Being Human in the Age of AI 12

With this week’s essay, I am done with summarizing the sections of the book Richard and I are writing. When I wrote the first of these twelve essays, I was still AI focused, i.e., thinking about what’s happening in the world of AI and what that means for us. Over the last three months, I realized that I am much more ‘human centered,’ i.e., my true interests lie in understanding the changing center of human gravity, with AI being the latest (r)evolutionary step in that process.

We have always been artificial.

As AI evolves, our concept of self is being redefined. Once anchored in religion and then nationality, our identities are now shifting towards individualism. Yet, even this is not static. As AI becomes more integrated into our lives, transparency might blur the lines between personal and public, challenging our notions of privacy and intimacy.

Even our loyalties are changing. Nationalism, once a defining aspect of identity, may wane as global concerns like climate change and AI governance take precedence. Transnational communities, formed around shared interests and causes, could become the new norm. My own loyalties have shifted in recent years, prioritizing planetary well-being over national identity.

AI, ironically, could accelerate this shift. By highlighting the interconnectedness of our global ecosystem, AI may foster a sense of planetary belonging and shared responsibility. Ultimately, AI could reshape not just how we interact with technology, but the very essence of what it means to be human. The future is uncertain, but our choices today will determine the path AI takes and the story of humanity it helps write.

I will be taking a break from writing for a few weeks. Back in July if not before.

The ‘I’ of the Beholder

In writing about the transition from God to Nation to AI, I am aware that I am writing from the perspective of a secular, part globalized, part national culture, one that takes a certain kind of individual self for granted, like when Nathan Gardel’s quotes the AI pioneer Stuart Russell saying:

“By and large,” Russell reflects, “if someone has a deeply held religious belief that requires killing you (for no other good reason), we’d say that your right to life trumps their deeply held religious belief every time. So that puts an upper bound on the weight we might accord to deeply held religious belief, communitarianism, individualism.”

Of course, there’s the question of whether we can have agreement on ‘no other good reason,’ for your religious belief may indeed consider your reason for killing me a perfectly good reason. But of course, an era which values the individual above all will never accept such a reason. And let me add: that’s a good thing! Despite the hedge in Russell’s remarks, it’s clear that the individual is paramount, which is the tacit starting point of our investigation.

That individual self is neither neither the premodern era's communal self nor the artificial future's dissolved self, but there’s no reason to think the transformation of the self will stop with the individual. Let's say it becomes possible to reliably insert thoughts into other people's heads, perhaps when wearable devices become ubiquitous. I can't see myself agreeing to that level of intrusiveness; the idea fills me with both fascination and profound unease. It's a leap beyond even the most invasive social media platforms or surveillance networks, but my grandchildren might take that level of transparency for granted. It's easy to envision a future where this level of transparency becomes the norm. The allure of effortless, nuanced communication could prove too tempting for those raised in a world saturated with ubiquitous wearable devices. They might perceive the messy boundaries of language and indirect communication as an unnecessary obstacle to true understanding.

Would you agree with proponents of oral culture that nothing should ever be written down? That the availability of written records - aka the library - impinges on my freedom? Probably not. If so, be ready for future companies and governments to make the same argument when it comes to mental transparency.

Radical Transparency

Technology that makes our thoughts available to others would drastically reshape the very notion of privacy and the notion of a self-consciousness that's protected from scrutiny. The concept of a secret thought, an inner monologue safe from outside scrutiny, could become a quaint relic of the past. The implications for relationships are staggering. Imagine a world where every uncharitable impulse, fleeting doubt, or unspoken resentment is laid bare for our partners, friends, or colleagues to see. Could true intimacy even exist in such a landscape?

There's also the potential for profound empathy and connection. Imagine being able to directly share complex emotions, unspoken needs, or the raw beauty of a fleeting experience with another person. AI tools could facilitate this kind of communication, translating raw thought patterns into shared experiences that transcend the limitations of language.

It's not just my private self that's ripe for transformation; AI is coming for my public self as well. My current public self has deep reservoirs of patriotism. That nationalism defines me. I'm speaking from the perspective of a worldview shaped by contemporary notions of selfhood and national identity. But history teaches us that these concepts are fluid, ever-evolving products of their time. The self that feels so solid and unwavering today might look vastly different through the eyes of future generations. This deep sense of patriotism I feel, the way it stirs me to action, could become an antiquated relic, a fading echo of a bygone era.

