翻訳待ち：My Anti-AI Manifesto

AI サービスが一時的に利用できないため、復旧後に翻訳を補完します。

My Anti-AI manifesto As a software developer, the recent escalation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has aroused strong emotions and several concerns in me, either of technical and philosophical nature. The human-machine interaction is a fascinating topic and educated people, especially kids, should at least know the basic principles, in order to understand that usage and responsibility go hand by hand. After discussing on the impact of AI on the professional tasks of a developer, this short digression will focus on problems that can be related to the inception of AI technology. A threat against independent thinking As a developer, programmer, coder, or whatsoever definition you might want to apply to this job, I think that it is more carved into heart than acting in the fingers that hop on the keyboard. There exists a sentimental bond between developers and problems. Struggling for the solution of a problem produces a spectrum of feelings that continues to drag the history of the human race since the beginnings: passion, dissatisfaction, generosity, ambition. Code development boils down to a journey from the abstraction of thinking to experience and action, and it does not concern programming alone: languages and algorithms are just means. The heart work is the thinking: satisfaction, joy, and reward come from ideas that prove to work well. Code development requires to watch a problem from multiple perspectives for grasping it in its entirety, to plan and implement solutions. You are a master of coding if your solution applies to a wide class of problems and pays a special attention to saving memory resources. Engineers, doctors, researchers in general, artists, chefs, bakers, carpenters, tailors, musicians, are examples of different forms of ‘developers’: everyone codes in a specific way. Every production carries on an history of endeavors. People took problems to heart and attacked them until they found a solution. You are an impostor, not a developer, if you do not face problems by yourself. With the advent of AI in programming, blogs and forums had actually reported the concerns of developers who are losing interest and hype, similarly to a game that have been started in cheat mode – as they are used to say: once you can do anything without difficulties, there is no more reason in playing it. These feelings were already circulating years ago, before the advent of AI, when the practice of including external modular packages turned the coding art into a patchwork. Some mathematicians have recently expressed disappointment in the involvement of AI for accomplishing proofs. Is the result more relevant than the path that leads to it? The Poincaré conjecture had been solved after a century of failures. Other conjectures wait, and they probably would for ever. There might be problems that could not be such, semantically speaking, but statements that just foster research; the Continuum or the Riemann hypothesis have not been solved yet, but continue to spark ideas and theories. What’s wrong in acknowledging our limits and in living within the same perimeter traced by the possibilities of our brain, assumed as a device? Media had poisoned society with ridiculous messages as ‘live without limits’; but limits rule the universe, as taught by physics. In conclusion, if we reduce the chances of thinking, we will be more controllable by those that continue to think by and for themselves. If we continue to skip difficulties, for whatever reason, laziness will bring us to inaction. The major difference from AI and human mind is not the power or memory, but conscience. Otherwise said, the possibility of drawing feelings from achievements: AI will not, you will not either through AI. Threatening the future AI has become infamous for requiring large amounts of energy and water. The questions of AI technology, as devourer of resources, is intimately connected to the climate and the global warming, still overlooked by people, despite effects are tangible. We, as humans, and the entire planet Earth cannot afford AI. Living species shall not to pay the price of co-existing with us. The scientific community has proved, without doubt, that the cause of global warming is anthropic. In plain terms, it is pollution. If we define ‘pollution’ as a general artificial factor that alters the conditions of a natural habitat, then we can establish two forms: ‘active’ (for example, the emissions of carbon monoxide) and ‘passive’ (draining the natural resources). Well, this is nothing under the sun: I can remember the warnings against the ‘ozone depletion’ in the late 80s. It seems that nothing had been made against the pollution after forty years. Now, we are paying the huge debt contracted by our ignorance. What kind of world are we preparing to welcome young generations? Ecology should be a priority over all other disciplines. There would be no mathematics, chemistry, engineering, without the proper habitat for our race. We should be concerned with what ideas we let circulate. In this regard, I first observe that we are not governed by aliens, but by humans coming from our same cultural background. Moreover, media use to forget that all information they convey is automatically put ‘on the pedestal’ by the audience; media should not foster defects for commercial purposes, but promote better ways of living at the cost of going upstream.1 Most people are blind and do not surrender against the evidence. They keep living as they have been told to do: buy biggest or fastest cars, travel all over the world for mass tourism, live beyond your possibilities. Resources are not infinite and have (huge) costs. Such massive fruition of goods proves senseless