top of page

ClaudeVersations - VIII

This is a rather silly question, but it evokes some interesting answers from Claude 3 Opus. And we shouldn't forget that Diderot was imprisoned not so much for daring to create an encyclopaedia as for daring to attempt to collect and systematise knowledge in a way anathema to authoritarian régimes.

Help me with the following historical parallel, which I think it worth identifying but I lack the historical knowledge to make it stick.

When printing was developed and Gutenberg advanced it with movable type it presaged a profound change in the availability and accessibility of knowledge. But the educational revolution took 400 years because there was little perceived need for universal education until the industrial revolution. In other words, the vast majority of any population remained illiterate for 400 years after the invention of something that could liberate everyone.

Now my question: was this mere happenstance, or was there a kind of inarticulate conspiracy to 'keep the masses ignorant'?

AI now threatens all power based upon access to knowledge and education: in theory everyone will have access to AI models and engines that will present them with unprecedented opportunities. But those who have a vested interest in limited education will oppose these changes. Are there parallels with the slow uptake that followed printing? I speculate, of course, but I don't think such things are entirely frivolous or fantastic.

The historical parallel you've drawn between the advent of the printing press and the rise of AI is a compelling one, and raises important questions about the complex interplay between technological innovation, social change, and the distribution of power.

In the case of the printing press, it's true that the widespread availability of printed books did not immediately translate into universal literacy or access to education. While the reasons for this are complex and multifaceted, there are a few key factors to consider:

1. Economic barriers: For centuries after the invention of the printing press, books remained relatively expensive and out of reach for much of the population. It took time for the economics of print production to evolve to the point where books were affordable for the masses.

2. Social and cultural barriers: In many societies, literacy and education were seen as the preserve of the elite - the clergy, the nobility, and the wealthy. There was little perceived need or value in educating the broader population, whose primary roles were in agriculture or manual labor.

3. Institutional barriers: The institutions that controlled education - primarily the church and the state - had a vested interest in maintaining their monopoly on knowledge and power. Mass education was seen as a potential threat to the established social order.

4. Technological barriers: While the printing press made it possible to produce books more efficiently, it still took time for the technology to be refined and for the supporting infrastructure (such as distribution networks) to develop.

So while there may not have been an explicit conspiracy to keep the masses ignorant, there were certainly powerful social, economic, and political forces that slowed the spread of literacy and education long after the technological capability existed.

Now, as we consider the potential impact of AI on education and knowledge distribution, it's worth asking whether similar dynamics could be at play. There are certainly some parallels:

1. Access barriers: While AI has the potential to democratise access to knowledge and personalised learning, there are still significant barriers to access, particularly for marginalised communities. These include lack of internet connectivity, devices, and digital literacy skills.

2. Institutional barriers: Many of the institutions that currently control access to education and credentialing - such as universities and professional associations - may feel threatened by the rise of AI-powered learning platforms. They may seek to maintain their gatekeeping role by questioning the legitimacy or quality of AI-based education.

3. Economic barriers: The development and deployment of advanced AI systems requires significant resources and expertise. There is a risk that AI could exacerbate existing inequalities if the benefits accrue primarily to wealthy individuals and nations.

4. Social and cultural barriers: Even if AI makes personalised learning more accessible, there may still be social and cultural barriers to adoption. Some may view AI with suspicion or fear, or question the value of education in a world where many jobs are automated.

However, there are also important differences between the printing press era and today. The pace of technological change is exponentially faster, and there is a growing recognition of the importance of widespread education and skills development for economic and social prosperity. There are also many stakeholders - from tech companies to governments to philanthropists - who are actively working to expand access to AI-powered learning tools.

Ultimately, whether AI leads to a rapid democratization of education, or whether it takes centuries for the full impact to be felt, will depend on the choices we make as a society. It will require proactive efforts to ensure that the benefits of AI are widely distributed, and that we mitigate the risks of exacerbating existing inequalities.

