Why Waiting for Agreement Guarantees Failure
Three people spent a year trying to agree on AI ethics and failed. Yet we’re told that seven billion humans need to reach consensus before we proceed with artificial intelligence. How does that math work?
In this episode, I examine why our obsession with universal consent and ethical agreement might be the most dangerous position we can take. Drawing on everything from Germany’s discussion-paralyzed Pirate Party to Konstantin Kisin’s powerful Oxford Union speech about climate priorities, I explore an uncomfortable truth: ethics discussions are a luxury good, and pretending otherwise ignores the reality of how most of the world actually lives.
When a third of humanity doesn’t even have access to AI yet, how meaningful is our “global ethics discussion”? When three motivated people can’t agree in twelve months, why do we think billions will?
I’m not arguing for reckless acceleration. I’m arguing that we need to abandon the fantasy of universal consent and embrace pragmatic complexity management instead. Sometimes, as the Germans say, you need to “let five be an even number.”
Referenced in this episode:
- Konstantin Kisin’s Oxford Union speech on climate change and privilege: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJdqJu-6ZPo
If this episode makes you uncomfortable, good. That means you’re thinking.
