"I am pessimistic that generative AI can do anything more than produce good things accidentally, while remaining essentially destructive of some of the most important pieces of our humanity."
You're in good company with that outlook. Just last week, Bishop Erik Varden (the one and the same, interestingly, whom Pope Leo appointed to lead his Lenten retreat) threw out this zinger:
"I'm afraid that, if I may express my own nihilism now, that in terms of spirituality I have absolutely no hopes at all for AI."
As always, wonderful imagery in this week's post ("...scorched earth Butlerian jihad...") š Eagerly awaiting the encyclical and its personal challenges- but coming from the place of cautious optimism instead of the Franciscan approach.
The idea that "what mass-scale food processing has done to human health and agriculture" represents something negative is quite the take. It seems very clear that life is much better when food is cheap and plentiful and most people don't have to be farmers.
The AI as a tool argument always falls flat to me, because it is not just an object that exists in and of itself. It uses electricity, driving up costs which are unduly put on the poor. It uses water, which is becoming scarce globally. It steals from actual human beings, taking their creation without credit. And it is unleashing new horrors of sexual abuse.
If there was a hammer and someone said, "Oh this hammer is so great, it makes building things so easy!" but all those things that come with AI came with using the hammer, I wouldn't want to use it.
I will be disappointed if this doesnāt have straight condemnations of things like transhumanisn, mass unemployment, wealth inequality, this rhetoric of ābeing left behindā. Leo has the worldās attention right now and can define his papacy with the right words. If it can be summarized as āuse AI for good purposes and not for bad ones,ā even if it is true, it will be a missed opportunity to actually make an impact.
JD, I confess my ignorance - what do you mean by ābutlerianā? I do understand mistrusting AI based upon experience with autocorrect, which replaced butlerian with Bulgarian in the preceding sentence before I fixed it.
I'm always debating in my head whether it's fair to say whether things are better or worse after each significant change in human technology that leads to some amount of social reordering. When I look historically (which can only do so much, since history, I think, is better understood as an art than a science), what really strikes me is human adaptability. It's sounds trite, but it really just seems like after each change, some things get better, some things get worse, and mostly...the human condition kind of stays the same. It becomes normal, and we continue to be happy and miserable in similar measure. From the agricultural revolution to the internet--gunpowder and mechanized production and molecular chemistry--we make leaps in some aspect (less disease after the industrial revolution, for example, or less starvation) but also we lose ground on other aspects (the industrial revolution destroyed the 'kin' structure of family and produced unnatural nuclearization, for example, and introduced all manner of opportunities to abuse human dignity).
Part of me is alarmist about AI. Part of me is optimistic. The most reasonable part of me just sighs and says, "Here we go again. Some things better, some things worse, the human condition stays the same."
My tendency is to think in terms of the underlying technology, not so much specific applications. So the atom bomb is a specific application of molecular/submolecular chemistry. That same technology led to the atom bomb, chemical weapons, and euthanasia (awful) as well as modern medicine (largely an unequivocal good), for example.
So with AI, I'm thinking in terms of large-language models and complex predictive programming as the technological subject. The possible evils I think are often obvious, with many more insidious ones following in the legacy of the internet's effects. As for the optimistic side, obviously I can only speculate, but: the ability of the models to quicken vital research; to synthesize and systematize the absolute ocean of data that the advent of the computer/internet opened and make it actually usable; to streamline the whitecollar bloat tasks that were introduced after the industrial revolution; to support more individualized or differentiated education.
But don't get me wrong. My natural tendency is not to be optimistic about this, or many of the other revolutions. I'm about as bearish on the industrial revolution as a person can reasonably be, for example. But I see that, somehow I grew up in a post-industrial revolution world and I'm doing okay, and I also have never seen humanity ever even come close to successfully putting the toothpaste back in the tube--or, honestly, even to resist squeezing the toothpaste out in the first place--so I'm not inclined to think we'll start now. My main question is "How do we adapt to these changes as effectively and productively as possible?". Or, put otherwise, "What can we do now to minimize damage and maximize benefit later?"
The situation in Louisiana has me feeling like I could use a primer in what Diocesan Offices need / should disclose to parishes and when they don't have to explain anything. We have a current situation in my parish where our pastor was just suspended. The Bishop's letter said he did nothing illegal or immoral (good to know). Speculation involves differing views about how the bishop vs the pastor feel the church funds are to be spent - which seems an odd reason for a suspension. I understand obedience to the bishop, but with the priest shortage, the parishioners are left confused while retired priest fill in the vacancy. One person suggested there may be legal reasons the Bishop's office is not more forthcoming with information. The Bishop's letter mentioned Cannon Law so many times I almost sent it to the Pillar for interpretation:) Maybe it is just the "American" in me that wants more explanations and transparency. So if there is ever a slow news cycle, make us Pillar readers smarter in the nebulous way of the hierarchy.
