"For Entertainment Purposes Only" But Everyone Must Adopt It for Work and Governance, Say Anti-Scientific Technocrats
The Cyber Show has this series about coding, inspired by the Vatican's take on slop. In part four it speaks of the impact of code beyond the narrow remits of computing:
Perhaps we can say that even if we didn't have electronic computers requiring application programs "computer science" - for want of a better term - would still exist. We'd still have mathematical and logical ways of modelling the world, and people who studied those arts would have a greater imaginative and cognitive range. Before computers we gave names to these specialists, analysts, strategists, designers and creators. We even called the most mundane and mechanical of them computers.
People criticise technocrats. The absurdity of modern, procedural life is dissected by sociologists like Max Weber and mocked by so many writers from Franz Kafka to Terry Pratchett. But the government grey-man, for all his (or her) failings is not a bad person. Some people thrive on a sense of quiet order. They find comfort in being a cog. Even if the machine is monstrous, individuals can and do make a difference. This is possible because human organisations are built from people. The communication is interpersonal and even though it is "inefficient" it is checked by reality confrontation of other people.
In small doses, computing and communication systems improve things. Past a fairly low threshold though, they make everything much worse. Many of the reasons are brought to life in an amusing way in the pages of Gall's "Systemantics", the comic strips of Adams' "Dilbert" and on-screen in Jay and Lynn's "Yes Minister".
[...]
Since then we have descended into what I and others call Technofascism, which is Postman's technopoly with the gloves off… on bad drugs. It is a confluence of government, a small cadre of industrial billionaires and thuggish populists who push regressive technologies as an official religion then try to restructure society into a theocratic order of the kind Christopher Hitchens abhorred.
Note "regressive" because the technofascist no longer claims "progress" as a his central consecrated good. Mere growth and efficiency suffice. Techofascism is technopoly minus progress.
As the current situation with "AI", present state of cybersecurity and exploding rocket-ships demonstrate, the technnofascist is unconcerned with ideas like correctness, resilience, effectiveness, safety, or security. Well, he may huff and puff a lot about "security" but it is his security, not yours. Indeed it is security from you and other peons.
Chaos, destruction and misery are a sign the "medicine is working". Indeed they are the point. The technofascist relishes cruelty, exclusion, and waste while despising hope, faith, care, creativity, women, family and human connection.
[...]
The present mentality around "AI" is like driving to the gym to use a treadmill - it's walking for people who hate fresh air and beautiful changing scenery.
[...]
"AI" is trained on stolen data, so it's kept secret out of shame or more likely fear of legal consequences. "AI" spouts dangerous crap unless it is secured with "guardrails" - a secret list of things it's not supposed to talk about. Unless these are secret they're trivially bypassed. "AI" never gives the same answer twice, because it's seeded by a random process. That means it's not reproducible or consistent. It basically violates every principle of scientific method. "AI" could hardly be further from "science".
Having seduced entire nations into insane projects to "embrace an AI economy", Big Tech companies are now adding disclaimers that their "AI" is "for entertainment purposes only". Basically their lawyers are pooing in their pants, realising that selling "AI" as if fit to do anything serious is dangerous false advertising and using it thus is criminal negligence.
This series is a lot easier to follow and better than some religious screeds. █