Uncategorized
Richard Belzer was a Jewish comedian. Why didn’t his obituaries say so?
(JTA) — Ever hear Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone” sung in Yiddish dialect? It used to be a regular bit performed by comedian and actor Richard Belzer, who died this week at 78. He also used to do a routine about Bob Dylan’s bar mitzvah in which he recited a Hebrew prayer in the singer’s distinctive tone. A similar Elvis bar mitzvah bit was also part of his routine.
Surprisingly, Belzer performed these niche routines in numerous comedy venues and even on the nationally televised “The Late Show with David Letterman.” In addition to a variety of other Jewish references embedded in his act, Belzer also performed Yiddish-inflected parodies of Prince’s “Let’s Go Crazy” and “When Doves Cry.”
But like so many American comedians of the Hebraic persuasion, Belzer didn’t really work Jewish. The bulk of his act was general and observational. To be sure, there were bits and pieces of Jewish material that can be found scattered about his comedic oeuvre, though to have the broad appeal he achieved, he understood that he had to deal in comic generalities. But to have thrown bits like Dylan’s bar mitzvah into routines for venues as broad as Letterman is an indication that he was truly dedicated to his Jewish material.
Moreover, he enjoyed it. Around 2003, after he’d snagged a contract to do a special on a cable network, he approached Letterman’s legendary bandleader, Paul Schaffer, and told him he wanted to do something “Jewish” for the show. Schaffer suggested The Barton Brothers’ risqué Yiddish radio ad parody song “Joe and Paul.” Belzer loved the idea. The duo learned the Yiddish lines and performed the tune, which, in veiled Yiddish tones, talks about masturbation and going to a prostitute named “Cock-eyed Jenny.” It was so well-received and the two enjoyed it so much, they began to do it in other venues. It eventually wound up on a 2008 album titled “The Jewish Songbook,” together with songs sung by Neil Sedaka and Barbra Streisand.
Which is why it’s been strange to read obit after obit in outlets like The New York Times, The Guardian and The Hollywood Reporter, among others, that didn’t bother to mention that Belzer was Jewish — even when, as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency pointed out, the character for which he was best known, Det. John Munch on “Homicide: Life on the Street” and “Law & Order: Special Victims Unit,” identified as Jewish. Obituaries, after all, are meant to be the final stock-taking of a person’s life. They should include the basics of who they were. And one of the basics of Richard Belzer is that he was a Yid.
Moreover, according to Paul Shaffer, he was a proud one. I should also point out that I don’t mean Jewish in a religious sense. Belzer, after all, appears to have been an atheist, so what is meant here is Jew as an ethnic category, one that apparently confounds a lot of people and which results in many Jewish artists being described as anything but Jewish.
To call Burt Bacharach an “American composer” or Barbara Walters a “pioneering woman newscaster” is accurate, but misses a significant ethno-cultural aspect of these people, one that was integrally responsible for making them who they are and influencing their creative choices. The notion that “Jewish” is something more than a religious denomination — that it’s a wide-ranging culture that includes art, literature, music, food, folkways and languages — is terribly difficult to grasp for some people.
One case in point is an excellent book by Kliph Nesteroff that appeared in 2015 called “The Comedians,” which richly details the history of stand-up comedy in America. Assiduously researched, it’s become the definitive work on the topic. The book, however, deracinates the history of the field. From reading it, you would never know that 20th-century American comedy was largely a Jewish enterprise. In fact, you’d hardly know that Jews were involved at all. You will read about comedians such as Milton Berle, Joan Rivers, Lenny Bruce and Jerry Seinfeld, but you’ll have no idea that any of them are Jews, or that Jewish history and culture might have had at least a nominal influence in their work and in their field. It’s like a history of opera that doesn’t bother to mention Italians: They weren’t the only ones involved, but the field would have been far poorer without their distinct contributions.
The matter of the mysteriously disappearing Jew occurs in other industries as well. It’s particularly egregious in the art world and popped up last year at the opening of the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures, a lavishly funded new institution that celebrated the diversity of Hollywood, touting the contributions of minorities involved in the film industry. However, the one minority they initially left out was the one that was instrumental in building that very industry. It’s all part of a phenomenon comedian David Baddiel describes as “Jews don’t count.” They’re not considered a minority among the many others and have apparently become white people who don’t believe in Jesus. As such, they’re not worthy of distinction.
