Pushing The Boundaries: Why I Choose to Make Waves With Oddly Provocative Writing

Exploring the Role of Controversial Rhetoric in Challenging the Status Quo

I apologize if this entry feels too self-focused. I understand that my writing can evoke strong reactions, ranging from insults and partisan attacks to expressions of gratitude. I'm grateful for the positive feedback I've received, but also wary of those who have sought to enlist me in their violent plans. I’ve learned that with provocative writing comes responsibility. Perhaps one easy way to act more responsibly is to make my goals and intentions clear:

Why I write

I write to reassure my audience that they’re not alone and to encourage them to be proud of their beliefs. I also challenge my opponents' views and ideas to try and persuade them to see things from a different perspective.

I don’t identify as either left or right-wing. I condemn violent activism, racism, and bigotry and I denounce attempts to stifle discourse - even if the topics are controversial.

I condemn any speech that fits the UN's definition of hate speech and any speech that exceeds the boundaries of the first amendment. Of course, as we all know too well by now, interpreting these free speech boundaries is often subjective. I strive to promote a respectful and informed dialogue around this issue, too.

My background:

As an AI technologist for the past decade, I know AI has great potential to improve human life. But, AI also has the potential to create unprecedented challenges.

I've discussed these challenges with those in power, but often the conversations lead nowhere. I will provide a few examples:

• An AI executive argues that job displacement will never be an issue, citing a historical trend of new jobs arising as technology disrupts old systems. I point out that this ignores the evidence suggesting an unprecedented change is on the horizon, where new technology renders human labor obsolete for an ever-increasing number of tasks. I explain that while new jobs will arise, it is unlikely that only humans can fill these tasks in the long term. AI and robotics will eventually surpass any human laborer's ability to keep up. Despite my arguments, the AI executive persists in repeating their original claim. Finally, when pushed, the executive sheepishly concedes, saying under their breath, "I agree, but I'm trying to be optimistic." (I know this doesn't represent the attitude of all AI executives.)

• An esteemed scientist exhibits cynicism disguised as sophistication – they avoid conversations about fixing what's wrong, thinking it's naive and futile – a dangerous default attitude. (I know this doesn't represent the behavior of all esteemed scientists.)

• A highly-educated libertarian purist believes it is the owner's right to deny a starving child of life-saving bread from a surplus heading for the trash heap. Furthermore, they argue, per the non-aggression principle, the child should not attempt to steal a single bite of stale bread - even if it means death. (I know this doesn't represent the beliefs of all libertarians.)

• A fast-fashion magnate disregarded and dismissed my arguments about the importance of ethical labor practices and the economic benefits of fair wages. No counter-argument was advanced; he dismissed my views as bitter and personally motivated. (If any fast-fashion magnate can react differently, I'd be pleasantly surprised.)

My goal

I don’t want to haphazardly attack straw men or put words in peoples' mouths. Instead, my writing reflects the frustrations I’ve often experienced when attempting to engage in good-faith conversations concerning human suffering and well-being.

Though my writing is often ironic and not meant to be entirely literal, make no mistake, each piece carries a deadly-serious layer of social commentary that I aim to convey clearly and effectively.

If I fail to do this well, I apologize; I take responsibility for that, and will continue striving for improvement.

What I believe

With the right combination of policies and technology, we could create a world of abundance where we meet everyone's basic needs. However, this would require global collaboration, large-scale investments, and robust policy frameworks to ensure we distribute resources equitably.

If humanity had the will and ability to cooperate, we could create abundance for all. One way to coordinate this widespread will is to actively seek to minimize and soften evolved traits of violence and competitiveness and instead focus on cultivating and amplifying our natural capacity for kindness, love, and respect.

To learn more about the potential for this, I’ll do the following:

• Investigate the potential of BCIs, neuro-enhancement, and AI-driven psychotherapies.

• Investigate gene therapies to reduce aggression and competitiveness.

• Explore virtual reality technology to simulate different perspectives and practice empathy.

• Investigate the potential of psychoactive substances to induce a shift in perspective and promote a sense of connection.

• Investigate therapeutic interventions, such as CBT, to reduce impulse towards violence and competition.

• Utilize mindfulness and meditation to manage aggressive impulses better.

• Explore different rhetorical techniques to prioritize kindness and respect for human life over status and profit.

I invite you to join me in exploring these concepts with an open, curious, and compassionate mind while acknowledging that it can be scary and that I’m not sold on any of these things outright. I’m morally against any system that is totalitarian, fascist, or forces involuntary participation concerning any of the above.

Conclusion

I don't expect everyone to agree with my writing, but I hope for an honest and respectful dialogue.

Thank you for reading and engaging with my free substack and on the various Reddit subs.

I genuinely wish you the best.