Courting The Counterfactual

The agenda for Scoping Cybernomos begins with the posing of a question. One that could have been formulated from the middle of the 1950’s, some 70 years ago. This question can be couched in a variety of ways, but is essentially this: What do you do if you comprehensively understand the implications of the paradigm shift that machine intelligence is likely to have on the human condition? What do you do next? Perhaps a dedicated group would’ve identified the need to comprehensively embrace the question, as some individuals did at the time. They would’ve surely begun to realize, as we now know, that machine learning will inevitably involve a seismic change to the socio-economic sphere; that, following the impact of such comprehensive technological determinism would also require an evolution in governance structures themselves; that is new modes of orientation are required when you radically change the terrain to be navigated; and preferably in that order.

What academics, intellectuals, invariably do, is start research projects; then they coalesce to form institutions. Imbued with a mandate to review and inform about the consequences and opportunities of embracing machine intelligence; and, given the indeterminate virtue of AI, the formation of such an institution would be the ethical thing to do. That within a lifetime society needed to brace for the impact of machine intelligence in their lives. That such a program would be decades long, and would’ve been continually updating its objectives. Scoping Cybernomos thus inherits this lost counterfactual opportunity. We are in a very real sense behind the curve of where we should be, in terms of an informed public and governance framework. The counterfactual rhetorical point is not to judge those that missed this opportunity, but to emphasize the scope of ambition that’s now required. It’s the enormity of the task that needs to be registered; the comprehensive recalibration of horizons that needs to be grasped.