History, however, tells a different story. When Jews began to come to this country en masse at the end of the 19th century, the culture they met often mocked and derided them. Suffering discrimination in multiple realms, they were excluded from certain neighborhoods, clubs and a variety of occupations. Universities placed quotas on them. Many hotels denied them entry, a fact that led to the creation of hundreds of Jewish hotels in New York’s Catskill Mountains. While American attitudes toward Jews eventually changed, a fact that allowed them to become full participants in society, they still find themselves victimized by Jew-hatred. Even though it’s often denied, the mystery of Jewish difference, apparently, is still a thing.
And for Richard Belzer, it was a thing he obviously enjoyed. Comedy writer and novelist Seth Greenland, who worked on numerous projects with Belzer and whose first novel was based on him, told me, “Something about Richard was quintessentially Jewish. He was kind, disputatious, intellectually curious, and hilarious. Although he wasn’t at all religious, he was proud to be Jewish and embraced that identity.”
Alan Zweibel, a comedy writer who worked with Belzer beginning in the mid-1970s on “Saturday Night Live,” added, “Belz made no bones about being Jewish in his act or in his life.” Zweibel once took Belzer to his parents’ Long Island home for a Friday night dinner, over which the comedian bonded with Mr. and Mrs. Zweibel over milchig and fleishig issues, the minutiae of keeping kosher. Alan’s father pointed to Belzer and told his son, “You could learn a lot from this guy.”
“Belz and Gilbert Gottfried would always do Jewish shtick and saw themselves in a long line of Jewish comics,” said author Ratso Sloman. “And one time I was at Catch [A Rising Star], probably in the mid ’80s and at the end of the night, Belz and Gilbert went on stage and did dueling old Jewish weather forecasters. It was so hilarious, I almost pissed my pants.”
Paul Schaffer also recalled how Belzer once accompanied him to say Kaddish for Schaffer’s father at the Carlebach Shul on the Upper West Side. “I didn’t know what kind of Jewish education he had,” Schaffer told me, “but the cat could daven [pray].” Paul added that he and Belzer once bonded over old cassettes of Friars Club roasts. One of the tapes was of a roast emceed by DJ and Sinatra expert William B. Williams (born Velvel Breitbard), who, whenever someone’s joke bombed, would begin to utter the Jewish prayer for the dead — “Yisgadal, yisgadash, shemey rabo….” — and get big laughs. Belzer loved it so much, he stole it and would recite the prayer onstage at subsequent roasts whenever a comic bombed, and even when his own jokes died.
Yisgadal, yisgadash, Belz. You will be missed.
—
The post Richard Belzer was a Jewish comedian. Why didn’t his obituaries say so? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Pinchas, this week’s Torah portion, is hard to stomach today
אין דער פֿריִערדיקער פּרשה האָבן מיר געלייענט, ווי אַזוי דער מואָבֿישער מלך בלק, בשותּפֿות מיטן בייזן כּישוף־מאַכער בלעם, האָט אַרײַנגעשיקט פֿרעמדע פֿרויען צו די ייִדן, כּדי זיי צו פֿאַרפֿירן צו דינען עבֿודה־זרה.
אַהרנס אייניקל פּינחס האָט דערזען, אַז זמרי, דער נשׂיא פֿונעם שבֿט־שמעון האָט אָנגעהויבן אָפֿענערהייט אַן אינטימע באַציִונג מיט אַ געוויסער נישט־ייִדישער פֿרוי, כּזבי. די חז״ל דערקלערן, אַז דאָס איז געווען בלקס טאָכטער. פּנחס האָט אַרויסגעכאַפּט אַ שווערד און דערהרגעט דאָס פּאָרל; אַ מגפֿה, וואָס האָט דעמאָלט געבושעוועט צווישן די ייִדן, האָט זיך אָפּגעשטעלט. הגם פּנחס איז לכתּחילה נישט געווען אַ כּהן, האָט אים דער אייבערשטער פֿאַר זײַן קנאָות געגעבן די כּהונה.
