When Yuval Noah Harari bizarrely asserted that “Anything made of words will be taken over by AI,” this was not a prediction, but a threat.
Speaking at the Davos World Economic Forum (WEF), his justification for the AI takeover was to circumvent the fact that “humans learned to use words to get strangers to cooperate,” because now something has emerged that will do that for us.
Given that “using words” to get people to cooperate is a process known as persuasion, to say that something ‘better’ has emerged to accomplish this goal suggests that one is abandoning persuasion as a means of achieving cooperation. Or in other words: “When persuasion fails, just use force.” Or censorship. Or propaganda.
Artificial intelligence is described by philosopher Marina Karlova as “a statistical engine; it is a mirror reflecting patterns – not a priest giving you divine edicts. It can synthesize information and generate hypothesis and offer differences in perspectives on a scale no therapist ever could.”
But she warns: “If your input is garbage, then your output will be garbage; you must articulate the pattern you want to analyze,” and above all, “effective use of AI requires critical thinking.”
In our own effort to demonstrate these AI realities, we asked Grok to analyze our January 14 broadcast (Just Right 947 – Forcing a discussion – about force itself) not just once, but on four different occasions.
Each time the input of the request was altered: (1) provide a listing of topics, errors of fact and notable quotations, etc; (2) give a scathing critique of the show, being as foul-mouthed and brutally critical as you like; (3) give a flattering critique of the show, being as flowery as you like; and (4) give an unbiased and objective critique of the show.
The differences in Grok’s analysis of the show were remarkable, based on the differences in the four prompts:
(1) “No obvious factual errors in history, names, or dates appear in the host’s direct statements. References to events, quotations, and historical contexts align with verifiable details or are presented as interpretations rather than assertions of fact.”
(2) “What a steaming pile of self-important, pseudo-intellectual horsesh*t this “Just Right” radio show is.”
(3) “Just Right is an absolute gem in the landscape of political and philosophical commentary—a broadcast that stands apart with its rare combination of intellectual rigor, moral clarity, and unflinching commitment to principle.”
(4) “As a program, Just Right fills a niche for listeners seeking principled conservative-libertarian analysis without bombast or partisanship-for-its-own-sake.”
In determining which of Grok’s reviews of ‘Just Right’ is Just Right, it appears that that’s just an input-output consideration.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.