> Human rights, for example, aren’t inscribed in our DNA. Rather, they are cultural artefacts we created by telling stories and writing laws. No, they are base

> Human rights, for example, aren’t inscribed in our DNA. Rather, they are cultural artefacts we created by telling stories and writing laws. No, they are based on instinctual responses (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXyZ0kEwvqY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXyZ0kEwvqY ). Telling stories about them and writing laws, at best, codifies them (and often enough codifies exceptions to them). > What gives money value is the stories that bankers, finance ministers and cryptocurrency gurus tell us about it. Sam Bankman-Fried, Elizabeth Holmes and Bernie Madoff were not particularly good at creating real value, but they were all extremely capable storytellers. I grant him this. Yes, language is important. But it is not the foundation of human civilization. It is merely an important pillar (especially for the subset of humanity, such as the author, who are very language-use prone). > The catch is that it is utterly pointless for us to spend time trying to change the declared opinions of an AI bot, while the AI could hone its messages so precisely that it stands a good chance of influencing us. I seriously doubt the AI will influence the person it is arguing with. This happens among humans occasionally, but not frequently. Maybe the AI will get very good at reverse psychology, though. So why is it utterly pointless for us to get better at arguing a point by arguing with an AI that we will personally not convince, but the reverse is not also true for the AI? Bystanders are the audience. If a human's arguments are more convincing than the AIs, then most bystanders will be convinced by the human. It may take a bit longer for the human to reference the arguments of other humans, than the AI to cite whatever (if it can cite, as LLMs are currently not good at doing that), but an AI who argues too fast risks being seen as a bullshitter by the bystanders. > In a political battle for minds and hearts, intimacy is the most efficient weapon, and AI has just gained the ability to mass-produce intimate relationships with millions of people. Until people stop being intimate with other people, and are intimate solely with AI, there will be a countervailing force. Intimacy is also more compelling when coupled with in-person interaction. > People may come to use a single AI adviser as a one-stop, all-knowing oracle. This is a risk. In-person interaction is a countering force. Few people would trust an AI, or even an expert, over the feedback of those they know. Because the feedback of those who know us is more likely to take into account our personal experience. Maybe intimate AIs would be a problem, here. > Previous tools like the printing press and radio helped spread the cultural ideas of humans, but they never created new cultural ideas of their own. AI is fundamentally different. AI can create completely new ideas, completely new culture. They never created new cultural words of their own, but they surely created new ideas. Just as humans get new ideas from the lives and interactions of other animals and plants. Do the ideas and culture of AI matter if humans don't adapt them to our purposes? > And the first regulation I would suggest is to make it mandatory for AI to disclose that it is an AI. This is a very neat idea. Of course bad actors won't care. But in a future where AI is generating new AI maybe this is something that would be worthwhile.