Hey JD, solid newsletter, as always. As regards AI, I am both as pessimistic as you (nearly?) in the negative it will bring but less āthe sky is falling.ā
Could be Iām just apathetic at this point, but fallen humanity has seriously abused every technology that has come out, especially leaps in technology. The printing press, dynamite, industrialization, nuclear power, and the internet all have been used to bring about catastrophic results, morally speaking.
I guess that maybe Iām just not convinced this one is the one that is gonna be so different itās sui generis.
I guess my view can be summed up by James Francoās āFirst Time?ā Meme from the Ballad of Buster Scruggs lol.
Since everyone seems to be in the "AI bad" camp, I'll throw in some food for though in the "AI has drastically improved my quality of life" camp. I work in the medical field and recently started using AI to do my notes. It records my conversations and then writes my notes for me. So now instead of spending 4-5 hours a day doing notes (in addition to actually working with patients), it takes me maybe an hour. This is a huge stress reliever (I was seriously considering my options of new jobs so I could get out of the medical field all together) and now I have that time to spend with patients instead of just documenting all the time. AI improved my quality of life and gave me more time and energy for human interactions. And I no longer want to quit my job. Now extrapolate this to the rest of the medical field because I am not alone; burnout and early retirement has been a big problem in recent years in the medical field.
"I am pessimistic that generative AI can do anything more than produce good things accidentally, while remaining essentially destructive of some of the most important pieces of our humanity."
You're in good company with that outlook. Just last week, Bishop Erik Varden (the one and the same, interestingly, whom Pope Leo appointed to lead his Lenten retreat) threw out this zinger:
"I'm afraid that, if I may express my own nihilism now, that in terms of spirituality I have absolutely no hopes at all for AI."
Worth reading the whole interview: https://dcgary.org/news/bishop-varden-hope-ai-patience-and-not-weaponizing-christianity
As always, wonderful imagery in this week's post ("...scorched earth Butlerian jihad...") š Eagerly awaiting the encyclical and its personal challenges- but coming from the place of cautious optimism instead of the Franciscan approach.
The idea that "what mass-scale food processing has done to human health and agriculture" represents something negative is quite the take. It seems very clear that life is much better when food is cheap and plentiful and most people don't have to be farmers.
That would be a very, very fair criticism of the image if I were talking about advancements in agriculture.
But ultraprocessing -- which is what I'm aiming to point out here -- is a horse of a sickly color.
Perhaps I didn't make that clear enough.
What does that label mean and how do you know what it does to people?
I think it's clear enough. The well-known saga of hydrogenated soybean oil alone justifies caution.
The AI as a tool argument always falls flat to me, because it is not just an object that exists in and of itself. It uses electricity, driving up costs which are unduly put on the poor. It uses water, which is becoming scarce globally. It steals from actual human beings, taking their creation without credit. And it is unleashing new horrors of sexual abuse.
If there was a hammer and someone said, "Oh this hammer is so great, it makes building things so easy!" but all those things that come with AI came with using the hammer, I wouldn't want to use it.
I will be disappointed if this doesnāt have straight condemnations of things like transhumanisn, mass unemployment, wealth inequality, this rhetoric of ābeing left behindā. Leo has the worldās attention right now and can define his papacy with the right words. If it can be summarized as āuse AI for good purposes and not for bad ones,ā even if it is true, it will be a missed opportunity to actually make an impact.
JD, I confess my ignorance - what do you mean by ābutlerianā? I do understand mistrusting AI based upon experience with autocorrect, which replaced butlerian with Bulgarian in the preceding sentence before I fixed it.
The Butlerian Jihad is an all out war between humans and Thinking Machines in the Dune universe.
That kind of Jihad would have me turning the āAllahu Akbarā up to 11.
Thank you.
I'm always debating in my head whether it's fair to say whether things are better or worse after each significant change in human technology that leads to some amount of social reordering. When I look historically (which can only do so much, since history, I think, is better understood as an art than a science), what really strikes me is human adaptability. It's sounds trite, but it really just seems like after each change, some things get better, some things get worse, and mostly...the human condition kind of stays the same. It becomes normal, and we continue to be happy and miserable in similar measure. From the agricultural revolution to the internet--gunpowder and mechanized production and molecular chemistry--we make leaps in some aspect (less disease after the industrial revolution, for example, or less starvation) but also we lose ground on other aspects (the industrial revolution destroyed the 'kin' structure of family and produced unnatural nuclearization, for example, and introduced all manner of opportunities to abuse human dignity).
