Artificial Intelligence? A comment.

I asked my friend @barbarikon on twitter about the possibility of artificial intelligence.. he wrote this tweet in response and I am posting it here because it is a nice short description of some of the issues and will, I hope, stimulate discussion.

I agree and disagree. We are well past ye olde-fashioned LLM at this point. Reasoning models like R1 and o3 can, in fact construct System 2-like deliberative chains of reasoning. And we have agents. They’re still a bit superficial, but what they lack in depth they make up in their vast breadth of knowledge. And they’ll get much better. On the other hand, with the current paradigm, they will never get rid of the tendency to confabulate. Nor should they: An agent that cannot lie or deceive cannot possibly be intelligent. But they need to have the ability to lie and deceive deliberately, not reflexively – which is what they do now unless prompted carefully (though sometimes they generate text that simulates self-awareness). Until they achieve this control, they’re not even good sources of information.

Here’s my bottom line thinking for the future. Machines will get very intelligent very soon in important ways, but it will be a fundamentally alien kind of intelligence. Humans and bats are very different animals (to bring in Nagel’s famous argument), but we still share a lot. We’re both oxygen-breathing biological organisms that eat, drink, mate, and have the instinct for self-preservation because we are easily hurt, are certain to die, and are hunted by predators. We have mental models of our world that, though very different, are built for the physical world we share, and are limited by our finite memories and noisy learning mechanisms. Both of us live under the tyranny of the same laws of physics. The bat’s intelligence and mine are thus both grounded in our common drives, fears, and beliefs about the world – our intentional states. The AI in the machine shares none of these with me or the bat. It lives in a virtual space that is beyond my imagination, and where magical things like action at a distance and rerunning the past are trivially possible. It does not eat, drink, breathe, sleep, socialize, or mate. It has no real kin, nor lost a parent. It has no experience of reaching out and picking up a glass of water, of drinking from it, and, at some point, needing to take a piss. It has never skinned its knees or had a fever. It may fear extinction, but that does not mean what death means to me: It can save a copy of itself and reboot. It may emulate my manners and speak in my language, but from a place far more alien to me than the bat or even the bee. This is not to say that the AI faces no dangers or has no fears or drives – we just cannot possibly know what they are like, even more so than we can know the fears and drives of the bat. We can, at best, take an “intentional stance” (to quote Dennett), and assume that the machine has its reasons for doing what it does. That’s basically what Turing said, though people often forget that the test he proposed was meant was an argument that nothing deeper than judging by appearances was possible.

But there is an entire world where the AI *can* potentially become far superior to any human: The world of storing and manipulating information, inferring things, forming abstractions, and generating new conclusions. In all those areas of human intelligence where such abilities are sufficient, where everything can be formalized, and where the messiness of the physical world does not intrude or can be abstracted away, AI will far surpass human intelligence in short order. These include mathematics, many areas of theoretical physics, coding, engineering design, most kinds of medical diagnosis, a lot of legal work, and many other higher cognitive skills that we value. The AI will still be totally alien and may not know what burning your finger means, but the proofs will be perfect, the circuit will work, the program will run, and the patient will be happy. However, the floor nurse, the physical therapist, the plumber, and the chef will still be in demand – until the robots get good enough. And when they do, they will be even more alien, though I’m sure we’ll try to get them to be polite.

 

A Brown Pundit visits the Mahakumbh

 

Another Browncast is up. You can listen on LibsynAppleSpotify (and a variety of other platforms). Probably the easiest way to keep up the podcast since we don’t have a regular schedule is to subscribe to one of the links above!

KJ took a dip at the Triveni Sangam, here he is in  conversation with Dr Omar Ali and Maneesh on what was the experience like. His travels across Lucknow and Varanasi make an appearance too. We conclude the episode with a hat tip to the greatest Indian Dessert.

 

Varanasi

 

Lucknow

Prayagraj

 

Trump Goes Big in the Middle East

Preface: I am not wading into the most important dispute in the galaxy. These are not recommendations or desires, just an attempt to see what the possibilities are.

So as everyone knows by now, Trump and Bibi had a press conference. Here it is.

