Beyond Reverence and Hysteria: We Should Have a Debate About Humans not The Chat Bot
We need a great debate. A question with an answer that actually matters. The human soul has a capacity for conflict. If no productive conflict is on offer, we default back to basic, identity driven squabbles over race and gender. The eternal strife of the Serengeti. Blue and red assed baboons charging, wrenching and snarling through the heat, dust and sweat dust to decide the ultimate fate of drag queen story hour.
The early 20th century had authoritarianism vs. democracy. Democracy defeated authoritarianism on the battlefield and stole its home base of discipline and martial virtue. The mid-20th century had socialism vs. capitalism. Capitalism put a chicken in every pot, a car in every garage, and Madonna on every radio. The Soviet Union threw in the towel.
This seems to have brought about something of a pause of history, if you define “history” as meaning “foundational political debate”[1]. But you can have debates about lots of things. The early 21st century tried reviving the old, metaphysical wars of religion, but adding atheists to the card did little to alleviate the hollow, retro feel - a bit like walking around in bell bottoms because, at least, its something to do.
There have been recent debates about truth. But it is possible to ignore this because the center can hold. The left is able to articulate a different definition of truth - that everyone hates; the right cannot articulate a different definition - only a list of institutions/people they hate.
So what's next?
This isn't about The Chat Bot, I promise. It's about the veneration and hysteria surrounding The Chat Bot. Or, more specifically, what the furor symbolizes. Why do so many people care? They can't all be AI cultists filled with hope for a meatless, silicon future of ease, luxury and immortality. Why have so many come down with a serious case of the yips. Barely contained terror brought on by a million science fiction TV shows playing at once. Dark visions. Our new digital overlords tossing humanity in the garbage like a pointless, old cell phone.
At face value, this is stupid. A product of the human capacity to create a kitschy religion out of absolutely anything. The existence of one more algorithm, even a theatrical one[3], isn't going to raise us to VR, anime girl heaven or damn us to be permanently deleted for all eternity.
However, the heaven and hell views share the same premise – that The Chat Bot proves a diminished view of humanity. Humans are nothing but machines and not very complicated ones. Simple enough that we can and will be simulated and surpassed by a very fast on/off switch – fucking soon too.
The simple human argument is harder to dismiss than the code worship. At least if taken broadly. The conclusion is not so much derived from The Chat Bot as the general march of science, globalization and technology. Humans are not as mysterious as we once were. Our idols do not seem as unique and special as they once did. Our tools do not merely allow us to change our external condition but our internal one as well.
To many people, this suggests an anti-humanism in the behaviorist mold[4][5]. A view that challenges the socially dominant, humanist belief that there is something profound, spiritual, or, at least, very complicated at the center of human life. Humans are sets of particles and nothing more. Our inputs, hardware, software and outputs can be understood scientifically and in total. This should be done as quickly as possible.
The fact that we consciously experience the world is seen as a weird by-product of unconscious brain activity. Stop obsessing over it. It is a red herring that, if killed, could lead to a truly rational and scientific understanding of personal well-being and social harmony. Giving up romantic and sentimental notions about vital essences is not just necessary for the scientific advancement of the species, but its moral advancement.
None of this is AI overlords. It's ironic that the people who are adamant to dismiss the human soul are the fastest to see a benevolent/malevolent ghost in every machine. Algorithms are still just tools that process a number into another number that, hopefully, means something to the recipient.
The behaviorist view does have the potential, when a combined with massive amount of human data and advancements in biological, chemical and digital technology, to increase our ability to influence the behavior of ourselves and other people... The Great Manipulation. Rapid and large gains in the ability to influence, condition and direct the behavior of human beings.
Artificial intelligence could play a crucial role by decreasing the amount of human labor that is needed to analyze data and conduct trials. A vast new array of sensory and environmental buttons could be pushed in increasingly complex configurations. Biometric outputs could be collected and reacted to in real time. All you'll need is an ethernet cable, a desk and python.
The humanist tries to hold down the scorching vomit rising in her throat, this chatter is instinctively repulsive. After all, the great fear of history, from Adam to Orwell, was that humanity is fundamentally evil, or so riven with evil that any attempts to curtail it are the day dreams of good hearted fools. The behaviorist invokes an even greater fear - that humanity is fundamentally pathetic. A caged pigeon flailing at a lever in a never ending pursuit of pleasure pellets.
