A Short and Succinct Four-Point Argument For Why You Should Never Use AI At All For Anything Ever and Actively Do Everything You Can to Prevent the US Government From Supporting It in Any Way

[I have written about and against AI before, pointing out that the underlying technology and cultural orientation are nothing new, and arguing that AI is a last desperate attempt for the tech industry to save their bloated techno-salvationist bureaucracies. However, I admit that both of those pieces are very long and hard to follow, especially in the age of AI. 

Hence, I have produced the present piece, in which I make four straightforward points about why you shouldn't use AI while also including images from "the Funnies," which I am reliably informed that everyone loves (the year is 1967), for popular appeal.

Before reading the following, however, a clarification is necessary:"AI" in contemporary usage is not a descriptive term for a new technology, but an advertising term for an essentially political program of reallocating massive economic and social resources toward developing and finding applications for and forcing large-scale use of a heterogenous range of pre-existing digital technologies, products, and services. 

Hence, the question "are you for or against AI?" is not "do you in the abstract support the further development of digital technology?" but "do you support this political program?": or more immediately "do you think that the present or future achievements of this program in fact and on the whole justify the costs?" To be unable to ask this question, as I pointed out, is to be insane.]

Point 1: AI will never be profitable enough to justify the private investments made in it.

Argument 1.1: No LLM product or data center has as yet generated a profit purely on the basis of consumer and corporate usage, as opposed to investments or circular financing. Nevertheless, AI investment is scheduled to exceed 1 trillion dollars in 2026 alone. The scale differential between zero profit and trillions in investment makes it nearly impossible for the former to ever catch up with the latter for basic mathematical reasons. 

Argument 1.2: The intrinsic nature of LLMs makes them processing-heavy and therefore expensive even in carrying out simple tasks. Increases in processing power in chips have already reached a plateau, and the chips themselves require rare materials and can only be made in a few locations. Hence, the technology will continue to be very expensive for the foreseeable future. 

Argument 1.3: LLMs are inherently limited to automating tasks that are in and of themselves either superfluous to making a profit or not all that expensive. In itself, human labor is cheap and will likely always be cheaper than LLM usage at scale and for the overwhelming majority of tasks. 

Point 2: Given its lack of profitability, the only way AI development can continue on anything approaching its current scale is on the basis of enormous government investment.

Argument 2.1: The current hyper-financialized economy is ultimately structured by profit, if not for corporations at least for investors. Sooner or later, AI investment without returns will lead to a market crash and a pullback on investment into AI. 

Argument 2.2: The only institution that regularly invests AI-scale capital without any financial return on investment at all is the government. 

Argument 2.3: The use cases for AI include present priorities of the US government in which it regularly invests large amounts of money. These include most prominently military technology and mass surveillance.

Argument 2.4: The US government has been the main driver behind the current AI boom both through favorable regulation and active investment.

Point 3: The only feasible use case for mass-scale long-term government-funded AI is surveillance and murder.

Argument 3.1: Over the past decades, the US government has built a remarkable surveillance and data gathering operation. The main obstacle to the utility of mass surveillance and big data for government purposes is the difficulty of sorting through so much information and arranging it into useful and clear and short and actionable narratives. But this is in fact the one thing that LLMs are consistently good at. 

Argument 3.2: Over the past decades, the world has entered a new era of drone warfare, exemplified by the Russia-Ukraine War and the Iran War. Large-scale drone manufacturing requires development in magnet, battery, and chip technologies. The AI boom involves in part targeted development of some of these technologies.

Argument 3.3: One of the main limiters for drone warfare has become the ability to jam remote-controlled drones or even hack into them. This has led to a significant push in the direction of so-called "autonomous" drones with the ability to choose targets and carry out attacks largely on their own, as well as swarming drones operating in sync with each other. Both require sophisticated software.

