The rapid gains this past year in generative AI have reawakened anxieties over mass job losses — anxieties that have flared up recurrently over the entirety of the computer age. From the beginning of industrialization, of course, automation has posed threats to some people’s livelihoods. But the disruptions caused by the mechanization of muscle were confined to the lower orders of society, and were more than matched (eventually) by the expansion of opportunities for higher pay in other sectors. When the advent of computers showed that the automation of thinking was now becoming possible, however, elites awakened to the fact that progress might soon be coming for them. Moreover, if machines became not only stronger and faster than us, but smarter as well, what opportunities would be left for any of us to offset all the displacement? Thus arose the “
Have you read "On Human Nature" by Roger Scruton? Excellent argument against reductionist discussions of human nature that view humans as "nothing but vessels of genes floating through geological time."
Here is another related question we should have thought more about already that AI will force us to face. What is the boundary between self and technology? When is a tool a thing external to the self and when is it part of the self?
Those of us whose career prospects remain secure in the present technological age owe that security largely to our cyborgification. We have, for example, artificial memories which greatly exceed the capability of our biological memory; erasing my email archives would feel to me very much like erasing a part of my brain. Avoiding obsolescence in an AI age may require going further in this direction. What does that do to our essential humanity? Is a pair of VR goggles more "inhuman" somehow than, say, an artificial leg? If so, why, and could we make a less "inhuman" version that grants us the same capabilities?
You're raising important issues; the possibilities of genetic engineering raise related concerns. As for me, my instinct is to take a more permissive attitude toward human augmentation than toward technologies that cause our capacities to atrophy,
Aug 2, 2023·edited Aug 2, 2023Liked by Brink Lindsey
Some of my thoughts on Brink's thoughts.
"Accordingly, I take seriously the prospect that AI could eventually render significant chunks of the population functionally unemployable."
It seems to me that AI will most likely render lots of the population functionally unemployable. When that happens, how will those people be able to afford the expenses life heaps on us? Society will need to come to a consensus on a universal basic income and/or enhanced social welfare benefits to be able to support these functionally unemployable people.
This also makes me think of contemporary politics. We've seen a kind of populism bubble up on parts of the left and right (think Bernie Sanders and Josh Hawley, respectively), and it seems to me that since mass unemployment for chunks of society is on the horizon, which renders parts of the population effectively obsolete, the political party/parties that will win elections going forward are those that articulate a message of economic security to the voters. There's lots of economic and cultural change occurring these days, and I believe that an ever-larger chunk of voters will be looking for reassurances on economic stability and cultural stability (another issue for another article!). I would not be surprised to hear the populists in both parties begin to refine their messaging on what their party can offer in terms of economic security.
2. "Flourishing is an active virtue, and thus we cannot focus exclusively on freeing up time. We have to focus as well on spending time and expending effort — but on what?"
I agree with Brink that people need lives of meaning, fulfillment, and purpose. This is how we flourish. That said, Brink also says that:
"Our sustaining personal relationships are unraveling; our bodies are bloated; our attention is shriveling; and our experiences are increasingly of mediated simulacra rather than the real thing."
I also agree with Brink that essentially, most of us have unravelling relationships, bloated bodies, shrunken attention, and lives lead more on screens than in "real life". I don't see this changing anytime soon. So if a flourishing society requires people who seek meaning, fulfillment, and purpose, how will most people be able to do that in light of all the restrictions Brink mentions? Some of us will be able to do these things, but many people will not.
3. "But much of what’s really important in life requires the patient and laborious development of capabilities to accomplish and enjoy."
Yes! Patient and laborious development of capabilities to accomplish and enjoy is a function of culture! This reminds me of a short story by the Argentine novelist and short story writer Marco Denevi (1922-1998). The short story is called "Apocalypse", and here it is (in a translation I grabbed from the Internet):
"The extinction of the human race took place, approximately, by the late thirty-second century. It happened like this: The machines had reached such perfection that men and women did not need to eat or to sleep, to talk or to read, to write or to think... or to do anything. They only had to press a button and the machines did everything for them. Gradually, things started to disappear... tables, chairs, roses, disks with the nine symphonies of Beethoven, antique shops, the wines from Bordeaux, Flemish tapestries, all of Verdi's operas , chess, telescopes, Gothic cathedrals, football stadiums, the Pietà of Michelangelo, the ruins of Trajan's Forum, automobiles, rice, giant sequoias, the Parthenon. There were only machines. Then, in August, people began to notice they too were gradually disappearing ... while the machines were multiplying. It didn't take long for the number of men to become less than half while the machines doubled. The machines eventually occupied all available spaces. ... No one could take a step or make a gesture without tripping over them. Finally, human beings were eliminated. As they forgot to unplug the machines, we continue to operate."
