Irving John Good was giving talks in 1962 and 1963 on artificial intelligence, which he turned into a now famous paper called “Speculations Concerning the First Ultraintelligent Machine”. As he put it at the time:
Based on talks given in a Conference on the Conceptual Aspects of Biocommunications, Neuropsychiatric Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, October 1962; and in the Artificial Intelligence Sessions of the Winter General Meetings of the IEEE, January 1963 [1, 46]. The first draft of this monograph was completed in April 1963, and the present slightly amended version in May 1964.
I am much indebted to Mrs. Euthie Anthony of IDA for the arduous task of typing.
That last note really caught my eye. How ironic to be giving thanks to a woman for typing this paper as it was about machines that would remove the need for women to type papers (let alone give them thanks).
From there I have to highlight the opening line of Good’s paper:
The survival of man depends on the early construction of an ultra-intelligent machine.
What if we reframe this as early evidence of “mommy-tech”, which tends to be all too common in Silicon Valley?
In other words, men who leave their mothers and embark on a successful well-paid career as engineers in technology soon “innovate” by thinking of ways to make machines replicate their mothers.
Self-driving cars are about children being raised thinking their mother should drive them around (e.g. the Lift System of apartheid was literally white mothers driving their kids to school). Dishwashers are popular in cultures where mothers traditionally cleaned plates after a meal.
Is mommy-tech liberating for women? In theory a machine being introduced to take over a task could be thought as a way to liberate the person formerly tasked with that job. However that does not seem to be at all how things work out, because imposing a loss is not inherently translatable to successful pivot into new tasks and opportunities.
If nothing else, more of something obviously is not better when that thing is loss. More loss, more death, more destruction only sounds good in places of privilege where a rebuild or a repeat is even conceivable.
Good kind of points this out himself accidentally in part two of his paper where he calls intelligence entirely zero sum, such that machines getting more intelligent would mean “man would be left far behind“.
Let an ultraintelligent machine be defined as a machine that can far surpass all the intellectual activities of any man however clever. Since the design of machines is one of these intellectual activities, an ultraintelligent machine could design even better machines; there would then unquestionably be an “intelligence explosion,” and the intelligence of man would be left far behind (see for example refs. , , ). Thus the first ultraintelligent machine is the last invention that man need ever make, provided that the machine is docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control. It is curious that this point is made so seldom outside of science fiction. It is sometimes worthwhile to take science fiction seriously.
Indeed, Wollstonecraft’s daughter invented science fiction (Frankenstein) for a very good reason, which I often explain in my presentations. However, Good’s analysis here is not good for reasons that rarely are discussed.
To my ears, trained in history of power contention, it’s like hearing men who have said women becoming intelligent (e.g. allowed to speak, read, educate) would represent a dangerous challenge: “docile enough to tell us how to keep it under control”.
And it doesn’t even have to be men and women in this “struggle” for domination.
Imagine a context of colonialism or American history of Manifest Destiny, which similarly centered on oppressors keeping “intelligence” of the oppressed under control.
If nothing else you can’t deny that America ruthlessly and systemically engaged in denying Blacks education, as Wollstonecraft very sagely had warned in the 1790s, which most Americans are completely ignorant about in order to keep them docile.
Perhaps containment of intelligence should be framed like filtration of water or direction of energy; rather than holding back we must seek ways to increase output on measured outcomes. It’s not that safety becomes dominant or pervasive, instead that loss is measured properly and accounted for instead of falsely implied as something inherent to gain.
Just like industrialization created an emaciation of male power, a domain shift that scared many into bunk response theory (false power projection) such as fascism, there are men today trying to gin up fear of gains (ultraintelligence) as some kind of loss.
It’s interesting to think about the answers to these power and control problems related to technology and specifically intelligence being sorted out way back in the 1700s, yet today people often frame them as recent or needing to be solved for the first time.
