Humanity and Artificial Intelligence: Building The Perfect Beast?

I often wonder about our future. In fact, I would dare say that it is almost an obsession of mine. I want to know where we as Americans are headed along with the rest of the world. Certainly, if you step back and examine what's going on around us, it can't give you a "warm and fuzzy feeling" can it? It seems that the world limps from one crisis to another, be the rise the militant Islam and the migrant invasion of Europe, to our own invasion of economic migrants coming from South and Central America. We face problems like changes in the climate, whether it be man-made climate changes or simply the result of Mother Nature.

Despite being in the first half of the 21st Century, we still struggle with global famine and poverty, a lack of and access to fresh water, decent minimum healthcare for everyone, as well as the availability of a basic education for those who want it (along with facing off with those who believe that education should be available to just one gender, or race, or class). People still live in cardboard boxes on the streets and scrounge around garbage dumps for their next meal. It seems like some of those old apocalyptic movies like Metropolis, Blade Runner, Logan's Run, and of course, 1984 are more documentary than entertainment.


Certainly we have the technology to take us to the next level in our evolution. We can do things in terms of medicine which were only dreamed of a few years, from molecular research to manipulating genes, creating new organs to facial recognition and security cameras on every corner. Everyone one of us has the sum total of Man's knowledge at their fingertips via the internet. Partially everything that is known is available to us in a instance, and that information grows not just daily or even hourly, but in terms of nanoseconds. We have the ability to shape our future in ways that would have been impossible a few decades ago. But, are we ready for that?

Let's take politics. What if we downloaded everything we know about politics into a supercomputer, including civil and religious laws, history, philosophy, economics, sociology, taxation, and even tradition and values, then ask the "all knowing" super computer to create the perfect political (and by extension, economic and social) system for us to live by? After all, we've downloaded pretty much the sum total of Mankind's knowledge into this computer which is capable of making 200 quadrillion calculation per second, so how hard could it be?

Is it possible that this piece of super advanced technology could figure out for us the best form of government for not just Americans or Russians, or anyone else to live under, but the best government for all of Humanity to live under? Could it do what eons of philosophers, economists, kings, revolutionaries, and statesmen has failed to do? Perhaps this super computer could even work out a system whereby our societies could evolve at a certain pace while at the same time operating in unison.

What sort of political, economic and social system would it come up with I wonder? Although I can hardly imagine it would, but what if it recommended a modern feudalistic form of government much like our current Oligarchy whereby ordinary people are beholden to a few elites? On the other hand, it could come back with something similar to a democratic socialist system by which everyone is required to contribute in order to eat, be provided with housing or even medical care. It could also recommend anarchy as the best form of government, whereby people either cooperate voluntarily in ad hoc groups or simply function on their own and making the best of whatever opportunity presents itself.

I wonder if we, as either a nation or as species would pay any attention to its recommendation. If it came up with something we already had some preconceived bias against, would we reject it out of hand or would be willing to give it go? My guess is that, knowing Man's historical arrogance and failure to learn from past mistakes, we would walk away from it. If it wasn't what we thought it should be, we'd risk going the other way. Besides, no doubt our "cyber-savior" would recommend that we relinquish complete control over all weapons and tools for war, both offensive and defensive. I can't see the arms merchants of the world going along with that just as I can't see the financial power-brokers giving up their control over the world's economies.

As an aside, I wonder how ordinary people would feel about being required to surrender all their weapons? There's no way our benefactor is going to allow us to keep our guns, especially if it takes control of the world's weapon systems. Of course, it could simply stop manufacturing spare parts and ammo knowing that we'll eventually run out and our guns will become useless. Besides, Mankind has been making and using weapons of all sorts since we fell out of the trees on the savannas all those millennia ago and we're pretty good at it!

