The ALP is best prepared to take us into the future
There’s a myth created by the Coalition as far back as I care to remember and perpetuated for many years since, which is nothing more or nothing less a tale. A born to rule one.
The myth is that the Conservative parties are better at managing the economy and the nation. I shot the money myth down in the article Who are the best managers of the economy? in 2019. Then I went further with a piece titled The Masters of Scare. Notwithstanding those two slap downs, I followed up with Which major political party is more qualified to embrace urgent change?
This time, I’m more specific about the new world of Artificial Intelligence and which philosophy is best qualified to manage its implementation. However, before we decide which of the major parties is best suited for this momentous task, we have to do two things.
The first identifies what changes artificial intelligence (AI will) make to our society, and the second is each party’s philosophy or ideology.
“Artificial intelligence is the science of making machines that can think like humans. It can do things that are considered “smart.” AI technology can process large amounts of data in ways unlike humans. The goal for AI is to be able to do things such as recognise patterns, make decisions, and judge like humans.”
I found this in an A1 Superhuman email newsletter:
“Doctor With great power comes great responsibility, as the saying goes. And according to a new report, Meta and Google may have developed tech so powerful that they had to shut it down and keep it to themselves. However, recent AI developments could make the technology widely available very soon.”
In a speech to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute conference on Thursday, 14 September, Australia’s top military leader, ADF chief Gen Angus Campbell, warned that:
“… democracies will be vulnerable to “truth decay” as artificial intelligence tools eventually leave citizens struggling to sift fact from fiction.
This tech future may accelerate truth decay, greatly challenging the quality of what we call public ‘common sense’, seriously damaging public confidence in elected officials, and undermining the trust that binds us.”
How Artificial Intelligence is being used and in what areas
Examples are Health, Retail, Military, Manufacturing, Banking, Life sciences and the Public Sector.
As technology progresses, so will artificial intelligence:
“Over the next ten years, AI will become increasingly complex and sophisticated.”
“Technical advancements in this field will likely focus on creating general intelligence that rivals or surpasses human capabilities.”
It will undoubtedly be a prelude to 40 or more years further on.
There is no area of our existence that technology will not dramatically change.
The ideology of Conservative political parties
What is a conservative?
I know I have put the same question before, but I have expanded a little more here:
Conservatives believe in free markets, individual liberty and traditional values. Change is anathema to them and should be advanced incrementally, typically in science, politics, or religion. They believe the role of the Government should be to provide people with the freedom necessary to pursue their own goals.
Lower taxes, less regulation, reduced spending, balanced budgets and religious freedoms are part of the Conservative ideology.
Note: Contrary to what they believe, they, the far-right, now seek to control us.
Conservative policies generally emphasise the empowerment of the individual to solve problems. And they are cautious about change or innovation, typically in science, politics, or religion. They stick to tradition and institutions.
They believe that free markets produce more economic growth, more jobs, and higher living standards than those systems burdened by excessive government regulation.
The right supports the separation of church and state but allows its conservative views to affect its legislation in practice.
What is a neo-conservative?
Neo-conservatism goes back to the 1930s; however, it identifies with George W. Bush in its modern form.
Bush embraced unbridled capitalism, corporate greed, and literalist Christianity to form modern-day neoconservatism.
Carl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld and others added global superiority, believing American exceptionalism was above the rest of the world in every aspect. Donald Trump completed the assortment of capitalists who would make America great again.
But a society and its traditions can only endure if it can also change.
What is a social progressive?
Social democrats (the left) believe in:
“Government action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all. The Government must alleviate social ills, protect civil liberties provide health services and individual human rights, thus believing the role of the Government should be to guarantee that no one is in need.”
And that:
“Government must protect citizens from the greed of big business. Progressive policies generally emphasise the need for the Government to solve problems.”
Social progressive democrats believe that a market system in which the Government regulates the economy is best. Unlike the private sector, the Government is motivated by public interest. Government regulation in all areas of the economy is needed to level the playing field.
The left also supports the separation of church and state: free health and a move to free education. The common good and that change is attached to progress.
Substantial and worthwhile change often comes with short-term controversy, but the pain is worth it for the long-term prosperity of all.
Summary
What, then, are the rudimentary differences between the two doctrines? The difference is between individuals’ rights and the Government’s power to make worthwhile change. Those on the left believe society is best served when the collective, through the Government, can improve culture.
Those on the right believe that:
“… the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role – and especially the power – of the government is minimised.”