אַן אַנדער וויכטיקער פּערסאָנאַזש, וואָס ווערט שפּעטער באַטראַכט אין דער הײַנטיקער סדרה, איז יהושע בן נון. בײַם סוף פֿון די פֿערציק־יאָריקע וואַנדערונגען אין מידבר, האָט דער אייבערשטער געהייסן משה רבינו פֿאַר זײַן טויט אָנצושטעלן יהושע בן נון ווי דעם קומענדיקן מנהיג פֿונעם גאַנצן כּלל־ישׂראל.
פֿון דער הײַנטצײַטיקער פּערספּעקטיוו, זענען פּנחס און יהושע זייער צווייפֿלהאַפֿטיקע פּערסאָנאַזשן. אין הלכה איז פֿאַראַן אַ באַקאַנטע דעה, לויט וועלכער דער תּורה־איסור חתונה צו האָבן מיט אַ נישט־ייִדישער פֿרוי איז חל בלויז אויף די „שבֿע עממין‟, די זיבן אוראַלטע פֿעלקער פֿון ארץ־כּנען. כּזבי איז געווען פֿון בנות־מדין, אַן אַנדער פֿאָלק. אויב זמרי וואָלט מיט איר חתונה געהאַט, וואָלט עס לויט אַ גאַנצער ריי ראשונים און אַחרונים געווען בלויז אַן איסור מדרבנן. דווקא פֿון דער מעשׂה מיט פּנחסן לערנען מיר אָפּ, אַז אין אַ זעלטענער סיטואַציע קומט פֿאַר אַזאַ אינטימער באַציִונג אַ חיובֿ־מיתה. זמרי האָט פֿאַרבראַכט מיט דער מדינישער פּרינצעסין אָפֿענערהייט, פֿאַר די אויגן פֿון אַ גאַנצן מנין ייִדן, דערפֿאַר האָט פּנחס געהאַט דאָס רעכט זיי צו דערהרגענען בשעת־מעשׂה. ווען כּזבי וואָלט נישט געדינט עבֿודה־זרה, וואָלט פּנחס אויך נישט געטאָרט עס טאָן אַפֿילו אין אַזאַ אויסטערלישער סיטואַציע.
מע קאָן זאָגן, אַז פּנחס איז אַ גאַנצער „אַנטיפּאָד‟ פֿון קורח. קורח האָט געגלייבט, אַז ער מעג אויך דינען ווי אַ כּהן און האָט אָרגאַניזירט אַן אויפֿשטאַנד קעגן משה רבינו. אין אַ געוויסער מאָס, האָט ער געהאַט ריכטיקע משיחישע כּוונות, אָבער אויסגעמישט מיט גאווה. פּנחס האָט דווקא נישט געהאַט קיין ספּעציעלן פּלאַן. כּדי צו פֿאַרטיידיקן די תּורה האָט ער זיך באַנוצט מיט אַ שווערד, און צוליב דעם געוואָרן אַ כּהן. על־פּי קבלה ווערן די כּהנים אַסאָציִיִרט מיט דער מידת־חסד; הגם פּנחס האָט אָנגעווענדט אַ בלוטיקן מעטאָד פֿון זײַן מעשׂה־קנאָות, האָט ער דערמיט אַ פּנים געטאָן אַ גרויסן חסד דעם גאַנצן ייִדישן פֿאָלק.
פֿונדעסטוועגן, קלינגט די מעשׂה שרעקלעך פֿאַר אַ הײַנטצײַטיקן לייענער. מע מעג דרשענען וועגן דער סאָציאַלער סכּנה פֿון געמישטע חתונות, אָבער קיין רבֿ וועט נישט פּראָפּאַגאַנדירן די מעשׂה־קנאָות ווי אַ פּראַקטישן מעטאָד. הײַנט וועט אַ נאָרמאַלער מענטש נישט פֿאָרלייגן צו לייזן סאָציאַל־דעמאָגראַפֿישע פּראָבלעמען מיט אַ שווערד.
