Two words stick out for me: meaning and feeling. Also, simulation. "AI" is a simulation of something, be it art, conversation, or what ever else, because, like you say, without meaning it has no meaning. It feels nothing, what with having no interoception.
But will we be able to tell the difference? If you take away all meaning and expression from a job, AI will do it better, ie, more efficiently, ie, more profitably for who owns it. We will think it is better. We will think that meaning and feeling are there when it is not, which will, once again*, atrophy our experience and capacity in the world. Then we will not be able to adjust when, due to rapidly depleting resources and climate breakdown, things change and AI doesnt exist any more, what with being a collection of electrons buzzing on a bit of metal in a shed.
*Google maps makes you unaware of where you are. Look at people who use it: they don't look up, and it revolves the map around you meaning that you have no idea where you are because you are always "here" and everything else is moving. I imagine it does the hippocampus no good at all...
You know, your articles are the only ones I genuinely am excited about with no-to-little resistance. When I see you've posted something new I feel joy and Want to read it immediately.
Because you always leave me with something new; a little nugget that ever so slightly (or substantially) changes my view of the world.
I can't wait to read your book (no really, I bought 4 other books in frustration of having to wait with yours to arrive)
To me it doesn’t seem a problem that AI will replace humans in many jobs, but rather that we will then lose our source of livelihood because of the way our current system is structured. I read a recent piece by Ted Chiang in the New Yorker explaining that in our current system, AI is being used for the benefit of owners, bosses and stakeholders rather than workers.
But, if we could take advantage of the freed-up productivity that AI can provide, it could allow people to pursue goals that don’t currently receive compensation under capitalism. Like making art, healing the environment, growing a garden, caring for the elderly or small children, community-building. I just hope we can figure out a way to use AI to benefit us all.
Incredible piece. Thank you. I'm a product/ux designer, so I feel the robot breathing down my neck. I do find, however, that the more time I spend with the current tools, the more work they seem to create for me.... They don't seem to be saving me time in getting to a good solution. The output is nice on face-value (wow factor), but it doesn't take much scratching to realise that it's only good for small aspects of the creative process, like summarisation, ideation and intentional connection of multiple bits of content / points of view. All of which are still driven by human intuition, experience and context. I think it's right to be concerned about the future we're creating, but I have become less concerned with being replaced over recent months.
Really enjoyed this one, especially the different metaphors you use and the fun anecdotes! What you explored around intelligent memory in particular is very similar to what the philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce called abduction, the kind of thinking that inventors, detectives, and artists engage in that produces flashes of insight. It's a third type of thinking in addition to deduction and induction, the latter being how machine learning and generative AI works. You can read more about this as it relates to AI in Erik Larson's wonderful The Myth of AI.
in a culture which curates, cultivates, and commodifies the ego (disconnected from grounding), we are possibly producing very little that is 'new' in the sense of recombining the essential elements of living into enaction which re-reveals the essence of humanness. The mechanical aspects of living are monetised and turned into data and fed into machines to learn how to replicate mechanical thinking. Deeper humanness is likely to be related to, as you illustrate, our potential for ennoia for self-directed creativity which must be at the heart of learning and living. Humans are naturally creative; it is how we make memories, meaning and relationships in the world and how we empathise with the sublime and why we seek truth when it isn't served up as the empty calories of 'take-out' Disneyland. Blessed be Sophia.
I read this like eating candy. Thank you for your exquisite knowledge and wisdom applied to this deeply pertinent subject of AI and our relationship with it as humans.
You put into words an intuition I've felt about AI but haven't been able to fully articulate: that it can only ever simulate, or "mimic", creativity and consciousness. That is why I remain optimistic overall about the trajectory our technological society is on. Despite Moloch's presence in our culture's underlying philosophy and incentive structure, nothing is going to replace true human ingenuity and the creative spark we all have (that all of nature has). Like you point out, the advancement of AI is only forcing us to to participate in reality more consciously and to create the future more intentionally.
Thank you so much for being such a prominent and sobering voice on these topics. I'm personally learning so much from you and the other work you reference. You are fueling my optimism and I am sure I am not alone in this!
I think we should celebrate the loss of 30 million jobs. The tech elite that brought this about can make good by paying those 30 million a living wage and we can finally get a little closer to that dream of having technology work for us and us becoming less of a slave to capitalism. Thank you for wonderfully thoughtful and creative article!
You make an interesting observation about the difference between human creativity (that involves meaning) and AI (which lacks understanding behind the combinations it makes). But, I wonder if this difference will matter, considering that AI art and content is becoming indistinguishable from human work functionally and perhaps economically.
We may need a different framework beyond cognition to define human creativity. I'm curious if you have ideas for how we can consciously shape the development of AI as you suggest in the conclusion. This is a complex issue with no easy answers, but your exploration of the nuances is appreciated.