…a bone-chilling problem has prompted a recall on some Tesla models. The issue has left owners stuck without heat in the dead of winter…
That flaw was from poor engineering practices, with Tesla trying to cut corners even when it puts owners in serious risk. The ironically named HotCars says Tesla is intentionally lowering quality:
Not everything on a Tesla is inherently low-quality, but Tesla is certainly cutting corners.
Even China, the epicenter of cutting corners, has recently tried to heap shame on quality of the Tesla brand as very far below expectations (with Tesla clocking a sad 133 failures per 100 cars — averaging more than one for every car).
An example of how this serious lack of quality in Tesla plays out comes from a self-described “very active EV advocate” who seems to be spending huge amounts of time on a basic flaw, and has announced arbitration in an attempt to get a repair done.
I am convinced that Tesla is well aware that they are installing faulty battery PCSs in the penthouse. In fact, Tesla once issued a Technical Service Bulletin about the “HV Battery System,” which states that “For certain Model 3 vehicles, the power conversion system needs replacement.” Although the bulletin projects dates for the vehicles possibly affected (the earliest, one month after I took delivery), it does not clarify why those PCSs had a problem. Were they from a different manufacturer, design, material, or build than other PCSs installed before and after those dates? I strongly suspect that, in reality, Tesla has been installing the very same, identical PCSs in the Model 3 for years, both before and after that Service Bulletin, and has failed to inform all Model 3 owners of the potential problem.
This would explain why an increasing number of owners are now finding that this integral part of the Battery and Drive Unit System is starting to fail after 3, 4, 5 years of ownership —in my case after only 3 years and 9 months. It is apparent that these battery PCSs are of poor design and quality, faulty, prone to break down, and Tesla is trying to pass the hefty expense of these failures on to owners…
The blog post links to many Tesla owners suffering similar problems and offers this scathing analysis of Tesla business practices.
Tesla has bragged that the maintenance and repair costs for its vehicles are so low that they make their higher purchase prices more affordable than a gas car over a lifetime of ownership. With the Service Center refusing to cover faulty —and expensive!— PCSs under the Battery and Drive Unit Warranty, Tesla’s braggadocio about such costs now strikes me disingenuous —if not deceptive.
And on that disgruntled owner note “Tesla is the only automaker that has chosen not to grant J.D. Power permission to survey its owners in all 50 states.” In other words the Tesla score could be even worse if its owners were actually allowed to speak.
Update April 14, 2022: Elon Musk says he can organize enough money to buy Twitter in order to take it private (decreasing accountability and transparency) and then promote harmful content using a policy he calls:
Healthy free speech is when someone says something you don’t like.
This policy of Musk is hypocritical, logically false and historically backwards.
He himself regularly violates basic principles of healthy speech (as a documented serial liar). Instead he allegedly seeks outsized control to prevent accountability for words used, the literal opposite of healthy speech. He appears to not care about health of anyone or anything.
For a simple and obvious example, he can’t even attempt to buy Twitter without showing his true hand. He right now failing at the most basic transparency requirements while grousing falsely he cares a lot about society having transparency:
…lawsuit alleges that by March 14, Musk’s stake in Twitter had reached a 5% threshold that required him to publicly disclose his holdings under U.S. securities law by March 24. Musk didn’t make the required disclosure until April 4.
…having it be unclear who’s making what changes to who, to where, having [stocks] sort of mysteriously be promoted and demoted with no insight into what’s going on … I think this can be quite dangerous.
Elon Musk’s plan for Twitter suggests the site will expand abusive epithets and threats of violence online, especially targeting women of color (as I’ve explained elsewhere). Twitter will transform from implicit white nationalism into more explicit hate and violence.
In case you don’t recognize it, that is Musk replying to the extremist right-wing Bee account, which was classified by Twitter as hate speech. Musk is showing support for stinging attacks from the Bee. Now, back to the question of whether he is racist, in context of whether a racist would try hard to buy Twitter just to ensure hate groups pushing “something you don’t like” will escape accountability.