What do you think this supercomputer, full of everything we have about religion, from ancient Sumer to today; every sect, every law or commandment, as well as every philosophy? I wonder if it would select one faith or another, or whether it would create some sort of composite religion and/or philosophy. Perhaps it would, when comparing what it knows about science (which obviously must be included in its calculations), come up with something we've never thought of. I just might tell us that religion has no place in the world of science and technology, however, I somehow doubt that. Why?

Mankind, as long as we've existed as a self-aware species, has always require some sort of moral guide. Although common sense should tell us (and perhaps it does) that doing certain stuff if just not very good for us, we've always required a set of moral guidelines. Usually these are put forth by a king, however, they seem to lack longevity. As soon as one king dies, another set of moral guidelines can be imposed. However, if the guidelines are said to come from some divine entity and if we fail to obey them we can face some dire heavenly retribution, we tend to take them a little more seriously (of course, these laws usually came with the some proviso like the king or priest are the sole arbiter of these divine laws, meaning you have to obey the king and/or priest to stay on the god's good side).

Therefore, would our super computer make the pronouncement "Here are the rules by which you'll live and if you don't, I'll suspend or delete your bank account, health benefit or food card"? Certainly, any system it would create or recommend would have to have a penalty clause in it otherwise what use is it? Perhaps too, it would include some form of reward system too. For instance, if you go six months without a demerit of some sort, you get extra health benefits or bonus points for your food card.

That's something else about us humans. We work best when there are rewards and punishments involved. Again, you would think it was common sense for us to act in our own best interest, either as an individual or as a society, but we just haven't managed to get that down yet. That's why we just don't have religious pronouncements, but civil ones too which include fines and imprisonment (or even the possibility of death). Naturally, this would bring up a whole other issue, could our "HAL" (to borrow from the movie, 2001: A Space Odyssey), also redesign our justice system?

If our supercomputer is to create a new political/social/economic system, then it logically follows that a judicial system would have to be included. What would it look like? Would it be incentive based like it is now or would it be more proactive and attempt to deter criminal behavior starting at or near infancy? Perhaps we would be monitored in such a way as it would insure that certain "markers" are deleted from our DNA or from a environment. I wonder if it would impose any type of physical punishment; maybe something like jail time or even the death penalty (after all, it would have to know about both the history of civil as well as religious forms of punishment since both have been incorporated into our modern judicial system, and some countries still follow religious guidelines as their civil punishment).

Another possible plus would be that this system would cut down on long trial delays, prolonged appeals, and perhaps even improper sentencing. The statistical facts of the accused could be entered such as age, education, race, gender, religion, orientation, as well as profession and/or social class. Both sides could still plead their case. Since every form of the legal system---secular and religious---from around the world and down through history would have been inputted, the AI would be able to quickly hear proceeding, automatically delete any evidence not applicable, and render a impartial verdict which would equivalent to the defendant's peers in a way which isn't possible today.

Thus, we shouldn't be too surprised if we find that chopping off fingers or hands are back on the table (so to speak) or we're back to the rack and public hangings. Once more, Man has been a slow learner and nothing gets out attention like an example. Besides, these forms of punishments have been use by nearly every society throughout history and so there's commonality to them which could easily be applied. However, it has the added benefit of providing an incentive to follow the law.

So, what would you think of a future whereby we rely on artificial intelligence to set our political, economic, social, judicial, and perhaps even religious/philosophical boundaries? Do you think we, as human beings, would be capable of following the recommendations handed down by a "gurgling and beeping" machine? After all, it's only processing our information, both historical and individual. It's not making up its own facts. It's using the information that we've created as a society. Are we capable of following its guidelines? I can honestly say that I don't know, but my gut tells me no, we can't...or won't.

As a society, we've struggled to follow "laws" supposedly handed down to us by some omnipotent entity responsible for the creation of the cosmos, what makes us think we'll follow the pronouncements of some machine made by IBM or Apple? We've defied kings and queens who've claimed divine providence just as we've defied populists presidents and strong arm dictators. Surely they represent the level of authority worthy of obeying; at least for the majority of us. So, what would be different about an overgrown calculating machine?

