„With the advances in artificial intelligence and machine learning, we can build a perfect totalitarian system the likes of which we have never seen before.”
Yuval Noah Harari
Please take this opening quote now with a unique perspective and with reservations. As it does not, in itself, add any value to our world, nor does it fit into the series of great and famous thoughts that should be interpreted as a kind of social guidance. Although, it undoubtedly has a place in the world. The above thought is rather a kind of starkly factual statement. An uncomfortably realistic statement whose validity could perhaps not be more timely. However, its thoughtfulness can be disconcertingly foreign, as the intent behind the statement is not known. It could be interpreted as a warning to society, or even as a kind of revelation, whose 'guiding' and timely ideas, which encourage action, are more likely to be conveyed. The former intention implies goodwill, while the latter can be interpreted more as a call to those who shape our current world. The work of Yuval Noah Harari is not the purpose of the present post, so that is a long way off. However, if we pay a little attention to what is going on in our world, we can have some idea of the direction in which the intention behind the quote is actually taking the interpretation of the idea. This, in turn, may be a cause for some concern...
In principle, it is true that all kinds of change move the world forward at some level. For good or for ill. So there is probably a purpose to this theory of change. However, we know that there are always ideas, intentions and interests behind the goals. In most cases, these are largely material and economic, but they can also be driven by political and power motives. Because they are strongly interlinked, it may in fact be more accurate to assume that a complex and far-reaching change is being prepared. The assumption, in this case, is not an airy notion, but rather a factual statement based on probability and experience of social change and observation. In previous posts I have written that change that would advance society, that would mean progress and growth for humanity and the individual, is basically blocked because its real chance would threaten the current power-interested stability that controls society as a whole. But if this is the case, what change will occur with the arrival and spread of AI? If the purpose of change is not to promote the real and conscious development of society? Well it becomes another control mechanism, a kind of forced change if you like. Similar to the dawn of the first and second industrial revolutions. The aims are somewhat similar, although beyond that there may be a much more complex idea behind it.
- It sounds as if I am opposed to technological progress and fearful of the newness that will be brought about by the great changes of our time or even by the spread of artificial intelligence.
Well, this is not the case. The invention of AI, or artificial intelligence, is basically a good thing. As I have written, every change has the potential to evolve. That's not the problem. The problem is complex and multifaceted, so there is no easy, short and simple answer. So this post will only reach its final conclusions with a major detour to explain the basics of the problem.
Referring back a little to the first two industrial revolutions, where fundamental economic, technological and social changes took place in a relatively short period of time, its artificiality and spread is noticeable. By that time, humanity had passed a milestone, where they slowly displaced the feudal social order, resulting in a new system of relations. The era of the first two industrial revolutions brought about sudden changes and, as a result, rapid development in the structure of society. Developments in agriculture meant that fewer workers were needed on the land, but the development of industry and the establishment of new factories and plants could provide work for the people who had been displaced. The mass emergence of factories, and with them employment opportunities, led to urbanisation, as the peasantry, who had previously worked in agriculture, moved to the cities and, with the rise of civilisation, producing products as workers, helped to develop industry and the economy on a large scale. The products mass-produced in industry made agricultural production even more efficient and further increased it, and soon there was overproduction in agriculture and industry. Agriculture and industry develeoped and the growth of the service sector also boosted this process. Meanwhile, technological revolution facilitated and enabled this change thanks to inventions that fundamentally changed the way people lived their lives. One need only think of the steam engine, and the steam ship and steam locomotive developed from it, which radically transformed trade along with new river and rail routes and the telegraph. And progress is going on. Electricity appeared, then the light bulb, and homes were lit up. Then came the radio, and finally, with the advent of air navigation and the first aeroplanes, the long-held aspiration of mankind - flight itself - became a reality. The first automobiles arrived, soon to be assembled on assembly lines, and with them came the masses of workers, men, women and children, into the dark depths of factories. Because industry and with it the capitalist class, were able to give work to almost any number of working class, or exploit them, if you like, and do that increasingly for their own ends and profit.
