The need for ontological resiliency is precisely why the term “jihad” is warranted when confronting #AI. I don’t speak of the false jihad shown by fanatics who are tied to mimetic debate. True #ButlerianJihad, if true jihad it be, must needs rely on a positive endeavour for commonweal - struggle human visions of good possibility. It is not enough to jihad *against*. We must jihad *despite*. This level of jihad bears the patience afforded to any serf or peon who seeks it.
Comments
Displaying 0 of 1 comments
Shufei 🫠
In response to this postWe have ethical agency deeper than contingency which best roots decision. I take this as axiomatic and also demonstrably helpful. To persevere in autonomous decision is the best jihad, as it frees us from quandaries of interpellation which serve to subvert us into the tragedies of mimetic irony. Steadfast “no”. Judicious restraint and equanimity guiding energies toward goals unencumbered by outside compulsion. All social and technic change are best responded to by such ethical discipline.
So personally? When I say “no” to #AI, I am not merely saying the little “no” of debate. I am saying the “NO” of jihad. No. I won’t engage these new regimes of intelligent machinery, no matter how coercively they solicit my compliance. If they mandate AI in cars, I shall walk. If they mandate AI in infotech, I will cleave to paper books. If they demand I bow to the machine enhanced ruler, I shall stand and die.
No. Full stop. That is #ButlerianJihad
by Shufei 🫠 ;
Likes: 0
Replies: 1
Boosts: 0