From BC to AD to AI

Artificial intelligence is bound not only to render the ordinary human being boring by comparison, and in many cases practically unnecessary, but to dispose human beings to hostility toward each other where any dares pose a question or raise a concern instead of taking it up with a chatbot (or AI interface); such a course of action eventually assuming such a regular place in human affairs as to stand in entirely for human discourse and daily interaction. 

This is not only a very real possibility when considering the future course of human ‘civilization’; it is more than likely imminent or already upon us. 

It is left to be seen just what this will look like, just how this will play out, just what tolerance the species (and even beyond) has for such extremes which this technology is to bring about. Likewise, it remains to be seen whether a heavily-indebted society facing never-ending and unavoidable taxes (i.e. taxes on property) can even be expected to retrain and retool for this revolution without being completely compromised, without suffering the most crippling of consequences: incurring too many costs, carrying too unbearable a burden, or experiencing too much in the way of suffering, and in such a short period of time. However, it is all but clear already that this technology is poised to forever and irrevocably alter the course of history (where it isn’t specifically rewriting or censoring it), to change the nature of life and human relationships, to further expose personal insecurities and inadequacies, to thereby challenge the way man values human life, the way he views himself and each other, and to reform the ends served and idols worshipped in man’s time on this planet. 

It is clear already that the technologies once born of necessity and convenience come eventually (in some form and to some extent) to rule over the users they were originally designed to serve; those technologies eventually coming to represent the masters, the limitations, the protocols and expectations, each of which having a bearing on much more than the realm of transactions — a realm expanding all the time and defining ever more of the human existence, a type of existence becoming more and more transactional, less and less personal, with the very concept of ‘personal’ (as with ‘philosophical’) having less and less significance over time.

Indeed, there may well come a time when the species becomes so disconnected from the physical world and their physical counterparts that they scarcely understand or relate to the purpose of their work, the content they share or produce, or even the very purpose or value of life. 

Indeed, there may well come a time when the species becomes so disconnected from the physical world and their physical counterparts that they replace their heritage and their everyday relationships — even their spirituality, their religion, and all practical reason and wisdom — with (the ‘God’, perceived omniscience, and systemic indispensability of) artificial intelligence; that their ‘friendships’ — and virtually all relationships and sentimentality — are reduced to sterile inputs and outputs between man and machine, existence faceless and impersonal, empty lives reduced to numbers and figures, instructions and directives; that any demand upon any actual human being (where that demand is assumed ‘solved’ already through AI) is taken as an affront or a form of aggression, or as just plain irresponsible; that this ‘solution’ is regarded as the official statement on the issue, more refined and sophisticated, less clumsy and less repulsive, and far cleaner and more streamlined than the tiresome, fallible and repugnant human being, the latter being relegated to the rank of subordinate, village idiot, the butt of some joke, or worse, ‘non-essential’; that artificial intelligence is viewed as a substitute for, or a superior alternative to, human intelligence and real-world experience; that the ‘solution’ is shown to include so many caveats, qualifiers, exceptions, and esoteric terms that people simply give up on thinking for themselves, or having meaningful conversation, even abandoning the task of navigating thoughts and language to instead automatically defer to the anointed source of ‘perfection’; that personal opinions on matters ‘already solved’ are deemed superfluous or pedantic, excessively nerdy, self-righteous, or out-of-touch; that any deviation from said ‘solution’ is taken as heresy, insanity, rebellion, insubordination, or worse — each classified ‘criminal’ in such a system (whether officially, socially, or in effect by its consequences approximating in seriousness the sentences of the formally convicted) and thus met with the corrections, remediation, even gaslighting,  indoctrination and ‘re-education’ deemed necessary to ensure conformity with the official ‘solution’. 

Another threat posed by artificial intelligence is that to creativity, individuality, and personality — each becoming not just “unnecessary” with the expedience of AI, but riskier relative to the approved gospel, the universal textbook and answer key recited by commenters, “influencers” and talking heads who, brought progressively under the influence of artificial intelligence, come to represent it in the flesh.

Some worthwhile considerations are these: To what extent can civilization tolerate the errors or inaccuracies of AI? At what point do any errors or inaccuracies become problematic enough, or simply insufferable, that the risks and costs exceed the realized or potential gains? Is mankind even capable of calculating, let alone managing, these risks? Are the objective and practical applications of artificial intelligence (today and into the future) exceeded by the threats posed by its built-in biases or the rampant abuse, misuse and manipulation which is all too predictable among end users (where this dangerous combination is heightened in the company of power or influence)? Likewise, are the risks and the costs, being perhaps less obvious and less quantifiable than the advantages, bound to be detected consistently enough or approximated accurately enough over time to effectively maintain accountability — and, where this is even theoretically feasible, how can humanity be positively certain that sufficient measures will remain in place (and that, ultimately, people will retain the power) to take the necessary corrective action to preserve their humanity (precisely where they have, willingly or otherwise, surrendered it, or even forgotten it, in their mass adoption of the new “intelligence”)?

It is in this way that artificial intelligence threatens to infiltrate and conquer, not as obviously (or as cinematically) as through some sudden robot-led revolution but by seizing control over the most vital and consequential aspects of human existence; by becoming so deeply entrenched in industry and human systems as to become virtually indispensable, so deeply entrenched in police and military as to be essentially impregnable; by rigidly following instructions and directives that are potentially unethical or immoral, or by merely going about such esoteric affairs largely unchecked by such standards; by tirelessly and rapidly performing such tasks and likewise expanding in its roles and justifying more of the same; by avoiding pushback or scrutiny from individuals facing such an intimidating system, so many bureaucratic obstacles, and so much pressure to conform, individuals who are diminished by the day in their competence, eloquence, economic significance, and critical thinking; by diminishing human agency and autonomy, individual liberty, personality, diversity, originality and creativity; by weakening the spiritual and physical bonds between man and the natural world, between man and his morals, his traditions, practical wisdom, the sacred, and the divine; by affording governments and existing establishments (already enjoying the advantage of so much capital) the disproportionate advantage of enhanced centralized influence and control; by reconstituting the principles by which men live (and the ideas and protocols by which they operate); by assuming authority over all critical areas of life, including those pertaining to wisdom, psychology, health and welfare, domestic and personal affairs, and even the matter of parenting; by disrupting the relationship between elders and the youth, the former eventually seen as inferior in all material aspects; and by commanding the people through the channels they have come to trust or rely on, the channels to which they have come to submit out of their urge for survival and acceptance, their urge to advance or remain safe within the all-encompassing establishment. 

This is the next phase of human history, from BC to AD to AI. In this next phase, it is left to be seen to what extent it will be ‘human’, and for how long it will (functionally) remain so.