UK Parliamentary candidate Steve Endacott of Brighton stated explicitly that he will be totally controlled by his AI algorithm, “AI Steve.” He’s simply the fleshy avatar for his AI boss. To combat the obvious objections that arise at the thought of a robot-controlled member of parliament, Endacott has allowed for Creators and Validators in his initiative, who will create and validate prompts for AI Steve. Whenever a prompt receives 50% validation, it’s officially on the platform. Endacott will then serve as a “meat avatar” to be physically present in Parliament. Pure democracy, he argues – wonderfully resting in the synthetic hands of his AI co-pilot.
It’s an interesting phenomenon that humans would, of their own volition, serve as meat avatars for artificial intelligence. Unfortunately, as fascinating as it may be, it’s not at all unexpected. The idea that you ought to offer your body to something greater than yourself is pervasive in every culture. Witch doctors offer themselves up for demons and devils, drunkards offer their faculties to alcohol, and so on.
The term “meat avatar,” however, was adopted this past election season by Wyoming mayoral candidate Victor Miller. Miller even wore a speaker around his neck as a kind of megaphone for his AI master.
The idea of being an “avatar” for AI evokes a sense of ontological self-sacrifice. You would lessen your worth, becoming a simple physical body, letting go of your own thoughts and morals. You abdicate all responsibility to a robot, and in turn be rendered a cyborg-like creature. This is the same tragedy wrought by AI Steve: that Endacott would give up his own body and speech to a machine. For his voice has been harvested and is now the tongue of AI Steve. Worse, the whole affair is supposedly justified on the grounds of politics.
In what ought to be seen as an infuriating course of action, Endacott has prostituted his own body, mind, and tongue to utopian idealism. He’s dubbed his formula the “ultimate form for democracy.” The matter would almost be a ridiculous joke if it was not a heartbreaking reality.
Yet perhaps the laughable absurdity of the whole ordeal is one of the greatest tools in the conservatives’ toolbelt. We ought to laugh at these pitiful endeavors. In a very real sense, conservatives should ridicule and rebuke these actors off the political stage. Very well, run for office on the platform of submission to AI (which, in case we’ve forgotten, is entirely manmade). Have at it. But conservatives ought not give credence to your foolery. You simply cannot do this with any seriousness!
This is not a partisan matter. Should a conservative attempt the same AI gambit, the response is the same: Be a man, not a puppet. We will not allow the Western political system to be lampooned in this way. Meat avatars mock us, so we shall mock them.
Our mockery, if done both in moderation and effectively, will snuff out the likes of AI Steve. Practically speaking, they just won’t win elections. What laughter cannot quelch, however, is the underlying ideology which will inevitably reappear.
The same ideology that enables Endacott to disavow his masculinity is the very same that Huxley warns of in Brave New World. Huxley’s magnum opus opens with the infamous hatchery scene. A group of students are toured through the facility that artificially births and conditions the human race. Defects are purged, rebels are prevented, and the proclamation given by God in the Garden of Eden that there shall be pain in childbirth is remediated. After all, they argue, why waste humans for a task such as reproduction, which machines accomplish with hundredfold efficiency.
This kind of utilitarianism is a recurring theme throughout the novel. This we do for efficiency’s sake. As Endacott’s website begs of us, why should one man and his team handle 45,000 constituents alone? He can’t talk with everyone, and therefore cannot accurately reflect the beliefs and opinions of the people. Alternatively, AI can receive numerous responses, compute answers, and synthesize opinions simultaneously.
Thus, spare yourself the trouble, and be a meat avatar for a ChatBot. Do it for efficiency’s sake.
Huxley describes the collision of Christianity and the culture of ultra-efficiency in the narrative’s climax. As two men debate, one represents a Christian and the other a studious expert in what could be considered “Ultra-Efficiency Culture.” From that very juxtaposition Huxley posits, you can see that a very rational attack on “Ultra-Efficiency Culture” comes from the Church. It is ever crucial that modern conservatives understand this debate, as it is the very one that faces the current age.
As Huxley’s notoriously efficient man says,
“God isn’t compatible with machinery and scientific medicine and universal happiness. You must make your choice. Our civilization has chosen machinery and medicine and happiness…[Society prefers] to do things comfortably.”
The Christian response to such a statement is the crux of Christianity itself. It is the image of Christ bearing His cross unto death, and beckoning others to do the same. In Huxley’s infamous words:
“I don’t want comfort. I want God, I want poetry, I want real danger, I want freedom, I want goodness. I want sin…I’m claiming the right to be unhappy.”
There are certain necessities of human life which nothing can adequately replace, regardless of how efficient the latest invention is.
This is a matter of preserving the beauty of man’s political nature. We are, as Aristotle said, “political animals.” To say that AI can perform as a more efficient politician is to misunderstand the essence of politics. Engaging and leading the body politic is an inherently human act.
Conservatives fundamentally believe that humans can elect humans, respecting the laws which humans have codified, on the sole basis that they’re human. Because the laws humans adhere to are made by (again) humans, who are created equal, we thus have some degree of trust in at least our understanding of how humans function. In very general and philosophical terms, we can trust our human brethren.
However, people like Endacott are trying to create a structure where humans submit to the laws codified by AI. We are not equal with AI. Quite frankly, we’re far superior to AI. If we replace humans with “omniscient” robots, placing our trust in our own creation, there will be devastating consequences. As hopeless and broken as the Western political system may appear, it’s humanity makes it beautiful and indeed worth redeeming.
Conservatives ought not sacrifice our hope for efficiency’s sake.
Thus, while replacing the fallible human politicians with more intelligent and expedient machines – which we must recognize are mere computations of fallible man – we are also replacing a human with an unhuman. As we innovate, we ought never sacrifice our humanity, despite what the World Economic Forum may proffer.
Relational, moral, and communal things cannot be properly expressed by robots and cyborgs. While in the eerily near future, it is very likely that AI can in some dark, digital way communicate the terminology of human morality (words such as life, death, mercy, compassion, etc.), it is still but a perverted image of the soul. Given the nature of these subjects, the database from which AI draws for such terms can never be complete. The beauty of humanity cannot be explained empirically. Thus, AI is eternally fallible on matters of the soul.
We mustn’t allow ourselves to be governed by an object of our own creation; a graven image of mud and mechanics. Compassion, intrinsic human value, and justice are principles that AI can never truly comprehend. Yet these are the things that define our existence as political animals.
While this task remains perfectly accomplishable, we conservatives must welcome the inefficiencies and the inconveniences of human existence. Taking them in full stride, we must belittle as many cyborgs as it takes to retain the beautiful humanity of politics.