against the recent events and it represent an expression of selfishness to me. Your daily habits promote worldwide conflicts for oil, for example. The statement ‘with great power comes great responsibility’ should not be confined to a famous movie, but carved in everyone’s heart. The great power is not the big one. ‘Big’ refers to concentration, not to efficience. Everyone keeps a little, in quantity, but a great power in efficience. Our decisions are not little and insignificant: combined together, they affect the future of the society and the planet. Remember that 0 is irrelevant alone, but if many 0’s decide to follow the 1-leader, they become 100000000000… . Who is your leader? Do we need of really bigger and bigger cars? Is it just a whim? Do we really need all those planes travelling in the sky? The bigger capacity of an engine, the more fuel, the more heat, and the more carbon monoxide emissions in the air. As known, white sugar looks fine, but indiscriminate use is conducive to addiction and brings lots of health issues. Habits affect the habitat. There is no future without habitat. Nothing would have a sense, like the cheated game mentioned in the beginning. Everyone who is not keen on keeping the home clean and safe will be eventually kicked out of it. This should be our prime directive. Why should we want sons if we do not feel responsible of our habitat? Why should we cure diseases if we cannot preserve the life on our planet? World population must decrease in number during the next decades. Biologists teach that overcrowded systems are doomed to collapse. I feel frustrated by this decadent logic. AI as expression of world market It seems that we have decided that the raw and wild rules of trade market would regulate how the world goes on. Hence, we have to obey them now and understand that everything has a price to pay. One of the critical problems of our society is the concentration of power: for me, it is the root of all evils. Since the ancient history, such concentration has proven to be detrimental. I mean to any form: political and economical. The events in the last three centuries attested that super-powered countries and corporations contributed to render the world worse than what they found. Both must be dismembered for sake of our future, since they tend to disrupt welfare. AI is just the latest expression of such (and very big) concentration. Do you think that a little country would have interest or be able to wage a war in another continent? Do you think that little companies could have the power of conquering the global market? Indifference, negligence are actually mortal sins. In the sense they can be assumed as a sort of pre-death state. The higher-ups of world power had understood it since long time, and their persuasive campaigns are subtly planned to induce people to this pre-death state. People must take a position and understand that events are following as we are fighting a battle against evil forces. Evil attitude does not care of future, it just aims at the profit from the present. I mean to the future world, that the next generations will live in. The fulcrum that levels society up has been changed from the square to the office: cooperation gave way to competition, generosity to selfishness and personal profit, simple living to career. As a result, 1+1 no longer yields 2. Philosophers and thinkers ended up to have less credit than politicians and executive managers. This is a serious problem when masses follow the decisions of people whose heart is kept in a wallet. Countries promoting a certain profit-based, competitive, and divisive culture should be embargoed. I have been always got confused by the contradictions of modernity. World population keeps on increasing, but job opportunities reduce because workforce decreases because it is being replaced with automatic technology. Offerings are not transforming, opportunities are not changing. Freedom of choice fades away. This is a clear evidence that technologies are held by the rich to rule over the masses and guide their choices. AI technology represents the ultimate expression of the concentration of powers. No care of natural habitats and resources, just efficience and profit. These are the purposes for which AI has been designed. The world market rules must to be reformulated and based on different premises, that focus on people rather than profit. The path we are walking has long proved to be treacherous. What also are we waiting for taking a drastic turn? I hope we have not crossed the point of no return yet. I hope for the comeback to local micro-economies soon, with the exception of trading goods that are strictly required but not locally available. And cooperation comes around here again. Like the flight of Icarus Internet was originally a square, not a market. It must be relieved from the heavy weights of social networks, Ads, and AI. AI represents the latest crime committed against humanity and climate, after wars, pollution, consumerism, capitalism, social networks, abuse of resources, and certain filmography. There should be no reasons for keeping this thing on: shutting AI definitely down would represent a step forward to solving the aforementioned problems. Turn your large-scale data centers into gardens and forests. Free servers from worthless contents. Get out and play with people. The history of the human race is the history of human thinking. It must not turn into the history of AI. Your picture of progress might be illusory, and you should surrender to evidence. Do not bother with the freedom of expression and censorship. Your supposed level of freedom can be maximal only if you live alone, otherwise it had to be scaled down to a level that grants respect to all members in a group.↩︎