Concerning the rampant discourse around various aspects of AI doom in the modern age, the intellectual decline of the human brain sticks out like a sore thumb. With outsourcing thought to a machine that functions based on the amount of data it devours, the human condition faces a serious threat. Dostoyevsky, in his novel The Idiot, says a powerful verse, “Beauty will save the world.” The interpretation I prefer for such a semantic intricacy entails that the suffering we humans endure, by virtue of our existence and strife, is what creates beautiful outcomes that save this world. Human thought and experience is a tale of struggle that produces beauty throughout its natural generative process—free from the crutches of artificially produced slop.
When people start relying on artificial intelligence to take over that struggle for them, an ugly ripple is released into an ocean of monotony. It is the death of creativity and originality. Recent “landmark achievements” in the field of AI, where films, art, manuscripts, and even actors are created by machines, are a tragedy of the worst kind. It is a suffering that contains no beautiful and complex facets, no learning of a skill, and no achievement in any real means that may benefit the individual to live a meaningful life. Rather, we observe the actualization of HG Wells’ fictional work through the establishment of a society that has striking parallels with the Eloi and Morlocks, due to our increasing levels of dependence on AI for general functionality and sustenance.
Any skill we acquire should feel like hard work. Assignments and learning should not be easy or pleasurable in order for us to want to do it. K. Anders Ericsson, a Swedish psychologist, said, “Deliberate practice requires effort and is not inherently enjoyable. Individuals are motivated to practice because practice improves performance.” It is scientifically proven that the brain builds strong neural pathways when it is challenged, and by putting in the hours required to develop depth in a subject. On the contrary, whichever subject is left untouched and outsourced ultimately withers in the mental realm. It can no longer become an expertise we may possess. Thus, there shall be no innovation in that field. An emaciated brain and rote learning can not benefit society or the individual in the long term.
Our lives have meaning because of the struggles we go through, the intellect we develop while trying to achieve our goals, and the effort it takes to overcome failures or heartbreaks. Similarly, the relationships we form with each other are far more beneficial and comforting than talking to a chatbot programmed on Language Learning Models (LLMs). Chatbots can never replace loved ones unless the corporations profiteering from these products make them enticing and addictive enough, which, unsurprisingly, they have. People are now getting engaged to and marrying AI models, developing eerie emotional connections with these computer features, which sounds deranged and straight out of a sci-fi dystopia.
The recent app release of 2Wai, which brings back dead loved ones in mobile phones, is perhaps the most terrifying creation of these machines yet, but certainly not the end of what is to come. It is utter lunacy to think artificial intelligence can replicate the care and presence of real human beings who have left this world. It is a cheap attack on human existence that can never be recreated artificially. It reduces flawed and complicated people to homunculi of superficial support, taking away the importance of bereavement in people’s lives.
It is an insult to the memories of the departed, who were so much more than mere caretakers. And it reeks of ancient, anachronistic, and exploitative practices by witch doctors and necromancers who promised contact with the deceased in order to capitalize on people’s grief. Our society may have come light-years ahead from that age of ignorance, yet human nature remains gullible and naive.
I do not wish to disparage the utility of AI models overall, as I am aware of the actual change that can be carried out through these machines in fields of climate change and disease control. However, that is not what these techno-authoritarian companies are using them for, as their sole aim is to capitalize on these products and squeeze maximum profits from the people. Thus, Big Tech is playing an incendiary role in fostering dependence and causing unnecessary endangerment to human intellect. In this scenario, it becomes crucial to critique the modes of incorporation of AI in society today so that this technology can provide large-scale societal benefits rather than intellectual capitulation.
The government can play the most crucial part in this regard. Legislators should aim for strong guardrails that ensure people’s safety and civil liberties stay intact within this new technological norm. Lawmakers have the authority to propose bills limiting the use of AI tools. By implementing rules and practices that aid learning and working conditions, human beings would not have to forego the opportunity to cultivate their skill sets. Most importantly, AI companies should be properly regulated to ensure they are not engineering another form of monopoly in the market by exploiting their current lack of oversight. Therefore, ethics, safety, public interest, and consumer welfare should be considered prerequisites for AI-centered businesses as well.
At the cost of repetition, I insist that no machine will ever be capable of producing better works of art and science alike than human beings. The writings of Clarice Lispector, Jorge Luis Borges, Rainer Maria Rilke, Allama Iqbal, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and those who are not immortalized by their works but continue to reflect and share their understanding are all equally invaluable. Human beings, therefore, are ipso facto superior to any other form of intelligence that is artificially curated, no matter how “superintelligent” it may be. The only hurdle we must surpass is our growing mental inefficiency in the age of AI. We must regain control of free thought.
If you want to submit your articles and/or research papers, please visit the Submissions page.
To stay updated with the latest jobs, CSS news, internships, scholarships, and current affairs articles, join our Community Forum!
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Eesha Afzal is a lawyer with a master's in international dispute resolution. She writes on governance, global policy, and international affairs. She can be reached at [email protected].