Originally written as a creative commentary for the Politics and Artificial Intelligence course at the University of Amsterdam.
When Thomas Edison’s first lightbulb flashed to life in his lab in 1879, it marked the beginning of a new era in which human ingenuity triumphed over darkness. That flash of light hinted at a time when electricity would then permeate every part of our society and power it silently, much like air. We are currently experiencing another epochal transition, quite similar, this one signaled by the muted hum of data centers and the gentle light of computer screens: the age of artificial intelligence as a service (AIaaS).
The rise of AI is like when electricity was first invented: a flow of innovation that is about to burst into an ocean and will eventually seep into every aspect of our lives. The goal of AI is to make AI more accessible to all people by integrating it into our daily lives in the same way that turning on a light switch illuminates our surroundings. However, AI’s ripple effect across society contains the potential for both great benefit and serious peril, much as electricity’s current may both brighten and burn. It is an extraordinary tool, and placed in the wrong hands it can cause extraordinary disasters.
Techno-enthusiasm and techno-skepticism: one duality
AI is surrounded by a tangible optimism. We can see it by opening newspapers and reading that visionaries such as Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape, compare artificial intelligence to the philosopher’s stone in his “techno-optimist manifesto”, claiming it can turn even the most difficult issues into equations that can be solved. On this side of the river, AI techno-optimists predict a time when this technology would vanquish illness, put an end to hunger, and lift the spectre of poverty with the use of AI drones, smart assistants and algorithmic technologies, just like Edison’s lightbulb did for so many other shadows.
On the other hand, techno-pessimists see the evolution of AI like a river where at the beginning it ran under the powerful full control of a few big overlords of Silicon Valley down in the valley. However, its strength was no longer contained, and so it was dispersed into thousands of streams. Small waterways, free and dangerous, that cannot be controlled unless we live in a society of pervasive mass surveillance. These voices warn against the unchecked advancement of AI, evoking threats to democracy and even to humanity itself. Deepfakes and autonomous weaponry, the unsettling prospect of AI surpassing human intelligence: a bit like the movie “The Matrix” seems to predict in the scene where Morpheus tells how autonomous, sophisticated machines take over homo sapiens in the 21st century. Their worries are not unwarranted. History whispers of similar developments which stood at the crossroad between amazing energy and destructive weaponry: for instance, when atomic technology was first developed, and the atomic bomb that stemmed from it.
Takeaways
My takeaway is that we need to distance ourselves from the lure of the techno-utopians and the terror of the techno-apocalyptics. Utopia and dystopia are two sides of the same coin. It will certainly be necessary to seek a balance between two terms that today seem to be mutually exclusive: between acceleration, which is in itself unstoppable, and containment, which in itself is inapplicable because of those thousands of streams in which artificial intelligence is dispersing.
AI is in itself a new electricity that lights up the planet, and at the same time a new nuclear power capable of destroying it. But what it can truly become depends on our use of it as a tool, and on the search for this balance. Right now, in the public discourse, there is a strong polarity between acceleration and containment, utopia and dystopia. However, as I argued above, this duality is incorrect. Similar to how nuclear power has been used to power both electricity grids and weapons of mass destruction, AI will and can be used for both ends — yet it can be guided and regulated.
Therefore, it doesn’t have to be an either-or choice. The question is how: how can we (Europe, the world) safeguard against misuse? How can we put “digital walls” around the expansion of this technology (digitally and legislatively)? How can we promote digital multilateralism and consensus? The answer lies not within AI itself, but within us.
Bibliography
- Danaher, J. (2022). Techno-optimism: an Analysis, an Evaluation and a Modest Defence. Philosophy & Technology 35, 54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-022-00550-2
- Königs, P. (2022). What is Techno-Optimism? Philosophy & Technology 35(3), 63.