Well, I imagine that any system created by this AI, in whatever form it takes, would dictate that everything be electronic. It's simple, fast, efficient, and easy to monitor. What's not to like? However, it also means that everyone one of us would be bound by our own personal zeros and ones. Failure to comply could result in be denied almost anything---or, alternately, everything. There would be no one to appeal to; no one to take pity on us. Computers aren't capable of that. They just "follow orders" so to speak.

Same goes when discussing religion or the judicial system. It will show absolutely no compassion. It knows only black or white: positive or negative. Zeros or ones. Those will be the chains which bind us. Our ability to shown understanding and compassion is what sets us aside as a species; that and our imagination. The only way a system like the one described above would have to have built in an fail safe which involves human beings who are capable of showing pity or making exceptions, however, those may be exactly the very things which would make any system designed by a computer fail just as they have helped us survive all these millennia.

Artificial intelligence makes for a good servant, but it must never be allowed to become our master. However, as we become increasingly depended on it to organize and run our lives, it will increasingly come to be our masters. No doubt too that we start integrating with our technology. In many ways we already have; LASIK, artificial joints, organs, tissue, hearing aids, bio-metrics, etc. That's simply the nature of the relationship and it will continue to grow. Perhaps, in time, we will become Borg. Resistance may be less futile and more irresistible.

Meanwhile, artificial intelligence can and should advise us. They can make excellent unbiased recommendations, free from personal biases or emotions, but they should never make unchecked decisions for us. They are no substitute for what we, as human beings, bring to the conversation. However, as society and our problems become increasingly complex and grows exponentially, we will find ourselves relying on the beast we've created in our image. But it must never be allowed to be the final arbiter of Humanity.

Three Easy Steps to Ending Illegal Immigration

As readers of Another Opinion are well aware, I write often about the issue of illegal immigration, of which there are approximately some 11 million currently in this country. Also, as readers of Another Opinion know, I have no issues with origin, ethnic groups, gender, race or even the religion (or lack thereof) of anyone, let alone immigrants. Frankly, I don't care. America is a nation of immigrants. Immigrants are what built this nation; however, we are also a nation based on laws. Like the majority of Americans, I have an issue with those whose first act in coming to America is to break the law. I have to wonder what kind of person is this---someone who wants to come to America for whatever reason, but does not want to take the time or even interest in applying for the right to do so? So, I've come up with three easy steps to help eliminate our current problems with illegal immigration. Of course, more can and should be done, but these are a good start.

Illegal immigrants literally sneak in our country like the proverbial "thief in the night". Then, they prey on the sympathy (or gullibility) of others to provide shelter for them, and of course the eventual job--often in some low paying occupation without benefits or recourse in the event of poor working conditions or abuse (exactly as their employer intends). Many hide behind the shield of some church or religious institution, thinking that no Mayor, Chief of Police, or federal agency would dare come into and arrest them. After all, they are under the "protection of God" or are on "holy ground", and so forth. For the most part, they're right. If they can be smuggled into one of these religious shelters, they are for the most part "safe". Of course, going out or leaving is dangerous. Once they step foot outside (and especially off the property), they're fair game.

Many, if not the majority of these institutions, aid these individuals in finding ways around our various laws, be it how to get healthcare without paying for it, finding work, or getting the children registered and enrolled in school on the taxpayer's dollar. These individuals see no harm in what they're doing. They justify it by claiming that they are acting "humanly" or doing this "for God" or "for Jesus" or some imagined highly moralistic goal decided on behalf of everyone by a few...or the one.

As religious institutions, churches and so forth are tax exempt. They are exempt for no particular legalistic or professional reason. They are exempt because our society has a certain level of respect for religion and accords these institutions the privilege---not the right---to be exempt from paying taxes. At the same time, these religious organizations demand that government stay out of their business, which is fair enough. The government shouldn't be involved in religious issues.

