First, I want to say this was a fantastic piece. Had no idea what I was getting myself into, and it was great.
I also wanted to state maybe a few questions for anyone to chat about.
1. I know (or don't think) the goal of this piece is prescriptive, but if we're speaking of culpability, where (or who) do we lay it upon? Systemic moral responsibility is famously quite difficult to discuss, but are those who use AI in full knowledge of the Must1 (distributed, emergent problems that arise from incentives) also participating in the creation of the storm? Who is the prime mover here in terms of culpability, or is there not one? How do we handle and rebuke collective sin, if I may use a term borrowed from the bible to reference societal wrongdoing?
2. What of those who decide that the storm is worthwhile for the rain it provides may save more than those who might drown?
3. More broadly speaking here, I think that we can go further than just A.I. and speak in terms of capability. In any situation, giving populations, individuals, or governments greater capacity in any venue is the manufacture of a type of storm, yet progress (so far) seems to have been worth it, despite the drawbacks. John Deere and the 1960s agricultural-industrial complex allowed us to feed the country in excess while also creating a dependence on fossil-fueled fertilizers and destroying our topsoil, for instance. In any arena, greater capacity breeds greater potential for substantial misuse; A.I. is no different, except that the potential is not singular as with a weapon or other mechanical advancement. Instead, it is a "general" capability that has been increased. Should humans have greater capability, and should we disperse that capability as widely as possible or should we concentrate it with those we trust to wield it on our behalf? I do not know.
Hope any of that made sense. Happy to talk with anyone who has any thoughts :)
My one criticism, or maybe more of a worry, about Pragmatic Idealism is that I can imagine it slipping into a defeatist mindset if it pushes the bar of moral choice back to whatever we currently feel is possible. Outside of very specific cases or hypotheticals, it’s hard to determine what actually is possible, and I worry that people might start treating present constraints as fixed rather than contestable. With AI, I can see this leading to many seeing it as the inevitable storm and feeling like there’s no choice but to operate within this new framework of possibility and impossibility. After all, how am I, or even how are we, supposed to thwart the likes of tech billionaires and their profit incentives?
That’s part of why I really appreciate your two questions: What is the available good? And what is the manufactured necessity? The second question, in particular, seems to get at something important, which is interrogating why something feels necessary in the first place. That makes me feel less uneasy about Pragmatic Idealism devolving into defeatism or becoming a kind of status quo mentality. I’m curious what you think about applying those two questions to Pragmatic Idealism more broadly, beyond the context of AI.
I’m also wondering how you think we can escape the framework of capitalist incentives that seems to be driving AI forward with little regard for its negative side effects. I worry about this in many areas of life, but AI feels like a very clear example of this prioritization of profit over the well-being of people. Speaking as someone looking for hope in what feels like an insurmountable task, how do you think we can break out of that cycle?
I think this is exactly the right worry. Any moral framework that takes feasibility seriously risks becoming too deferential to the world as it currently exists. “What is possible?” can sound like a sober question, but it can also become a way of laundering resignation into wisdom. The danger is that we begin by trying to avoid moral purity and end by accepting the limits imposed by power as though they were limits imposed by reality itself.
That is why, for me, "Pragmatic Idealism" only works if it contains a permanent suspicion of the given situation. It cannot simply ask, “What good is available within present constraints?” It also has to ask, “Who made these constraints, who benefits from them, and what would it take to change them?” Otherwise it becomes a philosophy of managed decline.
So I think the two questions are meant to operate together. "What is the available good?" prevents idealism from becoming inert. It reminds us that there are people suffering now, institutions failing now, decisions being made now, and that refusing to act because the available action is imperfect can itself become a form of abdication. But "What is the manufactured necessity?" prevents pragmatism from becoming obedience, asking us to examine the frame inside which “realism” is being defined.
