I think an important angle to consider specifically as Americans is that in order to for AI, and really other technology for that matter, to not be used for harm, we would need to have a clear incentive to not succumb to the pro-colonization and racist rhetoric that paints the US as inherently morally superior in design based on “democracy”, and therefore paint Trump as simply an “anomaly” to that. It would not be enough for us to simply return to the “sophisticated democracy” we had under other presidencies, that still maliciously sponsors the inhumane uses of AI and technology, just in a more “subtle” way for its selfish grab for global supremacy. For more context, I would recommend reading “Washington Bullets” by Vijay Prashad.
Every government is authoritarian in its own way; whether the government interests are executed by a single party, or is spread out through international corporations and supposedly neutral global organizations such as the UN. WHO got a lot of flack for being heavily funded by the CCP, but it was WHO that opposed the US’s decision to continue sanctions of Venezuela, because those sanctions were stopping Venezuelans (no not just their government) from accessing needed healthcare for COVID-19, killing them. The more meaningful distinction is to see whether the authority aligns with the average person in that state, not just the most wealthy-classed, white, etc. The sad insight is, the US government aligns enough with American citizen’s interests because we as a whole generally don’t give a shit enough about ourselves or others to sacrifice the comforts we have to fundamentally oppose it. It’s easier to, at least somewhat, point a finger at someone else and say “at least we’re not like that, let’s not become that” regardless of the facts of the matter beyond the narratives we’re hand fed.
In standing up against say, the way AI is being used for all of humanity, we need to contend with the fact that we may find inspiration/plans of action with countries or governments that are labeled “terrorist/authoritarian” by the US. If we refuse this allyship, our voices will be constrained within the framework of what “democracy” says is right, which is historically and continues to be riddled with western chauvinism, toxic individualism, and a lack of desire to learn more beyond that out of a pathological fear/apathy of communism and their people that have benefited from it.
The last thing I want to mention is often the most effective methods of truly making change is illegal. That is by Design.
The legal channels are often a pressure release valve to appease us with insufficient change. If not for the Black Panther Party, who’s to say we’d have free lunches in school today? Even the Black Lives Matter movement deteriorates once it was re-relegated into US nonprofits (constrained by “legalities”) and electoral politics. I deal with this reality heavily when I end up needing to speak to the MN department of corrections/human rights/health or MN representatives. By design, ends up being a wild goose chase. I say what I need to, but it falls on no ears, or I get metaphorically pat on the head. And then, it’s like they were never there, unless they want me to vote for them via a mass text message. My messages on social media with the word “Palestine” or the numbers of lawyers that could help a friend on JPay emails still get censored. It’s like I never even said anything.
Even peaceful protests have (ie. Martin Luther King) and continue to be suppressed and reframed as violent and radical in the time frame it happens, with their members imprisoned (and now recently more so deported) over “legal technicalities”
I think an important angle to consider specifically as Americans is that in order to for AI, and really other technology for that matter, to not be used for harm, we would need to have a clear incentive to not succumb to the pro-colonization and racist rhetoric that paints the US as inherently morally superior in design based on “democracy”, and therefore paint Trump as simply an “anomaly” to that. It would not be enough for us to simply return to the “sophisticated democracy” we had under other presidencies, that still maliciously sponsors the inhumane uses of AI and technology, just in a more “subtle” way for its selfish grab for global supremacy. For more context, I would recommend reading “Washington Bullets” by Vijay Prashad.
Every government is authoritarian in its own way; whether the government interests are executed by a single party, or is spread out through international corporations and supposedly neutral global organizations such as the UN. WHO got a lot of flack for being heavily funded by the CCP, but it was WHO that opposed the US’s decision to continue sanctions of Venezuela, because those sanctions were stopping Venezuelans (no not just their government) from accessing needed healthcare for COVID-19, killing them. The more meaningful distinction is to see whether the authority aligns with the average person in that state, not just the most wealthy-classed, white, etc. The sad insight is, the US government aligns enough with American citizen’s interests because we as a whole generally don’t give a shit enough about ourselves or others to sacrifice the comforts we have to fundamentally oppose it. It’s easier to, at least somewhat, point a finger at someone else and say “at least we’re not like that, let’s not become that” regardless of the facts of the matter beyond the narratives we’re hand fed.
In standing up against say, the way AI is being used for all of humanity, we need to contend with the fact that we may find inspiration/plans of action with countries or governments that are labeled “terrorist/authoritarian” by the US. If we refuse this allyship, our voices will be constrained within the framework of what “democracy” says is right, which is historically and continues to be riddled with western chauvinism, toxic individualism, and a lack of desire to learn more beyond that out of a pathological fear/apathy of communism and their people that have benefited from it.
The last thing I want to mention is often the most effective methods of truly making change is illegal. That is by Design.
The legal channels are often a pressure release valve to appease us with insufficient change. If not for the Black Panther Party, who’s to say we’d have free lunches in school today? Even the Black Lives Matter movement deteriorates once it was re-relegated into US nonprofits (constrained by “legalities”) and electoral politics. I deal with this reality heavily when I end up needing to speak to the MN department of corrections/human rights/health or MN representatives. By design, ends up being a wild goose chase. I say what I need to, but it falls on no ears, or I get metaphorically pat on the head. And then, it’s like they were never there, unless they want me to vote for them via a mass text message. My messages on social media with the word “Palestine” or the numbers of lawyers that could help a friend on JPay emails still get censored. It’s like I never even said anything.
Even peaceful protests have (ie. Martin Luther King) and continue to be suppressed and reframed as violent and radical in the time frame it happens, with their members imprisoned (and now recently more so deported) over “legal technicalities”