- - - - - -
Talk about dystopian future! Hopefully we won't be replaced and then eliminated by machines.
" but we can never lose sight of the fact that vital connections to other flesh-and-blood people are at the heart of what makes life worth living."
I would have thought that we could not lose sight of this proposition but my experience of the post-cell phone world has brought that into question. In this new world connection to others is fraught with anxiety and the messiness of our biological selves. It's more convenient, it seems, for most people to hold their phone in front of their face and pretend to be engaged with it rather than other humans. That seems like a great contradiction to the instinctive vitality of human interaction.
My hope is that social media will follow the course of other addictive substances: after wreaking havoc for a while -- gin in 18th century London, crack in U.S. cities in the 80s -- people eventually wise up and usage moderates. Keep your fingers crossed!
I trust you know more about such things than I do but I doubt that the rot gun gin manufacturers were convinced their product was the peak of human accomplishment. Turning back the tide on that chestnut will take some heavy lifting from people, who, at the moment are still comparing Steve Jobs to Jesus. It's amazing to me how many are quick to point the finger at social media and quick to look away when the phone itself is proposed as the villain. Kids take their cues from adults and adults are just as eager to push pause on their humanity for the sake of their precious device.
Smart phones are utterly amazing -- you've got all the world's knowledge and music in your hand! -- and Steve Jobs was indeed an entrepreneurial genius. But most powerful tools are vulnerable to being misused, and smart phones are no exception. Without a doubt, at the dawn of the internet age we were naive about the dark side of the powers that were being unleashed, and we very much need to wise up.
Very interesting article. I am glad that you arrived at exploration of other planets as one possibility for finding purpose in the future, since I was going to bring it up if you hadn’t. In the history of the world, up until as recently as perhaps 100 years ago, there had always been new frontiers to explore, something which provided a purpose for the most adventurous of men, who enriched all of humanity with their discoveries. If AI makes most of humanity’s current occupations routine, I hope we will embrace the new frontier of the stars, and find a renewed purpose for mankind.
"aggressive, competitive, and curious" - this innocuous phrase covers a multitude of sins. How about cruel, selfish, addicted to bullying and dominating others, and indifferent to others' suffering? Only the moral are free, and only the moral will be able to flourish in this bold future you seek. Only those who have tamed the mind so that their actions are in harmony with some universal and rational system of ethics can actually participate in civilization. Too many of us are too often besotted by our bestial nature, unable or unwilling to curb our worst impulses. In our current state we will only blight the cosmos if we leave here.
Humans are a mess, no doubt about it, but I believe they are the most sublime, miraculous mess in the universe that we know of. I'm all for spreading it.
Have you read "On Human Nature" by Roger Scruton? Excellent argument against reductionist discussions of human nature that view humans as "nothing but vessels of genes floating through geological time."
I have not -- thank you for the recommendation.
Here is another related question we should have thought more about already that AI will force us to face. What is the boundary between self and technology? When is a tool a thing external to the self and when is it part of the self?
Those of us whose career prospects remain secure in the present technological age owe that security largely to our cyborgification. We have, for example, artificial memories which greatly exceed the capability of our biological memory; erasing my email archives would feel to me very much like erasing a part of my brain. Avoiding obsolescence in an AI age may require going further in this direction. What does that do to our essential humanity? Is a pair of VR goggles more "inhuman" somehow than, say, an artificial leg? If so, why, and could we make a less "inhuman" version that grants us the same capabilities?
You're raising important issues; the possibilities of genetic engineering raise related concerns. As for me, my instinct is to take a more permissive attitude toward human augmentation than toward technologies that cause our capacities to atrophy,
Some of my thoughts on Brink's thoughts.
"Accordingly, I take seriously the prospect that AI could eventually render significant chunks of the population functionally unemployable."
It seems to me that AI will most likely render lots of the population functionally unemployable. When that happens, how will those people be able to afford the expenses life heaps on us? Society will need to come to a consensus on a universal basic income and/or enhanced social welfare benefits to be able to support these functionally unemployable people.
This also makes me think of contemporary politics. We've seen a kind of populism bubble up on parts of the left and right (think Bernie Sanders and Josh Hawley, respectively), and it seems to me that since mass unemployment for chunks of society is on the horizon, which renders parts of the population effectively obsolete, the political party/parties that will win elections going forward are those that articulate a message of economic security to the voters. There's lots of economic and cultural change occurring these days, and I believe that an ever-larger chunk of voters will be looking for reassurances on economic stability and cultural stability (another issue for another article!). I would not be surprised to hear the populists in both parties begin to refine their messaging on what their party can offer in terms of economic security.
