I see Jaron Lanier’s position as exactly the opposite, in an interesting accounting of second order effects.
“We shape our tools, and then our tools shape us.”
You are imagining that AI is going to be fantastically impactful in reducing human drudgery, which might lead to a flowering of human potential. JL argues that since most AI applications today perceive human development as increasing consumption (and people’s interaction with the products/services they use is very passive) — which means that as AI gets better, the ambient environment discourages human development. Imagine you satisfied every whim of a child, making it so comfortable that it never has to “grow” — that’s how technology is infantilizing us (AI is just the latest and most impactful layer on top).
> I live the present and believe (perhaps naively) I have some agency to impact the future.
To give the lion’s share of the credit/benefits/power to AI/algorithms vests all the agency in the hands of those who can control/influence them, and condemns those who cannot to a life “below the API” (even if they might be crucial to generate training data) where their voices are drowned out.
As JL says multiple times, he is very excited about (the same) AI research when we perceive it as “just” code/models/linear-algebra, because then suddenly the questions we pose are from a position of much higher human agency (probing the system and how we might influence it), rather than a position of awestruck breathless learned helplessness to the machine.
> You are imagining that AI is going to be fantastically impactful in reducing human drudgery ... Nope I never said that nor do I imagine do humanity in a world where AI magically solves all problems. I call for more conversations about ethics because I do believe it has the potential for negative implications on society.
My definition of humanity lies outside of technology and is ontological. Here's a thought experiment where Jaron's definition of humanity fails. In a world where we have infinite resources and everything, what do you do. It's thought experiment I run often to ground my values and try to define myself as more than my work. I think of those around me, my time with my loved ones and friends. Humanity and meaning becomes for me the ability to enjoy and witness the lives of those around me, the relationships I cultivate and shared experience I have. If Jaron is preplexed by a kid asking what's the point of life if robots can do everything, his framing of humanity seems severely lacking.
> To give the lion’s share of the credit/benefits/power to AI/algorithms vests all the agency in the hands of those who can control/influence them, and condemns those who cannot to a life “below the API” (even if they might be crucial to generate training data) where their voices are drowned out.
This is not unique to AI. The digital divide existed before AI. It's a collective action problem with opportunities for public policy solutions.
> As JL says multiple times, he is very excited about (the same) AI research when we perceive it as “just” code/models/linear-algebra ... Sure define AI research whatever way you want. That's not particularly helpful though to change the outcome he fears. It doesn't provide a way to predict unintended or intended consequences of fundamental research questions in context of societal impacts.
I thought the video you shared had a great 10-15 minute segment starting around ~50:00.
> Sure define AI research whatever way you want. That's not particularly helpful though to change the outcome he fears.
JL’s point is that it makes a huge sociological difference, because it (the contemporary mythology/theology of “AI”) massively changes how much we’re willing to question the status quo, rather than accepting it as “AI”.
> In a world where we have infinite resources and everything, what do you do [...] I think of those around me, my time with my loved ones and friends. Humanity and meaning becomes for me the ability to enjoy and witness the lives of those around me, the relationships I cultivate and shared experience I have.
There’s a subtle but crucial difference between infinite resources (not biasing us towards certain modes of being) versus a landscape promoting infinite (ever-increasing) consumption. Eg: imagine Google having every video on earth, but you have to search/ask, rather than having auto-recommendations.
> This is not unique to AI. The digital divide existed before AI.
Yes, but the aura of “AI” gives it a new legitimacy and authority in our ambient narrative.
—
PS: if you wish to continue this discussion, feel free to hit me up via email :-)
Yes, and I disagree with that framing of humanity. It is at best fundamentally nihilist and at worst reduces human value to its ability to do work and produce value (ironic given is Marxist interpretation of data annotators). AI is a threat in Jaron's framing because is displaces humans ability to do work and therefore devalues human life. Existence in of itself is meaningful and I believe we define meaning for ourselves. I find his framing of humanity deeply problematic.
>If your answers are going to emphasize convenience & improvements and opportunities for better consumption, then you are ignoring the fundamental premise of the question... Are you saying you’d prefer he stops asking inconvenient questions?
I don't see why having a pragmatic critique of his position misses his point. I have critical theory background and its been valuable for framing the world and being self-reflexive in my work as an AI researcher.
The problem with his framing is that there is no space for engagement in the present. He seems resigned that world will overtaken by AI (he's literally said that both in the talk above and elsewhere). I live the present and believe (perhaps naively) I have some agency to impact the future. I rather see critical conversations converge towards helping us create a better future (specifically have discussions on how to do AI research ethically).