We are now entering a period of even more significant change. The second Enlightenment brings with it artificial intelligence. Society must decide which political party is best placed to see its introduction.
Let us look at the qualifications of the two major parties
The Greens and others of English Liberal philosophy might argue their case for inclusion, but we only have two possibilities and a minority Government.
By scrutinising the historic social reforms of Australia’s major parties and comparing them, we can determine who is best qualified to take us through this period of change, including political, social and economic reforms and the ethics that might accompany them.
We can often become so trapped in the longevity of sameness that we never see other ways of doing things.
The Left side of Australian politics until now:
Has implemented the following reforms or policies that have directly contributed to change for the better.
A National Health Scheme, a National Disability scheme, compulsory superannuation, a National Broadband Network, Paid Parental leave, major educational reforms, a price on carbon, equal pay for women, the Aged Pension, Mabo and the Apology to the Stolen Generations, plus of course the Hawke – Keating major economic reforms that gave the country 25 years of continuous growth.
Labor’s platform
To protect workers who could lose jobs to AI:
“The platform pledges Labor will enact rules to protect against harmful uses of AI while focusing on “lifting national productivity and competitiveness and supporting the development of new businesses and ideas that can improve the lives of Australians.”
The ‘right side of politics has implemented the following: Howard gun buyback, the GST that benefited the rich, increased immigration after the Second World War, and Harold Holt introduced a bi-partisan referendum that gave Indigenous people the right to vote in 1967.
And there, I have to stop. The Liberal Party website provides a list of achievements in Government as distinct from significant policy reforms. Here is the list for you to judge for yourself.
The Liberal Party AI Platform
The Coalition Government has a comprehensive strategy to make Australia a top 10 data and digital economy by 2030.
Note: Its policy only talks about artificial intelligence in terms of economics. It is much more than that. The death of truth is at stake. National security will be at risk.
In a world where science, technology, and information progress so quickly, change sometimes disregards opinion and becomes a phenomenon of its own making, with its own inevitability.
Conservatives oppose change and are wary of science and intellectualism. Never was this so evidenced by the Abbott, Turnbull and Morrison Governments. Almost ten years of comprehensively rotten Government leaves the writer in no doubt about who is the best party to take us through this period of significant change.
The ALP, demonstrably, is best prepared to take us into this new world of the future: artificial intelligence.
My thought for the day
We dislike and resist change in the foolish assumption that we can make permanent that makes us feel secure. Yet change is part of the very fabric of our existence.
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
17 comments
Login here Register here-
Terence Mills -
Jim Jacobsen -
Brad -
GL -
Stephengb -
Terence Mills -
Andrew Smith -
Stephengb -
New England Cocky -
New England Cocky -
Terence Mills -
Ken Fabian -
Stephengb -
Stephengb -
Caz -
B Sullivan -
Stephengb
Return to home page“… democracies will be vulnerable to “truth decay”
That’s a powerful thought and one that the Chairman Emeritus of News Corporation realised many years ago. He could never have built the influence peddling machine that became Fox News (and to a lesser extent the mini-me we see locally as Sky News) without degrading truth.
He realised that truth in news didn’t feed prejudice, bigotry and irrational bias as only misinformation can feed that monster. But how to appear to be a legitimate news organisation and yet still feed prejudice and make money without running into legal constraints.
What he decided to do was to dress up news – which needs to be based on fact and subject to scrutiny – as opinion: you can be held to account for inaccurate news but not for voicing an opinion.
Excellent article, bar that I would place a social progressive more towards the middle, that is someone who pursues achievable social, economic and political change. Further to the left is the “loopy” left, whose ideas, no matter how laudable, are too far in front of societal norms, beliefs and capacities to be implementable. That’s where I place the greens.
Terence, re “dress up news” and the way MSM treats news, here’s a thought about the Misinfo/Disinfo Bill currently under consideration by ACMA on behalf of Labor – ‘Murdoch News will be exempt from the Bill, you and I won’t be’. ACMA called for submissions re changes to the Bill – 23,000 subs, they published about 150. I read a number of subs (left up on private websites) and to a person they all highlighted the value of freedom of speech. ACMA seems to have a problem with free speech given the number of subs it published. I assume 99%+ of subs were pro-freedom of speech.
It’ll be interesting to see what Labor does.
Gag! Choke! Spew! Chunder! What else has The Spud been sniffing apart from his own mephitic gas and bullshit! He’s channelling bloody Trump with this garbage.