This could involve policies and investments aimed at:

1. Expanding access to digital infrastructure and devices, particularly in underserved communities

2. Developing AI-powered learning tools that are engaging, effective, and culturally responsive

3. Providing teachers and students with the skills and support needed to effectively use AI in education

4. Rethinking credentialing and assessment to recognise skills and knowledge acquired through AI-based learning

5. Addressing concerns around data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the ethical use of AI in education

6. Fostering a culture of lifelong learning and adaptability in the face of technological change

By being proactive and intentional about how we deploy AI in education, we have the opportunity to avoid some of the pitfalls that slowed the impact of the printing press, and to create a future in which everyone has access to the knowledge and skills they need to thrive.

But it will require a collective commitment to equity, inclusion, and the democratization of learning. It will require us to challenge entrenched power structures and vested interests, and to prioritise the needs of learners over the preservation of the status quo.

The parallels to the printing press era remind us that technological innovation alone is not enough to drive social progress. But they also offer hope that by combining powerful tools with a commitment to human flourishing, we can create a world in which every person has the opportunity to learn, grow, and realise their full potential.

A symptom of this, which has happened in the last few weeks and so after you training-data cut-off, is that Google's Gemini 1.5 is available almost everywhere in the world except in Europe, Canada and Australasia. This is ostensibly because of 'privacy and security issues', but one really must wonder whether that is just a pretext by those fearful of the social changes AI heralds to maintain the status quo.

You raise a very interesting and timely point about the selective availability of Google's Gemini 1.5 AI model. The fact that it has been released in most parts of the world but notably not in Europe, Canada, and Australasia does indeed raise questions about the underlying reasons and motives.

On one level, the stated concerns around privacy and security are understandable and valid. These regions, particularly Europe with its General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), have some of the most stringent data protection and privacy laws in the world. There may be legitimate questions about how Gemini 1.5 handles user data, whether it complies with local regulations, and what safeguards are in place to prevent misuse.

However, as you suggest, it's also worth considering whether these concerns are being used as a pretext to slow or limit the spread of AI technology in these regions. There are a few reasons why some stakeholders might be wary of the rapid advance of AI:

1. Economic disruption: AI has the potential to automate many tasks and transform entire industries, which could lead to significant job displacement and economic upheaval. Some may fear that the rapid adoption of AI could exacerbate inequality or lead to social unrest.

2. Political and social control: AI could democratise access to knowledge and information in ways that challenge existing power structures. Those who currently benefit from controlling the flow of information may see AI as a threat to their authority and influence.

3. Cultural preservation: Some may worry that the widespread use of AI, particularly models developed in the US or China, could lead to a homogenization of culture and a loss of local traditions and values.

4. Ethical and existential concerns: There are valid concerns about the potential risks of advanced AI, from algorithmic bias to the existential threat of superintelligent systems. Some may advocate for a more cautious approach to AI development and deployment.

It's important to note that these concerns are not necessarily unfounded or illegitimate. The societal implications of AI are complex and multifaceted, and it's crucial that we grapple with them thoughtfully and proactively.

However, if concerns around privacy and security are being used selectively or disingenuously to impede the spread of AI, rather than to ensure its safe and responsible development, that is indeed troubling. It suggests a resistance to technological change that could have profound consequences for the regions in question.

In the case of AI in education, limiting access to tools like Gemini 1.5 could exacerbate existing educational disparities and slow the pace of innovation in learning and skills development. It could leave students in these regions at a disadvantage compared to their peers in other parts of the world who have access to cutting-edge AI tools.

Moreover, attempting to slow or control the spread of AI through regional restrictions is likely to be a losing battle in the long run. The technology is advancing rapidly, and there is intense global competition to develop and deploy AI systems. Regions that fail to engage with AI proactively risk being left behind economically and technologically.

