Do it for the machines

Using human creativity to solve the real problem.

También podés leer la versión en castellano.

In his article Towards a World of Humans and Machines (Hacia un mundo de humanos y máquinas, in the original Spanish), the Basque philosopher Daniel Innerarity discusses human/machine hybridization, a phenomenon he relates to Hodder's archaeological concept of “entanglement.” Innerarity uses the idea of “co-evolution” to describe the process by which the artificial environments our ancestors created over thousands of years are part of the “selective pressures” that led to the evolutionary development of some of our human abilities and biological characteristics. That is, the technologies we develop, the crops and animals we domesticate, the homes we build, and the societies we envision and create play an important role in our biological evolution.

In the essay, the philosopher also brings up Edward Lee's idea of “digital creationism,” which Lee uses to criticize the understanding of technological development as a “top-down” process, where humans have total control over design and outcome. To illustrate this, Professor Innerarity uses Alain’s boat analogy. In Darwinian terms, a poorly designed boat will sink after a couple of uses and be replaced with a newer, more efficient and effective design that will deal better with maritime conditions. With this in mind, it's reasonable to reach the conclusion that the sea, rather than a human, is designing the boat throughout its evolution. Consequently, technological outcomes are not fully controlled by a human designer.

That said, a view that considers the human and the technological realms as separate and discrete entities is incorrect. That which is human (“lo humano”) is a reality that is transformed by, and transforms, technology. In other words, humans and technology live in a hybridized relationship, without clear boundaries between one another, as a shared entity. Technology is embedded in the human experience, and vice versa. Wow! That was a lot of name-dropping, but it's pretty cool stuff, isn't it? Confronting us with reality in this way is why philosophy is at the heart of knowledge. How wonderful, and necessary, it is to have people looking toward the stars.

Ok, the stars are pretty, but what use is that to us? I'll tell you. Well, Innerarity will. Over the last few years, AI—with generative tools like ChatGPT—has made quite a splash. Debates over how AI could replace humans in highly qualified fields that were, up to now, unimaginable have surfaced and multiplied. In the conceptual framework we've just described, these debates are missing the point. Our relationship with technology is not zero-sum; it's a mutually symbiotic bond. Humans and technology co-evolve. Therefore, trying to replace humans with machines, or debating how we can stop such a replacement, is like spitting against the wind.

I believe what our friend Innerarity is trying to say is that, instead of thinking about which side will win in the confrontation, we are better off if we focus on how to complement each other. That is, how humans and technology can satisfactorily co-exist and co-evolve. Such an attitude would mean finding our complementary strengths and weaknesses. This requires shifting away from a utilitarian view of technology toward a view where technological outcomes are assessed against the goals for which they were developed, and where these outcomes are re-assessed based on the results of our shared evolution.

According to AI scholars such as Eric Siegel, although generative AI is a fascinating technology, the power of AI lies in its predictive capabilities. This, if anything, brings me hope. Generative AI is an extremely powerful tool to quickly generate plausible content—be it text, images, sound, or video. However, plausibility in fields like science and the arts, to name a couple, is not enough. Science requires refutable facts, not plausible gibberish. The arts, depending on how you define them, need creativity, innovation, maybe beauty. Even if you are of the opinion that contemporary society is currently struggling to be factual, creative, and innovative, these are skills humans have developed to a high degree throughout history.

On the other hand, prediction involves analyzing huge amounts of data and quickly making probabilistic computations. With the exception of people like Will Hunting, Matt Damon’s fictional character from the 1997 blockbuster Good Will Hunting, humans are not that good at these tasks. So, humans are great at creative problem solving, and AI is the most powerful calculator we've ever had. I don’t think we can get more complementary than that. With an understanding of how we complement each other, we can start solving problems. I propose we start with the easy ones: How do we make the world a better place?

We live in a consumer society, with growing inequality, a loss of a sense of community, and high levels of anxiety. What’s the cost? Depression, dissatisfaction, and a planet that is increasingly incapable of sustaining life as we know it. How can we fix that? Well, after the Second World War, redistribution efforts in wealthy nations brought better living conditions to a growing middle class that prospered for the following two to three decades. Granted, that growth and wealth brought many of the problems we just listed. But was redistribution to improve the lives of millions of people the problem? I don’t think so. I’d argue the problem was caused by the philosophical approach of growth and happiness through consumption.

So, I’m proposing good old-fashioned redistribution to solve all our problems. What does AI have to do with anything? Well, maybe we can use the power of predictive AI to calculate how different distribution models impact consumption. The goal is to find distributive frameworks that reduce consumption, inequality levels, and negative environmental externalities, while increasing happiness, well-being, our sense of community, and our willingness to cooperate. How do you like them apples?

Great, the power of predictive AI can process amounts of data and make calculations we couldn't have dreamed of a decade or two ago. But how do you calculate if happiness, well-being, and a sense of community have increased? That’s pretty fuzzy stuff. Dare I say, creative stuff—the stuff we said humans are good at: creative problem solving. If we want to use machines to calculate these things, us humans have to define them. In a few words, the proposal is for humans to define happiness and well-being, and for AI to predict how different distributive models increase them in a way that also limits conflict and environmental degradation to sustainable levels. Once we find a distributive model that hits the sweet spot, implement it. Easy.

However, that’s a hell of a problem to tackle. Although humans are wonderfully creative, we're also terribly subjective. My idea of happiness and well-being may be depressing and hellish to my neighbors. A good illustration of this is the 2022 French-Spanish co-produced As Bestas. The movie, based on real events, takes place in the Galician outback and portrays a typical conflict between neighbors. On the one hand, a well-educated French environmentalist, an outsider who wants to rebuild a dilapidated village through sustainable farming and renovating old homes. On the other hand, the family next door, who have lived in the same village for generations, tired of living in poverty and with no future, want to sell the land to the energy company that wants to build wind turbines on it—with the environmental impact that has. To sell, all the neighbors have to agree, and, as you could expect, the environmentalist doesn’t. Here lies the problem: for one, the idea of happiness and well-being is a sustainable future with a sense of community; for the other, it’s an escape from poverty and access to the opportunities money buys. In case you haven’t seen the movie, I won't spoil how they creatively solved the problem.

As you can see, the problem is difficult. Almost impossible. And it can't be solved by technology because it's philosophical. But if we want to continue living on this planet together, it's unavoidable. Therefore, we need to start fulfilling our end of the bargain, putting all of our creative energy into figuring out how we want to live together in a way that has a future that is feasible and desirable for all of us. If we do our part, we can then use technology not to reach the destination but to help us figure out if we are on the right path. So let's get to work. If you don't want to do it for your fellow neighbor, do it for the machines—their survival and evolution depend on it.