However, how should government respond when a church or tax exempt religious organization involves itself in politics? What should it's response be? What should the government do when any non-exempt institution doesn't just encourages others to break the law, but actively aids in the breaking of the law, and then aids in the violation of other laws? Should the government do nothing; ignore it? That would just make the situation worse since it conveys a message that the law shouldn't be taken seriously and that there's no consequences in breaking the law by any of the parties. As a result, no action simply encourages more of the same, except in greater numbers.

Instead, perhaps it's time that the individuals behind these groups be treated as the adults they are and who should take full responsibility for their actions. Thus, any tax-exempt organization---be it a church, mosque, synagogue, or whatever should lose their tax-exempt status. Perhaps for the first offense, their tax-exempt status should be revoked for six months; 12 months for the second offense.

Finally, for the third offense, it should be permanently revoked. For any of these organizations which has a board of directors or steering committee, anyone associated with the offending organization that has had its tax-exempt status permit pulled, should be prohibited from serving on any other board of intuition with is tax-exempt for the same time frame. Yes, many of these organizations already have a tough time finding individuals (especially those with any experience) to serve on these boards, but shouldn't there also be a strong penalty imposed as well? After all, these board members likely approved the motion to engage in this illegal activity. Shouldn't they be held responsible for their actions too?

What about employers? If it wasn't for demand, there wouldn't be a ready supply. Many of these illegal immigrants find employment in low end jobs which typically don't have any benefits. Jobs for these individuals often include working on farms, racetracks (horse as well as dog), hotel/motel, laundry, sanitation, restaurants (especially ethnic), maid/cleaning services, construction labor, and landscaping. In some cases, the better jobs have unions, but in most cases they don't. A number of illegal immigrants find themselves working in sweatshops under near servitude-like conditions. The hours are long. The pay is poor, and often is piecework. Restroom breaks are strictly controlled...and limited. The work conditions are often unsanitary and unsafe, but what can they do? Report the employer to OSHEA or some other government authority? That would likely cause the employer to shut down (often to reopen somewhere else later) and the arrest of the employees, or leaving them unemployed again.

Of course, that's what the employer is counting on. The average individual is going to risk it. Besides, most of these individuals didn't bother to learn English, nor do they even a basic understanding of our laws, and even if they did, they have more to risk than the employer! It is illegal to knowingly hire an illegal immigrant, but it's often difficult to prove whether the employer knew they were doing so. Most claim that they never asked for proof of citizenship or that the nature of the job would make doing so impractical, which was usually a good argument until E-Verify was introduced several years ago. Now, it's quite easy to verify anyone's immigration status, so there's no real excuse anymore.

Secondly, if someone wants to work here, it's relatively easy to apply for and receive a temporary work permit (a "green card"). This is what most who are employed in farm do. Typically this is seasonal work to begin work (though not always), so those wanting to come to America to work apply ahead of time and simply enter the US legally to seek and obtain employment, which is as it should be. However, it's those too lazy to apply which makes it hard on those who actually do the right thing. It's also those who, after their card has expired, decide to remain in the country illegal, which, again, makes it tough on those trying to do the right thing.

So, although there's a financial fine for those businesses who hire illegal immigrants, it has little real effect. As I said earlier, often these businesses pop up somewhere else and business continues as before. The best solution would be immediately suspending their business license. As suggested previously, the first offense would be for six months. One year for the second offense, and permanent for the third offense. All those associated with the business, such as the owners and/or board members should be fined per illegal employee reported. The first offense should be $500 per individual, rising to $1000 per individual for the second occasion, and $1500 for the third offense. In addition, president or directing officer and the individual involved with hiring should face an additional year in jail with the third offense.

In addition, all officers and boards should be prohibited from serving on any other board for a period of five years and may not be employed by any company that does business with the federal or state government if that government receives any federal funds (which is pretty much all of them). The penalty is intentionally harsh. This is serious business, and not only are they breaking federal law, they are also potentially endangering the lives of their employees regardless of whether they're here illegally or not.