I look forward to seeing your continued thoughts on the relationship between humanity, creativity and technology.
Coming a bit late to this excellent article. It made me realise that these issues have always been with us. For example in the world of music (dating myself here), Lenny Kravitz was always competent, tuneful, had good elements to his music, yet to my ears it was just a case of putting together things one was already familiar with: a bit of Prince, bit of Hendrix, bit of Sly, bit of The Beatles etc. There was no sense of who he himself was as an artist, and I think time has proven this. He surely will not be remembered at all in a decade or so. In contrast Julian Cope or Kate Bush: curmudgeonly, imperfect, inspired, unusual.
The Bootleg Beatles create a 'perfect' replica of what a Beatles gig would have looked like had they stayed together and gone back on the road in around 1975. Paul McCartney plays many of the same songs at what is very likely to be his only time at Glastonbury. It is not perfect, he is obviously putting everything into it, his voice has gone a bit, and everyone who was there will remember it for ever.
In football, West Ham just won the Conference League to great joy all around the world. In the middle of an almost-disastrous season, they carved out a one-shot chance at European glory for the first time in 58 years, with their fans knowing that it might be the only time they ever see them in such a final during their lifetimes. And won a pulsating game which meant everything to them.
In contrast, Man City, a gleaming sporting machine, finally, inevitably, won the Champions' League, provoking indifference in all but their actual fans (who have to buy into it, or what's the point?). The point being, that if they failed to win it this year, they would win it next, or the one after, because they have unlimited money to pump into buying all the best players, and the best lawyers so they can get away with constantly breaking the rules.
The key quote is ‘perfection bought at the price of emptiness’. As Funkadelic asked 'What is soul? I don't know'... yet I think below the level of words (from where AI operates), we do know it when we see it.
Thank you Akexander. I think you have expressed something about AI that I had been feeling myself about this new burgeoning aspect of technology. The human element can never be replaced. Not yet at least. It may be replaced in a utilitarian manner but the soul element is uniquely human. Your articles, while being beautifully written, also give me hope for the future. Something AI could never do!
Two words stick out for me: meaning and feeling. Also, simulation. "AI" is a simulation of something, be it art, conversation, or what ever else, because, like you say, without meaning it has no meaning. It feels nothing, what with having no interoception.
But will we be able to tell the difference? If you take away all meaning and expression from a job, AI will do it better, ie, more efficiently, ie, more profitably for who owns it. We will think it is better. We will think that meaning and feeling are there when it is not, which will, once again*, atrophy our experience and capacity in the world. Then we will not be able to adjust when, due to rapidly depleting resources and climate breakdown, things change and AI doesnt exist any more, what with being a collection of electrons buzzing on a bit of metal in a shed.
*Google maps makes you unaware of where you are. Look at people who use it: they don't look up, and it revolves the map around you meaning that you have no idea where you are because you are always "here" and everything else is moving. I imagine it does the hippocampus no good at all...
You know, your articles are the only ones I genuinely am excited about with no-to-little resistance. When I see you've posted something new I feel joy and Want to read it immediately.
Because you always leave me with something new; a little nugget that ever so slightly (or substantially) changes my view of the world.
I can't wait to read your book (no really, I bought 4 other books in frustration of having to wait with yours to arrive)
Cheers
To me it doesn’t seem a problem that AI will replace humans in many jobs, but rather that we will then lose our source of livelihood because of the way our current system is structured. I read a recent piece by Ted Chiang in the New Yorker explaining that in our current system, AI is being used for the benefit of owners, bosses and stakeholders rather than workers.
https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-artificial-intelligence/will-ai-become-the-new-mckinsey
But, if we could take advantage of the freed-up productivity that AI can provide, it could allow people to pursue goals that don’t currently receive compensation under capitalism. Like making art, healing the environment, growing a garden, caring for the elderly or small children, community-building. I just hope we can figure out a way to use AI to benefit us all.
Incredible piece. Thank you. I'm a product/ux designer, so I feel the robot breathing down my neck. I do find, however, that the more time I spend with the current tools, the more work they seem to create for me.... They don't seem to be saving me time in getting to a good solution. The output is nice on face-value (wow factor), but it doesn't take much scratching to realise that it's only good for small aspects of the creative process, like summarisation, ideation and intentional connection of multiple bits of content / points of view. All of which are still driven by human intuition, experience and context. I think it's right to be concerned about the future we're creating, but I have become less concerned with being replaced over recent months.