As I wrote recently, asking “how racist” is really a search for evidence of someone being anti-racist.
When we ask how vulnerable software is, it would sound wrong for someone to defend themselves with “how dare you call software vulnerable”. Software has flaws, so we constantly look for evidence that flaws are being identified and remediated. It’s basic hygiene.
Likewise, when we ask how racist someone is, the response desired should come as some kind of evidence that racism is being acknowledged and removed wherever it may exist.
On that risk management note, I so far have found zero evidence of Elon Musk working in any capacity to be anti-racist, despite copious evidence of him being accused of racism.
Here’s a quick review of an infamous racism lawsuit:
Psychology Today: “We don’t know anything about Mr. Musk’s feelings about Black people regarding the case. [Tesla] indirectly gave organizational support to individual prejudice and bigotry; Tesla was engaged in racism.”
Jalopnik: “Elon Musk’s Alleged Response To Tesla Racism Complaints: ‘Be Thick-Skinned And Accept Apology'”
Tesla’s official statement directly contradicting its advice to staff to stop fighting for things they believe in: “At Tesla, we would rather pay ten times the settlement demand in legal fees and fight to the ends of the Earth than give in…”
Both evidence of racism and self-contradictory logic set the tone.
Telling Black workers they must be “thick-skinned” and stop fighting against racism, while stating that Tesla will always be thin-skinned and never stop fighting against people accusing them of racism… is exactly the opposite of anti-racism.
Elon Musk is South African, which is important here. Consider for example that he has posted classic white supremacist memes such as this one.
Anyone familiar with African history would recognize this for what it is, a racist attack on Black liberation theology.
Backlash against Black Lives Matter includes branding it as Marxist.
Allegedly Musk launched his racist meme attacking Marx after being deeply offended by The Topical tweet by the Onion.
It’s hard to see the connection. Consider that the meme used by Musk is in fact a long-time white supremacist topic, not just some awkward moment from 2020 related to Musk’s hatred of free assembly by Black Lives and free speech by The Onion.
In the crucial first decade of African freedom from colonialism the leaders of Algeria (Ahmed Ben Bella), Egypt (Gamal Abdel Nasser), Ghana (Kwame Nkrumah), Guinea (Ahmed Sékou Touré), Kenya (Tom Mboya) and Tanzania (Julius Nyerere) all displayed a public affinity for socialism.
Black post-colonial movements logically moved public sentiment towards everyone sharing in the benefits of labor regardless of their color or race, even before rising to democratic themes of liberation from oppression (De oppresso liber).
South African whites in particular tried to refute such thinking by labeling anti-racism as radicalism or extremism — calling Black liberation Marxist — a propaganda tactic Elon Musk must have regularly witnessed in his childhood.
White nationalists of apartheid used this trick to frame themselves as victims in a thinly-veiled attempt at criminalizing anti-racism (e.g. Black Lives Matter) and censoring criticism of oppressor “success” — power and wealth oriented on being white.
South Africa’s overtly racist and white police state also explicitly courted the United States at this time by claiming white nationalism was a logical defense against Marxism — denying freedom, independence and self-determination of Blacks as a “capitalist” or “business” model of wealth accumulation (e.g. from President Nixon to Harvard).
If you know basic African history, especially South Africa’s violent racist “anti-Marxist” oppression methods, then you perhaps now see Elon Musk was normalizing racism in a post that uses a mix of Black “slang” appropriation with a phrase suggesting someone unfit for work.
Elon Musk’s “gib me dat for free” during Black Lives Matter protests seems akin to a racist defensive sentiment celebrating the white police officers who opened fire on unarmed protestors in 1960. In other words it should bring to mind today what exactly Elon Musk thinks about the sixty-nine South Africans were killed and 186 wounded in Sharpeville, with most shot in the back by police.
