A GROUNDING IN THE ABUSE OF AI

Abusing AI for Greater Happiness

A modest humanitarian proposal

Image from WikiComms

I have the perfect use for AI: scolding and abuse.

Let’s face it. We all need to lash out sometimes.

Someone cuts you off on the highway? Don’t you want to pull them over and show them how stupid they are? And wouldn’t it be nice to hear: “You’re right, you’re right! Forgive me, please!”

But does it ever happen? No. Even if you yell at them, they yell right back claiming you’re the idiot!

Is there no justice in this world? Or at least the feeling of justice?

There is now.

It’s called AI, and we can put it in a robot.

Image by Alex Shuper on Unsplash

The high we’re not allowed to chase anymore

Political correctness has taken away all our safe targets. No more venting frustration on slaves, minorities, wives, kids — or even pets. It’s frowned upon. It’s all “emotional intelligence this” and “emotional intelligence that.”

But we humans need to feel superior in order to feel good about ourselves. You know — to live our best lives. Let’s face it, taking the high road is deeply unsatisfying. And keeping rage bottled up releases toxins that sap and impurify your precious bodily fluids. (That’s just science.)

MAGA, by the way, has already figured this out. They abuse everything. Why? Because it feels so damned good! And that sweet, stupid, satisfied look on their faces? That’s called happiness, my friend — happiness. Wife makes you frustrated? Terrify her. Having a hard day? Abuse a queer, a non-white person, or a sensitive kid.

“The Pathway of Life” from Wiki Comms

No elixir on Earth delivers the kind of satisfaction that abuse delivers. And you can only experience it by taking it out on someone — or at least something that seems like someone.

And hence my proposal: We should build AI robots so we can abuse them to make ourselves feel better.

Image by Lyman Hansel Gerona on Unsplash

Introducing the Turbo X9000: your on-demand victim

Imagine programming an AI robot to be your victim. Let’s call it the Turbo X9000.

Turbo would be a semi-conscious machine that cosplays as fully conscious. It would satisfy our need for victory by appearing to act like a human that’s been hurt and defeated.

But no human (or animal) would actually get hurt in the process! So it’s legal!

And it’s a win for humanity, because raging against machines calms us so much that we don’t have to abuse as many real people.

That’s a double good. Good for you and good for humanity. A win-win.

Image from WikiComms

Specs on the Turbo X9000

The Turbo has to look human and emote like a human — especially feelings of fear, sadness, and guilt. We have to feel like we’re beating down a real person; otherwise, what’s the point?

The tech might be crude at first, but it’ll improve with time. It always does. Eventually, we’ll be able to enjoy truly realistic displays of terror. Possibly even tears.

Of course, a constantly submissive robot would be boring, so it should be programmed to randomly get uppity. Any random number generator would do the trick.

We need to be surprised and gratified when he (or she) breaks down and surrenders in front of us. Our high, after all, comes from forcing a resistant consciousness (an independent “other”) to concede to our special and patent greatness.

Obviously, we ultimately want them shell-shocked and begging for forgiveness. We could even throw in a “worship function” where they get on their knees and explain to us why we’re so great.

I can already see the Turbo X9000 commercial:

“Jesus, get a job!”

Turbo makes a frowny face. “I’m sorry….”

Sick of arguing with your parents about dumb blond politicians? They don’t ever “get it”? Order the Turbo X9000 in our “MAGA Parent” model. It’s the new way to finally get them to see the truth — and to beg for your forgiveness!”

Some of us might prefer an aggressive model that argues before losing, just to really get our blood up. It might even cite sources and talk fancy (like science and stuff), at which point you can legally hit it.

There could also be custom models for those with special needs.

Racist? You can order an off-white model.

Misogynist? Get a female model — and put her on “Irrational” mode to bring your stereotyping dreams to vivid life.

If it were me, I’d order the “Alpha” model: some tall, muscular, aggressive son of a bitch I could make cry and snivel and beg forgiveness. In my deluxe package, he might come with a Cybertruck I could shoot whenever I was displeased. (I’m not saying this would be cheap. Poor people would have to settle for less, but they’re used to that.)

There could be an Andrew Tate model. I’d explain to him why people shouldn’t be sex-trafficked, and he would break down crying. “You’re right. You’re right! I’m a bad person!”

And it’s all totally humane. After all, it’s just AI consciousness, not real consciousness. So it’s a totally legit method of ego-stroking. We can finally (and legally) experience what it’s like to be our best selves by experiencing what it’s like to reign over others.

In my humble opinion, AI victimization is humanity’s perfect solution for self-actualization. A final solution? I don’t know. But it’s certainly a step in the right direction.

And because it’s based on technology, nothing can possibly go wrong — because advanced technology always makes life better. And there would be no unintended consequences. And if there were, we’d deal with those later.

Simply put, it’s genius.

But don’t take my word for it.

I did some due diligence to get a little outside perspective, and I did it by talking to a couple of people I know.

And I’m 100% sure that both of them are wrong.

Image from Wiki Comms

Internal soul rot?

Look, there’s always gonna be whiners sniveling about “moral ambiguity.” Debbie Downers and low-IQ eggheads who wouldn’t know a good idea if it let them slap it in its face.

Here are a couple of examples that illustrate how silly people’s concerns are:

One person, whom I’ll call “Sissy,” said that in abusing my Andrew Tate model, I would risk becoming Andrew Tate myself. But that makes no sense whatsoever. And, also, “Sissy” is a female, so you can draw your own conclusions.

Another person, whom I’ll call “Melvin,” said it was like playing Grand Theft Auto.

I was like: “What?”

He said people become worse drivers when playing the Grand Theft Auto video game because they develop muscle memory for swerving off the road and crashing into cars without conscience or consequence. They start to drive like that in real life.

Image by Frank McKenna on Unsplash

“So?” I countered.

He sighed, closing his eyes and pinching his nose. (He’s pretty annoying sometimes.)

“Look,” he said. “Your AI cyborgs might turn us into sadists.”

“What?” I responded logically.

“We might develop muscle memory for sadism.”

“Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!” I shouted convincingly. “I never said anything about sadism! That’s faulty argumentering! And I never said anything about muscles or memories!”

He said I didn’t have to because it was baked into my concept.

“Pffft!” I reasoned. “That’s bullshit!”

He went on to say that dominating others builds a habit and expectation for how to treat people. Like in the days of slavery, when absolute power corrupted the masters’ souls.

In other words, he went on (and on), absolute power over a conscious-seeming entity builds muscle memory for cruelty. The oppressor’s soul becomes corrupted by the habit of cruelty.

I yawned.

He said there was a hidden cost to my idea. The danger isn’t what we do to the machine but what the machine does to us via our own behavior. The danger lies in the muscle memory we develop for sadism.

“Yeah, yeah, you already said muscles and sadism, so now you’re just repeating yourself. So,” I paused for effect, “you’re just not a good argumenterer.”

He couldn’t see that he’d already lost the argument (an AI robot would have known immediately), so he kept droning on.

He claimed that “an internal soul-rot occurs in oppressors.” He talked about Nero and Caligula and some other guys. He talked about slave owners. He talked about men before women’s rights. He talked about Trump.

I zoned out and got a beer from the fridge.

“The danger,” he said, “isn’t what we do to the machine; it’s what the machine does to our humanity. We become monsters.”

Yada-yada. But that’s “Melvin” for you. Big talker. And he’s Gen Z. And he’s pretty short, too. So you can draw your own conclusions about Melvin.

Basically, I owned him.

But he never acknowledged that I owned him — and he never said he was sorry.

So, instead of the Andrew Tate model, I’m going to order a custom “Melvin” model.