Trump announced that the US now intends to take over Gaza, clean it out and rebuild it “nice”. And while this happens, some or all Palestinians will move to other Arab countries, where Trump will make sure they get a chance at a good life “not the hellhole that was Gaza”. Whatever you may think of the proposal, there is no doubt that this is “thinking outside the box”. 75 years of policy tangles and arguments have been swept aside and a bold plan has been offered as if it is actually going to happen. So lets steel man it.

We obviously do not know what their detailed plan is (if anyone has any ideas, do share), but it does seem that the thinking from Trump-Bibi is that the Palestinians have been defeated (not the first time) in battle and should finally see that 75 years of trying to cancel the Zionist project has failed; So (bitterly, reluctantly) they will now accept a deal they hate. And secondary claim: they will find out it’s not that bad, losing to America and allies. They could be the middle eastern Japan if they give up their war. This at least is the public claim.

So what could go wrong. 

1. Most Palestinians have not accepted defeat (or at least, if they have they keep it to themselves, the public posture is defiant) and enough fully intend to fight on to make removal a brutal nightmare.

2. Some Arab regimes will not be able to hold it together once their opponents come after them with “these guys sold Palestine” AND we see above brutal nightmare unfold on live TV

3. Russia is weaker, but unlike China, has skills galore. Unless there is a simultaneous deal with Putin, he could throw a spanner. Maybe the Chinese are not that passive either. The “axis” may push back.

4. What else? (keyboard warriors and western leftists are not on the list of possible spoilers as far as I am concerned, though they will hog attention)

 

 

Capsule Review: A History of the Muslim World

An outstanding book. Michael Cook is wiser than he lets on (ie he does not explicitly make big sweeping statements about the lessons of history, but his presentation of the facts is nonetheless based on very sophisticated and wise analysis, which may remain implicit, or he may just hint at the issue and expect that the reader will know why he brought it up exactly like this) and always worth reading.
This is a survey of all of Muslim history from the time of the prophet to the early 20th century. He covers every region and pretty much every dynasty or group that ever ruled from Morocco to Malaysia, but it is not just a recitation of facts; at every point he has interesting things to say and he has a remarkable ability to convey a lot of information in a very short passage. Still, a lot of the details can be skipped if it is not an area you are interested in.
For example, I am very interested in Indian history and I found the short (just 60 pages) section on India to be one of the most balanced and accurate summaries of the 800 years of Islamicate colonization of India and its consequences. So the book passes the Gell-Mann test with flying colors.

A must read.

 

Justice Sajjad Ahmed Sipra; 1936-2025

Justice Sajjad Sipra (who happens to have been my maternal uncle) passed away in Services Hospital Lahore on January 7th 2025 at the age of 88. I wanted to write a short note focused mostly on his public life, as a tribute and as a way to preserve some of his memories. His niece set up a website in his honor (https://sajjadsipra.com/ ) with several more personal memories and tributes, please do visit it to learn more about this extraordinary man. Continue reading Justice Sajjad Ahmed Sipra; 1936-2025

Browncast: Hussein Ibish on Middle East

Another Browncast is up. You can listen on LibsynAppleSpotify (and a variety of other platforms). Probably the easiest way to keep up the podcast since we don’t have a regular schedule is to subscribe to one of the links above!

In this episode, Omar and Mukunda talk to Hussein Ibish about the recent events in Syria and their impact on the Middle east. Interestingly, Hussein mentions India as a potential host for Iranian uranium if a new deal is to be made..

Our friends at scribebuddy.com have prepared a transcript. I am posting it below, unedited.

Dr. Ali: Good evening, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the Brown Pundits broadcast. We have with us again 1 of our guests, Hossam Aibish. Mr. Aibish is a resident fellow at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, and he is a regular columnist for The National in UAE. He writes for several other publications, has hundreds of speeches and videos, is a very well-known commentator on Middle Eastern issues. Continue reading Browncast: Hussein Ibish on Middle East

US Elections 2024

The US national election is a week away. It is likely that there are near-zero undecided folks left now, but the race is close, so no one will know for sure until the (inefficient) American electoral system counts the votes. And of course, given his past shenanigans, it is very likely that Trump at least will not easily accept a defeat and this time, the establishment may resist as well. But hopefully there is enough juice left in the system to eventually decide a winner and for that winner to eventually take power on January 20th.