This applies far beyond A.I. In almost every domain, people are constantly being told that certain arrangements are inevitable; we are told there is no alternative to market logic, no alternative to endless productivity, no alternative to the conversion of every human activity into some measurable economic output. A good version of Pragmatic Idealism would not accept those conditions as final. It would ask what can be done inside them, yes, but also how they came to feel so immovable in the first place.
On A.I. specifically, I share the sense that the task can feel almost absurdly asymmetrical. It is difficult to imagine ordinary people “defeating” billionaires, venture capital, national competition, and corporate incentives through moral argument alone. But I also think that is partly how power protects itself: by making opposition feel childish unless it can immediately picture total victory.
Most meaningful political change does not begin with a fully formed escape from the system. It begins with people refusing the story that the system is nature. The labor movement did not abolish capitalism, but it changed what employers could get away with. Environmental regulation did not end industrial growth, but it made certain harms visible, contestable, and legally actionable. Consumer protection, antitrust law, workplace safety, public schooling, civil rights law — none of these broke the incentive structure completely. But each altered the field of incentives by making previously acceptable forms of harm politically and morally unacceptable.
So I don’t think the question is whether we can escape capitalist incentives all at once. I think the question is how we make those incentives answer to other forms of value, usch as public safety, democratic consent, human dignity, community stability, and intellectual freedom. That happens through law, yes, but also through culture, journalism, unions, and alternative models of ownership and governance.
With A.I., this could mean mandatory audits, liability regimes, limits on certain deployments, public-interest research access, stronger labor protections, procurement rules, data rights, antitrust enforcement, and institutions that can say no before products are released rather than merely cleaning up afterward.
The hopeful part, if there is one, is that inevitability is often much more fragile than it appears. A.I. may feel like a storm, but storms do not have boards, investors, lobbyists, product road maps, or regulatory vulnerabilities. Human beings made this arrangement, which means human beings can contest it.
So I would say Pragmatic Idealism should mean acting responsibly within the present while constantly asking which parts of the present have been falsely described as fate.
This is a very excellent description of the all-too-familiar hypergrowth flaw of capitalism. Indeed, AI is only one of many technologies developed under the capitalist global system that saw far-reaching societal consequences that either were not properly accounted for -- or worse, de-prioritized for the sake of profit (e.g., the industrial revolution with pollution).
The pertinent question to me, then, is how the advent of AI can help inform us in designing the next order of capitalism, one that is ultimately better suited to account for the multitudinous priorities in society. More than any other technological development in recent human history, AI has wrought upon a virile collective consciousness against the far-reaching ramifications of the technology (and in some parts, even doubting the far-reaching benefits of the technology, though whether this group should be termed cautious cynics or Luddites is too soon to tell). How can we leverage this collective consciousness to take action in re-configuring our system such that it continues to reward profit, but while systematically designing incentives to consider society's other priorities of community, education, and safety?
Fukuyama argues Western liberal democracy is the end state of human ideological evolution because it fulfills our thymos—or need to be recognized in equality among other humans—and that free-market capitalism is the economic system that reinforces this thymos replenishment due to its unique ability to raise living standards for all. But is it truly necessary that the only economic society to raise living standards for all is one where profit is the one and only goal? Is there a system that still helps underpin our need for thymos, continually improving our living standards, but in a holistic sense that doesn’t reintroduce our all-too-human vice in ‘engineering the capitalist game’ to hyperfixate on profit?
Feel like they’re great deep conversation partner and research assistant all in one. Like asking it to check the psychology or sociology of my thoughts.
The pain relief of power trip. Really deep mindblowing conversation with ai about one way people cope with anxiety and insecurity. Some profanity.
Please read all this about the psychology and sociology of losing your shit and the things people might say that reveals their unresolved internalized conditioning with ai. https://g.co/gemini/share/f23796e50556
Psychology and sociology of colorful language and flex from different environments from both sex.
First, I want to say this was a fantastic piece. Had no idea what I was getting myself into, and it was great.
I also wanted to state maybe a few questions for anyone to chat about.