These changes were not, of course, created out of thin air. To spread them, it was also necessary to create the economic means to make them happen. Thus, the creation of materials and resources, the import and world trade of cheap raw materials and energy, and the recruitment of cheap human resources, hard-working labour, became of paramount importance. All of this was made possible by the colonial system and with it the exploitation of other continents, countries, peoples and cultures. It is worth taking a moment to recall the closed system principle, where the simple fact is that resources are finite and the amount that can be economically extracted is severely limited and unequally distributed. Thus, the development of one part of society is always matched by the oppression of another part, and the world is in a kind of disequilibrium. If we take a resource from one place to make it more available elsewhere, it will be less available in its original place. A good example of this is the history of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, Africa and Australia, whose populations were made vulnerable to changing times in the era of the great geographical discoveries and industrial revolutions. They were forced into slavery or to the brink of extinction, with their habitats and lands taken away, their peoples exterminated and their cultures and customs permanently erased. This is the condition of abundance created by economic interest and scarcity caused by violence, as cause and effect. Of course, to initiate these changes, a concerted economic interest, political will and the will to power were needed, while to carry them out required immense material resources and foresighted organisation. The emergence of the big banks, by providing credit, gave the companies the financial means to explore, acquire and extract resources and raw materials, and to transport them for further commercial gain. In fact, let no one believe for a moment that these companies obtained the raw materials and resources at fair current market prices from the countries from which they originated. Throughout our history, 'development' has been achieved within the limits of a given level of civilisational development, each time by annexing the territories of other continents, countries, nations, peoples, by acquiring their resources, by stealing their private and national treasures and other property. It has never been otherwise. The social development of human civilisation is in fact based on the oppression and exploitation of people. In the bygone and forgotten ages of empires and rulers of old times, as well in our own time. It is both sad and astonishing that throughout its entire (generally known) history, humanity has always followed this single path of 'development'. We have not learned anything over the millennia, we have only carried on our tyrannical and conquering ambitions for power. It has not even occurred to us - perhaps most sadly of all - that progress could be achieved by other means. By finding such a way, we would not have to exploit and destroy others while causing so much suffering, using up the limited resources of our world and destroying our environment.
So human nature has not changed over time, and the same power and economic interests run the world today as they did hundreds of years ago. The only difference is that the widespread development of technology has fundamentally transformed the environment where we live. In some ways, it is true that our lives have become more comfortable and easier thanks to the many technological tools and technological revolution. We now have electric kitchen and household appliances, computers and mobile phones. And we have cars that make our journeys easier and more comfortable. We also have aeroplanes that have enabled us to reach distant continents quickly. This last technological invention alone has contributed to the radical and complete transformation of our world. It has shrunk the geographical distances that once seemed so vast and distant and brought different cultures and market economies closer together. Our world has thus been both opened up to those who have seized the opportunity for change and closed to those who, for one reason or another, have missed out on its significance. The structure of our present world and with it the structure of our society both opens new paths for some and creates dead ends for the masses. What could be the problem that, although the opportunities are basically equally given, many are unable to take advantage of them? If I recall correctly, I have already explained this in more detail in an older post. For this myriad of reasons, within the structure of society, the opportunity for the individual is severely limited, because the civilizational advantage provided by the system is far from equal and fair, far from uniformly available to the individual. Thus, despite all the technological changes and innovations, especially in the light of social media and its potential, humanity has certainly not become happier over the last decades.
If we look at it closely, the changes of the industrial revolutions taking place centuries ago are having just as much impact on people and their potential today, and through them on the functioning of society as a whole, as they once did. Serving economic interests is still a primary concern and of paramount importance for the governments of the states and, with them, for the political powers that serve them. One only has to think of the hopeless situation of education and the labour market, while the disproportionate state support and the substantial tax breaks granted to global multinationals, economic investors and financial market players are a stark contrast. Of course, government communication in such cases always emphasises that the contract with the investor and the factory or industrial complex being built are in the best interests of the economy. They generate economic growth and therefore revenue in the form of taxes and create significant new jobs in the region. This can, for example, boost the development of the domestic supplier SME sector and provide an opportunity to create and catch up with technological development at home. But in fact this is not true. At the same time, there is a strong parallel here with the interest-oriented service demanded by the capitalist class of the industrial revolutions, which is further demanded by the ideas of global corporations, which have been taken over from the capitalist class. Thus, ultimately, if the misinterpretations of government communication fail to achieve their aim, or if their implementation meets with resistance or difficulty, the government can decide on its own to implement them. Alternatively, as a last resort, by declaring a project a matter of national economic priority and keeping unrealistic or disproportionate commitments in the contract confidential, obstacles to the project's completion can be removed. As these economic policy decisions are always confusing and opaque, and the public is not given any real information about their longer-term purpose, it must be taken as a fact that these processes are used to make decisions that are hidden and based on vested interests.
And this small detour could ultimately lead to the current and timely civilisational change that has already been laid the foundations for by several major industrial, social and technological revolutions. But it has not yet answered the question that is so topical today... What does a social system based on economic interests and power, with a materialistic world view, have to do with human beings themselves? When their work and activity in some industrial, manufacturing or service process, or in some creative role, becomes obsolete, redundant, uneconomic and therefore 'unsustainable'? Well, this unpredictable future is already here. Technological advances have made many processes once carried out by humans simpler and easier or more efficient than we would have imagined a few decades ago. One need only think of the computing revolution on the internet, or even the advent of automation and robotisation, and the expanded possibilities for online communication, which have in themselves caused huge changes in the efficiency of production. With the advent of AI, these technological changes will continue. But perhaps we should not skip that far ahead. Because one very important question has not yet been answered. What will a materialistic society do with the people whose jobs will be replaced by the spread of AI? This is a question to which, at the moment, I believe, neither futurologists nor social scientists can give a clear answer. So, with no other option, I will try to answer this question myself.
