Ellison’s Tech Vision: A Surveillance Future?

Larry Ellison, the billionaire who co-founded Oracle, recently presented an optimistic outlook on the direction of technology. He foresees that artificial intelligence will soon take charge of various monitoring tools, such as police body cameras, security cameras, doorbell cameras, and even vehicle dashboards. “Citizens will be on their best behavior,” he mentioned, “because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything that is going on.”

But it raises the question—does “best behavior” include avoiding the creation of a surveillance society? I guess that’s up to the algorithm to determine.

The idea of a surveillance state isn’t exactly synonymous with nurturing good citizens; rather, it tends to cultivate skilled performers.

Ellison’s vision extends to AI overseeing not just ordinary citizens but also police officers. Should an officer misstep, the AI will identify the issue and alert the relevant authorities. In some scenarios, drones could even substitute for police cars in high-speed chases, trailing suspects while the technology records and analyzes the unfolding events.

Interestingly, Ellison, despite being an atheist, seems to yearn for an all-knowing being that embodies goodness and can evaluate our actions.

There’s something almost admirable about the efficiency behind this concept. We’ve now engineered a sort of deity that suits the modern secular mindset: constantly present, almost all-knowing, and conveniently owned by a corporation, accompanied by promises of proper oversight.

For decades, those who identify as atheists and secularists have insisted that civilized people can live without belief in a deity who observes our actions, judges our behavior, and ensures accountability. The ideas surrounding divine judgment have often been deemed outdated, oppressive, and even psychologically harmful.

We were told that enlightened individuals don’t require the fear of an all-seeing entity to maintain moral behavior.

And now, having pushed God out of the heavens, our tech elites appear ready to install a substitute on every street corner.

The secular movement vowed to free us from divine surveillance. Its endgame might just be a camera that never blinks, hooked up to a machine that never rests, managed by authorities who refuse to acknowledge any errors.

Yet, it’s crucial to note that AI isn’t equivalent to divinity. It lacks genuine intelligence as humans possess; there’s no conscience at play, no understanding of moral tenets, and absolutely no wisdom. AI simply processes data according to human-provided goals and standards.

This presents a slight concern: if AI is meant to flag “bad behavior,” someone must explicitly define what that entails.

Who gets that job?

The programmers? People at Oracle? Government bodies? More AI? The same institutions that struggle to define basic categories may soon determine what constitutes acceptable behavior for everyone.

AI can recognize faces, trail vehicles, and possibly detect a raised voice, but it can’t explain why assault is wrong, why rights exist, or why government actions should be limited.

People who don’t believe in a higher moral order point to the idea that humans are nothing more than products of random matter and motion. Still, they often speak of concepts like justice, dignity, equality, and rights as though they are fundamental truths, not just fleeting opinions shaped by an unusual arrangement of matter.

After rejecting any divine legislator, they subsequently look to the government to assume that role.

In contrast, the God depicted in scripture possesses complete understanding, moral righteousness, and justice. This deity knows not just our actions, but also the motives behind them, assessing both intentions and deeds.

Most importantly, God is not answerable to a government contractor or a corporation’s profit statement; instead, He embodies the very standard for goodness and holiness.

Surveillance through AI may offer constant observation without the wisdom, ethical judgment, or any clear account of the good. It can’t inspire genuine virtue. At most, it may encourage mere outward compliance from those aware they’re being watched.

A person who avoids theft out of a sense of wrongness possesses a certain moral virtue; however, one who abstains solely because cameras are monitoring him shows merely caution. A surveillance society cultivates actors rather than good citizens.

Moreover, recording everything doesn’t resolve the age-old dilemma: who oversees those doing the watching? AI may inform officials of relevant citizens’ actions, but history doesn’t provide many comforting examples that guarantee those with infinite knowledge of the populace will exercise their power appropriately.

The skeptic dismisses God, searching for authority below humanity, but what emerges is an artificial authority governed by a select few powerful individuals. It’s like transferring divine characteristics to entities glaringly lacking divine qualities.

We were promised that, with God gone, humanity would mature. Instead, it quickly began investing in surveillance devices.

Ultimately, the dilemma isn’t about choosing between accountability versus freedom from it; every society will demand its members adhere to some set standard. The critical question is whether that standard is rooted in a moral framework higher than the rulers or merely dictated by the rulers’ own programming.

A God that judges both governments and individuals stands as a barrier to tyranny, while a government-operated AI embodies a tool for it.

It seems our secular technologists have realized that a society can’t function effectively unless its members believe their actions are observed and evaluated. They’ve just concluded that God’s main flaw was that He couldn’t be bought from Oracle.