Dystopian view on society’s future with AI are driven in my opinion either by the projection of a guilty consciousness or simply a lack of imagination. A utopian, or at least better, future is as likely, if not more, than the apocalyptic views threatened in the media by some billionaires.
No need to explain in details the projection of guilty consciousness, it can be either individual or collective, but it runs deep in human culture, starting with the Bible, apocalypse and judgment day, to a number of cults other the centuries. Human society is a sinner, and God or AI will punish it.
This is also reflected in most science-fiction artworks, books, movies, comics. Imagination is fed by all these stories to the point that it’s difficult to imagine anything else. One exception is Star Trek.
Here I’d like to outline a counter narrative, imagine ways AI can benefit humanity (it already does) without taking over the world, eliminating humans, or turning them into forever dreaming foetuses.
The benefits of AI are already obvious in the way it accelerates some scientific discoveries, thanks to the capabilities to find patterns in (sometimes literally) astronomical amount of data.
Betting on human fundamental goodness, how can we leverage AI for a better future?
Betting on human fundamental goodness, how can we leverage AI for a better future?
Distribution of power and wealth
The most stable societies are where power and wealth circulate, while keeping inequalities to a minimal level. Mechanisms are in place for redistribution or destruction of wealth (kola, potlalch), or balancing powers (religious, political, and within political: legislative, executive, judiciary). However these societies are also vulnerable to external threats like violence and propaganda, which disrupt the balance.
Autocratic, centralized regimes are unstable, as they rely on a limited number of people, if not only one, which always fail eventually.
We know of these principles, but (so far) did not have the ability to structure and support distributed systems at scale. AI could enable us to do just that. As it can balance distributed electrical networks powered by nuclear plants and tiny solar panels, it could become the infrastructure that makes direct democracy possible at scale. Markets and their invisible hands are not the only or best way of distributing resources. What if we could find a better decentralized, reliable, and fair, wealth distribution mechanism through AI?
Distribution of knowledge
The most crucial distribution of all is the distribution of knowledge: education at all levels is painfully flawed. We know the best way to learn: 1 to 1 or few, preceptor-like teaching / learning relationship. Learning how to learn, developing critical thinking and creativity, nurturing a balanced mind and body, and deep self-awareness. What if, instead of replicating the mind of the deceased to ease or aggravate the grief of relatives, we replicate the interactions of the best teachers / mentors while they are alive to scale them up to millions of children? Instead of investing in dating algorithms, we try to match the right teacher(s) for each child’s specific needs? What if advanced knowledge (tertiary education level) was free and easily accessible for the life-long learners that these children will become?
AI infrastructure / architecture
Obviously, we don’t need to reproduce the centralized architecture model, instead we need distributed, edge-computing, of multiple models with different optimization functions. The final choice between the recommendations made by each model will always in fine be a human one.
Universal Income for a true freedom
Since the French Revolution, there has always been a tension between the ideals of Liberty and Equality. Ensuring some level of equality, not only in rights, but in actuality as seen as requiring rules that limit freedom.
Basic human needs should be guaranteed for everyone, in order to free humans and let them pursue their dreams. Universal income can be funded by the gains in productivity and overhaul of existing social services. Universal income trials have consistently shown positive results.
Betting on fundamental human goodness
There are innate sociopaths and psychopaths, but what is the proportion of criminals who fit this definition, versus those who commit crimes through necessity / opportunity, or white-collar fraudsters who never even get caught?
This is a new version of Pascal’s bet: instead of “does God exist?”, my question is “are humans fundamentally good or bad?” If we bet on bad, then we build a society with so many restrictions that it inevitably becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we bet on good, and build a society based on this premise, then it might also become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If we are wrong, what’s the worse that can happen? Not worse that if we had taken the other choice anyway. So basically, nothing to lose and everything to win by betting on the fundamental goodness of humankind.
nothing to lose and everything to win by betting on the fundamental goodness of humankind
In fact, this is just one way of framing the question. I don’t truly believe in any fundamental essence or quality of humans, or anything. I am an existentialist. What we build is what will be, what we think is what becomes true.