If permitted an anthropomorphic, but contextually relevant, statement, we would express the sentiment that ” The Natural process of evolutionary development of an upright, sentient being did not portend its irresponsible self-destruction.”
Our declarations in earlier writings that it is imperative to consider the thoughtful balance between the desire for advanced capability and the cogent consideration of the empirical impact of the successful result, i.e., between “can” and “should.” In our view, the contemporary lust for profitable algorithmic developments has evinced great ingenuity, but insufficient concern for its humanistic impact.
Our contextual anxiety was initiated by the facile, albeit humanistically harmful, substitution of the handheld “smartphone” for natural, salubrious interaction (personal, telephonic, or letter correspondence). Its impact initiated Man’s extant journey toward empirical impersonality and personal loneliness. Gone was the salutary assurance of friendly voice recognition, spontaneity, and timeliness of response. One notable consequence was the resultant inability of the maturing individual to interactively develop an interactive, referable self-image, empirically responsible for the reported development of anxiety and depression among the young.
To be clear, we are affirmative supporters of all general salubrious advancement; the development of medically efficient devices, efficacious and utilitarian capabilities, and the advancement of elemental science and human knowledge. However, Silicon Valley’s eternal demonstration of omission to responsibly consider the humanistic downside of many of its achievements has effectively led to our concern regarding the dystopic possibility of the ultimate devastation of human society. (N.B.) We are aware of the possible perception of the latter statement as unduly morbid and fearful, and would offer some empirical elucidation of our concern.
Human society has lately been introduced to robotics such as “Alexa,” vacuum cleaners, automobile operation and navigation, security services, identification devices, and remote control devices. Sadly, it must be observed that, respecting each development, a destructive application has been empirically devised.
The most devastating and frightening are the robotic weapons of war, notably air force drones, capable of efficiently and unemotionally bombing targets, human and civilizational. In this context, we have, in previous writings, offered the fictional nightmare scenario of a planet, devoid of inhabitants by reason of nuclear war, on which robotic warfare and bombing eternally continue, day and night, between contending non-human and robotic national enemies. [It is notably sad to observe that with each new miraculous advance, an insalubrious and harmful use is discovered and employed. In a better context, drones might be beneficially employed in search and rescue operations, land and animal studies, meteorological and geological inquiry, and life-saving assistance in catastrophes.
We, admittedly, are not well-versed in “computer-tech” subjects and only recently became aware of the existence of A.I. “chatboxes.” Our systemic concern with such dystopic phenomena was the catalyst for our (hopefully forgivable) thematic fear of the ultimate demise of modern society, if not, indeed, sentient humanity as we have come to know it. As lifetime” members in good standing” of the “non-nerd” minority of homo sapiens, we were amazed and terrified of this A.I. facility and confess to the perception that it is the ultimate, fatal threat to the subsistence of normal society.
It appears that the employment of algorithmic genius has been successful in the production of the ability of an individual to conduct, what we would call, a “facsimile” of a human interaction by speaking to a non-existent, artificial voice (simulation) that is not only topically responsive to the user, but soon contextually familiar with his persona and relevant life situation. This counterfeit interaction may be desirable and useful, but in reality and essence, one is effectively and antisocially conversing with oneself; a temporarily satisfying phenomenon, but an ultimate dagger in the heart of social interaction; an existential and defined feature of living in human society; it is factually analogous to primitive loneliness and singular solitude. Like prehistoric homo sapiens, one atavistically lives in his own singular company, i.e., such technological “advancement” results in the retardation of anthropological progress by the suppression of human, interactive contact, the existential anthropological phenomenon of interactive society.
It requires no unique talent for circumspection to confidently declare that no conceivable “marvel” is comparable to the vital anthropological progress society.
It is of existential importance to distinguish between the desire for innovative capability (“can”) and the responsible consideration (“should”) of its effect on Mankind.
-p.
plinyblogdotcom 