AI as technological bribery ⊗ The foundational challenge ⊗ Doing nothing has never been more important

AI as technological bribery

This article by Z.M.L discusses a recent shift in public discourse around AI, noting that criticism of AI technologies has become more acceptable. This change may be due to various factors including reduced hype, disappointing experiences with AI products, worrying research about AI’s effects on human cognition, and the political alignment of AI executives with the Felon’s administration.

The author connects modern defences of AI to Lewis Mumford’s concept of “the magnificent bribe.” Mumford argued that people accept potentially harmful technological systems because they are offered what appears to be a “generous bargain”—material benefits in exchange for accepting the expansion of what he called “megatechnics.” (I wish I’d heard about this before I started using and tagging with “big tech.”) The bribe works by promising a share of technological benefits while distracting from how these systems concentrate power in few hands—and then share very little.

The piece specifically examines how AI defenders often respond to criticism by pointing to potential benefits in fields like medicine (“but what about AI for medical research?”). The author argues this is a modern form of Mumford’s bribe—an attempt to secure compliance by promising future benefits while avoiding discussions about current harms, power dynamics, and alternatives. This defense mechanism also offers freedom from political responsibility by suggesting technological solutions will inevitably solve human problems.

Z.M.L concludes that the increasingly defensive posture of AI advocates represents an opportunity, suggesting that the technological system is not as certain of its inevitability as it once was. They argue that rejecting the “bribe” involves questioning not only specific technologies but the value of the bargain itself, which makes those who have accepted the bribe uncomfortable as they realize they may have been “bought off cheap.”

My main caveat to this position is that it’s kind of a mirror response to the portrayed behaviour. “All of your hints of the future are BS” as answer to the “look at these potential benefits, like in medical research.” I believe it’s possible to duly critique the process and manner in which AI is being wrought on everyone, and recognise that the potential is not a wholly made up tactically. Not for the first time, I feel the critics could stretch to some common ground instead of edging as far on the other side as the zealots do. Akin to left and right instead of far left and far right.

The more significant gesture towards the future here is not solely Mumford’s reference to computers, but his prescient sense towards a future in which people would be “constantly attached”—with the comment on “portable transistor sets” pointing towards an anticipated future in which computerized devices would themselves become “portable.” […]

At this point one need not pretend that there aren’t some genuine gains that many of us enjoy in our daily lives thanks to computerization, but this late in the game it is simply naïve for any of us to pretend that we are (or ever will be) the chief beneficiaries of these gains. […]

“Accepting these means they expect that every human problem will be solved for them.” And it may well be that this proves to be even more attractive than whatever gadgets and platforms are offered, as one no longer needs to think of how a particular end shall be achieved, one need only wait patiently and expect that it inevitably will be achieved—and when it does surely you shall enjoy the trickle-down benefits. […]

For in refusing to be taken in by the appeals of the bribe one is able to not only reject the bribe itself, but also to commit the truly unforgivable sin of questioning the value of the bribe. The bribe relies on being perceived as a “generous bargain,” but part of what so riles up those who have accepted it is when they are forced to admit (even subconsciously) that they have been bought off cheap.

The foundational challenge

Great interview, Indy Johar chatting with Nate Hagens. Johar uses a very specific vocabulary, his own way of delivering it, and a galaxy brain way of explaining things in fractal ideas, much like Daniel Schmachtenberger. Which is why I had only planned on pairing the interview with this other one, by Sarah Wilson in the quick bites further down the issue.

Both are great, but since Hagens does such a good job of translating in his own, slightly more approachable vocabulary, and the topics are so important, I decided to feature it. The site linked also has, as ever, a full transcript and fantastic show notes with links to all the terms you might need explained in further detail. It’s 96 minutes long so I’m not even going to try and summarise it, I’ll just pull out a few ideas I encourage you to notice when having a full listen. And then spend some time clicking through the show notes.

• They don’t say this specifically, but there is an undercurrent of a future where we put aside material scarcity and replace it with abundant human thriving, in part with life-enobling economics. In other words, degrowth of the current world, as I’ve often written about, all the while jumping over to an abundance of intangibles.
• Focusing on the “bloody extraordinary” potential, because “there’s something extraordinary on the other side of this. And to fall in love with that extraordinariness is as important as to recognize the fear of the predicament where we stand in.”
• The potential for AI to “reagentify the world” and create transformative “ennobling infrastructures,” Johar mentions that current AI systems are problematic as they’re built within the outdated institutional frameworks of 19th century corporations, focused on control rather than outcomes, and encode dominant worldviews that risk eliminating diverse forms of knowledge. (I’ve put aside another piece that touches on this, part of an upcoming Dispatch to members.)
• His take on how to restructure society, starting at [01:05:33], with the conversion of our food systems, transportation, the equitable distribution of space, soil, materials, cities.

Doing nothing has never been more important

Kate J. Neville argues that idleness is often misunderstood and undervalued in a society that prioritises work. She suggests that “the undirected attention that idleness allows can leave space for other relations, for other politics, for other ways of being,” allowing individuals to form their own values and beliefs (which parallels Johar’s life-enobling above). By challenging the conventional view of work, Neville advocates for a broader understanding of how we spend our time, recognising the importance of both labour and idleness in shaping our identities and societal roles. By embracing idleness as a vital space for contemplation and self-determination, we can better understand our interconnectedness with others and the planet. (Via an “old” paid issue of Thomas Klaffke’s Creative Destruction.)