@1 hour ago.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/live/2023/sep/23/australia-news-live-anti-voice-rallies-set-for-capital-cities-dutton-tells-no-supporters-not-to-attend-because-of-links-to-extremists
TM.
These conclusive statements are very scary
“how to appear to be a legitimate news organisation and yet still feed prejudice and make money without running into legal constraints.”
And
“you can be held to account for inaccurate news but not for voicing an opinion.”
Tell me, is there anyway to hold those who would peddle misinformation, disinformation and even lies when they dress it up as truth ?
Stephengb
Well, Fox Corp and Fox News settled a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems for US$787.5 million (AU$1.2 billion) because they lied although the settlement was out-of-court with no admittance of liability ; the best that Fox would say was that “We acknowledge the court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false. This settlement reflects Fox’s continued commitment to the highest journalistic standards”.
The mistake that Fox made was to manufacture lies and present them as the truth and as was noted at the time “Truthful reporting in the media is essential to our democracy.” Truth matters when it comes to news.
Sky after Dark makes a point of saying that what their presenters peddle is ‘opinion’ which means (evidently) that it doesn’t have to be the truth, it doesn’t even need to be factual as it is not ‘news’.
Good article, and related to current events on The Voice, the LNP or Lib & Nat MPs are very coy on their voting intentions, possibly in fear of their own side’s ‘whipping’?
My father and local community southern NSW, north of Yarrawonga, was a normal mixed farming, some ethnic and native blood, were all rusted on CP then NP, with the occasional vote for the Libs; coincidentally it was Tim Fischer’s state then federal electorate.
With Joh’s QLD corruption being found out, many like my own father complained of him being a ‘bible basher’, he voted Democrats late ’80s once, and shock horror, admitted Labor were better for farmers than the CP/NP; many in the next generation appalled by NPs lack of action on climate science, Murray Darling, small medium farmers and communities, maybe more tempted to vote indie.
In more recent years, a cousin of our father, Scot Catholic heritage, also rusted on CP/NP, said of Abbott’s ascension to the leadership and PM, follow the policies; within a year or few that changed to disgust at both Abbott and Joyce for their interpretation of ‘family values’.
Related to The Voice, the same relative in the noughties complained of Oakeshott’s disloyalty, leaving the NP to become an independent. However, one explained that allegedly Oakeshott became tired of the open casual racism towards indigenous in parts of the NP, with an indigenous wife; relative’s response was almost head in his hands in embarrassment, ‘why doesn’t that surprise me’……
TM
I am nearly 76, and have stage 4 cancer (so far so good with the treatment, it is helping) but your contribution really scares me, especially for my family.
Once we accept lies as truth we really are up the creek.
About 70 years ago my late mother worked at the Sydney Daily Mirror, owned by the Chairman Emeritus (CE), who then was very much an unapologetic hands-on owner. He was the only news masthead that backed the Whitlam Labor government in to government in 1972, and expected consideration for his efforts, such as Ambassador to Washington. Whitlam declined, and the rest is history.
Editorial policy was the unspoken and never written down “I don’t care what you write about Whitlam & Labor, make them look bad”.
This editorial strategy was applied to every politician and political situation that failed to agree with his views or personal wishes.
So ”truth in reporting” became very much what ever yellow journalism was required to promote the CE wishes of the time.
.
.
@ Andrew Smith: The NOtional$ ”family values” as practiced by Beetrooter are adultery, alcoholism & misogyny, grifting & self-service> Still, these are accepted by the Ladies of Tamworth NSW as the preferred ”borne-to-rule” life style.
@ Stephengb: Agreed. I doubt that any political party would legislate for ”reporting the truth or losing publishing licence” that is required both here and overseas.
@Stephengb: Check out this legal matter AGAINST Lie news & their directors personally.
Stephengb
The government have a bIll before the parliament at the present time that is aimed at giving the ACMA lame duck some additional powers. The coalition oppose it and the Greens want it to go further and One Nation will oppose it in the Senate ; groundhog day ? It may well be useful legislation, I can’t judge. This is the government fact sheet :
https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/communications-legislation-amendment-combatting-misinformation-and-disinformation-bill-2023-factsheet-june2023.pdf
I hope you are travelling well and are able to show this dreadful disease the door. I’m in my eightieth year and so far so good although I had a scare with prostate cancer several year ago.
Life goes on !