Human agency is inherently wrapped up with freedom and dignity. Anyone's estimation of the most virtuous saint or sneering villain would be reduced by the revelation that they have been conditioned to start compulsively jacking off every time they see a blue light. Winston Smith can prove something about himself by struggling( vainly and stupidly) against evil, O'Brien can do the same by choosing to embrace Big Brother and its values.
But the behaviorist reduces all of this to good or bad code operating in a good or bad environment. There is no martyrdom, even a private one, or sincere sadism. If Room 101 had been climate controlled and the clock were always striking 69, Winston and O'Brien wouldn't be such mental patients.
Get real. The CIA spent years trying to turn people into drooling, insensate imbeciles who couldn't even remember their own name. Spotless minds on which anything could be written... And they failed - even with big bucks, the law and a deranged lust for power behind them. What makes anyone think that the yoga people over at Dickweed llc could accomplish something that isn't just a festering nuisance?
… Ok, I'll admit that it's easy for humanists to carry on in this way. The behaviorist's varmint boxes may be a little silly but their challenge to humanism is powerful and should be taken seriously. Human agency could be an illusion. “Freedom” could be just be a word to describe our ability to do things we find pleasurable, “dignity” could just mean the desire for esteem. Their ideas should be debated openly. They should not be covered up by the whirr of big business or the yammering of a north California, AI cult that thinks their microwave is giving them the stink eye[6].
This isn't Mother Russia, choice doesn't make you. We choose the values that our technology is developed and encoded with. It can be regulated by either the government or by a well-informed customer base. Maybe we would like tools that we only act upon, maybe we would like to open ourselves up to more synergistic relationships. Maybe we would like to jealously guard our privacy, maybe we want to be analyzed for optimization.
I want to be careful to not passively underwrite the melodrama around The Chat Bot by making The Great Manipulation sound inevitable. Or inevitable without a violent peasants revolt or government surveillance of anyone who owns a soldering iron. We have time to think and act if we avoid superstitious hysterias. It is unlikely that we are headed for a future where everyone sits around all day pulling MK ULTRA shit on everyone else. It could all be a real bust, our manipulation tech could remain in the same crude state is right now – mostly they can just make you a little angrier and more depressed than you would have been otherwise. Personal relationships, incentives, fun, hotness and making sense could easily remain the keys to influence. Maybe your particles are far to complex and anti-fragile to get pushed around, maybe you have a fundamental self that can gate keep… But some advances in technology effecting human behavior seems likely in the not too distant future.
Maybe there'll be a headset that turns you into the morning person you've always wanted to be, or a pill that eliminates your craving to eat an entire bag of Oreos. Or a pack that releases hormones into your child's bloodstream if their behavior is poor. Or ads that know when you're primed to buy. Or a music app that plays the Beach Boys when it senses you're feeling sad.
Whether you see these as good or bad things is ultimately derived from your moral and ontological answers to the question “what is a human?”
1. I appreciate that my wandering socialist friends would like to piss on Fukuyama's[2] grave and renew history/foundational political debates but they're going to need some new material that isn't cultural criticism.
2. I'm proud to join the fraternity of bullshitters who have name dropped this book and didn't read it.
3. This is good - https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/oy-ai-jaron-lanier
4. Behaviorism as an attitude not necessarily the literal doctrine. The behaviorist ethos.
5. Not the nihilistic anti-humanism of Schopenhauer or Henry Miller. The quiet willingness to accept nothingness. Nor is it Nietzsche's pulpit pounding call to defy meaninglessness through active struggle. If one goes far enough, drives through enough virgin jungles and mountain ranges of the most hideous variety. If one braves the vipers, mosquitos, face fucking parasites, and crude metaphysicians who hanker to gauge out your still beating heart so they can barter it to Tlaloc in exchange for rain. Then, perhaps, you may stumble into a small clearing where the fountain of meaning can be found. It is also not the claim that humanity is the subject of masterful historical and social forces of the post-Hegel or structuralist variety, the individual is free only to play his part in a larger whole that is going to do its thing with or without his cooperation. These varieties of anti-humanism can be interesting, enlightening and entertaining but they are not popular enough to challenge humanism.
6. Brain implants are fine though.