Reply to Jaron Lanier

A few days ago my colleague Everett posted an NYTimes op-ed by noted futurist Jaron Lanier. Lanier is the kind of person who gets placed next to Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy; an autodidact VR pioneer musician artist free radical philosopher. Summarizing Lanier only does him injustice, but one could say that he's a transhumanist, with the emphasis on 'humanist.' ((EDIT: He'd vehemently disagree with this characterization, but I think it fits. His advocacy of radical biological alterations to human beings is pretty transhumanist.))

In his editorial, Lanier argues against mixing theology and technology. He posits that AI research has taken on psuedo-mystical overtones: we are creating new life, we are evolving, we are supplanting the human race, that is profoundly dangerous to technological progress and human values. Scientists risk a Frankenstein backlash from a majority rightfully concerned with the direction of society, wherein as computer become more human, humans become more machine-like.

Lanier makes two points in support of this claim. More and more of what we do is act as information processing nodes, hyper-linking, retweeting, sending on without thought or commentary. The signal talent of the 21st century is curation, sorting the gems of information from the dross of data we are deluged in, and as far as human ability is concerned, this is a sorry use for thought. Like, dis-like, access, archive, delete, repeat. When sorting information becomes our major activity, creativity is devalued.

But more critically, "What all this comes down to is that the very idea of artificial intelligence gives us the cover to avoid accountability by pretending that machines can take on more and more human responsibility." Evading responsibility appears to be one of the major spectator sports of the 21st century. Disasters happen again and again, and any human who might be responsible slips away from the clutches of retribution. Artifacts, derivatives, blowout preventers, are blamed for what are ultimately human failings. Instead of operating machines, we become supervisors of algorithms. With each degree of automation, we cede both responsibility and control. It is a common observation that events apear to be spiraling out of control, and that no one is at the helm. Maybe its true, maybe the ship is steering itself, and rocks and shoals be damned.

Lanier's solution: "When we think of computers as inert, passive tools instead of people, we are rewarded with a clearer, less ideological view of what is going on — with the machines and with ourselves. So, why, aside from the theatrical appeal to consumers and reporters, must engineering results so often be presented in Frankensteinian light? The answer is simply that computer scientists are human, and are as terrified by the human condition as anyone else."

Well, that is all very well and true, but are computers inert, passive tools? Individual machines are, but computing as a technology is far from inert. It moves and shifts according to market forces, it reacts to changes in technology and economics without clear paths of human responsibility. In short, computing and computers in aggregate already behave like a living organism, and short of a Butlerian Jihad, that organism cannot be stopped. Contemporary AI is still far removed from the question of 'what is a person?'. At best, it is a collection of specialized tricks for limited situations. Emotional inner states are the province of hairy-eyed radicals. But we are not alone on Earth. Our machines are with us, with their own inertia and desires, and while it is true that humans are the sole entities with agency, we do not interact one-on-one with the other six billion inhabitants of Earth, but through a technological medium that is very much an active participant.