The Danger Of Superhuman AI Is Not What You Think

22 Trần Quốc Toản, Phường Võ Thị Sáu, Quận 3, Tp.HCM
Tiêu điểm
Tin tức: BÀI PHÁT BIỂU CỦA THỦ TƯỚNG ISRAEL - Benjamin Netanyahu Thư Giản: Nhớ mưa Sài Gòn... Tiền Tệ : Lượng tiền ngân hàng cho vay vượt huy động Tin tức: Cải cách thể chế nhìn từ cuốn sách “Vì sao các quốc gia thất bại” BĐS: TP.HCM dự kiến không cho phân lô bán nền tại các huyện ngoại thành Tin tức: Bên trong đơn vị UAV mật của Ukraine chuyên tấn công vào lãnh thổ Nga CN & MT: It’s Time To Give Up Hope For A Better Climate & Get Heroic VH & TG: 'Nexus’ - lược sử về những mạng lưới thông tin của loài người Tin tức: Thủ tướng chỉ rõ 2 điểm nghẽn lớn ở Đồng bằng sông Cửu Long Tin tức: China’s Real Economic Crisis Tin tức: KHỦNG HOẢNG TÀI CHÍNH ,KINH TẾ HAY KHỦNG KHOẢNG CƠ CẤU TOÀN DIỆN VH & TG: Ông Donald Trump, voi và nước xáo CN & MT: ChatGPT: ẢO VỌNG TOÀN NĂNG VÀ TƯƠNG LAI TOÀN TRỊ CN & MT: The planet endures its hottest summer on record — for the second straight year BĐS: Thị trường bất động sản sẽ phục hồi trong giai đoạn 2024 - 2027 CN & MT: AI – nỗi sợ của ‘dân văn phòng’ VH & TG: The Precondition For Global Cooperation VH & TG: Trung Quốc: trẻ thất nghiệp, già lo âu BĐS: Nhiều doanh nghiệp bất động sản đã vượt qua giai đoạn ‘sinh - tử’ CN & MT: Chăm lo nền móng VH & TG: Việt Nam có thể trở thành một trong cửu bá trong thế giới đa cực vào năm 2025 BĐS: Loạt mặt bằng vị trí 'vàng' TP HCM ế khách thuê nhiều năm BĐS: Tiến sĩ Lê Xuân Nghĩa: Tôi mua nhà năm 1990 hết 56 triệu đồng, bây giờ người ta gạ 20 tỷ đồng mà bà xã không chịu bán Thư Giản: Viết cho ngày doanh nhân 13/10 CN & MT: AI Is The Way Out Of Low Growth And Inflation CN & MT: Viễn cảnh 'hàng tỉ người giả' đáng sợ tạo ra nhờ AI VH & TG: Loài người trở nên thông minh như thế nào? Tin tức: Sử gia Harari: Hướng đi của nhân loại đang được quyết định tại Ukraina CN & MT: The Human Cost Of Our AI-Driven Future CN & MT: Việt Nam và Đông Nam Á sẽ hứng chịu mưa lớn bất thường vào cuối năm 2024 do La Nina BĐS: Bức tranh tín dụng bất động sản giai đoạn 2011-2022 Tin tức: Nobel kinh tế 2024 và bài học về thể chế cho Việt Nam CN & MT: Jensen Huang khen Elon Musk siêu phàm CN & MT: Bước tiếp theo cho tên lửa Starship của Elon Musk là gì? CN & MT: Dữ liệu vệ tinh vẽ nên bức tranh tổng thể về biến đổi khí hậu CN & MT: El Nino: Hồi chuông báo tử đe dọa nhân loại đã điểm Tin tức: Việt Nam có quyền lực như thế nào tại châu Á-Thái Bình Dương? CN & MT: Thủy lợi mang lại no ấm cho nông dân Tây Ninh Tin tức: Giải Nobel Kinh tế 2024 CN & MT: Châu thổ đang chìm: vấn nạn nan giải Tin tức: 7-Eleven đóng cửa 444 chi nhánh: Chuyện gì đang xảy ra với chuỗi siêu thị tiện lợi lớn nhất thế giới? Tin tức: Người nhập cư vào TP.HCM giảm mạnh, 'thủ phủ nhà trọ' thưa vắng người thuê Tin tức: Xe điện: Thêm một thảm bại của mô hình ‘chủ nghĩa tư bản nhà nước’ tại Trung Quốc SK & Đời