Labor having to compromise with The Greens on climate in the face of global warming having increasingly serious impacts is probably a good thing, better than Labor’s attempts at appeasing and subsidising the fossil fuel industry into submission. If appeasing them now is some kind of cunning plan that will bring zero emissions faster later it isn’t clear to me. All very well to hold out for renewables growth winning over fossil fuels as some kind of free market inevitabilty (ie not Labor’s fault) but we really do need some serious ambition as well as evidence of courage of convictions. Perhaps “The Greens made us do it” the way Labor did during Gillard’s time is necessary again to see more ambition through being able to deny being responsible.
The halfway point between not nearly good enough and “oh too bad, we’ll just have to keep burning fossil fuels until The Greens support nuclear” isn’t easing my very real climate concerns, which are increasingly near term; I’ve personally spent around 1 day a week over the past 6 mths and considerable expense trying to reduce bushfire vulnerabilty. I wonder to what extent businesses selling and installing bushfire sprinkler systems are having a boom. Of course if we are forced to evacuate no-one will be around to start the pump.
Get used to the further decline of the LibNatLab triopoly and the further rise of The Greens (who likely will continue getting more politically skillful) and Teals. I for one think it will be good for Labor to have to compete for progressive voters and try appeasing us into submission.
Wow, it seems as though I am in similar age bracket to an number of ‘top’ AIMN contributors.
I am an avid reader of AIMN, and find that contributors and responders have a lot of common sense.
I read a lot of political comentary from various souces but mostly the ABC and SBS, however I do not believe the ABC and or the SBS are imune from giving popular opinion
Yup, life goes on !
KF
Ken, you are absolutely right. Labors attempt to emulate British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlains “”peace in our time” strategy is sickening.
Having said that my late father (who faught in WWII) believed that Chamberlain was actually just buying time to allow the British industries to tool up for war, and to ‘phsyc up’ the war weary British public to accept (so soon aftter WWI) the coming war with Germany.
I tend to think the same as it makes more sense than the horrible spetical of Chamberlain ‘kow towing’ to Hitler.
Meanwhile we have ‘marles’ singing “yanky doodle dandy”, and the PM playing “peace in our time” with the Chinese, who )will as a matter of pure logistics) totally dominate the whole of asia (perhaps in my life time, at the rate they are going).
I wonder myself if our Labor strategy is to also ‘phsyc’ up the Australian public, whilst we arm up with yanky and perhaps European armenants
So I am not the only oldie commenting here, 85 and still going in spite of three bouts of the big C. I have a feeling AI will drive us oldies to an untimely end, just managing AI in daily life. As it is now, we have trouble speaking to anyone in our own country when it is a customer service matter. Chatbox is used to divert you away from demanding to ” speak to the manager”. Imagine what it will be like when AI answers your call sounding a bit like that annoying neighbour you used to have. ” Are you a real person, or not”. Guess the answer. One will end up pining for the day when you spoke to a friendly fellow in Mumbai.
I have yet to get my head around AI for its impact on health services. Or defence for that matter. I guess if Angus Huston is worried then we all should be.
Jim Jacobsen, Left and right are opposite directions. in political terms they refer to principles that are fair to all versus principles that are unfair in that they only benefit some and not all. ‘Socially progressive’ denotes a movement to the left, or as you prefer to call it, the loopy left, presumably because the idea of fairness is apparently a loopy idea to you. There is no middle ground between fair and unfair, and those like you who opt for a middle ground inevitably opt for unfairness even if it is a bit less unfair than the ‘rabid right’ would wish. There is no justifiable reason to compromise. Certainly no fair reason to compromise with unfairness. The argument that only unfair measures are achievable is just a pathetic and unsustainable excuse to ignore doing what is just and correct. If we were ruled by fairness for all instead of privilege for some, then the barrier to achieve fair outcomes would be removed, because it is only that opposition to fairness by the selfish, privileged and unjust ‘right’ that prevents a fair society from functioning.
Left and right are directions. They are not groups of people with political views. So we shouldn’t use terms like loopy left or rabid right which denote groups of people rather than directions. If we confuse directions with political groups we tend to lose our sense of direction when political parties like the Labor Party that are somewhat regarded as fairer because they are supposedly of the ‘left’ move towards unfair policies normally associated with the ‘right’. Of course, people don’t wan’t to to do this because it is easier to criticise a political group for being fair than it is to actually criticise fairness itself.
JJ
I rather like your take on “Left” and “Right”, it fits in to my own view but expands on that limited view I held.
I especially like your take on the “loopy left”
Thanks