For Goldman, anarchism paired a fierce belief in the value of the individual with a hopeful account of collective harmony. […]

Organizing our trade-offs accordingly, we fool ourselves that we can evade the costs of expansion, of growth, of the march, so to speak, toward progress, which is typically understood as technological complexity and the fulfillment of all imagined desires. […]

When human productivity is the cause of so much damage, why is it so often presented as a solution for salvaging the planet? What is sustainable work in and for a shared future?

Dubai is a vision of the future

In her opinion piece for The New York Times, Lydia Polgreen explains how Dubai has emerged as a significant destination for skilled migrants from the global south, challenging the traditional narrative of migration towards the West. Many individuals have found opportunities in Dubai that were previously unavailable due to restrictive immigration policies in Western nations. The Gulf region’s evolving migration policies are attracting a diverse range of talented professionals, creating a cosmopolitan society that contrasts with the growing anti-immigrant sentiments in the West. As a result, Dubai might represent a future model of migration, where skilled workers prefer the lifestyle and prospects it offers over relocating to Western countries.

Polgreen hints at some of the negative aspects of the place, “the United Arab Emirates is an authoritarian monarchy, and citizenship rights are all but impossible for anyone but Emiratis to acquire,” but it remains a rather rosy portrayal. Dubai is a very unsustainable place, built with petro dollars over sand and the sacrifice of many workers, espousing a hyper-capitalistic life-style. Still, the place it’s taking as a hub to Africa and the migration flows are indeed hints of some futures.

As Dubai becomes a highly transactional magnet for human talent, it poses serious challenges to our ideas about citizenship and belonging — and sets aside some core tenets of the postwar era characterized by the relatively free movement of people across the globe. Dubai is, in many ways, a glimpse into what the future might look like. […]

“I have my home, I pay no tax and I don’t need to expose my children to all that racism, discrimination around the clock,” he said. “South-South migration has created infrastructures, industries and cosmopolitan societies that are being seen by skilled migrants as an alternative.” […]

“At one point we’ll want to pack up our bags and go home,” she said. “Maybe the future is just participation, not belonging,” she mused. “Maybe we are done putting down roots and will just keep moving.”

§ The rise and fall of the Hanseatic League. I’m always fascinated by that group/history, but it’s a 26 minute read so I’m only throwing it here for other fans, haven’t read it yet. “Starting as individual traveling traders, the Hansa built up coalitions for collective bargaining, collective action, and collective security. Through this process, they formed Northern Europe’s first ever long-distance trade network.”

Futures, Fictions & Fabulations

• Objects from the future. “Objects from the Future is a tool that helps us imagine the tangible elements of potential futures. It generates creative prompts that can be used to imagine objects and artefacts from the everyday lives of the people who might be there.”
• The Global 50 Report. “The future opportunities report. Shares the [Dubai Future] foundation’s view of the future and 50 opportunities for future growth, prosperity and well-being. Some opportunities may be in their early days of exploration, some require reflection, and some feel very far away.”
• Megatrending 2025: opportunities ahead. “These powerful social, economic, environmental, and technological forces shape our world beyond normal economic cycles. Our history is marked by helping investors navigate global complexities.”

Algorithms, Automations & Augmentations

• Indigenous groups are safeguarding culture with their own ChatGPT. “Community ownership is central to Tainá. The data are stored locally—not on the cloud—and the community decides which parts get shared with the world. It’s a far cry from the status quo of ‘Big Tech lords deciding what to do with our data.’” Related, Abundant Intelligences.
• China’s AI frenzy: DeepSeek is already everywhere — cars, phones, even hospitals. “The government, companies, and investors in China share a common belief that China’s AI opportunity lies more in AI applications — services built on top of AI — rather than solely trying to make models larger to improve performance.”
• OpenAI calls for bans on DeepSeek and other Chinese open-source AI models while it remains closed-source. Invisible hand of the market my derrière. “The proposal has sparked debate over protectionism, global fairness in AI development, and the ethical implications of using intellectual property in AI training. OpenAI urged the U.S. government to consider banning AI models from PRC-backed entities.”

Asides

• ‘Technofossils’: how humanity’s eternal testament will be plastic bags, cheap clothes and chicken bones. “Two scientists exploring which items from our technological civilisation are most likely to survive for many millions of years as fossils have reached an ironic but instructive conclusion: fast food and fast fashion will be our everlasting geological signature.”
• MIT scientists convert skin cells into neurons, could transform brain, spinal cord repair. “If introduced into humans, it could be revolutionary in treating diseases associated with spinal cord injuries and neurodegenerative changes.”
• Saturn still reigns supreme as moon king with 128 new moons. “All of the 128 new moons are ‘irregular moons,’, objects captured by their host planet early on in the history of the solar system. ‘These moons are a few kilometers in size and are likely all fragments of a smaller number of originally captured moons that were broken apart by violent collisions, either with other Saturnian moons or with passing comets.’”