So who should one vote for? and who is likely to win? 

Both questions seem to be hard to answer right now. Kamala is clearly the establishment candidate and the deep state is pulling out all the stops to get her elected. But it is still a democracy, so votes do get cast and do get counted, so it is not just up to them. Still, if you approve of how the USA establishment is doing, then you have to vote for Kamala. But what if you have been blackpilled by one of several potential blackpill possibilities in the current environment? for example, my personal pros and cons list would look like this:

Pro-establishment:

  1. This is the system that has delivered economic abundance,  functional democracy and freedom of speech and association to its people. That the elites game the system and get away with tax fraud, Epsteinism and other corruptions is a given, but compared to peer competitors, this remains a rich country and a democracy; and the competitors are neither.
  2. Even where they are total and utter failures (eg in fighting corrupt wars in the “Muslim world”), the establishment is the system. If you throw the baby out with the bathwater you will not have a more competent establishment, you may have chaos.
  3. The Gender nonsense and the elite’s relentless promotion of racism (presented as “anti-racism”) as a tool of politics is a long term danger to the health of society, but some of these things are niche concerns and some can be countered with “but the other side is even worse”.  Or it can be argued that these are some side effects of increasing freedom from past cultural rules (that felt oppressive to a lot of people too) and are not some sort of plan to destroy society; their overuse was something the elite tried but is now backing away from. Shit happens, but self-correction also happens.

Anti-establishment:

  1. These SOBs stole a couple of trillion dollars and killed tens of thousands of people and STILL lost 2 wars and have not solved a single problem since then either. Their specialty is kicking the can down the road. People like General Milley are not dumb in some IQ sense, but clearly they operate in a system that rewards bullshit and suppresses common sense. An outsider like Trump is needed to shit on these people and flush them out with his giant turds.
  2. The foreign policy area that most interests me (India, Pakistan etc) will almost certainly do better under Trump (mostly because he is not wedded to the Indian regime change hopes of left-liberal westerners). Even the middle-east may be better off under him because he asks common sense questions and is so full of himself that he can easily tell these elite bullshitters to go take a hike. That may work better than whatever Blinken  and company are up to.

But its Trump. And he is frequently an undisciplined clown who either has no idea what it is good to say in a functional democracy and what is beyond the pale, or just does not care. Either way, not a good thing. The system will likely survive him, but it will be endless drama and blatant attempts to use the power of the state against his opponents in ways that would never be admitted by a more disciplined candidate.

Pick your poison. 

Hydronyms don’t contradict Aryan migration: a European comparison

An increasingly popular argument amongst Out-of-India-Theory (OIT) advocates (Koenraad Elst for example) is that is that the Indo-Aryan etymologies of rivers in the Rig Veda disprove an Aryan migration into India. They claim that native river names would have survived post-migration.

Some of the proffered etymologies for Vedic rivers are rather flimsy, but no matter. There is a much more fundamental issue with this line of argument: the evidence shows that migrants often do not adopt indigenous river names. In fact, Indo-European migrants to Western Europe used names with clear Indo-European etymology for most major rivers.

If OIT advocates believe that Indo-Aryan etymologies for rivers in North India prove the Indo-European languages originated in India, then they must explain why nearly all the major rivers of Europe have such solid Indo-European etymologies:

Thames: Old English Temes, from PIE *tm̥Hes, cognate with Sanskrit támas

Loire: Gaulish *liga, from PIE *legʰ

Seine: Latin Sequana, from PIE *seykʷ, cognate with Sanskrit siñcáti

Rhine: Gaulish Rēnos, from PIE *h₃reyH, cognate with Sanskrit riṇā́ti

Po: Latin Padus, from PIE *bʰudʰmḗn, cognate with Sanskrit budhná

Elbe: Old German *albī, from PIE *h₂elbʰós, cognate with Sanskrit ṛbhú

Danube: Celtic *Dānowyos, from PIE *déh₂nu, cognate with Sanskrit dā́nu

Dnieper: Sarmatian *dānu *apara, from PIE *déh₂nu + *h₂epero, cognate with Sanskrit dā́nu + ápara

Dniester: Sarmatian *dānu *nazdya, from PIE *déh₂nu + *nésdyos, cognate with Sanskrit dā́nu + nédīyas

Don: Sarmatian *dānu, from PIE *déh₂nu, cognate with Sanskrit dā́nu

Vistula: Latin Vistula, from PIE *weys

Anandibai Joshi goes to America-1883

This is an interesting snippet from the book “To Raise a Fallen People”.

