Although it – artificial intelligence (AI) – faded from the scene some time ago, it’s back and evermore relevant, taking an increasing role in cyberspace, military applications, and everyday life (catch an enticing discussion on AI from RadioLab, WNYC). AI was the face of innovation, it inspired science fiction literature and films, and the belief was that it would be life altering.
Before we begin to explore AI and the state, though, what is it that draws us to AI? In its depictions, AI is methodical, trustworthy, relentless, eerie, intelligent, efficient and, at times, naive. We love AI because we can – love it, that is – without it hurting us, violating our trust, or failing us. AI is everything to us that human relations are not, safeguarding us from exploitation, harm, and narcissism. AI, in one way, is the friend that never judges. AI has a darker side, too, because it is not human: it can display unalterable callousness; and, of course, let’s not forget how it can be manipulated. In essence, it is threatening and reassuring at the same time.
AI is now back in the limelight, and all signs indicate that it will revolutionize life if it receives sufficient attention, allowing for boundless growth in science, technology, the arts, and overall life. AI is more than the above, though, because it can now be almost human and, eventually, human. It can demonstrate fear, love, and other emotions that construct the webs that bind human relations. A side dilemma then exists in how far AI should be pushed to be human, ethically and professionally, and to what ends.
AI is the future, and the leviathan is the past. AI is just the tool we need to bolster the state in that it is readily conceivable how incorporating the studies of AI and modeling can be of enormous benefit to the state in the fields of foreign policy, conflict resolution, and endless socio-political issues that involve the complex interplay between states, interests, and human dynamics. Although the state works because of human dynamics and the negotiations that occur between those who feed it, the problem lies in that one beast can often misunderstand the other. Aiding the state and involving AI – not an easy task – would require an interdisciplinary approach that melds the fields of mechanics, physics, politics, sociology, economics, mathematics, psychology, philosophy, and on. The question may still persist, though, on what role AI could play between states?
AI offers a radical promise for situations involving state interests (e.g., foreign policy) because it can react based upon precedent and calculated values while also avoiding human shortcomings (emotions, egos, personalities, etc.); in short, AI would allow for speed and efficiency in matters that can be lengthy, drudging, contentious, concurrently avoiding the abhorrent waste and loss of life that can occur. Looking at the case of Afghanistan and Pakistan, for instance, we would be able to construct and resolve situations while maintaining certain standards and interests as long as proper modeling (inputting of state and non-state actors’ interests) were to occur. Moreover, in cases where AI shows that peace would not prevail because of divergent (or conflicted) interests, we would be alerted to a need to address the shortcomings or face the consequences.
Libya, Sudan, Syria, Haiti, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Colombia, nuclear proliferation, political violence, state economic failure, the drug war, environmental conflict, etc. – these should be reason enough to advocate for the rise of the radical state – a new leviathan.