Really enjoyed this one, especially the different metaphors you use and the fun anecdotes! What you explored around intelligent memory in particular is very similar to what the philosopher Charles Sanders Pierce called abduction, the kind of thinking that inventors, detectives, and artists engage in that produces flashes of insight. It's a third type of thinking in addition to deduction and induction, the latter being how machine learning and generative AI works. You can read more about this as it relates to AI in Erik Larson's wonderful The Myth of AI.
Oh, and I meant to say a profound thank you. I found your post inspirational and uplifting.
in a culture which curates, cultivates, and commodifies the ego (disconnected from grounding), we are possibly producing very little that is 'new' in the sense of recombining the essential elements of living into enaction which re-reveals the essence of humanness. The mechanical aspects of living are monetised and turned into data and fed into machines to learn how to replicate mechanical thinking. Deeper humanness is likely to be related to, as you illustrate, our potential for ennoia for self-directed creativity which must be at the heart of learning and living. Humans are naturally creative; it is how we make memories, meaning and relationships in the world and how we empathise with the sublime and why we seek truth when it isn't served up as the empty calories of 'take-out' Disneyland. Blessed be Sophia.
I read this like eating candy. Thank you for your exquisite knowledge and wisdom applied to this deeply pertinent subject of AI and our relationship with it as humans.
You put into words an intuition I've felt about AI but haven't been able to fully articulate: that it can only ever simulate, or "mimic", creativity and consciousness. That is why I remain optimistic overall about the trajectory our technological society is on. Despite Moloch's presence in our culture's underlying philosophy and incentive structure, nothing is going to replace true human ingenuity and the creative spark we all have (that all of nature has). Like you point out, the advancement of AI is only forcing us to to participate in reality more consciously and to create the future more intentionally.
Thank you so much for being such a prominent and sobering voice on these topics. I'm personally learning so much from you and the other work you reference. You are fueling my optimism and I am sure I am not alone in this!
I think we should celebrate the loss of 30 million jobs. The tech elite that brought this about can make good by paying those 30 million a living wage and we can finally get a little closer to that dream of having technology work for us and us becoming less of a slave to capitalism. Thank you for wonderfully thoughtful and creative article!
I always wonder: nurture or nature? Is creativity intrinsically human or is it learned in the development process?
You make an interesting observation about the difference between human creativity (that involves meaning) and AI (which lacks understanding behind the combinations it makes). But, I wonder if this difference will matter, considering that AI art and content is becoming indistinguishable from human work functionally and perhaps economically.
We may need a different framework beyond cognition to define human creativity. I'm curious if you have ideas for how we can consciously shape the development of AI as you suggest in the conclusion. This is a complex issue with no easy answers, but your exploration of the nuances is appreciated.
I look forward to seeing your continued thoughts on the relationship between humanity, creativity and technology.
The last dialectic of work...
https://open.substack.com/pub/iweothers/p/circularity-from-the-slave-to-the?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=1eqrx1
Coming a bit late to this excellent article. It made me realise that these issues have always been with us. For example in the world of music (dating myself here), Lenny Kravitz was always competent, tuneful, had good elements to his music, yet to my ears it was just a case of putting together things one was already familiar with: a bit of Prince, bit of Hendrix, bit of Sly, bit of The Beatles etc. There was no sense of who he himself was as an artist, and I think time has proven this. He surely will not be remembered at all in a decade or so. In contrast Julian Cope or Kate Bush: curmudgeonly, imperfect, inspired, unusual.
The Bootleg Beatles create a 'perfect' replica of what a Beatles gig would have looked like had they stayed together and gone back on the road in around 1975. Paul McCartney plays many of the same songs at what is very likely to be his only time at Glastonbury. It is not perfect, he is obviously putting everything into it, his voice has gone a bit, and everyone who was there will remember it for ever.
In football, West Ham just won the Conference League to great joy all around the world. In the middle of an almost-disastrous season, they carved out a one-shot chance at European glory for the first time in 58 years, with their fans knowing that it might be the only time they ever see them in such a final during their lifetimes. And won a pulsating game which meant everything to them.
In contrast, Man City, a gleaming sporting machine, finally, inevitably, won the Champions' League, provoking indifference in all but their actual fans (who have to buy into it, or what's the point?). The point being, that if they failed to win it this year, they would win it next, or the one after, because they have unlimited money to pump into buying all the best players, and the best lawyers so they can get away with constantly breaking the rules.
The key quote is ‘perfection bought at the price of emptiness’. As Funkadelic asked 'What is soul? I don't know'... yet I think below the level of words (from where AI operates), we do know it when we see it.
Thank you Akexander. I think you have expressed something about AI that I had been feeling myself about this new burgeoning aspect of technology. The human element can never be replaced. Not yet at least. It may be replaced in a utilitarian manner but the soul element is uniquely human. Your articles, while being beautifully written, also give me hope for the future. Something AI could never do!