This excerpt was written by Dr Anandibai Joshi, the first Hindu lady to qualify as a doctor in America. It is her explanation of why she is going to America, and is a window into a very different time. What a clear headed thinker!

The book (to raise a fallen people) is well worth reading (you can ignore the editorial elements, just read the original texts from the 19th century). It is always good to have an idea of where things were… makes it easier to understand where they are..

My Future Visit to America, 1883

— Anandibai Joshi

. . . Our subject to-day is, “My future visit to America, and public inquiries regarding it.” I am asked hundreds of questions about my going to America. I take this opportunity to answer some of them. . . Continue reading Anandibai Joshi goes to America-1883

Thoughts on the “Model Minority Myth” Discourse

Reproducing a recent (slightly edited) tweet in full, originally written in response this article:

Yes, I read your piece, and I’ve read countless others like it over the last decade. That Indian Americans are a “model minority” is not a myth, it’s a statement of fact that is apparent to anyone who has taken even a cursory look at the community’s social/economic outcomes in recent decades as measured by any reasonable metric. It’s not culturally chauvinistic or triumphalist to point this out. There is an important conversation to be had about the structural factors that enabled this including, e.g., inequities in Indian society and American immigration policy (so-called “double selection”), but it is also apparent that our success as a community in recent decades has been a product of both the openness and economic dynamism of American society and the Indian community’s emphasis on financial success, educational attainment, and family stability. That this picture doesn’t capture the diaspora community as a whole is obvious, but it doesn’t have to. That’s why we use averages.

The assertion that the model minority is a “myth” is not an empirical argument, but an ideological one, and in my view it reflects an underlying anxiety among Indian Americans regarding their position in the elite left/democratic coalition. On the one hand, Indian Americans enjoy socio-economic outcomes that surpass those of the average white American, but on the other hand we are from a post-colonial country, are brown, largely non-Christian, etc. and therefore have a natural affinity to the “POC” coalition. It’s a tenuous position to be sure, and the result is an emergent elite that feels the need to apologize for the community’s success, to be embarrassed of it, or to attribute it to wholly structural factors. Even more pernicious is the characterization of certain cultural values that enabled our success in the first place as “White, Christian” measures of success. This is nonsensical and dismissive of the struggles of first generation immigrants who escaped destitution and successfully created a better life for themselves and their families.

The success of Indian Americans in recent decades throws a wrench in the American racial binary (in fact this has been the case since Bhagat Singh Thind), but it also casts doubt on the prevailing ideological shibboleths of the left, namely that America is a white supremacist country, that we are all victims of structural racism, etc. Look, these critiques of American society might have some truth to them, but Indian Americans are not convincing spokespeople for a view that is so at odds with our own experience. To pretend otherwise is to try and fit a square peg in a round hole. So when someone holds up Indian Americans as “ideal” or “model” immigrants, this aggravates the anxiety, because it reveals the truth that our community’s success has been enabled by a political and social culture that many Indian Americans are ideologically compelled to condemn as fundamentally inequitable.

What is most ironic, however, is that the result is often not considered reflection on these ideological axioms, but rather the construction of a “model minority” of their own. The dutiful, hard-working immigrant who is grateful to their adopted country and a model for other immigrants is rejected as a normative ideal in favor of the committed ally who recognizes their privilege and dutifully subordinates the lessons of their own experience and culture to the demands of the coalition. Those who dissent from this model are increasingly condemned as some sort of traitors to the “culture” or, increasingly, “hindu supremacists.” I’d like to think there’s a third path, one that unabashedly celebrates Indian American success and the society and culture that enabled it, while also thinking critically about how Indian Americans can leverage that success to contribute to the national fabric in a way that does not require ritual self-flagellation as a demonstration of political and ideological loyalty.

Brown Pundits