While fears of imminent catastrophe caused by Artificial Intelligence may be overblown (at least in the immediate future), as suggested in your recent series, its impacts are already significant and representative of a worldview that is incredibly dehumanizing.

Only a few short years after social media became mainstream did we begin to realize its damaging effects on our attention spans, in-person social connections, polarization, and our communities. Yet, when it was introduced, it was hailed as a liberating force for democratizing our society and fostering human connections. Now, with AI, we can see the same trend playing out, with its positives emphasized (it can write a program for you!), and its negatives downplayed (smart people in Silicon Valley will take care of AI safety…) Never mind that even without Artificial General Intelligence (superhuman intelligence), we already have things like AI recommending bombing targets that are reviewed by humans in less than 20 seconds (Israel’s Project Gospel/Lavender), all while requiring entire nuclear power plants to be constructed to meet its insatiable energy needs.

Even more fundamental than its effects is what the embrace of AI suggests about our society. In many ways, it is the culmination of a worldview that worships science, technology, and “progress” over more human concerns such as morality, a sense of place, and any notion of limits. Taking this worldview to its logical conclusion, Ray Kurzweil, Google’s foremost AI proponent and transhumanist, when answering the question of whether God exists, responded, “Not yet.” Although not everyone is so blatantly bereft of humility, it is clear that in discarding God in favor of rationality during the Age of Enlightenment, we really just swapped the old God for a new one that is now made of silicon, electricity, and machinery.

If you want to know who this technology serves, it may be best to look at the actions of its evangelists. When OpenAI released ChatGPT, its leader, Sam Altman, made loud pronouncements about developing “safe and beneficial” AGI. Since then, OpenAI has changed its status from a nonprofit to for-profit, partnered with Microsoft (not known for its altruistic motives), and numerous employees have resigned, accusing the company of prioritizing profits over safety. So, while society is left figuring out how to deal with killer drones, the collapse of trust in media, cheating in schools, and lost jobs, the ones who actually own the technology are accruing increasing power and wealth. So much for serving humanity.

There is no question that there will be some notable benefits to AI. Nevertheless, rather than blindly following our society’s tendency to embrace technology no matter the costs, I think it’s worth considering what we may lose in the process. If AI could make work obsolete and free us for a lifetime of leisure, Brave New World-style, would it be worth it? Perhaps the social critics who disagree, such as Marshall McLuhan, Neil Postman, or Wendell Berry (who won’t even buy a computer!) are worth a listen.

Personally, even as a non-religious scientist, I’d still prefer to worship the old God, even if it also means we won’t eliminate suffering or superstitions. At least then we may preserve some semblance of meaning, community and human-centered autonomy.

Patrick Lawrence

Middlebury