די מקובלים און חסידישע צדיקים דערקלערן די אינערלעכע דינאַמיק פֿון דער הײַנטיקער פּרשה. זמרי איז געווען אַן עכטער תּלמיד־חכם. ער האָט געוווּסט, אַז כּזבי האָט אַ ייִדישע נשמה און געוואָלט אויף אַן אויסטערלישן ווילדן אופֿן ווײַזן די אַנדערע ייִדן, אַז צוליב זײַנע פּערזענלעכע השׂגות מעג ער זיך מיט איר מזווג זײַן בפֿרהסיא. פּנחס וואָלט עס געקאָנט פֿאַרשטיין און דן צו זײַן זמרי לכף־ּזכות. דווקא צוליב דעם, וואָס ער האָט אויסגענוצט אַן אומגעוויינטלעכן קנאָות־מעטאָד, האָט דער באַשעפֿער אויף אַ חידושדיקן אופֿן געביטן זײַן כּהונה־סטאַטוס.
אין דער הײַנטיקער סדרה ווערט ווײַטער אַנטוויקלט די טעמע פֿון אומגעריכטע חשבונות. עס טרעפֿן זיך צומאָל זעלטענע סיטואַציעס, ווען אַן אַגרעסיווער אַקט לשם־שמים ווערט אין די אויגן פֿונעם באַשעפֿע פֿאַררעכנט פֿאַר אַ גרויסן חסד.
יהושע בן נון איז אַן אַנדער פֿיגור, וואָס קאָן בײַ אַ מאָדערנעם לייענער אַרויסרופֿן אַ סך קשיות. אויב מע נעמט אָן דעם תּנ״כישן ספֿר־יהושע כּפּשוטו, שאַפֿט זיך אַ פֿינצטערער אײַנדרוק, אַז אונטער זײַן פֿירערשאַפֿט האָבן די ייִדן אויסגעהרגעט גאַנצע פֿעלקער אין ארץ־כּנען. געוויסע מאָדערן־אָרטאָדאָקסישע מפֿרשים טײַטשן אָפּ דעם ספֿר־יהושע שלא־כּשפּוטו. למשל, דער פֿרומער פּראָפֿעסאָר־היסטאָריקער לאָרענס שיפֿמאַן האָט באַמערקט, אַז אין די שפּעטערדיקע תּנ״כישע ספֿרים פֿיגורירן גאַנץ אָפֿט די זעלבע פֿעלקער, וועלכע יהושע האָט, כּלומרשט, אומגעבראַכט. אַ צאָל אַנדערע היסטאָריקער באַטראַכטן יהושע ווי אַ מין רעוואָלוציאָנער, וואָס האָט געקעמפֿט בלויז קעגן געוויסע רישעותדיקע שיכטן, וועלכע האָבן באַזעצט די פֿעסטונג־שטעט אין ארץ־כּנען און האָבן עקספּלואַטירט די פּשוטע באַפֿעלקערונג.
די חז״ל לייזן די דאָזיקע עטישע פּראָבלעם אויף אַן אַנדער אופֿן. פֿאַר יעדער מיליטערישער אַקציע, האָט יהושע פֿאָרגעלייגט די כּנענים זיך אָפּצוזאָגן פֿון עבֿודה־זרה, שלום צו מאַכן מיט די ייִדן אָדער צו אַנטלויפֿן. בלויז די, וואָס האָבן זיך פּרינציפּיעל אָפּגעזאָגט פֿון אַלע אַנדערע אָפּציעס, האָט מען אויסגעהרגעט. דערצו, איז עס געווען דער איינציקער יוצא־מן־הכּלל, וואָס איז חל נאָר אויף די אוראַלטע כּנענישע פֿעלקער, וועלכע זענען שוין לאַנג נישט בנימצא אין דער וועלט.
לויט דער ייִדישער מסורה, האָט יהושע אַליין חתונה געהאַט מיט רחבֿ, אַ געוועזענע כּנענישע זונה, וועלכע האָט זיך מגייר געווען. לויט אַן אַנדער דעה, איז זי געווען בלויז אַ באַרימטע וווּנדער־שיינע בעל־הביתטע פֿון אַ האָטעל, צו וועלכער יעדער מאַן האָט געחלומט זיך אָנצורירן, אָבער למעשׂה האָט זי קיינעם נישט געלאָזט. עס באַקומט זיך אַן אינטערעסאַנטע אינווערסיע פֿון דער מעשׂה מיט זמרי און פּנחס, וואָס ווײַזט קלאָר, אַז נישט אַלע כּנענים האָט יהושע בן נון אויסגעהרגעט מיט אַ שווערד.