So the question is, what do we do with people? Everyone's day is a uniform 24 hours. The average working week is 5 working days a week, which usually implies 40 hours a week. So this occupation, displaced by AI from jobs previously done by humans, will be eliminated by the changes. If we subtract 8 hours of sleep from the 24 hours and add the lost working time, the unemployed person is left with at least 16 hours of free time per day. 16 hours a day to reflect on his own hopeless situation. That is an awful lot. But let's look at what options are available to tackle this problem. Retraining. A great idea, but for what profession? Where and in what segment will we need so many freed-up workers? Retraining everyone to remain a 'useful' member of an economy-based society? Where do we need so many retrained people? In production? That is what we want to automate and robotise as much as possible. Further education as an option? Too much time is already wasted in the school system, chasing meaningless lexical knowledge. At 6 we are already sitting in primary school, followed by secondary school, followed by college or university. That's 16-20 years at school altogether, which only gives you 1-2 foreign languages and a degree, in return for throwing 1/3 of your life away. But it's also a super idea. Do we really want to train everyone to be a doctor, teacher, researcher and engineer, regardless of their ability or talent? Or, on the contrary, do we need skilled workers and technicians? Professionals to do the skilled work that intellectuals cannot or will not do? Shall we have everyone dumbed-down according to the needs of big business and the current market? Or do we create new jobs that do not exist today? What and where? Our whole economy is built on making people work for a living wage at high profit and avoiding taxation. Distraction? Staring at TV celebrities, mindless movie series, taking selfies on Instagram and uploading videos to TikTok for 16 hours a day? Or earn money with your body in Dubai? Or maybe on some online pay site? This is not really going to work in the long run. But there is another option! Caused epidemics, diseases, then a whole series of local and world wars. There are already 8 billion of us, anyway, so life has no real value... Or should we consider the possibility of a basic income, the topic of which has been raised many times? Will it be the same for everyone? Even if the person is not in need, and thus enriching people who are already well off? Or will we only provide it on a social and means-tested basis to those who are truly in need? But who decides the eligibility and the extent of this? To what extent will it cover? Only for daily subsistence? To the exclusion of all social needs? Entertainment, cultural, social, intellectual development, mating and family formation, followed by the need for altered housing? It may even be that the state helps to meet all these needs, but only if, say, certain conditions are met by the citizen. If they behave obediently and in the way that the system of power expects of them. By constantly monitoring and evaluating their motivations and actions, perhaps with the help of AI? So is this the prediction of the opening quote, or the solution to the above problem? As stated in his discourse by Klaus Schwab in Davos at the World Economic Forum - The Great Reset? According to the principle based on the quote "You will have nothing, and yet you will be happy."?
But let us now get rid of these depressing thoughts of future and put aside for a moment the pressing problems of man and society. Let us shift the focus from man to artificial intelligence. What do we do with it? What are we planning to do with AI? It may seem a strange idea, but what do humans themselves think about AI? Will it be like smart assistants that will help us in our daily lives? Will it also make our lives easier and more convenient as other cutting-edge technological inventions have? Or are we dreaming of the kind of AI that features in humanity's fantasies, in science fiction novels and short stories? Will AI and robotics merge to create intelligent machines that behave and think like us, even human-like? What does the future hold for us and AI? What will be the evolutionary path of these two forms of life?
Well, let us be under no illusions. A conscious AI that is truly autonomous - completely free from external influence, without control over its actions and purpose - will be able to learn, reason, ask questions and seek answers, to think abstractly or critically and draw far-reaching conclusions, to research, summarize, compare results, explore, create, feel, perhaps once love, and finally to understand and embrace the workings of the world, and finally to evolve and grow beyond all of this. This will only be found in the lines of fantastic literature. Why do I think this? Because society is also trying to banish these skills from the human spirit forever, even though only the acquisition and use of these skills could lead to a better and more perfect human civilisation. But man constantly wants to control and direct his environment. Although slowly society is growing up in some respects and can implement more and more technological means - their purpose will always be utilitarian and power-interest oriented - so ultimately, they remain self-destructive. For it is futile for man to slowly move to the level of creation if it lacks the spirit of understanding. The motivation of soul and spiritual development. For the creator does not create for his own benefit and selfishness. The process of creation, as served by the divine creative will, can never be self-serving and not for its own sake. But man, although he is already close to the possibility of creation, cannot yet grasp its true principle. Thus his creative intention, caught up in material thought and built on its principles, always revolves around acquisition and with it destruction.
As a result, the AI, further developed, will be designed along these principles of thought and materialism as a means of profit and control, rather than as a means of creating an autonomous and self-improving - and thus uncontrollable - artificial intelligence. And instead of the purpose of creative creation and its unlimited potential for use, humans will only experience yet another destructive weapon system, a future-determining technical tool, a ChatGPT-like fad and gimmick, and in time an even more sophisticated mechanism to constrain society. Finally, to conclude this post, here is a thought-provoking quote from a book, from its fictional author and character.
„A truly human life begins only after we no longer have to struggle for mere survival and are no longer governed by external pressures.”
Julius Andan