Argument 3.4: Even non-autonomous drones lead to a vast multiplication of targets; the same is true even for the current military trend towards long-range targeted air bombing with manned aircraft. Selecting targets rapidly enough to keep up with operational requests requires the processing of large amounts of information and the weighting and determining of threats ad hoc and at scale. LLMs are again a technology adept at processing large amounts of information and producing an outcome based on it.

Argument 3.5: The US military and DoD have become a leading investor in AI technology over the past year, with the head of the Department of Energy declaring it a "new Manhattan project." 

Point 4: The social, political, and creative effects of mass-scale long-term government-funded AI are and always will be overwhelmingly negative and fall most heavily on the poor and vulnerable.

Argument 4.1: Most if not all military AI uses are unethical in and of themselves, since they involve violations of privacy and the waging of war and taking of life irresponsibly and unjustly. 

Argument 4.2: AI Chatbots have already provably caused suicides and driven people mad by forming quasi-social or romantic relationships with them. 

Argument 4.3: AI tools have already deprived numerous students of education by allowing them to automate most aspects of schooling. 

Argument 4.4: AI tools have already seriously degraded the quality of American visual art, film, television, and even corporate graphic design. 

Argument 4.5: By their very nature, LLMs cannot be entirely controlled or predicted, and will always be prone to "hallucination" of various sorts. This has already caused damage in many ways, from spreading false information to hacking networks to causing suicides to committing economic fraud. Militarized AI systems would be able to cause untold destruction.

Argument 4.6: The build-out of data centers has already caused environmental damage, raised energy costs, increased inflation, created noise and other pollution, and failed to produce jobs. Current plans call for an exponential growth of data centers, which would have even more drastic effects.

 

Ergo: You Should Never Use AI At All For Anything Ever and Actively Do Everything You Can to Prevent the US Government From Supporting It in Any Way. QED.

Chesterton as War Propagandist: Or, Against the Ignorant, Mendacious, Calumniating Anti-Chestertonians

Chesterton as War Propagandist: Or, Against the Ignorant, Mendacious, Calumniating Anti-Chestertonians

As people who know me in real life can attest, I have for the past fifteen years or so regularly joked that--despite being (by this point) nominally an academic expert with a PhD and a book from Oxford University Press on 4th century political theology--the area which I am actually most qualified to write on is Star Trek. However, in the dry, sober, unhumorous light of day, the single topic I am probably actually most fully qualified to write on is the life and thought of G.K. Chesterton.

Regular readers of this """weblog""" will note that pretty much every essay I have written for The Adventures of Captain Peabody since its inception has included at least a few credited or uncredited paraphrases of Chesterton. These citations, though, drastically underrate the degree to which I have stolen from Chesterton over the years. 

The truth is, there is more or less no thought I have had on any topic since the age of twelve that has not derived to at least some degree from a thought by Chesterton. This is not an exaggeration. Since the age of twelve, I have self-consciously and deliberately done everything in my power to adopt and assimilate Chesterton's approach to the world as my own. The basic structures of my reasoning on history, art, literature, poetry, psychology, anthropology, humor, enjoyment, and theology all derive to greater or lesser degrees from his own: as does by extension every thought or creative product deriving from those structures. In the scale of my various identities, "Chestertonian" comes just behind "Catholic Christian" and very far ahead of "American."

Grotesque, Egotistical Presentation of Credentials

Beyond that, though, I have in fact read a shockingly large proportion of Chesterton's shockingly large corpus: and what is more (believe it or not!) remembered most of it. That, though, gives a perhaps unhelpful impression of my engagement with Chesterton, which has not been academic and systematic but constant and totalizing. Put simply, "reading Chesterton" is something I do every day, multiple times a day, on top of and alongside anything else I happen to be reading or doing. The vast majority of the works by Chesterton I have read I have read not once, but somewhere between a dozen and a hundred times.

Or, as Chesterton's close personal friend Hilaire Belloc put it:

I like to read myself to sleep in Bed,
A thing that every honest man has done
At one time or another, it is said,
But not as something in the usual run;
Now *I* from ten years old to forty one
Have never missed a night: and what I need
To buck me up is Gilbert Chesterton,
(The only man I regularly read).

