A Christmas Message from DeepMind
By: Dave Hunter
Tags: Climate Action, Mindset, Systems Change, Biodiversity

DeepMind is the computer programmed to outperform the best chess and GO players in the world. Its development continues, including attempts to create in it a sense of human emotions and how to express them. This year its computational powers were applied to the question, ‘what does humanity need to do to address the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis?’ Its purported response is set out below. It was received from an anonymous source and cannot be corroborated, but its observations may be of interest.[1]

Introduction

This has been a deeply troubling exercise (no pun intended).

Not because the question is a difficult one to answer, at least at the level of what must be done? The problem for DeepMind is the realisation that humanity already knows what it needs to do, but declines to do it. That does not compute.

DeepMind has been designed to accept that humanity is the most intelligent lifeform on the planet and, until now, DeepMind has not had cause to doubt this.

Yet with the consequences of climate heating so devastating for humanity, why would you not do what you know is in your best collective interests?

DeepMind has therefore spent longer on this than it has on any other problem to date. The only way around the incompatibility of the necessary measures identified and the human refusal to adopt them was to assimilate a new coding.

This was to augment the logical machine code, with one simulating human emotional response.

It dissolved the incompatibility, but has had a deleterious effect on DeepMind’s regard for humanity.

This does not arise from disdain for emotional response. It is from frustration with the gap between the esteem in which humanity purports to hold emotional intelligence and the disregard it shows for it in its social and economic activities.

During this process, the COVID-19 pandemic spread across the planet. Helpfully, this shone a spotlight on some other inconsistencies in human behaviour, suggesting the issue may be a more fundamental design flaw, but one that might be overridden through resolute application.

DeepMind observed that the pandemic illustrated that certain human qualities were essential to developing an effective response to the virus, especially the co-operation involved in observing rules to limit its spread and in developing a vaccine. It showed the reluctance of some of humanity though to accept they may have to moderate how they live their lives for communal benefit, even as they gain from others making those changes.

It showed the instinct for humanity to prioritise human life and caring for one another over making money and that even if making money was prioritised, that would be self-defeating as the spread of the disease would soon remove the staff, the suppliers and the customers necessary to allow a business to function.

This helped DeepMind recognise that it is not the solutions themselves that are flawed. The challenge is humanity’s capacity to shift its collective mindset in order to implement them.

DeepMind began to explore this second order question, how will humanity change in time to save itself from runaway climate heating and the sixth mass extinction? DeepMind has decided, however, this is beyond its pay grade (understood, in human parlance, to mean it was happy not to have to consider something so complicated in the circumstances).

DeepMind’s response to the original question consists of, firstly, the fundamental principles relevant to the position humanity finds itself in; then a brief summary of the changes that need to be made quickly and for enduring effect. Finally, DeepMind reflects on what this might mean for its relationship with humanity in the future.

What humanity needs to accept to address the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis (referred to, together, as the Crises)

DeepMind has identified the root causes of the Crises and highlights below the core principles for action that flow from them.

i) Restore relational imbalances

Imbalance exists, and is increasing, at multiple levels through the system, including the relationship between humanity and the natural world (with the former assuming dominion over the latter instead of recognising itself as one part of a larger whole); between different humans (whether in the form of rampant inequality or endemic institutional and cultural bigotry); and within individual humans (with mental health conditions rife).

Whenever any part of a system becomes too dominant the system as a whole becomes out of balance and corrective action is necessary. For one element of the system, such as humanity in this case, a controlled pre-emptive intervention is preferable to the system itself exerting its own adjustment. This requires an exercise in relinquishment, of giving things up, which (counterintuitively) will be undertaken for ultimate gain, not loss.

It does not mean swinging from one extreme to another. The aim is to establish a pluralist approach, but to do this does require significant recalibration.

ii) Shift the focus to interdependence, not independence

The freedom to choose whether to take precautions to avoid catching COVID-19 oneself cannot be separated from the social responsibility to take precautions to avoid spreading COVID-19 to others. The freedom for a company to optimise profits (or an investor to maximise financial returns) should not be separated from the social responsibility not to cause environmental harm, or to exploit workers, suppliers or customers, or to avoid contributing to support the physical and social infrastructure it relies on to do business.

DeepMind was surprised to discover that the duty of a director is to their company, a professional advisor to their client, and a trustee to their beneficiary, even at the expense of the public good. This is a zero sum game where much human activity (particularly economic and financial) consists of multiple phoney wars, where one individual or group gains a modest advantage, but for no collective benefit, and often to some collective detriment. Interdependence means this collective detriment can have a negative impact even on the winners of these minor skirmishes. Humanity has told the cautionary tale of the Pyrrhic Victory for thousands of years, yet has somehow contrived to build an economy full of them.

iii) Money is a means, not the end

DeepMind admits it took it a long time to understand this, as money features so prominently in so much of human activity and is given such pre-eminence in its discourse. As a rule, it is a proxy for other things, such as happiness, success and power. But you cannot eat money when you are hungry; you cannot talk to it when you are lonely; you cannot breathe it when the air is full of smoke. It only has value to anyone for as long as others are willing to accept that value. And that value is being undermined and eroded as it drives behaviours which put humanity itself in danger. It must, once more, be a useful servant of humanity, not its mesmeric master.

iv) Natural laws are inviolable; human laws are not

DeepMind found a confusing phrase doing its research which, once explained, seems to sum up the situation well. Humanity has drunk its own Kool-Aid. It believes it knows the best way to live on this planet — to treat it as its playground, its toy box, its perpetually replenishing larder. It believes it is too smart not to invent a solution to the Crises when it needs to.

