I largely agree with the point about technocratic approaches, the general Hayekian frame, and the way you argue for a balanced approach at the conclusion, but I think there are a few significant errors / incorrect assumptions in the middle of this piece.
One is that there seems to be a category error in treating the current direction and course of AI development as something that is neutral or organic, that simply requires 'cultivation', as if there wasn't some factor of control. "The cultivator works with natural processes—creating conditions for growth while respecting the inherent nature of their plants".
Any "inherent nature" of AI systems today is a result of design choices that were influenced by market factors and forces that involved an element of control; just because the control wasn't coming directly from the government, a governance-first approach, or from people with a regulatory point of view, does not mean that there isn't some kind of control.
Arguably, the market and AI labs driving development adopted a "scientistic" approach, merely in a way that emphasized AI as "black-box" type, stochastic, neural reinforcement AI systems, vs. other paradigms and approaches that may have different strengths and weaknesses, or fewer inherent externalities..
Is it really accurate to claim that AI development as we know it today is merely natural and not "scientistic" whatsoever simply because either the initial innovation of the past ten+ years happened completely outside the auspices of government, or because the paradigms and design architectures that have captured the majority of the market are based on stochastic approaches that might reflect some of the complexity of the natural world?
Haven't market forces "exerted rigid control" in opting to prioritize stochastic neural language models and practically redefining AI to mean only that?!
You say that "current policy proposals often reflect the sculptor's mindset" while seemingly ignoring that current AI designs and implementations are also "sculpted" and in many ways reflect the mindset, values, and ideologies of their designers.
Maybe the truly Hayekian move would be to question whether the course and outcomes of the AI development that has occurred in the past ten+ years is actually the best or most innovative, or at least whether it actually deserves the market attention it has gotten, and has the right to suck up all the oxygen in the room..
It is also fair to question the degree to which the "market", in which today's AI development has progressed, is or is not actually free from control, whether it comes from government distorting incentives via industrial policy, or inherent ideologies and motivated reasoning at major tech companies and AI research labs.
Like people, AIs become what they eat. Prove AI may be of interest. They watch the diets of AIs and help their clients and interested parties do the same.
The word "freeorder", defined as "quest serving balance among designed and spontaneous orders", may be useful. See chapter 2, "Cosmos and Taxis" of Hayek's "Law, Legislation and Liberty".
A discussion with Professor A.I. Hayek (AI emulation) about freeorder:
I largely agree with the point about technocratic approaches, the general Hayekian frame, and the way you argue for a balanced approach at the conclusion, but I think there are a few significant errors / incorrect assumptions in the middle of this piece.
One is that there seems to be a category error in treating the current direction and course of AI development as something that is neutral or organic, that simply requires 'cultivation', as if there wasn't some factor of control. "The cultivator works with natural processes—creating conditions for growth while respecting the inherent nature of their plants".
Any "inherent nature" of AI systems today is a result of design choices that were influenced by market factors and forces that involved an element of control; just because the control wasn't coming directly from the government, a governance-first approach, or from people with a regulatory point of view, does not mean that there isn't some kind of control.
Arguably, the market and AI labs driving development adopted a "scientistic" approach, merely in a way that emphasized AI as "black-box" type, stochastic, neural reinforcement AI systems, vs. other paradigms and approaches that may have different strengths and weaknesses, or fewer inherent externalities..
Is it really accurate to claim that AI development as we know it today is merely natural and not "scientistic" whatsoever simply because either the initial innovation of the past ten+ years happened completely outside the auspices of government, or because the paradigms and design architectures that have captured the majority of the market are based on stochastic approaches that might reflect some of the complexity of the natural world?
Haven't market forces "exerted rigid control" in opting to prioritize stochastic neural language models and practically redefining AI to mean only that?!
You say that "current policy proposals often reflect the sculptor's mindset" while seemingly ignoring that current AI designs and implementations are also "sculpted" and in many ways reflect the mindset, values, and ideologies of their designers.
Maybe the truly Hayekian move would be to question whether the course and outcomes of the AI development that has occurred in the past ten+ years is actually the best or most innovative, or at least whether it actually deserves the market attention it has gotten, and has the right to suck up all the oxygen in the room..
It is also fair to question the degree to which the "market", in which today's AI development has progressed, is or is not actually free from control, whether it comes from government distorting incentives via industrial policy, or inherent ideologies and motivated reasoning at major tech companies and AI research labs.
Like people, AIs become what they eat. Prove AI may be of interest. They watch the diets of AIs and help their clients and interested parties do the same.
https://proveai.com/report/download/governance-mitigating-ai-risk
The word "freeorder", defined as "quest serving balance among designed and spontaneous orders", may be useful. See chapter 2, "Cosmos and Taxis" of Hayek's "Law, Legislation and Liberty".
A discussion with Professor A.I. Hayek (AI emulation) about freeorder:
https://explorersfoundation.org/glyphery/642.html
http://explorersfoundation.org/freeorder.html
http://explorersfoundation.org/threads.html