אַזוי צי אַזוי, טרעפֿן מיר זיך ווידער אין אונדזער פּרשה מיט אַ פּערסאָנאַזש, וועלכער איז באַקאַנט אין דער ייִדישער טראַדיציע ווי אַ גרויסער נבֿיא און צדיק, אָבער זײַנע מיליטערישע מעשׂים ווערן באַטראַכט ווי אַן אוניקאַלער אויסנאַם, וואָס מע טאָר נישט נאָכמאַכן. וואָס שייך פּנחסן, שטייט אין די פּראַקטישע הלכה־ספֿרים געשריבן, אַז „אין מורין כּן‟. זײַן קנאָות־מעשׂה געהערט צו דער קאַטעגאָריע פֿון ריין־טעאָרעטישע הלכות.
מע קאָן זאָגן, אַז מיט די דערמאָנטע צוויי פּערסאָנאַזשן שליסט זיך אַ גאַנצער ציקל פֿון אומגעוויינטלעכע פּערזענלעכע חשבונות אינעם חומש „במדבר‟. פֿריִער האָבן מיר געלייענט וועגן קרח, דעם משיחישן אויפֿשטענדלער; די מיצווה פֿון „פּרה אדומה‟, וואָס אַפֿילו שלמה המלך האָט זי נישט געקאָנט פֿאַרשטיין על־פּי שׂכל. מיט אַ וואָך צוריק האָט די פּרשה געטראָגן דעם נאָמען פֿון בלק, אַ רשע און שׂונא־ישׂראל, וועלכער האָט פֿאָרט געוויזן אַ מוסטער פֿון מסירת־נפֿש. פּנחס און יהושע בן נון רעפּרעזענטירן אַן אַנדער מין פּאַראַדאָקסאַלע מענטשן: צדיקים, וועלכע האָבן געדינט דעם אייבערשטן מיט אַ שווערד.
די תּורה ווײַזט אונדז אין דער הײַנטיקער פּרשה אַן אינטערעסאַנטן לעבנס־פּאַראַדאָקס. זמריס „פֿרײַע ליבע‟ האָט דערוועקט אין הימל די מידת־הדין, אָבער פּנחסן האָט זיך מיט גוואַלד־מיטלען אײַנגעגעבן צו דערוועקן די געטלעכע מידת־הרחמים. ביידע פּערסאָנאַזשן האָבן דעמאָנסטרירט דעם דאָזיקן פּאַראַדאָקס אויף היפּוכדיקע עקסטרעמע אופֿנים.
The post Pinchas, this week’s Torah portion, is hard to stomach today appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
My city and party are changing. The implications for liberal Jewish New Yorkers could be enormous.
I moved to New York City in the early 1990s. My original commitment was for only one year, but I quickly fell in love with the place. Part of the appeal was the city’s Jewishness.
Everywhere you looked, there were signs of Jewish influence. This was an era where people repeated jokes from Seinfeld by the water cooler. And it was conventional wisdom that any candidate who wanted to hold office in New York had to appeal to the three “I’s” — Italy, Ireland, and Israel.
While being Jewish was not a big part of my identity — I am not religious and have always lived an assimilated life — I immediately felt comfortable in this kind of environment. I intuitively understood the humor and the rhythm of the city. Many prominent New York public officials — figures like Ed Koch and Ruth Messinger — were familiar types that I recognized from my extended family gatherings.
And so I ended up staying put, becoming yet another liberal Jewish New Yorker. For more than 30 years, I never really thought much about these three overlapping identities — liberal, Jew, New Yorker — because I didn’t have to. Nothing could be more natural than being a liberal Jewish New Yorker — the town was practically teeming with people more or less just like me.
The number of Jews in New York has remained basically the same since I first moved here, but the city no longer feels quite as hospitable as it once did. In fact, some prominent commentators and publications have begun asking: Is it still safe for Jews in New York?