Sống: Nền kinh tế cho người già SK & Đời Sống: Sôi động cuộc đua tìm phương thuốc kéo dài tuổi thọ BĐS: Sau hơn 1 tháng triển khai luật mới: Vẫn nhiều vướng mắc về đất đai BĐS: Shophouse ế ẩm, đóng cửa hàng loạt BĐS: Tiêu điều mặt bằng cho thuê tại TP. HCM BĐS: Giá thuê mặt bằng trung tâm quá cao, người kinh doanh rút về vùng ven TP.HCM Chứng khoán: La Nina hoạt động mạnh từ tháng 8, mưa nhiều chưa từng có, cổ phiếu ngành điện ra sao? BĐS: SO SÁNH TỒN KHO BẤT ĐỘNG SẢN 2015-2022. 10 ông lớn địa ốc tồn kho hơn 40 nghìn tỷ 62015 30.6.2015 BĐS: Những vùng tối của khủng hoảng nhà ở BĐS: Loạt doanh nghiệp bất động sản phát hành trái phiếu trở lại BĐS: TS. Cấn Văn Lực: “Ai làm bất động sản ở phân khúc nhà phố thương mại thì cần phải quan sát để cơ cấu lại” BĐS: 1 tỷ USD vốn FDI vào nhà đất: Trung Quốc, Nhật Bản, Malaysia... dẫn đầu làn sóng M&A : Nếu không sửa luật, dự án bất động sản sẽ tắc trong 10 năm tới Tin tức: Thời khắc đen tối nhất của Ukraine Tin tức: 3 quyết sách chiến lược để biến Việt Nam thành ‘con hổ kinh tế’ châu Á Tin tức: Đánh thuế bất động sản phải nghiên cứu kỹ, đừng xa rời thực tế Tin tức: Chân dung Blackstone – ‘Gã khổng lồ’ quản lý hơn 1.000 tỷ USD muốn đẩy mạnh đầu tư vào Việt Nam VH & TG: SMARTPHONE VÀ TÔI VH & TG: TÂM LINH VÀ MÊ TÍN VH & TG: Cận cảnh không gian sống của Elon Musk: Người giàu nhất thế giới ở “phòng đóng hộp” 37m2, nội thất tiện nghi kém xa nhà của nhiều người Thư Giản: Mùa nước tràn đồng VH & TG: Vùng Scandinavia, bao gồm các quốc gia như Thụy Điển, Na Uy và Đan Mạch (có thể bao gồm Phần Lan, Iceland) VH & TG: South Korea wakes up to the next K-wave: The 'silver economy' VH & TG: Lý Quang Diệu viết về những ngày cuối đời VH & TG: Bài của Tướng Trì Hạo Điền về mộng bá chủ thế giới của người Hán Tạp chí Các vấn đề chiến lược, Ấn Độ, 15/4/2009 VH & TG: Reagan đã không thắng trong Chiến tranh Lạnh như nhiều người nghĩ Thư Giản: BÍ QUYẾT SỐNG NHẸ NHÀNG  Tiền Tệ : KINH TẾ HOA KỲ NHẬT BẢN VÀ ANH TUẦN NÀY ( 16- 25/9/2024) SẼ ẢNH HƯỞNG ĐẾN THẾ GIỚI VH & TG: Thân phận phụ nữ ở Ấn Độ: Những gánh nặng kinh hoàng BĐS: Thử suy nghĩ BÀI HỌC TỪ TRUNG QUỐC CHO THỊ TRƯỜNG BẤT ĐỘNG SẢN VIỆT NAM....2024 Thư Giản: 5 câu chuyện Đại chiến lược của Thế giới 2020-2035. VH & TG: Hoàng đế diệt Phật bị quả báo bi thảm: Bài học lịch sử cho nhân loại ngày nay Tiền Tệ : NHNN điều chỉnh room tín dụng: Nhà băng nào hưởng lợi? Thư Giản: Thời kỳ thoái đã bắt đầu từ lâu - Dự báo 60 năm phần 2 Thư Giản: Dự báo 60 năm đầu thế kỷ 21 và hướng đến thế kỷ 22 Chứng khoán: Thời hoàng kim của chứng khoán Việt Nam 2007 Chứng khoán: “Đỉnh và đáy” cũng như “đêm với ngày”: Nhà đầu tư lão làng Charlie Munger tiết lộ triết lý đầu tư chưa khi nào lỗi thời để gặt hái thành công VH & TG: Đại tác giả KIM DUNG NÓI GÌ VỀ KINH PHẬT CHỮ HÁN ? VH & TG: Chuyến thăm lịch sử của Đặng Tiểu Bình và nước đi giúp Trung Quốc “lột xác”, vượt qua láng