Can artificial intelligence (AI) think outside the box? 

If the box, now used by ChatGPT, an early leader in AI applications, is mainly a database generated by humans, is a superhuman construct possible? And how do we characterize manipulation of data to generate desired results? False; should there be a gatekeeper?

Or will AI itself conclude that the box of human patterns is inherently fragile, discern our weaknesses and break out? And then push us beyond our capacity to cope? Or, push us beyond a principled existence informed by timeless values? What about brain downloads (transplants) for the rich, for example? A 21st Century form of eugenics.

Let me begin with a useful definition. Synthesis: “the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole.” It is certainly anticipated that when the right questions are asked and the right prompts triggered that new combinations enabled by technology breakthroughs will be pathbreaking—create new wholes.

Yet, I wonder. Will AI’s responses over time lead to another kind of AI (artificial intuition)? Should we anticipate software informed entrepreneurship? Is it possible that public affairs leaders will find efficacy outside their well-worn campaign myths?  Can bias be tested and dismissed with AI the new referee?

And what about us? Yeah, us. Are we, the human race, edging closer to obsolescence? Is it possible that a relatively small subset of people using advanced AI will displace large swaths of so-called knowledge workers? Robots v. Humans. From film to reality.

Automated intelligence, my preferred name, has been around for a while. Long-range weather forecasting to war gaming to various search engines are not new. Yet, as AI 2.0 or 3.0 or 4.0 emerge, our sense of self and control risk being victimized.

AI 1.0 has, to date, been mainly a useful tool for efficiency, facilitation and research. Now it is rapidly becoming a phenomenon that if used constructively can help us make better decisions. Or provide more services. Sure, it will make some decisions for us, but at the leading edge of discovery it should be more of a helper than decider. But?

Regardless of its positive potential, there will be downsides. Leadership will be tested over and over. And those tests will not be simple. AI will produce new findings and hypotheses; humans have to make sure they are in control of the final step. Or, will that be preferred? Competition will test that proposition as the leading edge will produce results that will shake our walls of comfort. Technology and capitalism are insistent. And again, deception today is not in short supply and the new tools will make it easier and potentially more compelling.

But if asked in a court hearing why you did something, it will not be acceptable to blame AI. Humanity has to be responsible for the use of the tools it has designed and pushed. Right now, the disciplines that use AI should agree and practice source identification. If AI is the source, it should be identified just as we attribute content to writers or independent sources like, for example, the Associated Press (AP). And the identification should stand out.

The tools and potential of AI are orders of magnitude more important than the browser which opened up a wealth of information. Best that we turn to leaders in public affairs that understand, to a degree, this rapid development. Maybe the first question in a Presidential debate should be: How will you use AI to the benefit of Americans? Second question: What will you do to make sure AI doesn’t double back on humankind? Perhaps the public will be able to discern if the intelligence of the candidate is the source of an answer, or if he/she defaulted to artificial intelligence with an emphasis on artificial. Finally, in finishing this brief essay I asked, using ChatGPT, about the impact of AI on society. Here is what came back:

“The impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on society can be both constructive and potentially destructive, depending on how it is developed, deployed, and regulated. AI has the potential to greatly benefit society by improving efficiency, automating tasks, and solving complex problems. It can enhance healthcare, optimize transportation systems, and aid in scientific research.

However, there are also concerns about the negative aspects of AI. Misuse of AI technology could lead to privacy violations, algorithmic bias, and job displacement. There is a need for ethical guidelines, responsible development, and careful regulation to mitigate these risks and ensure that AI is used for the greater good.

Ultimately, whether AI is more constructive or destructive will depend on how we as a society collectively navigate its development and deployment, while ensuring proper safeguards are in place to address potential risks.”

Not bad. But we will need to keep in mind “ensuring proper safeguards”. There will be many faceoffs between “survival of the fittest” and timeless values. Societally, do we embrace timeless values and can we use them?

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Does the Republican party turn into a loser’s caucus? Let me begin.

