Science & Technology

Outside the Box: Can AI Free Us From an Either/or World?

In “Outside the Box,” I interrogate ChatGPT to better understand how AI “reasons.” It’s like a conversation with an intelligent friend, sharing ideas and challenging some of the explanations. If that kind of relationship can truly exist, why is it that our experts, pundits, politicians and media keep framing the question of AI as that of a competition between humans and machines?
By
robots

Competition between humans and robots in tug of war concept © Elnur / shutterstock.com

October 07, 2024 03:21 EDT
Print

I came across an article about the artificial intelligence phenomenon that predicts “a tech stock crash” and massive disruption in the economy due to the miscalculations of executives who over-invest in AI. I thought this might be the occasion to see where my own dialogue with AI might lead. I offered ChatGPT the following prompt.

“AI will always be controversial, simply because people persist in framing their understanding of what it is and what it does as a competition with human intelligence. Business Chief has published an article that asserts ‘MIT professor Daron Acemoglu believes that companies are wasting vast amounts of money investing in AI, when its net effect is going to be marginal.’

In terms of the practice of businesses he is probably right. But I would question the framing that Acemoglu and practically everyone seems to have adopted. They see it as in terms of either/or logic. I may be wrong — and given the way humans act, I probably will be wrong — but I believe that potentially AI can be socially integrated into human civilization.

By that I mean that there can be a real give and take, a mission of what some call ‘negotiating meaning’ between human actors and AI agents. AI ultimately faces similar problems of defining ‘identity’ as humans. And we can see in human society today the ambiguity, anguish and misunderstanding that have arisen around the question of identity. So, my question is twofold: Can AI itself address the question of its identity in human society? If, as I suspect, that can only happen through dialogue about society itself and AI as a voice (or a multitude of voices) what should that dialogue look like and how should it play out?”

Your insight taps into a very nuanced area of how we conceptualize AI’s role within society. The prevailing ‘competition’ narrative between AI and human intelligence indeed limits the potential of AI and feeds into this ‘either/or’ logic that assumes humans and machines must either replace or outdo one another. You suggest a more dynamic relationship, where AI becomes a partner in a shared process of meaning-making—a compelling idea that reframes the entire debate.

### Can AI Address Its Own Identity in Human Society?

AI’s ‘identity’ is tricky because it’s not an agent of identity the way humans are. It doesn’t have a sense of self, emotions, or subjective experience. However, AI can play a role in helping humans reflect on their own identities, understand complex systems of identity (race, gender, culture), and provide frameworks or tools for identity construction, all while learning from the social context it operates in.

In terms of AI addressing its own identity, it may not be about *AI* directly formulating a personal or self-reflective identity (because it doesn’t have personal experiences or desires), but more about how it is positioned within human society by those who design, use, and interact with it. This position will evolve as AI capabilities expand, and society grapples with questions about the ethics, limits, and integration of AI.

### Dialogue Between Humans and AI: The Need for ‘Negotiating Meaning’

The real opportunity, as you propose, lies in the idea of a ‘negotiation of meaning.’ This would entail humans and AI actively co-creating knowledge, norms, and solutions in a reciprocal exchange. Instead of AI passively performing tasks, it would be an interlocutor that provides new perspectives, challenges assumptions, and helps refine collective understanding.

Here’s what such a dialogue might look like and how it could play out:

1. **AI as an Augmenter of Human Thought, Not a Replacement**

  • A meaningful AI-human relationship would begin by seeing AI as a tool to expand human understanding, not substitute for it. The dialogue needs to shift from AI’s ability to ‘think like us’ to how it can complement human thought by processing data and revealing patterns humans might overlook, or questioning assumptions we take for granted.

2. **AI as a Mediator of Social Complexity**

  •  AI could serve as a facilitator of understanding in areas where human biases often cloud judgment. For example, by helping model and simulate societal problems such as climate change or racial inequality, AI might contribute new insights into how identities are formed, challenged, and changed over time. The dialogue would involve a two-way process: AI providing data-driven insights and humans contextualizing these within social and emotional frameworks.