giềng đáng gờm Thư Giản: Hạn hán lớn nhất thời cổ đại, hoàng đế xin mưa và phép màu khiến muôn dân kinh ngạc VH & TG: Nhân loại trước ngã ba đường? Tiền Tệ : Cơ hội từ khủng hoảng 2008 Tiền Tệ : Tại sao Mỹ sẽ thắng trong cuộc Chiến tranh tiền tệ? Tiền Tệ : Giải bài toán nợ xấu ngân hàng tăng SK & Đời Sống: Sự thật về người đàn ông sống lâu nhất Trung Quốc, thọ xuyên 3 thế kỷ nhờ 1 thần chú ai cũng dễ dàng làm được SK & Đời Sống: 'Chẳng ai muốn chuyển ra Bình Chánh khi công việc còn trong quận 1' Chứng khoán: Thị trường chứng khoán Mỹ chìm trong sắc đỏ trong ngày Thứ hai đầu tuần SK & Đời Sống: Giới nhà giàu Việt chọn môi trường sống “giàu có trong thầm lặng” Chứng khoán: Chứng khoán bay mất 50 điểm, rúng động thị trường 200 tỷ USD SK & Đời Sống: Người già nông thôn – đường dài lệ thuộc con cháu Thư Giản: MỘT VÀI SỰ THẬT VỀ NHỮNG THỜI KỲ KHÓ KHĂN! SK & Đời Sống: Thành phố lớn nhất Việt Nam có hơn 1 triệu người cao tuổi, già hoá dân số nhanh, tuổi thọ trung bình 76,5 tuổi SK & Đời Sống: Đưa cây vào nhà, chăm chúng như con SK & Đời Sống: Phục hưng hành lang thiên nhiên - kinh tế - nhân văn dọc sông Sài Gòn SK & Đời Sống: Nghiên cứu khoa học: Sống gần gũi với thiên nhiên giúp chống lại bệnh tật, tốt cho tâm lý, kéo dài tuổi thọ! Thư Giản: NGHỊCH LÝ KHÔNG THỂ "NGƯỢC ĐỜI" HƠN CỦA NGƯỜI HIỆN ĐẠI Tin tức: CÁI GIÁ CỦA CHIẾN TRANH 2024 BĐS: Thời điểm vàng cho bất động sản hậu khủng hoảng CN & MT: Dự báo của Yuval Noal Harari về những biến đổi chính trị - xã hội trong thời đại số và những giải pháp cho xã hội tương lai CN & MT: Neuromorphic supercomputer aims for human brain scale BĐS: Doanh nghiệp trả mặt bằng hàng loạt BĐS: Mặt bằng 'bình dân' ở TP.HCM: Giảm giá phân nửa, giảm tiền cọc vẫn bỏ trống BĐS: Sóng 'tháo chạy' khỏi mặt bằng tiền tỷ khu vực trung tâm giờ ra sao? CN & MT: Trí tuệ nhân tạo đang thay đổi ngành bán lẻ Tin tức: Hệ lụy gì từ cuộc chiến mới ở Trung Đông? BĐS: Dấu ấn bất động sản quý 3: Những "đốm sáng" trong khó khăn Tin tức: Thế giới bắt đầu thời kỳ cấu trúc lại trật tư thế giới The World Begins to Reorder Itself Tin tức: IMF: Triển vọng kinh tế thế giới mấy năm tới chỉ ở “hạng xoàng” BĐS: Chuyên gia nêu rõ khó khăn lớn nhất của thị trường bất động sản hiện nay Tin tức: Nền kinh tế toàn cầu ra sao khi phải đối mặt với cuộc khủng hoảng mới trong cuộc chiến Israel-Gaza? Tin tức: Xung đột Israel - Hamas: Người ra mặt và kẻ giấu mặt CN & MT: Nếu Trái đất nóng hơn 2,5 độ so với thời tiền công nghiệp, ĐBSCL sẽ gặp nguy cơ Tin tức: Tỉ phú israel có con gái bị Hamas giết! : Vòm sắt - hệ thống đánh chặn tên lửa thành công hơn 90% của Israel? Tin tức: Thế giới đối mặt cùng lúc 5 căn nguyên của thảm họa và nguy cơ Thế chiến III CN & MT: Toyota chứng minh cho cả thế giới thấy 'không vội làm xe điện' là đúng: 1 startup làm 9 năm vẫn lỗ, càng bán càng không có lãi
Bài viết
The Danger Of Superhuman AI Is Not What You Think

