In the distant past before AI or even Google existed, when faced with doubt about how to behave, we used to ask friends, family and colleagues for guidance. For more serious or permanent matters, we might occasionally consult a doctor, lawyer or professional therapist.

We have now evolved into a civilization whose citizens typically spend half or more of their waking hours in front of a screen. Our lives are saturated with advice from multiple sources of authority. Politicians explain what policies we should support. Celebrities tell us what we should buy, believe and become. Scientists hired by tobacco companies spent decades telling us what we shouldn’t worry about. The word “should” is everywhere — and it almost never means what it pretends to mean.

“Europe, meanwhile, has faced mounting domestic pressures and tests to its relationship with the US… Europe struggled to formulate a unified response to meet the moment. This initial hesitation gave way to a disjointed set of positions, with some European governments aligning with the US while others questioned the legality of US–Israeli strikes.”

These facts are painful for those of us who live and work in Europe and feel deeply concerned about its future. Yet, for all of us — including the authors of the article — it is often unclear what “Europe” even means, especially when talking about recommended public policy. Does it refer to the European Union? To Europeans themselves, many of whom have only a vague understanding of what the EU is, how it works and whom it represents?

Or perhaps “Europe” refers collectively to all the countries on the European continent, or at least to a supposed consensus among a majority of them. In some people’s minds, it could refer only to those seen as its leaders: especially Germany, France and the United Kingdom (which is not even in the EU). And what about the perception put forward by US geopolitical analysts who now frame the continent’s imagined divide as a struggle between “Old Europe” or “New Europe?” Talking about what Europe thinks and what it should do is by definition a perilous task.

It’s an intriguing idea, with unimaginably complex implications. To “drive a wedge,” you need a driver. Who is that likely to be? Their advice will likely appeal uncritically to readers whose worldview already treats the isolation of Russia as self-evidently desirable, a reflex deeply rooted in US policy since the Cold War. But, taking some critical distance — always a wise reflex — two important questions come to mind. Is it even feasible? And have we imagined the unintended consequences? As a tentative answer to the latter, I would submit that recent history teaches us that attempts to isolate Russia have a strong tendency not only to backfire but also to cause endless headaches for the perpetrators.

The problem on the AI side is twofold:

• Chatbots are designed always to provide a “best” response even when there is no obvious one available, which is already an invitation to hallucination.
• The famous problem of sycophancy, or the tendency to approve everything the human prompter says, encouraging that person to persist even when danger signs indicating possible pathological behavior are present.

Numerous experts in AI behavioral practices have now emerged to warn us of the risks. Among the “5 practices to Avoid with Artificial Intelligence,” Professor Jairo G. Sarmiento Sotelo lists using “AI as a therapist or friend.” Applications that propose “therapy” with AI have recently emerged. Even the most sophisticated therapeutic chatbot “cannot understand the deep context of trauma, and it has no ethical or legal responsibility.” Obviously, an all-purpose chatbot is likely to prove even riskier.

If you really wish to qualify for AI sanctity, this Devil’s Advocate makes the following recommendations:

1. You should use dialogue with an AI chatbot to explore two things:
   • original insights of “great ideas” you’ve never heard other people formulate that you think will help you better understand the complexities of the universe and human societies;
   • nagging doubts you have about ideas and beliefs other people have persuaded you to adopt.
2. You should expect the chatbot 1) to flatter you, 2) to begin by offering the most banal, largely accepted explanations of the phenomena you’re interested in. Both of these signal a negative, uninspired beginning that it will be your job to move beyond and correct.
3. Don’t be fooled by its initial predictable response. Challenge it, even to the point of saying sarcastically, “that’s exactly what I expected from an AI bot,” and then find ways of breaking down its banality.
4. Never ask it, “What should I do?” Instead, ask it about who or what sources may provide you with further insight. It will actually help you find them.

I’ve called this the “sparring partner” approach, which I claim can help our society achieve true democracy to replace the simulacrum of democracy our overlords have bequeathed to us. It can also serve to improve our own mental health… so long as we keep sparring.

Finally, take this on board. I’ve just listed several things you should and shouldn’t do. I know nothing about your needs and ambitions. Therefore, you will be perfectly justified in taking none of them seriously.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Commenting Guidelines

Please read our commenting guidelines before commenting.

Please agree to the guidelines before proceeding.