Succeeding the Sharpeville incident, a meeting convened by the South African Communist Party (SACP) in December 1960 in Emmarentia, Johannesburg, aimed to discern the way forward in light of the African National Congress’ (ANC) ban and the imposition of a state of emergency. Among those who attended were Mandela, Sisulu, Govan Mbeki, Mhlaba, Kotane and a number of other ANC and SACP members. Those attending congruently agreed that the agenda of non-violence would have to be replaced by armed resistance in the form of the establishment of military units…
That was followed by the 1960 “Unlawful Organizations Act“, which amended the 1956 “Riotous Assemblies Act”, which all was preceded by the far more obviously named 1950 “Suppression of Communism Act”.
This act, “after being rushed through both houses of Parliament” (Riley 1991: 69), “was introduced to enable the banning of the African National Congress and the Pan African Congress” (Dyzenhaus 1991: 45).
Thus we can see how Marxism has been embroiled in racism, used as a means to call Black people lazy and stupid, unable to think for themselves or self-rule.
Anti-Communist propaganda even has gone so far as to suggest Blacks could not have developed minds and instead were like puppets of a Soviet or Chinese playbook.
That particular reference from South African history matters here too because Elon Musk also has delivered an odd depiction of Chinese.
Elon Musk lamented the “entitled” and “complacent” character of people in the United States, and lauded the “smart” and “hard working people” of China…
Presumably Musk has a particular form of cognitive blindness such that he doesn’t see a contradiction in overtly praising Asian communism, while claiming to be a critic of Black sounding communism.
The blindness is likely best explained as… racism.
Elon Musk heaped praise on China’s economic development late Wednesday night as the Communist Party celebrated its 100th anniversary in power.
To be fair, Marx’s (Communism) being lauded by the Chinese, has little to nothing to do with Black leaders who show an affinity for socialism.
Universal healthcare, fire departments, police, public utilities like sewer and water, state pensions, education, public transportation and general “safety nets” all seem to be socialist concepts selfishly taken for granted by Elon Musk.
This is one of the confounding aspects of those who claim to support public-safety initiatives such as the police (when operated as a socialist concept of care) while saying they hate socialism.
The bottom line when talking about Marxism versus socialism is that it was the unification of Germany in the 1870s that brought significant improvement in the country’s economy because… it was driven by widespread socialism.
Marx was an extremist within a huge movement and certainly not the most influential or important voice, although he makes an easy target.
German people demanded a unified state to extend benefits to everyone, beyond just the wealth-accumulating selfish “gentry”; they rejected kings, lords and men who acted and thought very much like Elon Musk.
The German Chancellor Bismark initially reacted to the disturbances and public grievance with a ban on unification (union) movements. Ring any bells, given South Africa banned union movements?
Bismark pushed out an “Anti-Socialist Law of 1878” to stop people in Germany from assembling and speaking. Nonetheless, just like in South Africa 100 years later the socialist affinity within democratic voters grew anyway, shifting debate into formal government chambers (where it was better heard and processed).
It was clear centuries apart that sentiment of social good was deeply influential to German workers.
Bismark shrewdly calculated he could absorb power from huge blocks of voters and thus maneuver ahead of their party by implementing things they called for and taking credit himself.
1883, with the passage of the Health Insurance Law, Bismarck made Germany into a welfare state—all to stymie the socialists. The law was the first national system in the world, Steinberg says. Both employers and employees paid into insurance funds, and the German government verified workers’ enrollment by comparing employer records with fund membership lists, threatening employers of uninsured workers with fines.
Stymie the socialists by being socialist. It seems odd today where people struggle to get on one page, yet Bismark was a leader from a different era who apparently acted on what he thought made sense for his country (or perhaps more to the point made sense for him as inalienable from country leadership) and tossed aside labels.
Bismarck didn’t care what the program—Krankenversicherungsgesetz—was called or how it was described, as long as citizens knew that the state—his state—coined the idea. “Call it socialism or whatever you like,” Bismarck said during the 1881 Reichstag public policy and budget debates. “It is the same to me.”