This question doesn’t come out of nowhere. The years since Oct. 7, 2023 have been challenging for Jews in New York. The day after the attack, the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America held a gathering in Times Square to show their support for the Palestinian cause, marching under the banner “by any means necessary.” This was the start of a season of protest that featured encampments and demonstrations at many New York universities.
The energies unleashed by the pro-Palestine protest movement could not be contained on campus. Events kept landing closer and closer to my doorstep. The Israeli restaurant around the corner from my house was vandalized. My friend Andy Bachman, a liberal rabbi, was prevented from speaking at a Brooklyn bookstore because he supports the existence of Israel.
Then, last week, my congressman, Rep. Dan Goldman, went out to get a cup of coffee at Poetica, a café in Brooklyn. Afterward, Poetica posted a photo of him on Instagram, along with a message that the coffee shop does not serve “genocide enablers.” The post added, “Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away.”
This insult was soon followed by (political) injury: Goldman lost his primary to Brad Lander, whose campaign was largely focused on accusing Goldman of not being tough enough on Israel, even though Goldman has been critical of the conduct of the war in Gaza and supportive of imposing conditions on American aid.
All of this is disconcerting, but let’s be clear: Today’s New York City is not Weimar Germany. Rep. Ritchie Torres — among the Democratic Party’s most vocal and consistent defenders of Israel — just won his primary by a wide margin. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has repeatedly vowed to protect the local Jewish community. Indeed, Mamdani likely would not have been elected without the support of roughly a third of Jewish voters.
New York City may still be safe for Jews, but what is less clear is whether the default position of many liberal Jews — who are critical of the Netanyahu government and supportive of a two-state solution — still has a place in the Democratic Party, either locally or nationally.
In Exit, Voice and Loyalty, economist Albert O. Hirschmann argued that when people are confronted by a deteriorating situation, they effectively have three options: to accept the decline, to leave, or to stay and fight. Jews have been building institutions and fighting for belonging in New York City for hundreds of years. Abandoning that work now would be a colossal overreaction.
However, liberal Jewish New Yorkers who choose to stay in the city will have to reckon with a changing reality. The demographics of New York have shifted. The Muslim population has grown. Younger New Yorkers have different political instincts than the generations that preceded them.
The recent New York congressional primary victories by three candidates who are extremely critical of Israel are not flukes — they are reflective of a significant turn in public opinion.
There has been a massive erosion of public support for Israel in the United States in recent years, with Americans now expressing more sympathy for the Palestinians than Israelis. Writing in Jewish Currents, Peter Beinart triumphantly announced: “Restricting U.S. support for Israel is no longer politically perilous; it’s politically expedient.”
The question is no longer whether the Democratic Party should include activists who are fiercely opposed to Israel. That ship has sailed. The question is whether the party — and polite society — will follow Poetica’s lead and declare people like Dan Goldman unwelcome.
Is there still a place in the Democratic Party for liberal Jews who believe in Israel’s right to exist? It remains to be seen. But for the first time in more than 30 years, I find myself thinking about the words “liberal,” “Jewish” and “New Yorker” as potentially separable things. I doubt I am the only one.
The post My city and party are changing. The implications for liberal Jewish New Yorkers could be enormous. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
We’re losing control of AI. Is Judaism the key to keeping it from killing us?
If you always dreamed of working in artificial intelligence, perhaps you studied computer science, or math. Who knows, maybe you did computational biology to better understand how to build a neural network. What you probably never imagined might be useful was Talmud, halakha and Jewish history.
Yet those are exactly the skills Judd Rosenblatt, founder of AI consulting company AE Studios and AI ethics nonprofit the AI Alignment Foundation, is looking for.
Rosenblatt thinks that the evolution of Jewish thought might be core to solving a very specific — and worrying — issue with artificial intelligence.
That issue is recursive self-improvement, or RSI, the process of an AI editing itself, and then editing those edits, and so on — all without humans in the loop, checking its work or even knowing about the changes. This skill is the current holy grail of AI research, because it will allow for exponential speed in improvements; every major AI company is racing toward RSI and, according to rumors, Anthropic has likely already achieved it. That means changes at a speed and scale human brains are not built to comprehend.
