Babel Jerusalem

footwork, juke, chiptune-leaning hyperactive electronic, abrasive 808-driven trap

+ Show full styles

The civilization of love will not arise from a single spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization.
The primary choice is not between a “yes” or “no” to technology, but between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem: between a power that claims to dominate the heavens and a people who work together to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence.
Technology has the power to heal, connect, educate and protect our common home; but it can also divide, exclude and generate new forms of injustice. In practice, technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it.
Today, the main drivers of development are private, often transnational parties endowed with resources and the capacity to intervene that surpass those of many governments. Technological power thus takes on an unprecedented, predominantly “private” aspect.
Current AI systems are more “cultivated” than “built.” Developers do not directly design every detail, but create a framework within which the intelligence “grows.” As a result, fundamental scientific aspects — internal representations and computational processes — remain unknown.
So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce.
The artificial imitation of care or support can become particularly risky when it enters contexts where real relationships and emotional bonds are lacking. The danger is not so much that a person may believe they are communicating with another person, but that they may gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections.
The algorithm is not neutral
The use of AI is never purely technical: when it enters processes that affect people’s lives, it touches on rights, opportunities, status and freedom. Important decisions — concerning employment, credit, public services or reputation — risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know compassion, mercy, forgiveness, or the hope that people are able to change.
Entrusting an algorithm with the power to select who is worthy or not, without anyone bearing responsibility for that judgment, is to hand over the task of redefining the boundaries of human possibilities. In this process, political responsibility is lost.
We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for the “alignment” of AI with human values without openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved. A more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few.
To speak of the common good means exposing this new form of epistemic, economic and political asymmetry and naming the new monopolies of AI. To speak of solidarity obliges us to recognize the hidden, often exploited workers who sustain algorithmic systems. To speak of justice requires questioning the global distribution of power that decides who can train these models and who is merely subjected to them.
Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of “armed” competition — not only military, but economic and cognitive: a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire for geopolitical or commercial dominance. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life.
AI is driving profound changes in public and political communication. Disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a powerful amplifier in AI. The ability to manipulate content, images and videos exposes people to biased or misleading perspectives.
Democracy does not consist of rules and procedures alone, but of a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society. Indifference to truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into totalitarianism.
It is not permissible to entrust lethal or irreversible decisions to artificial systems. No algorithm can make war morally acceptable. AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; it can only bring conflict about more quickly and render it more impersonal.
The decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware and responsible human control.

4696/7500

The civilization of love will not arise from a single spectacular gesture, but from the sum total of small and steadfast acts of fidelity that serve as a bulwark against dehumanization. The primary choice is not between a “yes” or “no” to technology, but between constructing Babel or rebuilding Jerusalem: between a power that claims to dominate the heavens and a people who work together to rebuild the walls of fraternal coexistence. Technology has the power to heal, connect, educate and protect our common home; but it can also divide, exclude and generate new forms of injustice. In practice, technology is never neutral, because it takes on the characteristics of those who devise, finance, regulate and use it. Today, the main drivers of development are private, often transnational parties endowed with resources and the capacity to intervene that surpass those of many governments. Technological power thus takes on an unprecedented, predominantly “private” aspect. Current AI systems are more “cultivated” than “built.” Developers do not directly design every detail, but create a framework within which the intelligence “grows.” As a result, fundamental scientific aspects — internal representations and computational processes — remain unknown. So-called artificial intelligences do not undergo experiences, do not possess a body, do not feel joy or pain, do not mature through relationships and do not know from within what love, work, friendship or responsibility mean. Nor do they have a moral conscience. They may imitate language, behavior and analytical skills, or even simulate empathy and understanding, but they do not understand what they produce. The artificial imitation of care or support can become particularly risky when it enters contexts where real relationships and emotional bonds are lacking. The danger is not so much that a person may believe they are communicating with another person, but that they may gradually lose the very desire to form genuine human connections. The algorithm is not neutral The use of AI is never purely technical: when it enters processes that affect people’s lives, it touches on rights, opportunities, status and freedom. Important decisions — concerning employment, credit, public services or reputation — risk being fully delegated to automated systems that do not know compassion, mercy, forgiveness, or the hope that people are able to change. Entrusting an algorithm with the power to select who is worthy or not, without anyone bearing responsibility for that judgment, is to hand over the task of redefining the boundaries of human possibilities. In this process, political responsibility is lost. We cannot be satisfied with merely calling for the “alignment” of AI with human values without openly discussing the ethical frameworks involved. A more moral AI is not enough if that morality is determined by a few. To speak of the common good means exposing this new form of epistemic, economic and political asymmetry and naming the new monopolies of AI. To speak of solidarity obliges us to recognize the hidden, often exploited workers who sustain algorithmic systems. To speak of justice requires questioning the global distribution of power that decides who can train these models and who is merely subjected to them. Disarming AI means freeing it from the mentality of “armed” competition — not only military, but economic and cognitive: a race for ever more powerful algorithms and larger datasets, driven by the desire for geopolitical or commercial dominance. To disarm does not mean rejecting technology, but preventing it from dominating humanity. It means freeing technology from monopolistic control and restoring it to the plurality of human cultures and ways of life. AI is driving profound changes in public and political communication. Disinformation did not begin with AI, yet today it finds a powerful amplifier in AI. The ability to manipulate content, images and videos exposes people to biased or misleading perspectives. Democracy does not consist of rules and procedures alone, but of a solid concordance with the facts and a genuine commitment to the good of individuals and society. Indifference to truth leads, slowly but surely, to a descent into totalitarianism. It is not permissible to entrust lethal or irreversible decisions to artificial systems. No algorithm can make war morally acceptable. AI does not remove the intrinsic inhumanity of conflict; it can only bring conflict about more quickly and render it more impersonal. The decision to use lethal force cannot be delegated to opaque or automated processes, but must remain under effective, self-aware and responsible human control.

0/500