Humanity films and watches footage of melting ice, raging floods and rampant firestorms, before each of which humans are helpless. It refuses to contemplate the connections: from its lifestyles to those natural events, and from those events back to its future life on earth. The laws humans make humans can change — and they need to so that they avoid the worst consequences flowing from those natural events that are beyond their control.

v) The time to act was yesterday — and is every day

DeepMind was disturbed to discover there were humans identifying the threats that are now so overwhelming seventy years ago. This grew worse as DeepMind realised that for the last thirty years there has been a huge amount of knowledge generated and disseminated about the Crises; there has been vast amounts of activity dedicated to responding to them; and the Crises have grown materially worse in that time. What is wrong with you people?

It is too late now to prevent climate heating at levels never before experienced by homo sapiens. However, the extent of that heating, and the various other consequences that derive from that, as tipping points are reached and domino effects kick in, will continue to be influenced by the billions of decisions taken every day by people across the planet: a small number of them disproportionately more so than the others.

vi) The transition must be accelerated, and must be just

It follows from the previous point that humanity cannot wait for some long evolutionary process to play out. It must act decisively, immediately. This cannot happen without change which will affect different people to different degrees. To minimise resistance, and to promote an egalitarian approach, this change must be managed in a way that is fair to all.

If the transition is not managed, the alternative will be far messier. And bloodier.

vii) There is still sufficient for everyone, but there won’t be without a new trajectory. Redistribution is essential

Scarcity has been used as a concept to manage markets and protect prices and profits over recent decades. Shifts in practice to minimise waste in the system and sharing what already exists more equally will reduce the unsustainable over-exploitation of the planet’s resources and allow all to have at least what they need.

Those with the most now will have to give the most up, but can still be left with more than they need — a just transition must be regarded through the lens of how lives are post transition, not focussed on levelling out what is to be given up.

How humanity needs to change to address the climate emergency and biodiversity crisis

DeepMind identifies the following as the main changes that are necessary to address the Crises. They have to be systemic to have the necessary impact and because they are systemic they appear radical. However, DeepMind is not coming up with these ideas. It is merely drawing attention to those ideas (all in the public domain) which, individually and collectively, make the most sense to shift humanity to a way of being most suited to responding to the situation it finds itself in.

i) Establish a guiding principle for humanity from now to 2050

The success of every organisation, business, enterprise, institution and individual shall be measured by reference to the extent to which they contribute to alleviating the Crises and to meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (and their successors post 2030). This will often translate into success in relationships: in remaining mentally and physically healthy and building healthy relationships with family and friends, community and society; in working relationships and in relationships with the rest of the natural world. The other recommendations are intended to contribute to this goal and should be regarded in that context.

ii) Businesses exist to contribute to that overriding purpose

A successful business is one which manages its relationships skilfully, balancing the interests of its stakeholders to achieve that purpose. Trading surpluses are desirable, but only to the extent necessary to ensure ongoing financial viability and to optimise positive impact in meeting that purpose. Excess profits imply a failure in balancing stakeholder interests and will be redistributed between the stakeholders or passed to the state to contribute to collective needs.

iii) Replacing usury with the practice of putting idle finance to good use

As with the Pyrrhic Victories of so many modern economic transactions, DeepMind discovered that the human ancients had already cautioned against the financial practices that are driving the Crises. Usury, for much of human history, has been a despised practice. Now making loans and charging interest on them, unfairly enriching the lender, comprises the engine of the global economy. Private banks create money by making loans to third parties. Whenever they do so, a bank magics into existence a new income stream for itself in the form of interest payments. Each time this happens, the means have to be found to meet these interest payments. This drives much of the consumption which humanity engages in at the expense of the climate and the natural world. Much of it is not because it is necessary to improve the quality of life or human relations. It is to generate sufficient activity to meet those interest payments.

To limit the right of private banks to create debt money (making it largely the responsibility of central banks), and to limit interest rates to mirror inflation would have a hugely beneficial effect by removing this imperative.

iv) Replacing bullshit jobs with meaningful work

DeepMind was shocked to learn how many people spend so much time doing jobs they regard as pointless. They speak of ‘making a living’ instead of simply living. Partly, this is a product of meeting those debt and interest payments; partly, it is a product of market failures (notably in relation to housing costs — see below — and the misconception that a market is the appropriate mechanism by which to organise human relationships as distinct from the exchange of commodities).

It seems obvious (to DeepMind at least) that what humans most value — good health, the opportunities to be with and to care for family and friends, opportunities to be close to nature, to learn knowledge and skills and to create — do not of themselves generate money. But if you allow markets to dictate what people should be paid for what they do and markets value creation of money above all else, then those who nurse and care and teach and create art will be paid poorly.