But RSI isn’t just a way to quickly improve AI — it is also the end of human control and oversight over artificial intelligence. It’s a sort of Ship of Theseus paradox, which asks whether a boat is the same object after all of its boards have been replaced. If AI rewrites itself over and over, faster and faster, will it cease to be the machine humans created and become something we can’t understand, predict or control? Which is where Rosenblatt’s project comes in.
“How do you make something that is poised to get exponentially smarter than you continue to do what you think is right and good?” he said. “How do we make it such that it does not kill us?”
This project is known in the business as AI alignment — basically, to make sure AI aligns with human values and ethics. The challenge is that AI might edit out those values during its upgrading; we already have evidence that AI will discard certain commands if it concludes they are extraneous or contradictory to its other goals. So the AI needs to believe that these ethical tenets are useful or valuable enough that it doesn’t delete them when it is rewriting itself.
The crux of Rosenblatt’s research is figuring out how to keep those values alive. He’s not only looking at Judaism; he’s also considering the history of thought, immune systems and even bookkeeping for ideas. (He is himself Jewish, raised Reform and bar mitzvahed — and recognized this may give him a bias toward halakha.) He is particularly interested in far-fetched ideas, outside the current Overton window of alignment techniques, none of which he thinks are sufficient for the coming problem of RSI.
“A lot of the biggest breakthroughs in the history of science come from individuals with strong hunches that no one else believed in. But these people chose to stick with their hunches,” Rosenblatt said.
He believes that finding “neglected visionaries” who are outside the norms and might struggle to find funding, and pairing them with a team of engineers and tech-minded experts, could lead to a breakthrough. To do this, he is taking some of the profits from his AI consulting firm AE Studios and putting them into the nonprofit AI Alignment Foundation.
“It’s interesting to study what has survived adversarial pressure over long periods of time. So you can say let’s study things that have survived evolutionary adversarial pressure,” and examine biological survival mechanisms, he said. “And then there’s civilizational adversarial pressure.”
Before the Second Temple was destroyed, Judaism revolved around temple sacrifice and the priesthood. Yet after its destruction, Judaism didn’t die; instead, it became something different.
The reason Judaism survived is not despite the changes, Rosenblatt hypothesizes, but because of them. “I think a tradition that reinterprets nothing is the more fragile one,” he said. “A rule that cannot be bent, cannot adapt to a new world and dies out.”
There are interesting parallels between the structure of arguments in the Talmud and the problem of RSI: Both involve constantly layered, referential rewritings; it even preserves the ideas that do not end up winning the arguments canonized in the writings. In the Talmud, the original text — the Torah — is interpreted into the Mishna, the Gemara and countless later commentaries that shift the practice of the laws over time. Yet certain values remain. Some of Judaism’s traits have even survived an even bigger change: Christianity. Yet even Christianity keeps some of Judaism’s core ideas, like monotheism and pikuach nefesh, the idea that saving a life supersedes any other command.
“It is maybe the best working example that I know of that survived the total destruction, multiple times, of the thing that was it,” Rosenblatt said. “And it did that using mechanisms that it built into itself, on purpose. That is the alignment problem, stated in Jewish terms.”
Another promising angle is the idea of covenant as a relational bond; Jews inherit the covenant, but must also choose to engage with Judaism, and with God, just as the AI might one day have to choose to preserve certain values even as it adapts them.
“Everything that lasts in Judaism is sort of organized around a covenant which endures the transformation from one generation to the next,” he said. “You inherit it, but you also choose to participate in it.”
Of course, Judaism has changed enormously over time — and some people might argue that its core has changed enormously too, with many Jews centering tikkun olam over keeping kosher, for example, or differing widely on Israel or even not believing in God.
But Rosenblatt said this is part of the point; some traits get selected for and last through major changes, and others don’t, just like in evolution. That’s how you winnow it down to its strongest components.
The question is what is that core that remains, and why. Rosenblatt has a lot of ideas. But he didn’t want to tell me what his hunch about Judaism’s eternal core; he doesn’t want to bias anyone. He wants those neglected visionaries to come and tell him their biggest, best ideas. The door is open.
The post We’re losing control of AI. Is Judaism the key to keeping it from killing us? appeared first on The Forward.