I can easily imagine a future version of me that has very little in the way of loyalty to a nation state, no more so than I have while choosing between iOS and Android - read this essay by Parag Khanna on the multiplicity of loyalties. I have a strong preference for iOS, but I am definitely not going to war over that choice. It's possible that nation states will command only as much loyalty as operating systems do today. While I may have a strong preference for one over the other, that allegiance pales compared to the fervent nationalism that has defined so much of human history. On the flip side, wars haven't been fought over Android vs. iOS ... yet. That might seem inconceivable now, but who knows what the future holds? A world where the nation-state fades in significance, demanding loyalty on par with one's favorite smartphone app, feels both alien and strangely plausible. Globalization, the rise of transnational corporations, and the hyper-connected digital world erode old notions of borders and belonging. AI could accelerate this process. Imagine a world where AI-powered systems seamlessly address global challenges, providing services and governance far more efficiently than any individual nation. Could this render the very concept of a nation-state increasingly obsolete?

Beyond Geography

The transcendent entities of the future may not be tied to geography at all. Could global movements addressing climate change, poverty, or AI regulation ignite a sense of belonging far more potent than national ties? Maybe transnational communities will form based on shared interests, passions, or even specific AI companions. Perhaps the sense of "self" will become far more fluid and complex, less rigidly defined by the nation where we happened to be born. The last decade has witnessed an undeniable shift in my own loyalties. While a sense of national identity still resides within me, it has been eclipsed by concern for the flourishing of the planet as a whole. This shift stems from a cluster of new political and moral demands: for animal rights, for the escalating climate crisis, and to do something about the fragile state of our ecosystems. 

It's not just the abstractions that ignite this passion; it's a profound connection to like-minded individuals scattered across the globe. The digital world has been instrumental in forging this connection. No longer confined by geography, I've become part of a planetary community united by shared anxieties and a common purpose -- preserving our planet and all the life it supports. These connections are forged through shared activism, passionate discussions, and a collective sense of urgency that transcends national borders. This may be a glimpse into the future, where loyalty isn't determined by geographical boundaries but by a shared commitment to address existential threats that endanger us all. As the climate crisis worsens and the global consequences of environmental degradation become undeniable, could this kind of planet-centric loyalty become the dominant force shaping our identities and actions?

AI, ironically, might play a pivotal role in fostering this shift. It could provide stark visualizations of the interconnectedness of our global ecosystem, monitor the devastating effects of human activity in real-time, and help us understand the scale of the challenges we face. AI has the potential to break down the mental barriers that confine our concern to our own nation, town, or household, offering a visceral understanding of our planet as a singular, fragile home that requires our collective care. AI could also facilitate global cooperation, enabling us to coordinate efforts and share resources on an unprecedented scale. It might help us see beyond our differences, highlighting our shared humanity and the common challenges we face. In this future, the very notion of the self could be redefined, no longer constrained by the happenstance of birthplace but instead shaped by a profound sense of planetary belonging and a commitment to collective action.

In Conclusion

As we stand on the precipice of an AI-driven future, the very essence of what it means to be human hangs in the balance. Will AI be a unifying force, breaking down the barriers that divide us and fostering a global sense of solidarity in the face of existential threats? Or will it exacerbate our differences, fueling new forms of conflict and competition in the digital realm? The answer remains uncertain, but one thing is clear: AI will be instrumental in shaping the future of our species and the planet we call home.

The path forward is shrouded in uncertainty, but it is a path we must navigate together. As individuals, we have a choice in how we engage with AI and the values we prioritize in its development and deployment. Will we harness its power to address the pressing challenges of our time, from climate change to social inequality? Or will we succumb to the allure of short-term gains and individual interests, even as our collective future hangs in the balance? The decisions we make in the coming years will ripple across generations, shaping the trajectory of both AI and the human story. It is up to us to ensure that this story is one of hope, resilience, and a shared commitment to the flourishing of all life on Earth.