    The rhetoric over “superhuman” AI implicitly erases what’s most important about being human.

    Today’s generative AI systems like ChatGPT and Gemini are routinely described as heralding the imminent arrival of “superhuman” artificial intelligence. Far from a harmless bit of marketing spin, the headlines and quotes trumpeting our triumph or doom in an era of superhuman AI are the refrain of a fast-growing, dangerous and powerful ideology. Whether used to get us to embrace AI with unquestioning enthusiasm or to paint a picture of AI as a terrifying specter before which we must tremble, the underlying ideology of “superhuman” AI fosters the growing devaluation of human agency and autonomy and collapses the distinction between our conscious minds and the mechanical tools we’ve built to mirror them.

    Today’s powerful AI systems lack even the most basic features of human minds; they do not share with humans what we call consciousness or sentience, the related capacity to feel things like pain, joy, fear and love. Nor do they have the slightest sense of their place and role in this world, much less the ability to experience it. They can answer the questions we choose to ask, paint us pretty pictures, generate deepfake videos and more. But an AI tool is dark inside.

    That’s why, at a machine learning conference in September of 2023, I asked the Turing Award winner Yoshua Bengio why we keep hearing about “superhuman” AI when the products available are so far from what a human is, much less superhuman. My keynote prior to his had openly challenged this kind of rhetoric, which featured heavily in Bengio’s subsequent presentation — just as it does on his website and in his warnings to lawmakers and other audiences that humans risk “losing control to superhuman AIs” in just the next few years.

    Bengio was once one of the more sober and grounded voices in the AI research landscape, so his sudden adoption of this rhetoric perplexed me. I certainly don’t disagree with him about the dangers of embedding powerful but unpredictable and unreliable AI systems in critical infrastructure and defense systems or the urgent need to govern these systems more effectively. But calling AI “superhuman” is not a necessary part of making those arguments.

    So, I asked him, isn’t this rhetoric ultimately unhelpful and misleading given that the AI systems that we so desperately need to control lack the most fundamental capabilities and features of a human mind? How, I asked, does an AI system without the human capacity for conscious self-reflection, empathy or moral intelligence become superhuman merely by being a faster problem-solver? Aren’t we more than that? And doesn’t granting the label “superhuman” to machines that lack the most vital dimensions of humanity end up obscuring from our view the very things about being human that we care about?

    I was trying to get Bengio to acknowledge that there is a huge difference between superhuman computational speed or accuracy — and being superhuman, i.e., more than human. The most ordinary human does vastly more than the most powerful AI system, which can only calculate optimally efficient paths through high-dimensional vector space and return the corresponding symbols, word tokens or pixels. Playing with your kid or making a work of art is intelligent human behavior, but if you view either one as a process of finding the most efficient solution to a problem or generating predictable tokens, you’re doing it wrong.

    “Attempts to erase and devalue the most humane parts of our existence are nothing new; AI is just a new excuse to do it.”

    Bengio refused to grant the premise. Before I could even finish the question, he demanded: “You don’t think that your brain is a machine?” Then he asked: “Why would a machine that works on silicon not be able to perform any of the computations that our brain does?”

