Boris Engelson provides critical and reflective perspectives on social and diplomatic issues. In the spirit of Diplo’s resident contrarian, he selects the topics, arguments, and angles through which he engages with these questions. His contributions span a wide range of subjects, from policymaking in Geneva to reflections on history and love. These essays present Boris Engelson’s views and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Diplo. For some weeks now – mostly due to lack of time – I had to stop writing for Diplo, and you, to read me, if you did. Before going forth into new topics, it is wise to wind the clock back a bit, so that we are still in phase, you and me. This blog is a ‘contrarian‘ column, with an eye on the ‘artificial intelligence’ scene. Because most of the facts and information from ‘those who know’ – all the analysis and positioning of ‘serious’ organisations – seem, to me at least, biased. Because ‘competence’ is a double-edged notion: a film already mentioned in this column pitted ‘learned’, ‘objective’, and ‘sincere’ against each other. Because, as the joke goes about those who ‘know everything about nothing or nothing about everything’, what one wins in specialisation, one loses in perspective.
Because in a world with billions of graduates eager (or forced) to climb the social ladder, making a career, if not reaching the top, blinds the ‘expert’ to genuine stakes and cuts them off from an outside view. Because people kid themselves that they are good and smart if they hold a high position, reached after many years in office, thanks to a high degree earned through lengthy studies. Because one cannot be a judge and a party without being biased – but one cannot be a judge without being a party unless callow. And anyhow, in a time when the image of a rosy future has blurred, there is no compass any more.
Because when scholars and data were scarce, one could dream of a model role for science-hungry juniors and pass into the future with a statue in front of the Nobel Foundation. But today, information is a commodity and does nothing to make one feel ‘intelligent’, let alone ‘visionary’. This time, no more ‘why’ – but: Because ‘thinkers’ are worried and therefore busy about their prestige in the shadow of AI, so that most of their output is a cover for self-promotion – their own and their peers’ – under the mask of erudition and engagement. Because AI proves not so much that robots are intelligent as it reveals how shallow ‘scholars’ and ‘experts’ have been. And since AI is synthetic, humans now feel compelled to display cumbersome knowledge that will take years to prove wrong. As for their ‘engagement’, it is good for broadening their constituency – until the downtrodden see the plan fail. Because, as someone once put it, ‘a system dies from the very causes which worked well at the start‘ – and we all see that education, industry, even democracy, are backfiring from their own excess in this new millennium. God knows. Perhaps ‘progress’ was a temporary miracle and ‘democracy’ a state of post-war levitation – but since billions feed on these twin booms, there is no way to change the course of events. Not till the gloom and doom. In any case, the why and because above are mere hypotheses that we have been trying to test so far in this column, and will continue to do so if you are willing to read. At least, they tell you why there is a ‘contrarian’ column at Diplo, with an eye on ‘artificial intelligence’.
Why contrarian
Why biased
Why against
Why loses
Why blind and cut
Why kid
Why blurred
Why does no one care
Why mask
Why wrong and fails
Why backfiring