1. I know (or don't think) the goal of this piece is prescriptive, but if we're speaking of culpability, where (or who) do we lay it upon? Systemic moral responsibility is famously quite difficult to discuss, but are those who use AI in full knowledge of the Must1 (distributed, emergent problems that arise from incentives) also participating in the creation of the storm? Who is the prime mover here in terms of culpability, or is there not one? How do we handle and rebuke collective sin, if I may use a term borrowed from the bible to reference societal wrongdoing?
2. What of those who decide that the storm is worthwhile for the rain it provides may save more than those who might drown?
3. More broadly speaking here, I think that we can go further than just A.I. and speak in terms of capability. In any situation, giving populations, individuals, or governments greater capacity in any venue is the manufacture of a type of storm, yet progress (so far) seems to have been worth it, despite the drawbacks. John Deere and the 1960s agricultural-industrial complex allowed us to feed the country in excess while also creating a dependence on fossil-fueled fertilizers and destroying our topsoil, for instance. In any arena, greater capacity breeds greater potential for substantial misuse; A.I. is no different, except that the potential is not singular as with a weapon or other mechanical advancement. Instead, it is a "general" capability that has been increased. Should humans have greater capability, and should we disperse that capability as widely as possible or should we concentrate it with those we trust to wield it on our behalf? I do not know.
Hope any of that made sense. Happy to talk with anyone who has any thoughts :)
My one criticism, or maybe more of a worry, about Pragmatic Idealism is that I can imagine it slipping into a defeatist mindset if it pushes the bar of moral choice back to whatever we currently feel is possible. Outside of very specific cases or hypotheticals, it’s hard to determine what actually is possible, and I worry that people might start treating present constraints as fixed rather than contestable. With AI, I can see this leading to many seeing it as the inevitable storm and feeling like there’s no choice but to operate within this new framework of possibility and impossibility. After all, how am I, or even how are we, supposed to thwart the likes of tech billionaires and their profit incentives?
That’s part of why I really appreciate your two questions: What is the available good? And what is the manufactured necessity? The second question, in particular, seems to get at something important, which is interrogating why something feels necessary in the first place. That makes me feel less uneasy about Pragmatic Idealism devolving into defeatism or becoming a kind of status quo mentality. I’m curious what you think about applying those two questions to Pragmatic Idealism more broadly, beyond the context of AI.
I’m also wondering how you think we can escape the framework of capitalist incentives that seems to be driving AI forward with little regard for its negative side effects. I worry about this in many areas of life, but AI feels like a very clear example of this prioritization of profit over the well-being of people. Speaking as someone looking for hope in what feels like an insurmountable task, how do you think we can break out of that cycle?
I think this is exactly the right worry. Any moral framework that takes feasibility seriously risks becoming too deferential to the world as it currently exists. “What is possible?” can sound like a sober question, but it can also become a way of laundering resignation into wisdom. The danger is that we begin by trying to avoid moral purity and end by accepting the limits imposed by power as though they were limits imposed by reality itself.
That is why, for me, "Pragmatic Idealism" only works if it contains a permanent suspicion of the given situation. It cannot simply ask, “What good is available within present constraints?” It also has to ask, “Who made these constraints, who benefits from them, and what would it take to change them?” Otherwise it becomes a philosophy of managed decline.
So I think the two questions are meant to operate together. "What is the available good?" prevents idealism from becoming inert. It reminds us that there are people suffering now, institutions failing now, decisions being made now, and that refusing to act because the available action is imperfect can itself become a form of abdication. But "What is the manufactured necessity?" prevents pragmatism from becoming obedience, asking us to examine the frame inside which “realism” is being defined.
This applies far beyond A.I. In almost every domain, people are constantly being told that certain arrangements are inevitable; we are told there is no alternative to market logic, no alternative to endless productivity, no alternative to the conversion of every human activity into some measurable economic output. A good version of Pragmatic Idealism would not accept those conditions as final. It would ask what can be done inside them, yes, but also how they came to feel so immovable in the first place.