    The idea that computers work on the same underlying principles that our brains do is not a new one. Computational theories of the mind have been circulating since the 20th century origins of computer science. There are plenty of cognitive scientists, neuroscientists and philosophers who regard computational theories of mind as a mistaken or incomplete account of how the physical brain works (myself among them), but it’s certainly not a bizarre or pseudoscientific view. It’s at least conceivable that human brains, at the most basic level, might be best described as doing some kind of biological computation.

    So what surprised and disturbed me about Bengio’s response was not his assumption that biological brains are a kind of machine or computer. What surprised me was his refusal to grant, at least initially, that human intelligence — whether computational at the core or not — involves a rich suite of capabilities that extend well beyond what even cutting-edge AI tools do. We are more than efficient mathematical optimizers and probable next token generators.

    I had thought it was a fairly obvious — even trivial — observation that human intelligence cannot be reduced to these tasks, which can be executed by tools that even Bengio admits are as mindless, as insensible to the world of living and feeling, as your toaster. But he seemed to be insisting that human intelligence could be reduced to these operations — that we ourselves are no more than task optimization machines.

    I realized then, with shock, that our disagreement was not about the capabilities of machine learning models at all. It was about the capabilities of human beings, and what descriptions of those capabilities we can and should license.

    What Is Superhuman AI?

    On his website, Bengio defines “superhuman AI” as an AI system that “outperforms humans on a vast array of tasks.” That’s pretty vague. What falls under the definition of a task? Is anything a human being does a task?

    For decades, the AI research community’s holy grail of artificial general intelligence (AGI) was defined by equivalence with human minds — not just the tasks they complete. IBM still echoes this traditional notion in its definition of the AGI-focused research program Strong AI:

    [AGI] would require an intelligence equal to humans; it would have a self-aware consciousness that has the ability to solve problems, learn, and plan for the future. … Strong AI aims to create intelligent machines that are indistinguishable from the human mind.

    But OpenAI and researchers like Geoffrey Hinton and Yoshua Bengio are now telling us a different story. A self-aware machine that is “indistinguishable from the human mind” is no longer the defining ambition for AGI. A machine that matches or outperforms us on a vast array of economically valuable tasks is the latest target. OpenAI, which led the way in moving AGI’s goalposts, defines AGI in their charter as “highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work.”

    OpenAI’s AGI bait-and-switch wipes anything that does not count as economically valuable work from the definition of intelligence. That’s a massive erasure of our human capacity and a reduction of ourselves that we should resist. Are you no more than the work you completed today? Are you any less human or less intelligent if you spent your waking hours doing things that do not have well-defined “solutions,” that are not tasks that can be checked off a list, and that have no market price?

    “By describing as superhuman a thing that is entirely insensible and unthinking, we implicitly erase or devalue the concept of a ‘human.'”

    Once you have reduced the concept of human intelligence to what the markets will pay for, then suddenly, all it takes to build an intelligent machine — even a superhuman one — is to make something that generates economically valuable outputs at a rate and average quality that exceeds your own economic output. Anything else is irrelevant.

    As the ideology behind this bait-and-switch leaks into the wider culture, it slowly corrodes our own self-understanding. If you try to point out, in a large lecture or online forum on AI, that ChatGPT does not experience and cannot think about the things that correspond to the words and sentences it produces — that it is only a mathematical generator of expected language patterns — chances are that someone will respond, in a completely serious manner: “But so are we.”

    According to this view, characterizations of human beings as acting wisely, playfully, inventively, insightfully, meditatively, courageously, compassionately or justly are no more than poetic license. According to this view, such humanistic descriptions of our most valued performances convey no added truth of their own. They point to no richer realities of what human intelligence is. They correspond to nothing real beyond the opaque, mechanical calculation of word frequencies and associations. They are merely florid, imprecise words for that same barren task.

    I am still not sure whether Bengio himself truly believes this. Later in the Q&A following his talk, he asked to revisit my question, and it seemed that he wanted to strike a more conciliatory tone and seek some common ground. But when he refused to grant that humans are more than task machines executing computational scripts and issuing the statistically expected tokens, I took him at his word. If beating us at that game is all it takes to be superhuman, one might think that silicon “superhumans” have been among us since World War II, when the U.K.’s Colossus became the first computer to crack a code faster than humans could.