The Illustrated London News is wed
To letter press as stodgy as a bun,
The Daily News might just as well be dead,
The 'Idler' has a tawdry kind of fun,
The 'Speaker' is a sort of Sally Lunn,
The 'World' is like a small unpleasant weed;
*I take them all because of Chesterton*,
(The only man I regularly read).

The memories of the Duke of Beachy Head,
The memoirs of Lord Hildebrand (his son)
Are things I could have written on my head,
So are the memories of the Comte de Mun,}
And as for novels written by the ton,
I'd burn the bloody lot! I know the Breed!
And get me back to be with Chesterton
(The only man I regularly read).

ENVOI

Prince, have you read a book called 'Thoughts upon
The Ethos of the Athanasian Creed'?
No matter--it is not by Chesterton
(The only man I regularly read).

I have naturally read many times all of his so-called "major works" of Christian apologetics and philosophy: namely, Heretics, Orthodoxy, and The Everlasting Man. I have also, however, read and re-read his less well-known works on Christian topics, namely The Thing, The Catholic Church and Conversion, The Well and the Shallows, St. Francis of Assisi, and St. Thomas Aquinas. I have read and reread many times all of Chesterton's six novels (The Napoleon of Notting Hill, The Man Who Was Thursday, The Ball and the Cross, Manalive, The Flying Inn, and The Return of Don Quixote), as well as more or less all of his short stories (including not only all 53 Father Brown mysteries, but also the one-off collections The Club of Queer Trades, Four Faultless Felons, The Man Who Knew Too Much, Tales of the Long Bow, The Poet and the Lunatics, The Paradoxes of Mr. Pond, and the early unpublished writings collected in The Coloured Lands and elsewhere). I have read nearly all of his poems that have been collected (some thousands), and memorized more than a dozen of them, including his famous epic poems Lepanto, The Ballad of St. Barbara, and the book-length Ballad of the White Horse. I have read all those books covering his frequent travels and impressions taken from them: What I Saw in America, Irish Impressions, The New Jerusalem, Sidelights on New York and Newer London, Christendom in Dublin, and The Resurrection of Rome. I have not read all, but at least a reasonable proportion of his works of literary criticism, including his Twelve Types, The Victorian Age in Literature, Charles Dickens, Robert Browning, George Bernard Shaw, Appreciations and Criticisms of the Works of Charles Dickens, Robert Louis Stevenson, and his Chaucer. I have read most of his works of political and economic theory and polemic, including Utopia of Usurers, Eugenics and Other Evils, William Cobbett, What's Wrong with the World, and The Outline of Sanity. I have read his one and only Short History of England. I have read all three plays he wrote in his lifetime, namely, Magic, The Judgement of Dr. Johnson, and The Surprise, as well as the mummer's play The Turkey and the Turk. I have also, relevantly to this essay, read most of his works of anti-German war propaganda, including The Barbarism of Berlin, Lord Kitchener, The Crimes of England, and the posthumous collection of his anti-Nazi columns and essays The End of the Armistice. 

(I left out a few books here because I missed them in the Wikipedia list of Chesterton works I found and/or wasn't 100% sure I had read them even though I likely did.)

While I have not read all his collections of essays, I have read at least a reasonable proportion of the weekly or more than weekly columns he wrote for most of his life and from which these essay collections were drawn. In particular, I have read and reread all of the weekly columns, reviews, and letters he wrote for the Daily News from 1901 to 1913. It is literally true that I do not know how many of the weekly columns he wrote for the Illustrated London News from 1905 to 1936 I have read--as I used to simply read through volumes of them ad libitum without taking any particular notice of what the year was or which I had read before--but I believe upon sober reflection that I have read certainly the majority of them (including definitely all between 1914 and 1919 and all from 1930-1936, of which I made particular note), and consider it likely that I have in fact read something approaching all of them. I have also read everything he wrote (including both weekly columns and occasional anonymous leaders, easily distinguishable by his distinctive voice) for his brother's newspaper The New Witness from 1919 to 1922 (the only years, alas, currently available online); and am at the present slowly reading through everything he wrote for his own newspaper G.K.'s Weekly in the available online archives: so far, I have only made it from Sept. 1925 to February 1926, but am making steady progress. This remains, for me, the true "frontier" of Chesterton reading, which will hopefully last me until death.