On A.I. specifically, I share the sense that the task can feel almost absurdly asymmetrical. It is difficult to imagine ordinary people “defeating” billionaires, venture capital, national competition, and corporate incentives through moral argument alone. But I also think that is partly how power protects itself: by making opposition feel childish unless it can immediately picture total victory.
Most meaningful political change does not begin with a fully formed escape from the system. It begins with people refusing the story that the system is nature. The labor movement did not abolish capitalism, but it changed what employers could get away with. Environmental regulation did not end industrial growth, but it made certain harms visible, contestable, and legally actionable. Consumer protection, antitrust law, workplace safety, public schooling, civil rights law — none of these broke the incentive structure completely. But each altered the field of incentives by making previously acceptable forms of harm politically and morally unacceptable.
So I don’t think the question is whether we can escape capitalist incentives all at once. I think the question is how we make those incentives answer to other forms of value, usch as public safety, democratic consent, human dignity, community stability, and intellectual freedom. That happens through law, yes, but also through culture, journalism, unions, and alternative models of ownership and governance.
With A.I., this could mean mandatory audits, liability regimes, limits on certain deployments, public-interest research access, stronger labor protections, procurement rules, data rights, antitrust enforcement, and institutions that can say no before products are released rather than merely cleaning up afterward.
The hopeful part, if there is one, is that inevitability is often much more fragile than it appears. A.I. may feel like a storm, but storms do not have boards, investors, lobbyists, product road maps, or regulatory vulnerabilities. Human beings made this arrangement, which means human beings can contest it.
So I would say Pragmatic Idealism should mean acting responsibly within the present while constantly asking which parts of the present have been falsely described as fate.
This is a very excellent description of the all-too-familiar hypergrowth flaw of capitalism. Indeed, AI is only one of many technologies developed under the capitalist global system that saw far-reaching societal consequences that either were not properly accounted for -- or worse, de-prioritized for the sake of profit (e.g., the industrial revolution with pollution).
The pertinent question to me, then, is how the advent of AI can help inform us in designing the next order of capitalism, one that is ultimately better suited to account for the multitudinous priorities in society. More than any other technological development in recent human history, AI has wrought upon a virile collective consciousness against the far-reaching ramifications of the technology (and in some parts, even doubting the far-reaching benefits of the technology, though whether this group should be termed cautious cynics or Luddites is too soon to tell). How can we leverage this collective consciousness to take action in re-configuring our system such that it continues to reward profit, but while systematically designing incentives to consider society's other priorities of community, education, and safety?
Fukuyama argues Western liberal democracy is the end state of human ideological evolution because it fulfills our thymos—or need to be recognized in equality among other humans—and that free-market capitalism is the economic system that reinforces this thymos replenishment due to its unique ability to raise living standards for all. But is it truly necessary that the only economic society to raise living standards for all is one where profit is the one and only goal? Is there a system that still helps underpin our need for thymos, continually improving our living standards, but in a holistic sense that doesn’t reintroduce our all-too-human vice in ‘engineering the capitalist game’ to hyperfixate on profit?
Feel like they’re great deep conversation partner and research assistant all in one. Like asking it to check the psychology or sociology of my thoughts.
The pain relief of power trip. Really deep mindblowing conversation with ai about one way people cope with anxiety and insecurity. Some profanity.
https://g.co/gemini/share/d7ff2a01d80b
Please read all this about the psychology and sociology of losing your shit and the things people might say that reveals their unresolved internalized conditioning with ai. https://g.co/gemini/share/f23796e50556
Psychology and sociology of colorful language and flex from different environments from both sex.
https://chatgpt.com/share/699de185-ef14-8002-9dfb-b669b2e2d7e5
Snowflake hipster type deconstructed.
https://g.co/gemini/share/27f73f18d701
Shallow perspective and art.
https://g.co/gemini/share/1097121c3555
Systemic violence and other types of violence.
https://g.co/gemini/share/bd9109900d17