    Yet Colossus only beat us at one task; according to Bengio, “superhuman” AI will beat us at a “vast array of tasks.” But that assumes being human is to be nothing more than a particularly versatile task-completion machine. Once you accept that devastating reduction of the scope of our humanity, the production of an equivalently versatile task-machine with “superhuman” task performance doesn’t seem so far-fetched; the notion is almost mundane.

    So what’s the harm in speaking this way?

    Being Superhuman

    The word “superhuman” means “human, but more so.” To be superhuman is to have the same powers that humans do, plus other powers we lack — or to have human powers to a degree that we don’t. It’s not a word we use for something that’s of a radically different kind from us, something that lacks fundamental human qualities and powers but performs better than we do on some metrics. We don’t talk about “superhuman airplanes” or “superhuman cheetahs” even though airplanes and cheetahs both travel faster than any human has ever run.

    We use and understand the term superhuman to mean something very much like us, but better. The fictional Superman is perhaps the best-known English-language articulation of the superhuman idea. Superman is not Earth-born, but he embodies and far exceeds our highest human ideals of physical, intellectual and moral strength. He isn’t superhuman just because he flies; a rocket does that. He isn’t superhuman because he can move heavy things; for this, a forklift will do. Nor is he superhuman because he excels at a “vast array” of such tasks. Instead, he is an aspirational magnification of what we see as most truly human.

    There are no fundamental dimensions of the human personality missing from Superman. He is an imagined answer to the question: “What if us, only more so?” He desires, he suffers, he loves, he grieves, he hopes, he cares and he doubts; he experiences all these even more intensely and deeply than we do. He is as far as one can be from a mindless producer of efficiencies. His embodiment as Superman is a direct expression of each of the aspects of humanity that we value most, the things about our kind that we tend to see as universally shared.

    By describing as superhuman a thing that is entirely insensible and unthinking, an object without desire or hope but relentlessly productive and adaptable to its assigned economically valuable tasks, we implicitly erase or devalue the concept of a “human” and all that a human can do and strive to become. Of course, attempts to erase and devalue the most humane parts of our existence are nothing new; AI is just a new excuse to do it.

    “Maybe the moral and experiential poverty of AI will bring the most vitally human dimensions of our native intelligence back to the center of our attention and foster a cultural reclamation and restoration of their long-depreciated value.”

    Indeed, for the entirety of the Industrial Age, those invested in the maximally efficient extraction of productive outputs from human bodies have been trying to get us to view ourselves — and more importantly one another — as flawed, inefficient, fungible machines destined to be disposed of as soon as our output rate slips below an expected peak or the moment a more productive machine can be found to step in.

    The struggle against this reductive and cynical ideology has been hard-fought for a few hundred years thanks to vigorous resistance from labor and human rights movements that have articulated and defended humane, nonmechanical, noneconomic standards for the treatment and valuation of human beings — standards like dignity, justice, autonomy and respect.

    Yet to finally convince us that humans are no more than mechanical generators of economically valuable outputs, it seems to have only required machine tools that generate such outputs in our primary currencies of human meaning: language and vision. Now that you can elicit an infinite multitude of these currencies from an app on your smartphone, we accept the advent of “superhuman AI” as a foregone conclusion, something already quite literally at hand.

    Reclaiming Our Humanity

    The battle is not lost, however. As the philosopher Albert Borgmann wrote in his 1984 book “Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life,” it is precisely when a technology has nearly supplanted a vital domain of human meaning that we are able to feel and mourn what has been taken from us. It is at that moment that we often begin to resist, reclaim and rededicate ourselves to its value.

    His examples might seem mundane today. He wrote about the post-microwave revival of the art of cooking as a cherished creative and social practice, one irreplaceable by even the most efficient cooking machines. Indeed, the skilled and visionary practice of cooking now carries far greater cultural value and status than it did in the late 20th century. Similarly, the treadmill did not eliminate the irreplaceable art of running and walking outdoors just by offering a more convenient and efficient means to the same aerobic end. In fact, Borgmann thought the sensory and social poverty of the experience of using a treadmill or microwave could reinvigorate our cultural attention to what they diminished — activities that engage the whole person, that continually remind us of our place in the physical world and our belonging there with the other lives who share it. He was right.