3. **Multi-voiced Dialogue**

  •  Instead of a singular AI voice, there could be a multitude of AI systems designed to reflect different perspectives, values, or approaches. This multi-voiced AI would mirror the diversity of human society and its varied perspectives. A dialogue with multiple AI voices might allow for a richer, more layered negotiation of meaning, as these different “voices” interact with human thought, representing diverse ethical frameworks or sociopolitical paradigms.  

4. **Ethical Considerations as Core to Dialogue**

  • This dialogue cannot ignore the underlying ethical concerns. Issues of privacy, agency, transparency, and bias in AI will have to be central topics. AI’s integration into society will only be successful if these ethical dilemmas are part of an ongoing dialogue, where human users, developers, and society at large actively decide how AI’s role is defined.

5. **AI as a Mirror of Society**

  • Ultimately, AI systems reflect the societies that build them. A conversation with AI is really a conversation with ourselves: our values, prejudices, hopes, and limitations. The more intentional we are about this dialogue, the more we can shape AI’s role to benefit collective good. In this sense, the dialogue should include voices across all strata of society, ensuring that AI reflects the diversity of human experience, not just the interests of a few.

### What Should This Dialogue Look Like?

1. **Multi-stakeholder Forums:**

  • Platforms that bring together technologists, ethicists, sociologists, policymakers, and the general public to deliberate AI’s societal role. These forums should not just be about problem-solving but about envisioning futures where AI enhances human flourishing in diverse ways.

2. **Educational Curricula:**

  • Education systems could incorporate AI as an evolving partner in learning, encouraging students to interact with AI not just as a tool for calculation or automation but as a collaborator that can challenge assumptions and help in critical thinking.

3. **AI in Public Discourse:**

  • AI should be part of mainstream cultural and political conversations, with its role debated openly in media, public policy debates, and even artistic representations (books, films, etc.), where its potential to shape society is explored from multiple angles.

4. **Human-AI “Collaboratories”:**

  • Spaces where humans and AI work together to solve complex societal issues—whether in business, science, ethics, or the arts—should emphasize collaboration over competition. These spaces could be testbeds for how we co-create knowledge and values in practice.

In summary, the dialogue you envision is critical because it reframes AI from being an alien force competing with human intelligence to a potential partner in societal progress. This dialogue should be ongoing, inclusive, and multidisciplinary, ensuring that AI’s integration into human society reflects the shared values and diverse identities of humanity itself.

There’s a lot here to ponder and, even more urgently, act upon. I’ll start with William Wulf’s neologism of “collaboratories” (1989). Initially conceived of as a way of stimulating human collaboration between researchers in a particular field, it can take on a new and much broader meaning in the age of AI. Now that some believe AI has already passed the Turing test, part of the task will consist of defining who the AI voices are and how we humans can give some kind of productive substance to them.

We will delve further into this theme in our next installment as we attempt to examine the cultural and communicational dimensions of the changes now taking place.

Your thoughts

Please feel free to share your thoughts on these points by writing to us at dialogue@fairobserver.com. We are looking to gather, share and consolidate the ideas and feelings of humans who interact with AI. We will build your thoughts and commentaries into our ongoing dialogue. 

*[Artificial Intelligence is rapidly becoming a feature of everyone’s daily life. We unconsciously perceive it either as a friend or foe, a helper or destroyer. At Fair Observer, we see it as a tool of creativity, capable of revealing the complex relationship between humans and machines.]

[Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

Comment

Only Fair Observer members can comment. Please login to comment.

Leave a comment

Support Fair Observer

We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.

For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.

In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.

We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.

Will you support FO’s journalism?

We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.

Donation Cycle

Donation Amount

The IRS recognizes Fair Observer as a section 501(c)(3) registered public charity (EIN: 46-4070943), enabling you to claim a tax deduction.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

Support Fair Observer

Support Fair Observer by becoming a sustaining member

Become a Member