[Prefatory Statement:For our present contextual purposes, we will begin this writing by reference to the initial advent of computer facility in accomplishing tasks formerly performed by real people. The exponential growth of computer technology appears to be matched by its societal eager acceptance, apparently, with little or no thought given to the positive value of prior human efficacy or to humanistic sentiment. In our view, a rational and balanced discussion on the latest achievement, “Artificial Intelligence,” is best done, accompanied by some comparative context.]
As we mundane, “non-nerds” understand it, “A.I.” describes computer systems capable of performing tasks that, historically, only humans can do, including,” reasoning,” making decisions and solving problems. Frankly speaking, we are concerned with the societal effects of eliminating the humanistic element in A.I. decision-making and action which, albeit more efficient and perhaps even more accurate, reductively exemplify efficiency and lack considerations of empathy and, mitigation or exception.
Moreover, we question the efficacy of the term, (which to our mind is, definitionally, oxymoronic) since intelligence is, arguably, the product of Man’s evolved capacity for reason and not the (human) programmed product of insensate technology.
From the time that the human genre of “couch potato” discovered that he can switch his selection of television programs from wrestling to the weather, by the mere and effortless, touch of a “remote,” and avoid the personal trauma of standing up and walking a few steps, the facility of mechanically computerized devices saw an exponential growth in facility, and profits, and to our perception an existential decline in human interaction and personal initiative.
Regular readers of this blogspace are aware of our long-term concern and ardent opposition to the use of hand-held devices (“smartphones”) as a mode of interactive communication, as opposed to the more humanistic nuances of natural conversation, in person or by telephone, (not to mention the aesthetics and the accuracy of expression which are the unique features of written correspondence). The solitary, transmission of digital signals on another person’s lighted screen is answered in like fashion, whenever received. Efficiency and ease have, to society’s regret, been erroneously elected over necessary humanistic conversation.
We have read numerous newspaper and periodical observations, which, unfortunately, confirm our expressed concerns about the computerized mode of social interaction (conversation) and unhappily note the reports of widespread anxiety and depression among the young. As we are able to perceive, self-identity, self-image and personal autonomy are in great part, developed from the perception of the consistent reactions to us others; when this is minimized, emotional and mental troubles may well be the empirical result.
To be clear, we, affirmatively do not, in principle, oppose technical advancement. Untold human benefits have been enjoyed since the era of flint tools and wooden spearfishing. Life has exponentially improved and has become more enjoyable simultaneous with the development of mechanical tools, appliances, labor-saving developments, travel, and medical advances. We unreservedly admire human ingenuity capable of the conception of new and improved facilities for problem-solving and ubiquitous improvement in the myriad facets of the human experience. What is concerning is the exercise of ingenuity for its own sake, or solely for profit, irresponsibly unconcerned with its potential effect on Man and his society. As demonstrated in the matter of cell phone interaction, exclusive consideration of perceived convenience can result in extremely harmful results.
Additionally worrisome is the unfortunate history of mankind’s historic misuse of developmental technology for unintended or nefarious purposes. The recent A.I. replication of President Biden’s voice and nuanced manner was falsely utilized in advising citizens not to vote in the recent primary elections. The realistic concern by screenwriters and actors that their creative work is capable of replication by A.I. is a realistic one. Additionally, we found ourselves nauseated to learn that classic sculptures created by the World’s historically renowned artists were machine replicable, using A.I. Such singular works of venerated artists should not be crassly relegated to the mundane status of mass-produced pottery.
Our worst nightmare consists of the chilling, indeterminate, and heartless danger presented by the use of A.I. directed military attack drones; the latter constituting additional and terrifying examples of the human inclination to pervert new developments for war and other nefarious purposes (as opposed to their intended, meteorological, land survey, environment protection, search and navigational purposes). A post-apocalyptic, terrifying movie might be produced in which all human beings have been eliminated yet eternal war is tactically continued by conflicting robotic fighter-bomber drones.
We firmly believe in freedom of enterprise and capitalistic initiative; nevertheless, it might be prudent to consider the establishment of a multi-disciplinary advisory board, analogous to the FDA (medicines), to review the possible societal impact and acceptability of newly developed, major technology.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 