2. "Flourishing is an active virtue, and thus we cannot focus exclusively on freeing up time. We have to focus as well on spending time and expending effort — but on what?"
I agree with Brink that people need lives of meaning, fulfillment, and purpose. This is how we flourish. That said, Brink also says that:
"Our sustaining personal relationships are unraveling; our bodies are bloated; our attention is shriveling; and our experiences are increasingly of mediated simulacra rather than the real thing."
I also agree with Brink that essentially, most of us have unravelling relationships, bloated bodies, shrunken attention, and lives lead more on screens than in "real life". I don't see this changing anytime soon. So if a flourishing society requires people who seek meaning, fulfillment, and purpose, how will most people be able to do that in light of all the restrictions Brink mentions? Some of us will be able to do these things, but many people will not.
3. "But much of what’s really important in life requires the patient and laborious development of capabilities to accomplish and enjoy."
Yes! Patient and laborious development of capabilities to accomplish and enjoy is a function of culture! This reminds me of a short story by the Argentine novelist and short story writer Marco Denevi (1922-1998). The short story is called "Apocalypse", and here it is (in a translation I grabbed from the Internet):
"The extinction of the human race took place, approximately, by the late thirty-second century. It happened like this: The machines had reached such perfection that men and women did not need to eat or to sleep, to talk or to read, to write or to think... or to do anything. They only had to press a button and the machines did everything for them. Gradually, things started to disappear... tables, chairs, roses, disks with the nine symphonies of Beethoven, antique shops, the wines from Bordeaux, Flemish tapestries, all of Verdi's operas , chess, telescopes, Gothic cathedrals, football stadiums, the Pietà of Michelangelo, the ruins of Trajan's Forum, automobiles, rice, giant sequoias, the Parthenon. There were only machines. Then, in August, people began to notice they too were gradually disappearing ... while the machines were multiplying. It didn't take long for the number of men to become less than half while the machines doubled. The machines eventually occupied all available spaces. ... No one could take a step or make a gesture without tripping over them. Finally, human beings were eliminated. As they forgot to unplug the machines, we continue to operate."
- - - - - -
Talk about dystopian future! Hopefully we won't be replaced and then eliminated by machines.
Thank you for your comments!
" but we can never lose sight of the fact that vital connections to other flesh-and-blood people are at the heart of what makes life worth living."
I would have thought that we could not lose sight of this proposition but my experience of the post-cell phone world has brought that into question. In this new world connection to others is fraught with anxiety and the messiness of our biological selves. It's more convenient, it seems, for most people to hold their phone in front of their face and pretend to be engaged with it rather than other humans. That seems like a great contradiction to the instinctive vitality of human interaction.
My hope is that social media will follow the course of other addictive substances: after wreaking havoc for a while -- gin in 18th century London, crack in U.S. cities in the 80s -- people eventually wise up and usage moderates. Keep your fingers crossed!
I trust you know more about such things than I do but I doubt that the rot gun gin manufacturers were convinced their product was the peak of human accomplishment. Turning back the tide on that chestnut will take some heavy lifting from people, who, at the moment are still comparing Steve Jobs to Jesus. It's amazing to me how many are quick to point the finger at social media and quick to look away when the phone itself is proposed as the villain. Kids take their cues from adults and adults are just as eager to push pause on their humanity for the sake of their precious device.
Smart phones are utterly amazing -- you've got all the world's knowledge and music in your hand! -- and Steve Jobs was indeed an entrepreneurial genius. But most powerful tools are vulnerable to being misused, and smart phones are no exception. Without a doubt, at the dawn of the internet age we were naive about the dark side of the powers that were being unleashed, and we very much need to wise up.
Very interesting article. I am glad that you arrived at exploration of other planets as one possibility for finding purpose in the future, since I was going to bring it up if you hadn’t. In the history of the world, up until as recently as perhaps 100 years ago, there had always been new frontiers to explore, something which provided a purpose for the most adventurous of men, who enriched all of humanity with their discoveries. If AI makes most of humanity’s current occupations routine, I hope we will embrace the new frontier of the stars, and find a renewed purpose for mankind.
Please check out the essay that will follow this one -- very much on point.
"aggressive, competitive, and curious" - this innocuous phrase covers a multitude of sins. How about cruel, selfish, addicted to bullying and dominating others, and indifferent to others' suffering? Only the moral are free, and only the moral will be able to flourish in this bold future you seek. Only those who have tamed the mind so that their actions are in harmony with some universal and rational system of ethics can actually participate in civilization. Too many of us are too often besotted by our bestial nature, unable or unwilling to curb our worst impulses. In our current state we will only blight the cosmos if we leave here.
Humans are a mess, no doubt about it, but I believe they are the most sublime, miraculous mess in the universe that we know of. I'm all for spreading it.