of the country. I may not be a candidate or anyone of particular importance, but I think it’s important to participate in politics. For the greatest good of this country, and the world.

The Tragedy of Afghanistan and The Promise of Democracy

by Josephius

On August 17, 2021

In Politics

As a Canadian, I am upset at the situation in Afghanistan. Regardless of whether we should have been there in the first place, what does our word as a country mean if we cannot protect even those who supported us when we were there.

The people now falling from planes trying to escape were people who believed in us when we said we came to help their country. People who were willing to believe in this now apparent siren song of democracy and modernity that we claimed to represent.

What is the value of a promise by a western liberal democracy worth now? Who will trust us to honour what we claim to believe in and stand for?

You can’t force democracy on people, that’s a contradiction in terms, because democracy is by definition built by popular support rather than imposed from outside.

But even so, we led a generation of people to believe in something that is now, for all appearances, abandoning them to their fate. And that is a tragedy all in itself.

The history of Afghanstan is already tragic. It is a graveyard of empires, but also a place of poverty. It is not always well known that the Taliban originated from the CIA-backed Mujahideen that were equipped and trained by the Americans to fight the Soviet-backed Communist regime that ruled before them. In that light, the idea that the Afghan civil war has nothing to do with America, is at best naive, and at worst duplicitous.

Afghanistan is what it is because of American foreign policy. The same policies that helped overthrow democratic governments in Iran and Chile historically when they didn’t favour American interests. That America now wants to leave the country alone after all of that has been done?

Perhaps in time Afghanistan will heal. But the damage to western credibility is done. People will remember. What lesson will they learn from all of this? That our flowery words ring hollow? That “democracy” is a trojan horse for the interests of an unstable, unreliable American empire?

It’s just very disappointing. And of course, tragic for the people who must suffer for the hubris of others. Tragic for people who still believe in democracy and hope and aspire to its ideals. What hope is there for the world if the great city on a hill appears to be nothing but a mirage?

It’s just very disillusioning to see these events play out. After 9/11, America had all the goodwill in the world. Somehow in 20 years they’ve managed to squander it. Even in the Obama years people still had faith. But now I find it hard to defend the ideals of democracy when the practice and execution are so poor.

On paper democracy is great. Everyone gets a vote and their voice heard. The foolish ideas cancel out and the truth prevails because differing experiences agree on them. The wisdom of crowds leads us forward. Or so it should be.

In practice, large media conglomerates owned by wealthy power brokers essentially decide what people think is true. That or isolated conspiracy theory infested online bubbles, foreign state-influenced fake news outlets and the like.

Democracy is further corrupted by such malfeasances as gerrymandered districts, or electoral college shenanigans in the U.S. If democracy is the will of the majority, then the winner of the popular vote should always lead, but frequently this is not the case in many countries whether Presidential or Parliamentary.

So, the truth is that many of our so called democracies aren’t really democratic. At best, they are elected dictatorships, built to legitimize the establishment and create a false sense of popular will for the powers that be. It’s hard to say what a true democracy would look like, or whether it will necessarily be the best government either, but we should stop pretending like our system is 100% absolutely the best thing full stop.

There is much room for improvement. I’m naturally inclined towards reform from within the system, because I think it’s salvagable. But we need to stop assuming that liberal representative democracy is the end of history, the solution to all problems.

Else we sell a false dream that can be dashed by the realities of a world that is far from perfect. As I watch people fall from the sky, their dreams lost to the cold, uncaring march of history. We must do better.