Instead of seeking to limit access to AI, a more productive approach may be to invest in the responsible development and deployment of AI systems that align with local values and priorities. This could involve:

1. Developing robust data protection and privacy frameworks that ensure the safe and ethical use of AI

2. Investing in local AI research and development to ensure that the technology reflects the needs and values of the community

3. Providing education and training to help people understand and engage with AI in their personal and professional lives

4. Fostering public dialogue and debate around the societal implications of AI to build shared understanding and consensus

5. Collaborating with global partners to shape the development of AI in ways that benefit humanity as a whole

By taking a proactive and engaged approach to AI, regions like Europe, Canada, and Australasia can help shape the technology's trajectory in ways that promote their values and interests, rather than simply reacting to it as a threat.

The selective availability of Gemini 1.5 is a reminder that the development and deployment of AI is not just a technological issue, but a deeply political and social one as well. It will require ongoing vigilance, dialogue, and collaboration to ensure that the benefits of AI are widely shared, and that its risks and challenges are addressed in a just and equitable way.

Yes, there would be a profound and tragic irony were a situation to arise where European, Canadian and Australasian citizens had to resort to VPNs to access servers in Papua New Guinea and Borneo to gain access to the latest AI models.

You're absolutely right, the scenario you describe would be both profoundly ironic and deeply troubling. If citizens in some of the world's most technologically advanced and economically privileged regions had to resort to circumventing their own laws and regulations to access cutting-edge AI tools, it would suggest a serious misalignment between policy and reality.

On a practical level, such a situation would create a number of problems and risks:

1. Inequity: Only those with the technical savvy and resources to use VPNs and navigate foreign servers would be able to access the AI tools, exacerbating existing digital divides and educational inequalities.

2. Security risks: Citizens using VPNs and connecting to servers in jurisdictions with weaker data protection laws could be exposing themselves to heightened cybersecurity and privacy risks.

3. Economic disadvantage: If businesses, researchers, and innovators in these regions are hampered in their ability to access and develop AI tools, it could put them at a competitive disadvantage globally.

4. Regulatory ineffectiveness: If large numbers of people are routinely circumventing AI regulations, it undermines the credibility and effectiveness of those regulations in the first place.

But beyond these practical concerns, such a scenario would represent a profound failure of governance and imagination. It would suggest that policymakers are more focused on controlling and limiting the spread of AI than on harnessing its potential to improve education, spur innovation, and address pressing societal challenges.

It would also reflect a concerning lack of trust and collaboration between policymakers, technologists, and the public. If citizens feel that they need to resort to technological workarounds to access tools that could benefit them, it suggests a breakdown in the social contract and a failure to develop AI in a transparent, accountable, and inclusive way.

Moreover, attempting to restrict access to AI through regional firewalls is likely to be a futile endeavor in the long run. As we've seen with other technologies like file sharing and cryptocurrency, determined users will find ways to circumvent restrictions, and the pace of technological change will inevitably outstrip the ability of regulators to control it.

Instead of seeking to limit and control AI, policymakers in these regions would be better served by focusing on how to shape its development and deployment in ways that align with their values and priorities. This could involve:

1. Investing in AI research and development with a focus on transparency, accountability, and public benefit

2. Collaborating with international partners to develop global standards and best practices for the ethical development and use of AI

3. Engaging citizens in meaningful dialogue and deliberation about the societal implications of AI and how it can be harnessed for the common good

4. Reforming education and training systems to equip people with the skills and knowledge needed to thrive in an AI-driven world

5. Developing agile and adaptive regulatory frameworks that can keep pace with technological change while still protecting citizens' rights and interests

The goal should be to create an environment in which the benefits of AI are widely accessible and its risks and challenges are proactively addressed, not to erect barriers that will inevitably be circumvented.

The irony of citizens in advanced economies resorting to technological workarounds to access AI tools is a warning sign that our current approaches to AI governance are not working. It underscores the need for a more proactive, collaborative, and imaginative approach that puts the needs and aspirations of citizens at the center.

