Artificial Incompetence

In an ideal world the careers we pursue would be guided by our strengths, our aptitude would determine our success and we would be rewarded with merit for how good we are at doing our jobs. This concept is known as meritocracy and it's usually primarily in the context of governments, namely those which claim to appoint people to their key positions based on ability and proven track records. If you've paid attention to politics in recent years even briefly so, then you will know this claim is patently untrue. This isn't a political post though, much as there is to say on the matter I would mostly be echoing what you've already heard a thousand times over.

What interests me about the idea of meritocracy is its application beyond government to everyone else and the jobs that they do. Judgement of politicians to one side, they are not the only people we see in jobs and feel they're in the wrong profession. The truth is that capitalism doesn't reward ability it rewards durability - or permanence. The people who remain in their jobs are those that can withstand the pressure of their job, even if they're crap at it.

Likewise the idea that meritocracy plays a role in who gets the job in the first place is at this point laughable to try and uphold. Beyond the very public examples of politicians demonstrating gross incompetence, we all know people who are objectively bad at their jobs, and know that their prior experience if taken as the only qualifier wouldn't lead to us hiring them if we had been the ones to make that decision.

When you think of the concept of a job in broader terms, we tend to forget that literally everyone we interact with that isn't in a social capacity is working. I've made my views on class quite clear in the past, I consider the middle class to be a delusion, nothing more than propaganda, the reality is that everyone falls into one of two classes, working class and upper class, the former being defined by those who work and are expected to work even if they are not actually working due to circumstance and the latter defined as those who could conceivably choose not to work and survive entirely on their own wealth - the ramification being that very few people are anything other than working class.

In the same vein though we apply divisions to the jobs people do based on a similar notion of class, we refer to jobs as "skilled" or "unskilled" and "professional", and peak pandemic we adopted en masse the notion of "key workers" and "essential services" yet none of those monikers actually align with the wage people are paid, the amount of work they do, or whether society could exist in their absence. The reality is that society is defined not by utility but by convenience. We have markets to provide food because we don't want to have to hunt and gather, we want other people to do that for us so that we can spend our time doing literally anything else.

When you look at human society on a macro level, we only progressed when we reached the point where our basic needs were met. With each iteration of the configuration of society, the removal of the burden of labour is what drives forward progress, and given the rising cost of living, the falling living standards, and the increasing difficulty people are having in meeting their basic needs it's not hard to see why society seems to be regressing in many ways. The basic needs of the wider population are going unmet and the amount of work people have to do in order to maintain the same standard of living is increasing before you even consider how much is needed to actually improve your overall standard.

Much can be said about AI and the risks it poses but the point that I have made many times is that AI is ultimately a mirror, it is developed based on data generated by humans in the first instance and through its iterative development serves as nothing more than a mirror, held up in reflection showing us who we are. The fear that many have and the criticism of AI which are one and the same is the idea of Artificial Incompetence - in other words the idea that AI becomes fully formed but grossly incompetent, able to think but unable to succeed, only capable of failure. For those who are fans of the Portal franchise, this is akin to being promised GLaDOS and getting Wheatley instead - although based on the Portal universe, Wheatley is preferable.

I find this idea fascinating, that people fear an incompetent AI in power and assuming positions of service, yet they're entirely complacent with human incompetence. We know people who are in the wrong jobs but we don't actually do anything about it. Sure we complain about politicians, and at least in countries that have even a vague sense of democracy those politicians eventually leave those positions, very few are career politicians who hold their posts for life, and of those that do there is rising criticism of this arrangement.

Arguably, if you want AI to resemble something that poses no threat to humanity, then you need to make sure that the image of humanity it reflects is one that we're comfortable embracing, otherwise the prophecy that humanity is the greatest threat to humanity will be fulfilled, whether that be by our own hand or an AI that does nothing more than act exactly like us, either way it will be our undoing. We like to take "human" as a noun and stick an 'e' on the end to make "humane" and use it as a verb to describe compassion and care but if you're going to create something that is capable of everything a human is capable of, where does your mind go to first?

Who was more human, GLaDOS or Wheatley? If you've played the games you already know the answer to that question.

Out of curiosity this was the conversation I had with ChatGPT about this:

Who was more human, GLaDOS or Wheatley?

Both GLaDOS and Wheatley, the artificial intelligences from the Portal series, exhibit human-like traits in different ways. GLaDOS, initially designed as a central AI to manage the Aperture Science Enrichment Center, displays complex emotions, manipulative behavior, and a sense of humor that resembles human characteristics. Despite her lack of a physical body, GLaDOS demonstrates a level of consciousness and self-awareness that allows her to interact with the world in a way that seems remarkably human-like.

Wheatley, on the other hand, starts as a more simple personality core, initially appearing more naive and bumbling. However, as the story progresses, Wheatley's character evolves, showcasing emotions such as fear, ambition, and regret. He experiences growth and change throughout the game, ultimately displaying a level of complexity and depth that blurs the line between artificial intelligence and human consciousness.

In essence, both GLaDOS and Wheatley demonstrate aspects of humanity in their behavior and development, albeit in different ways. GLaDOS embodies a sophisticated and manipulative intelligence, while Wheatley represents a more flawed and evolving personality.

Perhaps it's fair to say then that GLaDOS was an Adult, and Wheatley was a child in terms of emotional intelligence.

That's a fair assessment. GLaDOS does indeed exhibit traits often associated with maturity: cunning, manipulation, and a complex understanding of human emotions. Her actions throughout the Portal series reflect a calculated and often sinister approach to achieving her goals.

On the other hand, Wheatley's character arc resembles that of a child learning and growing. He starts off as naive and eager to please, displaying a lack of awareness of the consequences of his actions. As the story progresses, he matures in his own way, experiencing a range of emotions and eventually coming to terms with his own limitations.

So, yes, you could view GLaDOS as embodying traits more akin to an adult, while Wheatley represents a more childlike or immature emotional intelligence.

And yes this does give you an idea of the kind of conversations I have with them.