-
A very thought-provoking essay from Evgeny Morozov on AI, LLMs and their embodied political viewpoint:
Sure, I can build a personalized language learning app using a mix of private services, and it might be highly effective. But is this model scalable? Is it socially desired? Is this the equivalent of me driving a car where a train might do just as well? Could we, for instance, trade a bit of efficiency and personalization to reuse some of the sentences or short stories I’ve already generated in my app, reducing the energy cost of re-running these services for each user?
This takes us to the core problem with today’s generative AI. It doesn’t just mirror the market’s operating principles; it embodies its ethos. This isn’t surprising, given that these services are dominated by tech giants that treat users as consumers above all. Why would OpenAI, or any other AI service, encourage me to send fewer queries to their servers or reuse the responses others have already received when building my app? Doing so would undermine their business model, even if it might be better from a social or political (never mind ecological) perspective. Instead, OpenAI’s API charges me— and emits a nontrivial amount of carbon emissions— even to tell me that London is the capital of the UK or that there are one thousand grams in a kilogram.
For all the ways tools like ChatGPT contribute to ecological reason, then, they also undermine it at a deeper level—primarily by framing our activities around the identity of isolated, possibly alienated, postmodern consumers. When we use these tools to solve problems, we’re not like Storm’s carefree flâneur, open to anything; we’re more like entrepreneurs seeking arbitrage opportunities within a predefined, profit-oriented grid. [….]
The Latin American examples give the lie to the “there’s no alternative” ideology of technological development in the Global North. In the early 1970s, this ideology was grounded in modernization theory; today, it’s rooted in neoliberalism. The result, however, is the same: a prohibition on imagining alternative institutional homes for these technologies. There’s immense value in demonstrating—through real-world prototypes and institutional reforms—that untethering these tools from their market-driven development model is not only possible but beneficial for democracy, humanity, and the planet.
Tags: technology ai history eolithism neoliberalism llms openai cybernetics hans-otto-storm cybersyn