Andrew Burnside

Much recent work in the value theory of autonomous and intelligent systems (AIS) revolves around three issues. First is the alignment problem: the problem of producing AIS whose values align with humanity's interests. Second, superintelligence: the potential for AIS to develop intelligence which would surpass even the most intelligent humans. An increasing number of authors argue that superintelligent AIS could emerge overnight because of a recursively improving process-this is the singularity hypothesis. Further, many of the same authors believe that the concatenation of these problems should direct interest to the long-term potential for misaligned and superintelligent AIS which could pose risks of existential proportions to human interests. Therefore, they argue for a policy stance which we describe as “hard alignment,'’ the proposal of cooperation with technological experts to avoid hypothetical scenarios where AIS disempower humanity. On the other hand, we describe our view as “soft alignment.'’ Considering the lack of adequate evidence for hard alignment's radical claims, the finite resources and attention of policymakers and technological experts are best served by devoting, at best, a modest amount of time, attention, and resources towards policies regarding AIS which manage the moral risks involved in misaligned, already-existing AIS, and regarding misaligned potential AIS relative to the evidentiary basis for their possible realization. Therefore, we argue for the adoption of policies towards alignment which manage the everyday risk involved in misaligned AIS rather than long-term existential risks, which are difficult to quantify.

Motivated by increasingly superstitious usage and socially corrosive scandals surrounding the generative artificial intelligence models (e.g., GPT-4) of today, this paper draws on the work of canonical philosophical diagnostician of superstition, Baruch Spinoza, to develop a political-psychological accounting of AI minds and their consequences. Elaborating Spinoza’s naturalism and panpsychism, we show that the Spinozian view affirms that LLMs have minds which are fundamentally similar to human minds. However, following Spinoza’s epistemology, these minds are composed of broadly inadequate ideas, lacking any sort of comprehensive accounting of their causal generation. We then relate Spinoza’s account of how inadequate ideas generate ethically vicious relationships between entities dovetails with contemporary empirical studies of LLM’s racism and their capacity to shape human minds in biased ways, concluding that only a mind sufficiently like ours could effectively promulgate such vice and superstition. We conclude by proposing several policy recommendations which follow from this account of LLMs.

I conceive of Spinoza’s substance monism as a response to Aristotle’s prohibition against actual infinity for one key reason: nature, being all things, is necessarily infi nite. Spinoza encapsulates his substance monism with the phrase, “Deus sive Natura,” implying that there is only one infinite substance, which also possesses an infi nity of attributes, of which we are but modes. These logical delineations of substance never actually break up God’s reality. Aristotle’s well-known argument against the reality of an actual infinity in his Physics prohibits the existence of an actually infinite bodily substance because it would necessarily “destroy” (Physics 204b26-27) all other elements or bodies. On Aristotle’s view, there is a fundamental and concrete distinction between things: each substance is primarily a this (Categories 3b10). I maintain that Spinoza’s rationalism and radicalization of the principle of sufficient reason lends him greater explanatory potential than Aristotle to justify the (non) existence of actual infinity.

I make the case that Spinoza built on Descartes’s conception of what it means for a mind to have an idea by linking it with his concept of expression because ideas express realities in terms of a causation‑conception conditional (but not vice versa). Briefly, if an idea is caused by a being, then that being is conceived through that idea. Descartes thinks of our clearly and distinctly possessing an idea as a sufficient ground for our expression of what we understand. I take adequate ideas to be their equivalent. Spinoza links the connection and order of ideas with that of things because conceptualization of what is caused and its causes have to coincide (the causation‑conception conditional). Thus, Spinoza’s view must also involve clearly and distinctly possessing an idea as grounds for both expression of its content and the actual existence of a corresponding object of that idea. I stress the intentionality of ideas and discuss what follows from it taken alongside the univocity of being according to Spinoza’s substance monism. Put simply, on both Descartes’s and Spinoza’s views, ideas are always ideas of something. Ideas must express the reality of some corresponding being; in turn, being is itself expressive.

This paper is a critique of Adorno’s ideas concerning jazz from his own perspective. I approach the topic from a dialectical standpoint, accounting for the historical development of jazz in the African-American context while trying to understand why Adorno found nothing of the genre redeemable; he scorned jazz as an unoriginal product of the culture industry. Drawing on the work of Eric Hobsbawm and Fumi Okiji on jazz, history, and Adorno, I try to demonstrate the internal contradiction of Adorno’s dislike of jazz and appraisal of Beethoven. Although Adorno’s critical tools of the culture industry, deconcentration, and his usage of Lukács’s idea of reification are indispensable, Adorno should have consistently applied the subtle distinction between two intrinsically tied but nevertheless separate entities: an artwork and the mode of production in which it is developed.

St. John of the Cross was aware of the fact that his mysticism resisted prosaic, discursive representation; however, most contemporary scholars have overlooked this radical component of his work. First, I trace the major philosophical influences on John’s work: Medieval Neoplatonism and Scholasticism (especially Pseudo-Dionysius and St. Thomas Aquinas, as well as Ibn Arabi and possibly Averroes). Second, by drawing on the Barthesian-Foucauldian concept of the author function, I demonstrate that the Mystical Doctor saw his poetry as free-standing, inexhaustible by even his own efforts to systematize key aspects of his poetry—an insurmountable task, which he had to be compelled to compile and publish by the nuns he guided in spiritual direction.