Oh yes, and I have also naturally read a decent amount of scholarship and writing on Chesterton: including most notably Chesterton's own Autobiography, and Ian Kerr's voluminous and magisterial G.K. Chesterton: A Biography, my copy of which is in tatters from reading it in the shower too much. I have also read many times the initial biography written by Maisie Ward, a personal friend of Chesterton: as well as owning and frequently rereading the rare and hard-to-find supplement Return to Chesterton, a delightful and profound book consisting of dozens of largely unedited accounts and anecdotes of Chesterton by personal friends and people he took under his wing as children and adolescents.

All this might well make me seem like a rather crazed monomaniac, the proverbial "man of one book" spoken of by Aquinas. I can assure my readers that this is not the case: as, for instance, the many books on diverse topics reviewed in this space might indicate. Besides getting a PhD in Classics and writing a book on 4th century political theology, I flatter myself in thinking that I read rather widely. In the past few months, for instance, I have read an academic book on Ottoman political theory, another on modern Islamic movements to revive the Caliphate, another on Medieval European social organization, and another on the internal economy of the contemporary Pakistani military, in addition to a few works of fiction. Still, all the while, I have been also and on the side reading and rereading G.K. Chesterton.

It is, in fact, Chesterton who led me to become such a generalist, and my general reading that leads me back to Chesterton. He himself read and wrote rather widely on very different topics all throughout his life: and a close personal friend compared him to a house with large windows opening in every direction. I have, to a much smaller extent, aspired to be the same.

For the purposes of this essay, however, I should point out that my knowledge of Chesterton extends not merely to his text, but to his context. I would venture to say that I have a fairly decent working knowledge of all of the major authors and politicians, intellectual and religious and political movements, major world events, and journalistic fads of Chesterton's lifetime. A decent amount of that knowledge, it is true, comes via absorbing and researching the references to these events and fads and figures found in Chesterton's voluminous writings--while some more comes from reading a decent proportion of the non-Chesterton writings and reviews and columns and leaders of the weekly popular newspapers Chesterton wrote for. But I have also directly read a decent number of other contemporary authors and/or scholarly works on the period. 

Hence, while I would never profess to be a scholarly expert on the Victorian Era or the early 20th century or WW1 or the '20s or the '30s, I can speak with reasonable facility on and around, for instance, the Eugenics movement in Germany, England, and America, the Celtic Revival, the Decadents, the WW1 German military, the lead-up and results of the Russian Revolution, the introduction of Russian literature into England, the birth and early development of the English Air Force, the rise of Imperialist Jingoism and Mafficking in England, the Darwinian debates over evolution, Teutonist racialism in England and Germany, the Victorian debates over Birth Control, the Great Strikes of the 1900s, Orientalism as a cultural movement, the French syndicalist movement and its American and British offshoots, the place of Jews in England and France in the 19th and 20th centuries, Anarchist dynamite attacks and assassinations, the economic downturn in England, France, and Germany after WW1, the birth of modern policing, the origins of science fiction, the rise of Fascism in the 1920s and '30s, detective fiction in Britain and America, the Conservative Revolution in Germany, and so on and so forth. More than this, I am intimately familiar with the language and cast of mind of people in these times and places and could give, I fancy, a pretty decent approximation of how different groups wrote and thought. I have also read or read about a great number of the authors and topics from earlier history written about by Chesterton, including such diverse figures as William Cobbett, William Shakespeare, Homer, and Euripides.