We need a balanced, enterprising optimism—an ambitious and clear vision for what constitutes the good in technology, coupled with the awareness of its dangers
I suppose there are different versions of this idea -- for tech in general, for AI, genetics, etc. Either way, we need precisely this kind of ethical reflection on how tech can be used to promote human flourishing rather than simply hoping that technology will solve our problems simply by being brought into existence.
This is an interesting article, and I applaud the attempts to create a new paradigm on technology and human progress. I am trying to do much the same thing, but I am coming at it from a different perspective.
I believe that the study of history is far more useful than philosophy as a foundation for doing so. I am not convinced that we will be able to push philosophy far beyond what previous philosophers have already done. It is far too easy in philosophy for flights of fancy to take over and delude a person into thinking that their personal opinion is an objective view of reality.
I think that we can, however, make great strides from the study of history, because it is by definition grounded in reality. It essentially focuses on demonstrated results rather than philosophizing.
I call my perspective the "Progress-based perspective:
Some fantastic ideas. Unsurprising that this has come under Tyler Cowen's gaze.
I'm curious why there is no David Deutsch reading on your list? (I did see Popper). I think some of his ideas, particularly regarding what AI is and isn't, Fallibilism, and his unpacking of optimism, (among many many other insights) would add a lot to your project.
Thanks Brendan, this was a brilliant read. I couldn't agree more with the idea that thinking with philosophy is what's needed if we are to find new ways to flourish inside what is happening now.
That's the project I'm engaged in, in my own small way, over at New World Same Humans.
This quote in particular resonated: 'Rather than locking in a dominant monoculture, technology should recognize, amplify, and facilitate cooperation and adaptation across intellectual and other forms of diversity. Related, visions for the future should not only appeal to one group but aim to address universal humanity in its variety and complexity.'
Resonating with some comments above, I think a philosophical circle to include would be critical rationalism, incorporating the Deutsch/Popperian understanding of epistemology, philosophy of optimism and problem solving (and how to manage risk), and much of the morality around it all.
Interested to learn more. Curious how a contemporary philosophical approach might respond to the ways in which (in Harari’s terms) AI represents “non-conscious intelligence” and whether this can provoke a reappraisal of the ways philosophy has often conflated intelligence and consciousness. If intelligence isn’t what makes us human, what might we turn our attention to? Consciousness and intelligence aren’t the same thing, and perhaps it is the former that is special about the life we live, rather than the latter.
Also, and this is just more of a question that I’m curious about from the longtermist camp. What about net present value calculations for utils? Is there really no value difference between a good produced now and a good produced one million years into the future? Do they engage with this question, and is their answer related to the way “infinity” functions to obviate the NPV?
I've followed a similar path and will be following along intensely. Like you, I think AI presents a "forcing function" for philosophy to begin to answer the hard questions that technology confronts us with: What is technology actually for? What is the right relationship between nature, humanity, and technology? What, if anything, is sacred about the human? My sense is that these questions need to go much deeper than optimism vs. pessimism.
Thanks for writing this, Brendon! It's a great idea. I tried to articulate something similar with respect to reproductive tech earlier this year: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/sex-and-civilization/202305/techno-traditionalism
I suppose there are different versions of this idea -- for tech in general, for AI, genetics, etc. Either way, we need precisely this kind of ethical reflection on how tech can be used to promote human flourishing rather than simply hoping that technology will solve our problems simply by being brought into existence.
Exciting vision and spot on critique of “rationalism” movement.
This is an interesting article, and I applaud the attempts to create a new paradigm on technology and human progress. I am trying to do much the same thing, but I am coming at it from a different perspective.
I believe that the study of history is far more useful than philosophy as a foundation for doing so. I am not convinced that we will be able to push philosophy far beyond what previous philosophers have already done. It is far too easy in philosophy for flights of fancy to take over and delude a person into thinking that their personal opinion is an objective view of reality.
I think that we can, however, make great strides from the study of history, because it is by definition grounded in reality. It essentially focuses on demonstrated results rather than philosophizing.
I call my perspective the "Progress-based perspective:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/a-manifesto-for-the-progress-based
Some fantastic ideas. Unsurprising that this has come under Tyler Cowen's gaze.
I'm curious why there is no David Deutsch reading on your list? (I did see Popper). I think some of his ideas, particularly regarding what AI is and isn't, Fallibilism, and his unpacking of optimism, (among many many other insights) would add a lot to your project.
Best wishes.
Thanks Brendan, this was a brilliant read. I couldn't agree more with the idea that thinking with philosophy is what's needed if we are to find new ways to flourish inside what is happening now.
That's the project I'm engaged in, in my own small way, over at New World Same Humans.
This quote in particular resonated: 'Rather than locking in a dominant monoculture, technology should recognize, amplify, and facilitate cooperation and adaptation across intellectual and other forms of diversity. Related, visions for the future should not only appeal to one group but aim to address universal humanity in its variety and complexity.'
I recently published a piece that echoed those ideas: https://www.newworldsamehumans.xyz/p/creatures-and-machines
Cosmos sounds a fascinating project; will be watching!
Resonating with some comments above, I think a philosophical circle to include would be critical rationalism, incorporating the Deutsch/Popperian understanding of epistemology, philosophy of optimism and problem solving (and how to manage risk), and much of the morality around it all.
Interested to learn more. Curious how a contemporary philosophical approach might respond to the ways in which (in Harari’s terms) AI represents “non-conscious intelligence” and whether this can provoke a reappraisal of the ways philosophy has often conflated intelligence and consciousness. If intelligence isn’t what makes us human, what might we turn our attention to? Consciousness and intelligence aren’t the same thing, and perhaps it is the former that is special about the life we live, rather than the latter.
Also, and this is just more of a question that I’m curious about from the longtermist camp. What about net present value calculations for utils? Is there really no value difference between a good produced now and a good produced one million years into the future? Do they engage with this question, and is their answer related to the way “infinity” functions to obviate the NPV?
I've followed a similar path and will be following along intensely. Like you, I think AI presents a "forcing function" for philosophy to begin to answer the hard questions that technology confronts us with: What is technology actually for? What is the right relationship between nature, humanity, and technology? What, if anything, is sacred about the human? My sense is that these questions need to go much deeper than optimism vs. pessimism.
Love the belief and focus on people. Excited to see how this progresses