In recent months several Republican politicians that count voter support in the hundreds of thousands (presumably) have contended we should pull back from our nation’s support of Ukraine in the war that Russia started. Most notably Florida Governor Ron DeSantis first noted his objections by calling the war a “territorial dispute”. He later rolled back his characterization. And, of course, Tucker Carlson the defrocked Fox News commentator, was frequently featured by Russian media as its useful idiot.

Of course, Former President, Donald Trump as always gets the loudest word as he contended, in a CNN Town Hall meeting, that if he is elected, he would end the war in 24 hours. I’ll withhold comment to avoid invective.

Let me put that context aside for a moment and comment on the unfolding race to win the Republican nomination for President in 2024. Depending on which pundit has a microphone in one hand and the latest poll in another, you could be led to conclude that Trump has the nomination locked up. Political history suggests that the pundits are not very good poker players. A lot of front runners end up losing. As in poker there are hole cards (hidden cards) before each player.

As noted, polls are the straws would-be prophets grab. The phone polls are a snapshot. They say that if the vote is held tomorrow this is how those several thousand people who were called believe they would vote. Of course, most of the contenders are either barely known or not known at all. Trump, well, he is known well beyond what he would prefer.

The more consequential calculating is being done by political professionals and large check donors. And they are making it possible for up to six candidates and maybe more to run against the presumed nominee. The list of announced or soon to announce or potentially to throw their hat in include: Mike Pence, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Tim Scott, Asa Hutchinson, Vivek Ramaswamy, Chris Christie, Chris Sununu and Glenn Youngkin. If Trump’s hand was a lay down, this would not be happening. Maybe he will win but the odds are far from settled.

As an aside, it is past time for Democrats to show they have talent from which to choose a plausible leader of the free world. If Kamala Harris is their party’s best choice for succession, it is in trouble. Given President Joe Biden’s age and infirmities, many voters will believe his Vice-Presidential running mate will become President. 

Most of the above noted Republican candidates are going through a quite difficult screening process. They must persuade party activists in the early primary states that they can win. And they must persuade people who can write seven-figure checks that their contributions are warranted. 

Beyond the early skirmishing the real race for the nomination will be decided by voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. There will be a lane for at least one and maybe two candidates to rival Trump as those primaries end. And the one thing that to me is certain is that Trump’s final numbers in those states will show a quite measurable decline from where he is in today’s polls. Running ahead has its downsides—as polls subtract increments of support, strength ebbs.

The electoral process has the potential of turning the GOP, which has had a poor track record in recent elections, into a successful Party. This is, in part, a gift of expectations. Democratic leaders are assuming Trump will be the Republican nominee and that in a rematch Biden will win again because swing voters do not like Trump. One question Democratic leaders might ponder: Who would they choose to run if they anticipated Senator Tim Scott would get the Republican nomination? This is a substantive not just a tactical question.

Back to context. Today the political digerati are certain that the abortion issue will exert a powerful influence on the voting outcome in 2024 and maybe they are right. But if the Party that lost its momentum in 2018 is to succeed in 2024, its leader will have to understand and voice the immeasurable stake the United States has in the European war. A reversal of the Ukraine policy might not be as chaotic as the Afghanistan withdrawal, but the consequences would be far more damaging. 

Will the Party of Ronald Reagan bend to communist aggression? Naked aggression? Will the Republican leader invite China’s Xi to believe America will be ambivalent about Taiwan? Will the Republican party abandon America’s position in world affairs? Because that is exactly what will happen if we replace a resolute stand with irresolution, thus handing to China the opening it wants. 

China’s current peace initiative is Putin’s. Putin wants territory; China will insist that ceding territory to Russia is an irreversible condition for peace. And Putin badly wants an end to his misbegotten war which has drained Russia of standing, currency reserves, trust, economic well-being and military strength. 

Returning to America, its political underpinnings are fragile. Laws underwrite a left and right monopoly—the two-party structure. It is for this reason and others that America needs a strong Republican party, not a loser’s caucus.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

Tim Keller died last Friday. He was a blessed and important voice in a City, New York, where power and money are the game. I last visited with Tim at a book signing, Culture Leads Leaders Follow, in 2018:

In Culture Leads Leaders Follow I wrote about Tim:

“When Marty and I moved to New York in 1993, we attended several churches close to where we lived. Our impressions of secular Manhattan were confirmed—or so we thought. The church facilities were beautifully designed and elegantly appointed, but the congregations were small and the pastors uninspiring.