Part of me is alarmist about AI. Part of me is optimistic. The most reasonable part of me just sighs and says, "Here we go again. Some things better, some things worse, the human condition stays the same."
I appreciate that. Would you give me the argument for the optimistic side? What will be better?
Not being smarmy, by the way. Genuinely curious what you think.
And what about technologies like the atom bomb, which are only for the worse?
My tendency is to think in terms of the underlying technology, not so much specific applications. So the atom bomb is a specific application of molecular/submolecular chemistry. That same technology led to the atom bomb, chemical weapons, and euthanasia (awful) as well as modern medicine (largely an unequivocal good), for example.
So with AI, I'm thinking in terms of large-language models and complex predictive programming as the technological subject. The possible evils I think are often obvious, with many more insidious ones following in the legacy of the internet's effects. As for the optimistic side, obviously I can only speculate, but: the ability of the models to quicken vital research; to synthesize and systematize the absolute ocean of data that the advent of the computer/internet opened and make it actually usable; to streamline the whitecollar bloat tasks that were introduced after the industrial revolution; to support more individualized or differentiated education.
But don't get me wrong. My natural tendency is not to be optimistic about this, or many of the other revolutions. I'm about as bearish on the industrial revolution as a person can reasonably be, for example. But I see that, somehow I grew up in a post-industrial revolution world and I'm doing okay, and I also have never seen humanity ever even come close to successfully putting the toothpaste back in the tube--or, honestly, even to resist squeezing the toothpaste out in the first place--so I'm not inclined to think we'll start now. My main question is "How do we adapt to these changes as effectively and productively as possible?". Or, put otherwise, "What can we do now to minimize damage and maximize benefit later?"
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I'd like it though if we could ask:
"How do we adapt to these changes as wisely and prudently as possible?"
but often it seems that's not even a consideration.
The atom bomb has led to a sharp drop in war deaths as a percentage of population, which before 1945 was unhappily quite constant over millennia.
The situation in Louisiana has me feeling like I could use a primer in what Diocesan Offices need / should disclose to parishes and when they don't have to explain anything. We have a current situation in my parish where our pastor was just suspended. The Bishop's letter said he did nothing illegal or immoral (good to know). Speculation involves differing views about how the bishop vs the pastor feel the church funds are to be spent - which seems an odd reason for a suspension. I understand obedience to the bishop, but with the priest shortage, the parishioners are left confused while retired priest fill in the vacancy. One person suggested there may be legal reasons the Bishop's office is not more forthcoming with information. The Bishop's letter mentioned Cannon Law so many times I almost sent it to the Pillar for interpretation:) Maybe it is just the "American" in me that wants more explanations and transparency. So if there is ever a slow news cycle, make us Pillar readers smarter in the nebulous way of the hierarchy.
Please. An explainer would help immensely.
The motion has been made and seconded. I will third it.
Great reporting...even if you're just an internet newsletter
So true JD the Nihilist. If even those with sacramental lives have trouble fighting concupiscence, how much more for people without
Hey JD, solid newsletter, as always. As regards AI, I am both as pessimistic as you (nearly?) in the negative it will bring but less āthe sky is falling.ā
Could be Iām just apathetic at this point, but fallen humanity has seriously abused every technology that has come out, especially leaps in technology. The printing press, dynamite, industrialization, nuclear power, and the internet all have been used to bring about catastrophic results, morally speaking.
I guess that maybe Iām just not convinced this one is the one that is gonna be so different itās sui generis.
I guess my view can be summed up by James Francoās āFirst Time?ā Meme from the Ballad of Buster Scruggs lol.
Since everyone seems to be in the "AI bad" camp, I'll throw in some food for though in the "AI has drastically improved my quality of life" camp. I work in the medical field and recently started using AI to do my notes. It records my conversations and then writes my notes for me. So now instead of spending 4-5 hours a day doing notes (in addition to actually working with patients), it takes me maybe an hour. This is a huge stress reliever (I was seriously considering my options of new jobs so I could get out of the medical field all together) and now I have that time to spend with patients instead of just documenting all the time. AI improved my quality of life and gave me more time and energy for human interactions. And I no longer want to quit my job. Now extrapolate this to the rest of the medical field because I am not alone; burnout and early retirement has been a big problem in recent years in the medical field.