Tag: philosophy of technology

The Philosophers Are Here. Which Philosophers?

Posted in philosophy, podcast, SpotifyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment
1–2 minutes

I posted this article on Substack: The Philosophers Are Here. Which Philosophers? Some companies are making a big deal about hiring philosophers and ethicists to help then with AI, especially AI companies. Isn’t that grand? My point is that companies only make decisions that they think will support rather than undermine their positions, so they are hiring philosophers sympathetic to their worldviews. They are not hiring, for example, me.

In fact, when I was a management consultant, one of my biggest challenges is that I don’t support capitalism, and I find much of business unethical. To add insult to injury, every year I had to take ethics training and take a test with an attestation that I have not witnessed any unethical behaviour. However, what they qualified as unethical behaviour was in fact illegal behaviour. They didn’t seem to understand the difference – or at least didn’t care very much.

Read the full article on Substack, or watch or listen to a summary on YouTube or Spotify.

The_Ethics_FilterDownload

Human Factors in Authorship

Posted in philosophy, podcast, SpotifyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment
1–2 minutes

I’ve shared another article on Substack about how the AI-authorship debate is bollox.

Audio: NotebookLM summary podcast of this topic.

The LLM-versus-human debate has been raging for several years now, and there seem to be two principal camps: human exceptionalists and agnostics. I suppose there may also be a small, misanthropic faction, but its members are either remarkably quiet or indistinguishable from everyone else online. If you are out there, do raise your voice.

If you want to witter on about other negative aspects of AI, have at it, but the authorship debate is weak tea.

The_Salience_StandardDownload

The Ethics of Feedback in an Algorithmic Age

Posted in fiction, language, perception, philosophyTagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

We’ve entered an era where machines tell us how we’re doing, whether it’s an AI app rating our résumé, a model reviewing our fiction, or an algorithm nudging our attention with like-shaped carrots.

Full story here, from the Ridley side: Needle’s Edge: Scene Feedback 01

Recently, I ran a brutally raw scene through a few AI platforms. The kind of scene that’s meant to unsettle, not entertain. One of them responded with effusive praise: “Devastating, but masterfully executed.”

Was it honest?

Was it useful?

Or was it merely reflecting my own aesthetic back at me, polished by a thousand reinforcement-learning smiles?

This is the ethical dilemma: If feedback is always flattering, what good is it? If criticism is only tolerated when couched in praise, how do we grow? And when machine feedback mimics the politeness of a mid-level manager with performance anxiety, we risk confusing validation with truth.

There’s a difference between signal and applause. Between understanding and affirmation.

The danger isn’t that AI flatters us. The danger is that we start to believe it and forget that art, inquiry, and ethics thrive on friction.