The unmistakable benefits of socialism clearly made Germany prosper and powerful, similar to how it would soon after help fuel massive economic prosperity and growth in America and all of Europe.
“…a key part of the Industrial Revolution that’s overlooked is that once workers got paid in cash once a week or every few weeks, they had cash that could be spent on what we would call health insurance.” …as the population grew in cities, coverage boomed. In 1885, the enrollment was 4.3 million Germans; by 1913, that number had jumped to 13.6 million. And this came with a number of surprising repercussions.
Socialism meant very quickly that far fewer Germans emigrated away from factories, as they stayed for benefits unique to socialism like sick days at home and compensation for accidents. In other words, fewer workers fell out of work and into poverty, which reduced the cost of productivity. Industrial output increased as did quality of life.
Seen to this day as “a massive success” the concepts of German socialism are logical for any democracy to adopt and promote.
Between 1884 and the end of the century, blue collar worker mortality rates fell 8.9 percent, they write in a recent study. “Surprisingly, the insurance was able to reduce infectious disease mortality in the absence of effective medication for many of the prevailing infectious diseases.”
Again, I have to emphasize that Musk is clearly promoting Marxism as a success model when he tweets his love to Chinese Communists, calling their system the best.
This should give enough context to explain why Musk is pro-Marxism while spreading traditional racist white supremacist memes about Marx that target Blacks by appropriating their speech/style.
If Musk posted a picture of Marx next to Asian speech patterns would it be any better? No. It becomes racist in either case, to push a race-based narrative that Asians are hard working and Blacks are lazy.
What Musk really seems to want to say is he’s against unification (a United States, a unified Germany) where workers prosper from democracy. Tesla prefers top-down, centrally-planned dictatorships where a small group of elites can stop democracy from protecting people who work at Tesla.
To prove the point once more, Elon Musk recently doubled down on an extemist right-wing memeyet again favoring a racist tone in a comment about the Ukraine war.
Four huge problems with this:
First, predictably his defenders invoked “white savior” logic similar to South African apartheid (or pre-unification, pre-socialist, Germany), claiming their lord Elon Musk has given so much to the needy that any criticism of him should not be allowed.
Third, war is no joke. This is like arguing because his employees are paid well they should tolerate him causing trauma and abuse. A Black war blast victim was tormented with rocket warning sounds while trying to work at Tesla.
Fourth, Musk dramatically increased his business deals with Russia since 2020. Buying a Tesla literally can mean buying from Russia.
And while Musk might be confused or careless, throwing words around without any intent to actually stand by what he says, it doesn’t anywhere rise up to demonstrate anti-racism. In 2018 Musk claimed he is socialist and Marx was a capitalist.
Shortly thereafter Musk proved to be even more confused. He tried to attack socialism for allowing people to shift “from most productive to least productive” (e.g. pay money into insurance and use it when sick).
Greatest good defined by who? That sounds like a recipe for dictatorship, inverse to democratic socialism. In fact the German socialist Lasalle wrote a letter to Bismark in 1863 warning of exactly this danger.
…how true it is the working class feels an inclination towards a dictatorship, if it can first be rightly persuaded that the dictatorship will be exercised in its interests…
The great merit of the capitalist system, it has been said, is that it succeeds in using the nastiest motives of nasty people for the ultimate benefit of society.
Musk certainly flirts with themes of Nazism, such as the Onion joke insinuating a Black American President has a secret affinity for it.
Again, I have to emphasize I am looking for evidence of anti-racism, yet only finding more and more evidence of racism in among evidence of consistently extremist right-wing sentiments.
Ending up discovering that Tesla tried to run PR that it was helping Ukraine while also quietly driving new deals with the dictatorship in Russia as it invaded Ukraine, seems only fitting.
I doubt Wired will pick up this blog post about Elon Musk’s racism in the same way as the last time, but I do hope someone someday can find and publish evidence of his anti-racism. His silence is deafening.
