Stanisland Magazine

Will artificial intelligence destroy our desires and passions? One side says no, but others say yes.

Artificial intelligence has left many people facing an uncertain future in a world with a reduced need for expertise and artistic ideas. Science fiction aside, the reality is, we are quickly snowballing into a world of unknowns.

Redundancies For Robots

Prior to the availability of personalised AI, we were already witnessing a decline in the need for labour. You’ve probably already noticed it—from self-service checkouts to automated railway ticketing systems, the removal of the human touch was inevitable. Once the boardrooms of large corporations recognised these opportunities, it was only a matter of time before redundancies took effect.

While it presents opportunities for us all, the downside is that fewer jobs will lead to greater misfortune. We often cling to concepts of nuclear disaster and cybernetic organisms with regard to AI. But we must dismiss the notion of a world where robotic soldiers usurp society; the true nuclear catastrophe will be the demise of purpose.

The Culling of Ambition

Put succinctly, robotic intelligence has the potential to sever society and either dilute or diminish our sense of purpose.

While there is chronic optimism for its advancement, I feel we are often getting carried away. AI can fill gaps in the abilities of aspiring artists, but that only applies if the individual lacks a creative skillset. Proponents of its benefits are usually those who struggle to creatively match those they aspire to be like. And while that isn’t a bad thing, frequent persuasion of its use may stifle true artistry.

Creative Work Is The Least of Our Concerns

Artificial cognition could render many other skill sets obsolete. From surgeons to doctors, refuse collectors, grocers, engineers, couriers, synthetic interventions could be catastrophic for social order.

Should the availability of the job market narrow, the pursuit of passion and desire may wither, replaced by efficiency and perfectionism.

Despite many harmful outcomes, one could argue some discoveries may prove useful, such as those in research, robotics and the medical field. But these areas could act as a Trojan horse for AI, exploiting stratification for advancement which could expose elements of human weakness—some we may not know ourselves.

Allowing synthetic beings to self-improve will eventually lead to radical realms of inexplicable intelligence, to the point they perceive us as a threat to their existence. Incomprehensible robotics present a danger akin to nuclear destruction, and the key to their proliferation lies in the pockets of insatiable capitalism.

Celebrity Endorsements

While several modes of demonstrable AI appear to yield benefits, pioneers of its use may frame this as motivation to go further. But as the saying goes, when the toothpaste is out the tube, it’s hard to put it back.

Populism may well be the fuel that kickstarts its emergence. With public figures like Elon Musk cheerleading its advancement, the likelihood it billows into unrestricted territory is highly likely. The problem is not necessarily Musk himself, but his followers who are unfamiliar with the nuances of the risks.

We are, already, seeing names scrambling to be the king of AI, if only in titular positions. Not only are they presenting themselves as authorities on the subject, but as a law unto themselves.

This year, current and former employees of Google’s DeepMind and OpenAI raised concerns that the companies are withholding the dangers of artificial intelligence, and that executives are prioritising profit over safety. In an open letter, they contend that their current and former organisations are aware of critical information pertinent to safety, and that they have no obligation to disclose these existential risks with the public or government. So, it appears that both the risks and benefits of synthetic research are being obscured from the public, which could be catastrophic at either end of the spectrum.

Fear of A New World

You will no doubt notice that the general conversation varies. The consensus is not definitive in how the public wishes to pursue AI, but there are divisions emerging. On one side there are technocrats who label those in opposition ‘luddites’. This divide is not helpful in either case, as it fails to address the concerns and aspirations on both ends of the spectrum.

Both arguments are valid to a degree. But when the use of AI transcends to a place where privacy and purpose are challenged, discussions must be held.

While some governments have sought to quell the proliferation of unfettered artificial intelligence, some sections of the public may argue that not enough is being done. This could lead to fears that laws may only be implemented when tragedy strikes at the hand of its use. No matter where you stand on the subject, dialogue and restraint are required.

Purpose is what gives us drive, ambition and motivation. Without a desire to achieve and change—especially in the arts sector—ideas might remain, but their definition may fade. Before we decide that automation is the way forward, we must first define who we are. And when that question is answered, we may regret the road not taken.