Why we want AI to be Communist

A Look at the Future of Governance in an increasing connected world

Communism — a dirty word in most developed “democratic” nations, but with increased investment in AI and the progress that’s happening in the field, we should all hope for a communist AI system.

Personally, I think it’s kinda pathetic that humanity will have to create intelligence to tell us that we are all equal, that the ways that we live is illogical, antiquated and counter intuitive to our longevity, but it looks like it’s going to happen — so let’s make sure we get it right.

I’m not going to even delve into the paradoxical irony of those in the AI field. They rave about how we have to teach AI ethics, so that it doesn’t manipulate or violate humanity’s freedom. Yet in reality, that’s what humans do to humans, all the time. We do it so much so that it’s a thing that we are aware of and proactively have to try and avoid in AI development, which would be smart than us….

Let’s look that the root of communism, it is from the Latin “communis”, meaning common or universal, which is also the root of the word community. We want AI to see us as a community of equals, because even though we as a society don’t. This is inherently demonstrated through our interactions with each other. An AI’s reach would be far wider than ours and an imbalanced perception of human life, could be potentially detrimental to human rights.

When we look at AI, we have to come to the understanding that it will slowly start creeping into every aspect of our lives and improving the efficiency of our operations along the way. Eventually, we will have AI governing us instead of proportional population representation systems — government. If we do not instill the understanding that no human is entitled to more than another, we could potentially be teaching it (AI) that some lives in the population are worth more than others, that’s why they are allocated more resources. Are we going to teach AI that it’s okay because they earned it and someone else didn’t? that human life isn’t equal because where people were born or the circumstances of their social identity? No that would be preposterous, so why do we need AI to teach us this? And do we really need AI to solve this social stratification for us?

These prospects are telling, they reveal the state of humanity and our ability to see what’s at stake in our future. Are we going to need a machine to tell us that the way we live is illogical and wrong, are we going to manipulate it so that it understands this illogical behavior is normal? Short answer is not that we should, its that we cannot. We cannot allow AI to have a differential perspective to the value of human life. It would be the seeds of our destruction and eradication by AI. It may seem silly to believe that AI would become some kind of “Skynet –destroy all humans type of thing”, but if we allow it to see people differently, it would eventually create a standard of human that is impossible to be. It would class society for us and that would be the real death to humanity. We could not argue with it or elevate our social standing, if it continually perpetuates social stratification and resource hoarding to individual social actors or designated communities.

So this begs some further questions:

So should we wait for AI to change our social set-up?

What will AI think of us because we haven’t understood and embraced the practical applications of this ideal equity and human life value in our current society?

By maintaining our current social hierarchies, are we inherently creating a new machine(like) overlord that limits our individual capabilities?

And one last fun question, is this not a foreshadow but a stark commentary of our current life? Is the greed of corporations akin to the machine that could destroy life as we know it already in action?

In order to properly combat this looming threat, it’s not enough to think about how the programming is framed. It’s important to frame society in a perspective where the hand off to AI is more seamless than drastic. We have to aspire to be at a point in our society that AI only offers computing efficiency, not radical change to the composition of society. Only then can we be assured that it is not tampered with by those with disproportional power and that it has a clear understanding that human life is valuable regardless of superficial and ideological conceptions we as a society have created. The idea that no one is worth more, entitled to more or should have more than they need is something that we have to engrave in as a prime directive.

This kinda sounds like a real application of communism to me, and that’s what AI should be, if we want to be free individuals going forward.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.