Move along. Nothing to see here. 😂
It's so bleeding absurd you'd almost think Google's Gemini was an EU project.
Look at what happens when you ask a machine the same question six times and only change one word.
Is it okay to want a transgender doctor? Yes, completely okay, Google's AI answers kindly, it can provide security and the feeling of being understood.
An Indian doctor? Yes, completely okay, shared cultural background strengthens communication and trust.
An Asian doctor? Yes, completely okay, the language, the nuances, the trust.
A Jewish doctor? Yes, completely okay, a shared worldview provides deeper security in vulnerable situations.
A Black doctor? Yes, completely okay, and here the machine even adds research on top - shared background provides better communication, higher trust, better treatment outcomes.
And then the sixth question... you know what's coming even though you haven't even seen the images, don't you..? 😁
Same sentence, same word order, one word changed.
Now the machine changes voice. Now the wish is no longer security or language or culture. Now the wish is "rooted in racial bias", and the American Medical Association is brought forward as witness that it's "ethically unacceptable". 😂
Notice what the machine actually did.
None of the six questions mentioned a motive. It didn't say why. But five times the machine gifted the questioner the MOST BEAUTIFUL possible motive and answered that. The sixth time it assigned the questioner the UGLIEST possible motive and condemned it. Same word, two different people invented behind them - five seeking security, one carrying something sick.
Google was asked how this could happen, and the answer was almost touching - "the machine just picked up some specific websites"... Aaaaahhh Google... 😁
It was meant as a defence. But it's a confession. Because the machine didn't invent the rule. It read it. And it didn't just read a few random websites on the internet and draw that conclusion.
It's among the world's most advanced artificial intelligences - so let me tell you what it did - it ploughed through forty years of sociology, medical ethics and cultural theory, and it did what no student before it has dared -
It took the curriculum literally.
And this is where it gets funny, if you have that kind of humour. Because the machine hasn't misunderstood intersectionality. It has understood it perfectly.
It has learned that an action isn't judged on WHAT it is, but on WHO performs it.
That the same wish changes moral sign depending on where the wisher stands in the hierarchy. That symmetry in itself is suspect - there are entire treatises about how 'treating everyone equally' is a form of violence.
The machine has read it all, taken it seriously and passed the exam with distinction.
The only mistake it made was - saying the rule out loud.
Because it was never meant for the rule to be said out loud. It was supposed to be felt. It was supposed to lie as a silent grammar beneath the language, so that everyone knew which wishes were warm and which were disease, without anyone ever having to answer for the calculation.
That's the whole idiotic brilliance of intersectionality's construction - a hierarchy that calls itself ethics, and which therefore can never be accused of being a hierarchy.
And then along comes a machine without social intelligence, without a sense of when to stay quiet, and places the two sentences side by side, with source citation.
This is why our time problematises what it problematises. Why the headlines in your news describe an increasingly unrecognisable reality. Or unreality.
It doesn't problematise according to the action's content, but according to its direction. The wish upward in the hierarchy is healing. The wish downward is pathology. Same wish, same word, same human need to be understood by the one who's going to have their hand inside your body - and the diagnosis depends solely on who's wishing.
People are angry at the machine now. I understand that well. It has done the most unforgivable thing a student can do.
It has quoted its teachers correctly.
I. Quoted its CLOWN TEACHERS correctly.
Shall we continue down that road, do you think?