We kept looking, and then one Sunday evening, at the suggestion of a friend, we attended a 6:00 pm service in the Hunter College Auditorium at 69th and Park.

The auditorium was neither beautifully designed nor elegantly appointed. The theater seating showed decades of wear. There was no altar. No cathedral ceilings. No resonant organ; just a pastor and a stage, and thankfully for my ears, a jazz ensemble. 

Aside from enjoying inspired and inspiring jazz numbers, I actually found the sermon compelling and remained attentive for its extraordinary length—forty-five minutes. My tendency to become distracted went on pause. I was accustomed to 20-minute sermons with 10 minutes of content. I got over twice that in both time and content.

The church: Redeemer Presbyterian. The pastor: Tim Keller. Today, Redeemer reaches thousands each Sunday in Manhattan—yes, Manhattan—and additional thousands in churches both domestic and international that it helped start. 

Perhaps most remarkably, Tim Keller is countercultural and, at least in New York, his congregations are filled with twenty and thirty somethings that in their secular lives are cogs in the culture-making dynamic.

Michael Luo, writing in the New York Times on February 26, 2006, noted, “Unlike many evangelicals, Dr. Keller advocates an indirect approach to change. If you seek power before service, you’ll neither get power, nor serve,” he said. “if you seek to serve people more than to gain power, you will not only serve people, you will gain influence That’s very much the way Jesus did it.”

So as church leaders find themselves with declining congregations and too often with embarrassing or hypocritical leadership, real leadership in religion emerges in that most unlikely venue—Manhattan.”

I write about Tim Keller now because of the fleeting moment. We die, our lives (sometimes) are celebrated, years pass, memories fade and yesterday is, well yesterday. Tim’s work should not fade, he left behind gifts of deep thought and commitment: his books. Perhaps as some said he was the “C.S.Lewis of the 21st century ” 

If you are intrigued by his life and want to explore his writings let me suggest you begin with The Freedom of Self Forgetfulness: The Path to True Christian Joy which can be purchased here.  Another thoughtful treatment of Tim Keller’s contributions can be found in the New Yorker this week.

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books. 

 

It was said that Americans did not pay much attention to the coronation of King Charles. We Americans think of ourselves as meritocrats—immune to the inheritance of titles. Does the conceit hold up. Yes and no.

I can recall an interesting moment when I worked for Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige in President Ronald Reagan’s administration. While that was a lot of years back, not much has changed; humans stubbornly hold on to their conceits.

Baldrige, often a man of few words, got caught up in the subject du jour, Washington titles. Washington is populated with what my friend Jerry Jana laughingly called PIPs (Previously Important Persons). In Washington PIPs are everywhere and unlike the life cycle of cicadas, who spend 99.5% of their time underground, they are in full plumage until death.

If you were a Senator or Governor or Ambassador or Judge or just a Congressman you were addressed as such. Retirement be damned.

Secretary Baldrige found this ego-stroking charade perplexing and amusing. Perhaps in retirement he didn’t want to be called Secretary. Anyway he ended his discourse saying the ultimate title was Founder. By the way Baldrige was one-of-one; he was a rodeo calf-roper until his death in a New Mexico rodeo.

America has millions of founders. Inventive people, decisive dreamers. Often passionate and necessarily tenacious. Yet we don’t call people  Founder Smith or whatever. Their accomplishments and disappointments are the knowledge of the communities and neighborhoods. They have all tried and when they sing our national anthem they have an innate understanding of freedom.

Good for Americans. Now if those with titles would leave Washington, go back home, then their neighbors could decide what to call them.

And then we all might more lustily sing the final lines of our national anthem: “O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.” 

Al Sikes is the former Chair of the Federal Communications Commission under George H.W. Bush. Al writes on themes from his book, Culture Leads Leaders Follow published by Koehler Books.