Don’t Look Up
Physicist Max Tegmark, one of the world’s leading intellectuals who has compellingly drawn attention to the profound challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI), invokes the highly evocative film, Don’t Look Up as a metaphor for the current state of affairs. The plot centers on two young astronomers who warn the public about a comet approaching Earth and threatening the planet’s destruction. Yet almost no one takes them seriously; instead, they are ridiculed by the majority until the impending catastrophe becomes unmistakably evident, by which point an adequate response is no longer possible.
As a resolute and uncompromising opponent of nuclear weapons, I must admit that, after watching the film, my first thought was not directly related to AI. Instead, I found myself wondering whether nuclear weapons might nevertheless be employed for a beneficial purpose —at least in principle—namely, in defending our planet against wandering celestial bodies from outer space. Only afterwards did I turn to a question more closely connected with the challenge of AI: Should the film perhaps have been entitled Don’t Look Inwards, given the extent to which the inner world of contemporary human beings has been impoverished and, as a consequence, has lost its critical edge?
It is precisely this lack of deeper critical reflection that is clearly discernible in today’s mainstream institutional approaches to the “defence strategy” concerning the (mis)use of information systems based on machine learning, commonly referred to as artificial intelligence (AI). These approaches bear a striking resemblance to the strategy adopted by French military planners before the Second World War, epitomized by the so-called Maginot Line—a vast network of fortifications and defensive positions constructed along France’s borders with Germany and Italy. The tragic outcome of that strategy is well known—the Wehrmacht simply bypassed the strongest section of the defenses in the south and launched a rapid offensive from three northern directions, leading to the capitulation of France in remarkably short order.
It is worth observing that the majority of today’s “strategists” in the domain of AI are, in essence, guided by the same logic as that underlying the Maginot Line, insofar as they focus predominantly on the danger posed by future external threats. Although the classic dystopian scenarios should by no means be underestimated, particularly in view of advances in military technology, the principal danger—one that is already present—passes almost unnoticed. Thus, while “fortifications” are being erected at an accelerating pace in the form of legal and technical mechanisms, security protocols, and ethical guidelines—all of which are undoubtedly valuable and necessary, yet insufficient—AI is already launching its offensive from another direction, invading the inner dimensions of our very being.
As in the case of France, the attack was launched with lightning speed from three parallel directions, while completely bypassing the external line of defense. The first direction from which we are being attacked concerns attention, which has been largely captured. Under the influence of prolonged daily use of smart AI technologies, each new generation is experiencing increasing difficulties with concentration—a trend that is likely to intensify further, particularly in relation to serious disorders (such as AD/HD) arising from children’s indiscriminate exposure to the electronic sphere. The second undefended direction from which the assault on our inner spaces is emerging concerns emotions, which are facing the threat of profound deformation. For the first time in human history, lonely individuals are beginning to construct pseudo-emotional relationships with machines, primarily through interaction with chatbots. A striking example is the millions of users of the AI application Replika, who consciously and voluntarily choose to establish a “partner” (!) relationship with the software. Yet this is not the end of the story—it continues further, through the “marriages” of disappointed and emotionally unstable individuals with AI holograms. As with electronic dependency—which initially appeared merely as an isolated phenomenon but acquired endemic characteristics in the years that followed—we may likewise expect an exponential increase in profoundly bizarre manifestations of pseudo-emotional relationships with chatbots.
Building upon the breakthrough achieved on the previous two fronts, AI is gradually opening a third front, one on which the struggle for human identity is being waged. Namely, through the culture of virtuality and virtual identities—expressed for years primarily through Facebook communities—contemporary human beings are increasingly shifting the center of their relationships from the physical sphere into the virtual realm. We can soon expect a conceptual convergence of AI, virtual reality, and social networks (within platforms such as the Metaverse), which will signify an unprecedented migration of identity from the physical to the virtual domain, as well as a distinct form of identity transformation. Should contemporary humanity suffer defeat on these three fronts—those directed towards attention, emotions, and identity—the way would be opened for a mental capitulation, ultimately embodied in the acceptance of the ideology of transhumanism: a “rosy dystopia” that seeks to globally legitimize the fusion of the human being with the machine. This would represent a far worse scenario than the dark dystopia of The Terminator, in which humanity at least retains the possibility of victory.
To avoid any misunderstanding, the author of this text is neither a technophobe nor a technological determinist, nor is he opposed to the meaningful use of AI in a sector-specific and controlled manner. On the contrary, for more than two decades the author has adhered to an affirmative-critical approach towards the meaningful use of contemporary technologies, accompanied by their profound examination. In this regard, the present reflection is directed towards a domain in which clear intervention is required. Therefore, when it comes to a strategy for preserving the “integrity and sovereignty” of our inner territories, as an Orthodox priest, I once again advocate a proven hesychast “combat” experience—one that prayerfully activates the noetic energy, gathers attention within the heart, directs emotions towards God and the other human being, and firmly anchors identity within the liturgical framework. Admittedly, this method is exclusivist and limited to the defensive strategy of Christians; however, differences in the approaches of “allied forces” are to be expected, particularly on a front that demands universal mobilization.
It is essential that a sufficient number of intellectually engaged individuals emerge who, in addressing the defense of human inner spaces, adopt a strategic approach modelled on that of Charles de Gaulle, the leader of the French Resistance movement and a prominent critic of the Maginot Line concept. In such a case, there would indeed be considerable grounds for optimism.
This article was originally published in the Serbian newspaper Politika on 26 January 2024 (the editorial title : Falling in Love with Artificial Intelligence).