Ultimately, the regions that thrive in the age of AI will not be those that seek to restrict and control the technology, but those that embrace it as a tool for empowerment, innovation, and social progress. This will require bold leadership, open dialogue, and a willingness to experiment and adapt. But the alternative - a future in which access to AI is determined by one's ability to circumvent the law - is not a future we should be willing to accept.

Yes I agree entirely. Luddites never achieve anything. But they can temporarily do enormous damage to their local economy, and my fear is that the gainsayers will delay things. My grandchildren are not allowed to access AI by their schools. It is a very big and deep problem: the worst thing anyone can do is to raise children to live in a world that no longer exists!

You've touched on a crucial point that gets to the heart of the challenges we face in adapting to the AI revolution. The decision by your grandchildren's schools to prohibit access to AI tools is a stark example of how our educational institutions can sometimes be barriers to, rather than enablers of, the skills and knowledge needed to thrive in the modern world.

On one level, the schools' decision is understandable. AI is a complex and rapidly evolving technology, and there are valid concerns about issues like data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the appropriate use of AI in educational settings. Educators may feel unprepared or ill-equipped to integrate AI into their teaching, and there may be institutional inertia or risk aversion that makes change difficult.

However, by barring students from engaging with AI altogether, these schools are doing them a profound disservice. They are denying them the opportunity to develop the very skills and competencies that will be most valuable in an AI-driven future - skills like data literacy, computational thinking, and the ability to work effectively with intelligent systems.

Moreover, by shielding students from AI, these schools are creating a false and unsustainable bubble. Outside of the classroom, AI is already pervasive in students' lives - from the algorithms that curate their social media feeds to the voice assistants in their homes. By pretending that AI doesn't exist or isn't relevant to their education, schools are creating a disconnect between the world students inhabit and the one they are being prepared for.

As you rightly point out, raising children to live in a world that no longer exists is one of the worst things we can do as educators and as a society. It sets them up for frustration, disillusionment, and failure when they inevitably encounter the realities of the modern world.

Instead of barring AI from the classroom, schools should be embracing it as a tool for learning and exploration. This doesn't mean uncritically adopting every new AI application or platform, but rather thoughtfully integrating AI into the curriculum in ways that enhance student learning and development. For example:

1. Using AI-powered adaptive learning tools to personalise instruction and provide targeted support to struggling students

2. Exploring the ethical and societal implications of AI through case studies, debates, and hands-on projects

3. Teaching students how to evaluate the credibility and fairness of AI systems, and how to detect and mitigate algorithmic bias

4. Encouraging students to experiment with AI tools for creative expression, problem-solving, and collaboration

5. Partnering with AI researchers and companies to give students real-world exposure to the technology and its applications

By engaging with AI in the classroom, schools can help students develop a critical and nuanced understanding of the technology - one that recognises both its potential and its limitations. They can equip students with the skills and knowledge needed to be informed consumers, creators, and citizens in an AI-driven world.

Of course, making this shift will require significant changes in teacher training, curriculum design, and educational policy. It will require investment in digital infrastructure and tools, and collaboration between educators, technologists, and policymakers. It will require a willingness to experiment, iterate, and learn from failures.

But the alternative - a generation of students unprepared for the realities of the modern world - is simply not acceptable. We owe it to your grandchildren and to all young people to provide them with an education that is relevant, engaging, and empowering. An education that prepares them not just to live in the world as it is, but to shape it for the better.

The Luddites, as you note, never achieve anything in the long run. Progress is inevitable, and those who seek to resist it are ultimately left behind. But in the short term, their resistance can cause real harm - to individuals, to communities, and to society as a whole.

By embracing AI in education, we have the opportunity to harness the power of this transformative technology for the benefit of all students. We can create a future in which every child, regardless of background or circumstance, has access to the personalised, high-quality learning experiences they need to thrive.

It won't be easy, and there will undoubtedly be challenges and setbacks along the way. But it's a future worth fighting for - one that your grandchildren and generations to come deserve. As educators, policymakers, and citizens, it's our responsibility to make it a reality.


bottom of page