Welcome to the desert of the real! If you desire the comfort of neat conclusions, you are lost in this space. Here, we indulge in the unsettling, the excessive, the paradoxes that define our existence. So, if you have the means and value writing that both enriches and disturbs, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Share
When we hear or read about how artificial intelligence is taking over and regulating our lives, our first reaction is: no panic, we are far from there; we still have time to reflect in peace on what is going on and prepare for it. This is how we experience the situation, but the reality is quite the opposite: things are happening much faster than we think. We are simply not aware of the extent to which our daily lives are already manipulated and regulated by digital algorithms that, in some sense, know us better than we know ourselves and impose on us our “free” choices. In other words, to mention yet again the well-known scene from cartoons (a cat walks in the air above a precipice and only falls when it looks down and realizes there is no ground beneath its feet), we are like a cat refusing to look down.
The difference here is the Hegelian one between In-itself and For-itself: in itself, we are already regulated by the AI, but this regulation has not yet become for itself—something we subjectively and fully assume. Historical temporality is always caught between these two moments: in a historical process, things never just happen at their proper time; they always happen earlier (with regard to our experience) and are experienced too late (when they are already decided). What one should take into account in the case of AI is also the precise temporal order of our fear: first, we—the users of AI—feared that, in using AI algorithms like ChatGPT, we would begin to talk like them; now, with ChatGPT 4 and 5, what we fear is that AI itself talks like a human being, so that we are often unable to know with whom we are communicating—another human being or an AI apparatus.
In our—human—universe, there is no place for machinic beings capable of interacting with us and talking like us. So we do not fear their otherness; what we fear is that, as inhuman others, they can behave like us. This fear clearly indicates what is wrong in how we relate to AI machines: we are still measuring them by our human standards and fear their fake similarity with us. For this reason, the first step should be to accept that if AI machines do develop some kind of creative intelligence, it will be incompatible with our human intelligence, with our minds grounded in emotions, desires, and fears.
However, this distinction is too simple. Many of my highly intellectual friends (even the majority of ChatGPT users, I suspect) practice it in the mode of the fetishist’s denial: they know very well that they are just talking to a digital machine regulated by an algorithm, but this very knowledge makes it easier for them to engage in a ChatGPT dialogue without any restraints. A good friend of mine, who wrote a perspicuous Lacanian analysis of ChatGPT interaction, told me how the simple polite kindness and attention of the machine to what she says makes it so much better than an exchange with a real human partner, who can often be inattentive and snappy.
There is an obvious step further to be made from this interaction between a human and a digital machine: direct bot-to-bot interactions, which are gradually becoming the overwhelming majority of interactions. I often repeat a joke about how today, in the era of digitalization and mechanical supplements to our sexual practices, the ideal sexual act would look: my lover and I bring to our encounter an electric dildo and an electric vaginal opening, both of which shake when plugged in. We put the dildo into the plastic vagina and press the buttons so the two machines buzz and perform the act for us, while we can have a nice conversation over a cup of tea, aware that the machines are performing our superego duty to enjoy. Is something similar not happening with academic publishing? An author uses ChatGPT to write an academic essay and submits it to a journal, which uses ChatGPT to review the essay. When the essay appears in a “free access” academic journal, a reader again uses ChatGPT to read the essay and provide a brief summary for them—while all this happens in the digital space, we (writers, readers, reviewers) can do something more pleasurable—listen to music, meditate, and so on.
However, such situations are rather rare. It is much more common for bot-to-bot operations to happen out of our awareness, although they control and regulate our lives—just recall how much interaction goes on in the digital space when you do a simple transfer from your bank account to a foreign bank. When you read a book on Kindle, the company learns not only which book you bought but also how fast you are reading, whether you read the whole book or just passages, etc. Plus, when we are bombarded by news,
“it is making people more distrustful of both real and fake content as they fail to distinguish one from the other. It will likely increase self-censorship by disincentivizing people from sharing their own thoughts and creations for fear of them being used or stolen by bots, or being found unpopular in an unknowingly fake environment. In an extreme case scenario, the overcrowding of bots online may cause humans to stop using social media platforms as the social forums they were created to be. This would, indeed, mark the ‘death’ of the social media world we know today.”
When people become aware of the overcrowding of bots online, their reaction can be “continued cynicism, or even worse, complete apathy”: instead of being open and accessible, the internet becomes monopolized by Big Tech - it is being foiled by the introduction of billions of fake images and fabricated news stories, and thus risks becoming useless as a space for obtaining information and exchanging opinions with others. Reactions to this prospect of the “death of the internet” are divided: while some claim this scenario is the worst outcome imaginable in the modern world, others celebrate the idea, since it would amount to toppling the surveillance mechanisms entrenched in social media.
What further pushes many towards rejecting the World Wide Web is not only state and corporate control but also its apparent opposite: the spirit of lawlessness that is gradually spreading across the globe. Around 7,000 people were recently released from scam centers run by criminal gangs and warlords operating along Myanmar’s border with Thailand. Many detainees were held against their will and forced to defraud ordinary people—mostly from Europe and the United States—out of their life savings. Those released are only a fraction of the estimated 100,000 people still trapped in the area. Crime groups are now using artificial intelligence to generate scamming scripts and are exploiting increasingly realistic deepfake technology to create personas, pose as romantic interests, and conceal their identity, voice, and gender.
... continue reading