Now we come to perhaps the most onerous of violators in my opinion---city, county, and state governments which have declared themselves to be "sanctuaries". These taxpayer funded governments have decided that they don't approve of the existing immigrant laws, and thus can simply ignore it; effectively exempting themselves. The majority have gone further and chosen not just to ignore the law, but actively aide the illegal immigrant in evading federal authorities and refusing to cooperate with federal authorities in any way.

Typically, these governments acted on self-appointed mandates and not on popular consent of the voters. Some governments---particularly cities---pull back from declaring themselves as "sanctuaries", and instead, declare that they are "open" , and thus order their taxpayer paid employees not cooperate with federal authorities and not to ask or take any information regarding an individual's legal status for any reason. Louisville Kentucky is one of those cities where employees have been instructed not to question anyone's legal status or accept any information regarding their legal status. They are also encouraged not to cooperate with federal authorities such as ICE.

I think what I find so reprehensible about these so-called "sanctuary" governments is that, on the one hand, they brazenly flaunt their refusal to follow federal law (which, by the way, supersedes local or state laws), and yet expect no repercussions for their actions. Frankly, I thought that issue concerning what states could and couldn't do vis-à-vis the federal government was resolved back in '65...1865 to be exact! Wasn't that what the Civil War was all about---the authority local and state governments versus that of the federal government? Judging by their actions, I guess not!

So, my recommendations are really quite simply and avoid the likelihood of another Civil War (at least for the time being). If the mayors and governors sincerely believe they have the right to ignore laws they disagree with, then so be. First, all federal funding to these locations should stop immediately. If they are unwilling to even cooperate with federal authorities, then they should not receive any federal funds. Period. They can't and shouldn't have it both ways. If these governments run short (and they will), then too bad. Let these mayors and governors explain to their residents, whose approval they failed to obtain in the first place, why they chose to endanger and/or inconvenience them in exchange for what? Another term? Perhaps then the people will give them their answer at the polls in the next election.

As for those governors who've taken the extra step to refuse to cooperate in allowing "their" national guard units to be called up for border duty, they need to remember that the President of the United States can require the national guard to attend to any duty they are so ordered to. Secondly, if a governor is going to defy the President on an issue such as this, then I think they automatically should lose all federal funding immediately as well as face a suspension of government contracts issued to companies in their state. Yes, it could hurt a lot of people, but maybe even just the threat of it might just be the type of pressure that needs to be put on any such self-righteous governor.

I think there's something else we need to consider as well. With the willingness of mayors and governors to defy sitting presidents anytime something comes up that they disagree with, what does that say about the United States itself? We are being divided on all fronts---politically, racially, gender, and even along religious lines. We have in this country a media network which are owned by just six corporations and are solely dedicated to deciding what is or isn't news, and then spinning or manipulating it in order create a certain impression or conclusion.

We have a "domestic" terrorist attack or mass shooting, followed by a call for restricting or removing guns from the public ownership almost on cue. We have an increasing surveillance state with ever closer ties between the public state and the corporate state. We've long been a country with a revolving door between the corporations and the government, except that now that revolving door has been replaced by an escalator. There already exists a "us vs. them" mentality in this country; a duality between the political/corporate class and those of us in "flyover country". Congress is not just a millionaire's club, it's a multi-millionaire's club. Laws passed Congress don't apply to them, just us.

Since the passage of Citizen's United, corporations can come out in the open and buy the government they want---be it Democrat or Republican---it doesn't matter, at least not to them. We get to choose from pre-vetted candidates; those who've proved their loyalty to the corporate state; the Oligarchy. They like illegal immigration. It increases the completion for a limited number of jobs. That drives down wages and the need to provide benefits.

With less jobs available and the weakening of unions, a declining quality of life, people are willing to do more for less! As for the "surplus" population of jobseekers, there's always a war or conflict or police action going on somewhere that the US is involved; that's just how an eternal "War on Terror" goes! Besides, both are great for business, and isn't that what matters---that corporate CEO, officers, and stockholders make more money?