    Perhaps the ideology of “superhuman” AI, in which humans appear merely as slow and inefficient pattern matchers, could spark an even more expansive and politically significant revival of humane meaning and values. Maybe the moral and experiential poverty of AI will bring the most vitally human dimensions of our native intelligence back to the center of our attention and foster a cultural reclamation and restoration of their long-depreciated value.

    What might that look like? Imagine any sector of society where the machine ideology now dominates and consider how it would look if the goal of mechanical optimization became secondary to enabling humane capabilities.

    Let’s start with education. In many countries, the former ideal of a humane process of moral and intellectual formation has been reduced to optimized routines of training young people to mindlessly generate expected test-answer tokens from test-question prompts. Generative AI tools — some of which advertise themselves as “your child’s superhuman tutor” — promise to optimize even a kindergartener’s learning curve. Yet in the U.S., probably the world’s tech-savviest nation, young people’s love of reading is at its lowest levels in decades, while parents’ confidence in education systems is at a historic nadir.  

    What would reclaiming and reviving the humane experience of learning look like? What kind of world might our children build for themselves and future generations if we let them love to learn again, if we taught them how to rediscover and embrace their humane potential? How would that world compare to one built by children who only know how to be an underperforming machine?

    Or consider the economy. How would the increasingly sorry state of our oceans, air, soil, food web, infrastructures and democracies look if we stopped rewarding mindless, metastatic growth in “domestic product” that we make machines (human or silicon, whichever is cheaper) churn out in any environmentally or socially poisonous form that can sell? How would the future we are headed for change if we mandated new economic incentives and measures tied to medium- and long-term indicators of health, sustainability, human development and social trust and resilience?

    “What if, instead of replacing humane vocations in media, design and the arts with mindless mechanical remixers and regurgitators of culture like ChatGPT, we asked AI developers to help us with the most meaningless tasks in our lives?”

    What if tax relief for wealthy corporations and investors depended entirely on how their activities enabled those humane indicators to rise? How would our jobs change, and how might young people’s enthusiasm for investing their energies in the workforce be boosted, if the measure of a company’s success were not simply the mechanical optimization of its share price, but a richer and longer-term assessment of its contribution to the quality of our lives together?

    What about culture? How different would the future look if current efforts to use AI to replace human cultural outputs were stalled by a renewed affection for our own capacity to create meaning, to tell the world’s stories, to invent new forms of beauty and expression, to elevate and ornament the raw animal experience of living? What if, instead of replacing these humane vocations in media, design and the arts with mindless mechanical remixers and regurgitators of culture like ChatGPT, we asked AI developers to help us with the most meaningless tasks in our lives, the ones that drain our energy for everything else that matters? What if you never had to file another tax form?

    What if we designed technologies like AI with and for the benefit of those most vulnerable to corruption, exploitation and injustice? What if we used our best AI tools to more quickly and reliably surface evidence of corrupt practices, increase their political cost and more systematically push corruption and exploitation toward the margins of public life? What if populations collectively vowed to reward only those politicians, police and judges willing to take the risks of demonstrating greater transparency, accountability and integrity in governing?

    Even in these more humane futures, we’d be far from utopia. But those possible futures are still much brighter than any dominated by the ideology of superhuman AI.

    That doesn’t mean that AI has no place in a more humane world. We need AI to take over inherently unsafe or human-unfriendly tasks like environmental cleanup and space exploration; we need it to help us slash the costs, redundancies and time burden of mundane administrative processes; we need AI to scale up infrastructure maintenance and repair; we need AI for the computational analysis of complex systems like climate, genetics, agriculture and supply chains. We are in no danger of running out of important things for our machines to do.

    We are in danger of sleepwalking our way into a future where all we do is fail more miserably at being those machines ourselves. Might we be ready to wake ourselves up? In an era that rewards and recognizes only mechanical thinking, can humans still remember and reclaim what we are? I don’t think it is too late. I think now may be exactly the time.

    BY SHANNON VALLOR  - NoemaMag

    THỐNG KÊ TRUY CẬP
    • Đang online 6
    • Truy cập tuần 2119
    • Truy cập tháng 2998
    • Tổng truy cập 148421