More to the point, Musk himself believes if there is no significant counter-protest (e.g. anti-racism) then it should be taken as some kind of proof that Musk is racist!
Carl Sagan warned the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, but don’t forget Musk is anti-science and here is more likely admitting to the world that his lack of counter-protest to racism is intentional.
At the end of the day there is one lonely statement claiming he is “stating the extremely obvious” that people should censor speech.
Is it obvious? Why does he never state anywhere that he is opposed to racism and racist comments, if somehow he found the courage to say he opposes “abusive epithets”?
This totally contradicts his copious other statements where he says clearly free speech means zero filters of any kind. For a man with a constantly open mic who believes in regulating speech only when it serves his own purposes, and who throws words around with abandon and appears to fire off comments without thought, it’s highly curious Musk never pushes anything even close to being anti-racism.
The Petaluma Historian has posted a fascinating look at the face of cycling a century ago.
On July 4, 1896, Petaluma found itself anointed the new “bicycling Mecca” of the West Coast, as a reported 6,000 people turned out at the city’s new Wheelman Park for the annual divisional meet of the League of American Wheelmen.
Among the 18 Northern California teams competing were two comprised entirely of women—San Francisco’s Alpha Cycling Club and Petaluma’s own “women of the wheel,” the Mercury Cyclists.
The story has many amusing turns and quotes. This one might be my favorite.
As the Mercury Cyclists and other wheelwomen took to their steel steeds, they ran into some cultural speed bumps from conservative Victorians, who wanted to know where they were riding to.
When the question was put to women’s rights activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton by American Wheelman magazine, she succinctly replied: “To suffrage.”
Already I have heard from a Colonial Pipeline PR firm in Washington DC about my blog post yesterday pondering an overt promotion of Bob Jones University in a press release supposedly about security.
I was told on the phone by Sara Sendek, Senior Director, Crisis Communications (and former Nevada communications director of the Republican National Committee, former press secretary of Ron Johnson), “you think someone is racist because they went to Bob Jones”.
This wasn’t a fair depiction of my thoughts, but it’s expected.
It’s like being told that I think something is vulnerable when I ask why it has Log4j in its manifest. What is the meaning of Log4j when you see it?
Seeing Log4j might not be proof today that someone is vulnerable, but the burden is upon those with Log4j to demonstrate they have closed gaps by being anti-vulnerability. Code is never completely free of vulnerabilities (e.g. can be misleading to say something is not vulnerable), so we really just want know whether someone is committed to fight against serious flaws, including in their own code.
Even more to the point, everyone treated Log4j differently before 2022 so any claims today from the past are colored by what we think now relative to safety.
I therefore actually that think someone has invited a burden of proof to demonstrate they are anti-racist when their Bob Jones degree from 2000 is being promoted by a PR firm; trying to get people to notice Bob Jones in a promotional piece invites integrity assessments.
Again, the question always should not be about whether someone is racist or not, but whether they are anti-racist as Ijeoma Oluo wrote in 2019.
The beauty of anti-racism is that you don’t have to pretend to be free of racism to be an anti-racist. Anti-racism is the commitment to fight racism wherever you find it, including in yourself. And it’s the only way forward.
Bob Jones University very clearly existed as an attack on integrity since it was created by racists to perpetuate racism. Bob Jones took their case all the way to the Supreme Court arguing that claims of “faith” should allow them to avoid fixing their obvious racism (in other words invoking “God” as a loophole to avoid compliance with U.S. public safety laws).
The PR firm representative said she had hoped to explain to me how a PR statement works so that I wouldn’t react to the meaning of the words used in it, to which I replied that my blog post asks why the obvious racist meaning to Bob Jones didn’t block it from being included in a release.
When I was told by the PR firm that everyone has their academic background listed in an unmistakable “that’s the way we do things around here” tone, I asked whether they gave the CISO an option to not list Bob Jones.
Would she release vulnerable code to production just because that has been the way things were done before?
Did the CISO consent to having this specific information shared?