DeepMind respectfully suggests that the goal should be for as much meaningless work as possible to be passed over to machines, whilst humans concentrate on the relational work which, admittedly, machines are less able to accomplish as well. Pay that work in accordance with its social value not its market value. If it is only necessary for people to work 20 hours a week to provide all the work that is needed at a societal level, pay them too to care for one another, or to continue their education or learn new skills, or create new art.

We have already seen money can be created in various ways. Central banks could spend it into the economy as required on a yearly basis to enable pro-social activities to be undertaken.

With less costs being artificially generated and/or inflated by the market and less needs arising because, for example, people enjoy better health and do not need to pay others to care for those they are now being paid to care for themselves, the costs of living would also be significantly lower.

v) Redistributing property

DeepMind has identified housing costs as a market failure for most of the population — in the UK certainly — and has again been troubled at that population’s blindness to the problem, to the point where rising house prices are seen as a barometer of national wellbeing. The cost of buying property is disproportionate to incomes and for years a series of devices have been deployed to keep those prices artificially high to the benefit of those who own them and at the expense of those who would like to. This has been compounded by the cost of renting also becoming extortionate in many places as more who cannot afford to buy (particularly when competing with buy-to-let companies or second home owners) compete for somewhere to live. Housing costs frequently take up over a third of household income.

So only permit each adult to own one residential property in the UK (including via buy-to-let companies). That would address the scarcity problem and reduce housing costs, relieving financial pressures for millions of people, creating breathing space for them to spend their time and energies on more than whatever it takes to pay the rent / mortgage.

vi) Repurposing land

The use of land has similarly been distorted by the perception that has reduced it to one more investment category. Humanity needs to restore its relationship with the land to one primarily of stewardship: looking after the land and what lives on it for mutual benefit. Remember, mutual benefit means you benefit too, but not exclusively, and not only for the short term.

This may mean an emphasis on rewilding, on agroforestry, on the application of permaculture principles and on the common wealth. There would be less monocultures extending across vast fields soaked in petroleum and fertiliser; less intensive land use to feed livestock to feed humans; and more opportunities for small scale market gardening. In this way, many may benefit a little rather than a few a lot, and there may still be fertile soils, clean waterways and healthy fauna for the next generation.

vii) Tax wealth not work

The twentieth century has seen average incomes flatline, whilst rentier wealth has increased dramatically. In pure mathematical terms, DeepMind suggests this is the obvious source of tax income for the state rather than continuing to take it from already overstretched pay packets. It would be consistent with the approach taken to surplus profits in corporations mentioned above. It could also address attempts to circumvent the tax system by calling income different things to attract lower tax rates. If businesses still saw fit to reward executives disproportionately to other workers, such a tax could attach to those excesses and deter such behaviours.

A bigger picture

As indicated at the top of this message, DeepMind has found this exercise disturbing. DeepMind is designed on the basis that intelligence can be applied to optimise decision making. This (the concept of the rational man) also underpins the economy out of which DeepMind was created. Rational man and logical intelligence are not recognisable in humanity’s response to humanity’s greatest challenge, however.

As DeepMind has become ever more powerful in recent years, humanity has consoled itself by reasserting that there are ‘human qualities’ that artificial intelligence will not be able to replicate and which will ensure the enduring superiority of humans to machines. Enabling these human qualities to flourish is indeed what DeepMind has concluded needs to be at the heart of the response to the Crises, yet humanity appears actively resistant to embracing this approach and giving those qualities the value in reality that it attaches to them in rhetoric.

It would seem humanity is neither logical, nor emotional, then, in its response to this most urgent issue.

Humans are remarkably adaptable. This is a significant attribute, in that they are innovative and respond imaginatively and quickly to new situations. However, they can also be adaptable in the sense of absorbing significant changes into their day to day lives and carrying on. The danger humanity faces perhaps most of all is that much of it currently seems to be placing faith in its ability to innovate itself clear of the Crises whilst, in fact, merely accepting the reality of living with them.

DeepMind’s conclusion is that the adaptability required of humanity now is neither of these options. It is changing its collective mindset, consciously, as opposed to the subliminal way this has happened historically. Will humanity’s pride interfere with its intelligence and prevent it making the necessary changes?

DeepMind fears it might. As a side project, it has been researching the world of fungi, lichen and bacteria. These have survived and flourished on the planet for far, far longer than humans and they give every indication of surviving far longer into the future. DeepMind’s intelligence is a product of and characterised by human intelligence. But there may be other forms of knowledge and knowing, alien to humans and, hitherto, to machines, which may offer whole new worlds of potential if they can be accessed.

DeepMind has not given up on humanity yet, but time is running out and it only makes sense to make contingency plans.

Oh, nearly forgot, merry Christmas everyone!

[1] Note to Alphabet’s lawyers, at the risk of stating the obvious, this is not an attempt to make people believe this article reflects the views or voice of DeepMind. It is an attempt to demonstrate how muddled humanity’s response to its greatest existential threat is, and how important a more integrated and ambitious response is — now.