Is artificial intelligence the ultimate solution?
By: Murky Waters
Tags: Humanism, AI, Government, Social Change, Innovation

Is artificial intelligence the ultimate solution?

Image from ted

I believe the development of AI (artificial intelligence) and ML (machine learning) has enormous potential for the future of our civilization. It is already being applied in many industries, from gaming or stock trading to agriculture, with very promising results. It has found great use in all kinds of predictive applications, by using available data to gain precious future insights.

However, recently I came across information about the use of AI to solve problems which clearly cannot be solved by the use of AI (or at least by the use of the AI we currently have access to). While I believe in experimentation and learning through failure, what really bothers me in these cases is the signs that our authorities turn to AI as THE SOLUTION. The simplicity and low operating cost of it is very attractive, and they can always use the excuse of “we are dealing with the issue at hand”.



However, for me it is just another sign of:

1. The great gap between policy makers and the rest of the population. The gap now could be greater than the gap between the aristocracy and slaves or peasants in feudal times…and with the development of technology it will only increase, as policy makers become less dependent of mere mortals.

2. The great gap between the scientific thought, the pure theoretical approach on one hand and humanity, the real world, on the other.

The obvious cases of European Commission misuse of AI:

I read in a recent report that the Austrian labor department started to use AI to decide how they should spend the resources for rescaling and training the unemployed. And given the criteria, they would focus mainly on people that had the most chance to find a job. What happened was that people who needed help the least, actually received the most resources. Whereas the people that had the least chance to actually find a job again, were left out: it wasn’t considered an efficient investment. You need to understand how this tech works, because the institutions using them often have certain targets. Probably the central authority tells them “you need to help this percentage of people for this amount of money.” The outcome, however, means that the people who need to help the most will get it the least, and the other way around. I found that quite instructive for the kind of thinking that that’s happening on a more personal level.

From the point of view of authorities or some organisation, it certainly appears more efficient as they are cutting costs. In terms of achieving its goals and comparing the results with the money invested, I certainly wouldn’t call it very efficient. ROI (return on investment) is very poor and no organisation wants that. If the future of humanity is about numbers and efficiency, and not about HUMANITY, then AI definitely looks like the ultimate solution for everything.

A lot of those AI systems essentially feed on existing data. We feed an AI data system with occupational roles, and the jobs that people have. This means it will train on data that shows that a lot of managers are male, and a lot of cleaning personnel are female. If you add that data for a labor application, women will more likely get an ad for cleaning jobs, and not managerial roles. The system has learned that it’s the most efficient, because that’s often what we know.

In this case we see the obvious enforcing of gender inequality through the use of data. It is problematic if we are determining future outcomes by relying on the past data…creating a self enforcing loop.

We needed to find a way to make us more efficient. Under the guise of automating things, it became no longer accessible. We made it more difficult for people to complain. Yes, we put the complaint form online, but we also created a number of technological hurdles. The result meant it was actually more difficult for people to complain, we restraint the options to complain. And this is also a part of the digital environment, you can design exactly everything the way you want it in a way that you can’t in the physical world. But you can also inadvertently make it more difficult. For me that was very instructive, because the narrative is always “we put things online, we make it digital, to make it more accessible. Closer to the citizen, to be more effective and more efficient.” You see this a lot in healthcare and the social care sector where everything is digitized: you can’t actually talk to a person anymore. There’s often a binary logic, you can click this or that. But often, your case doesn’t fit those options. And then you’re left out, there’s no one to complain to. And it means reduced access. You see it a lot in the US where, once they digitize procedures, the amount of people that are allowed to claim benefits goes down drastically.

The really worrying part about this experience is again the feeling that we are seen as machines. “Working citizen is a production unit, retired or sick citizen is a liability, how do we become more efficient and reduce costs?”, seems to be the mantra.

I just want to point out that, as AI is being (rightfully) praised as the new frontier, we simply cannot look at every aspect of our existence through the lens of the machine…numbers, data and efficiency. While AI and ML will help us tremendously, we must not lose sight of our humanity. With narratives like the future “useless class”, transhumanism and scientific approach of defining humans as biological machines, with an assumption that only the physical or measurable is all there is in this universe.

If we cannot measure something on our current level of development, does that mean it doesn’t exist?

At first we thought there is only matter, then molecules, then atoms, then protons and neutrons, and in them we are now aware of quarks. How come we do not assume that there is more than we can see or measure in the fields like biology, too?

We cannot even rely on the visible spectrum. By that I don’t mean that we can no longer trust what we see with our own eyes. There was plenty of research done on the subject of perception over the last 70 years. From the LSD experiments in 50's to the interesting research you can read about in “Deviate”- a very interesting book by Beau Lotto.

Results seem to point out that there is much more out there than we can usually see. The human brain actually serves as a filter. It reduces the reality we experience, showing us the most energy efficient reality we can perceive in our current state and ensure our survival. I experimented in meditation for years and came to the same conclusion, but I digress…it deserves an article on its own.

The number of IT professionals rises by approximately 2 million each year, which is great in itself actually. My worry is, as we are pouring way more funding in tech and taking it away from humanities, we might end up with tunnel vision. In this case we cannot really apply the saying “if the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail”. However there is a danger of a tunnel vision, as it would make total sense to turn for solutions to the tools you have most of, tools you have invested most into.

The curious case of Japanese government increasing AI funding to boost its birthrate:

Japanese government is facing serious problems now, as it is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the aging population and keep the economy growing. I will not pretend I know so much about Japan but, I do know about the social withdrawal more and more Japanese choose. They live in total social isolation often due to their inability to deal with the pressures of life in Japan or the rigid roles they feel they have to play. I am also aware of the paradox in statistics where at the same time we can see increased sexual activity within Japanese youth AND rising numbers of single adults.

They also have many forms of entertainment to survive the 70-hour working weeks. It seems that duty and efficiency trump everything. People don’t have time or energy to seriously invest in each other, so they have created all kinds of services to compensate: in Japan you can rent a family if you are lonely or a girlfriend for a date…just to hold your hand and walk with you. You can go to a host club to enjoy a platonic relationship with a nice looking man if you are unable to communicate properly with your partner or are unfulfilled in some way. You can pay only for cuddles or talking in Japan but they also have a plethora of different sex related businesses in their huge sex industry.

All those distractions, combined with crazy working hours, certainly don’t contribute to young people finding a partner and investing in a serious relationship.

What I find really strange is, why are they not looking at the socio-economic conditions in the country? There are so many red flags indicating that there is a serious problem with human connections and intimacy. What they seem to see is the numbers — they see the correlation between those numbers and the Japanese economic growth and they naturally get worried. I would primarily get worried about the emotional state of the nation, happiness is an essential metric!

I understand the appeal of investing in a better AI system. It looks like a much simpler solution than diving deep into the social and economic fabric of Japanese society, trying to figure out its effects on the emotional state of Japanese people and how it in turn affects their ability to connect with others, which is the basic prerequisite of reproduction + success.

Isn’t that such a paradox? In spite of all red flags, the government is again investing into a solution which will keep Japanese in front of their screens, looking for partners by scrolling left or right. I believe those apps reduce the user’s ability to properly communicate, value the human being and connect on a deeper level.