The Status Quo is Scarier Than AI

Picture a society controlled by a self-serving, higher power; one where decisions are based on personal interest and the exploitation of people for gain. In place of fairness and equality is a civilisation built to allow a select few to control and profit from the many. Nobody experiences true freedom, existing within the constraints of an unfair system they were born into. Frightening, isn’t it? Even more so when you realise that what I’m describing isn’t some future dystopia ravaged by malevolent machines. It’s the society we live in now.

This article explores fears surrounding AI and the impact it may have on all of us in the years to come. It asserts that, while AI poses risks, raises concerns and promises a complete rewiring of established systems, we may be fearing the very thing that has the potential to fix us.

The Illusion 

I am neither a tech evangelist nor anti-tech. This makes me something of an outlier, and my viewpoints have the potential to displease both AI lovers and haters, in equal measure. We have always lived in a world of polarised views - a tendency to approach things from one side of the fence or the other. But a famine of balance is starving discussion surrounding the benefits and risks of artificial intelligence. If we are to properly examine the impact of AI, nuance is required, and critically examining society as it stands is a task we desperately need to engage in.

It's difficult to view society from an outside perspective, and that’s one of the reasons we have problems assessing how AI might impact our lives. Also, familiarity skews opinion – we have a preference for sticking to what we’re used to. But on examination, it’s hard to defend the societal system we have come to know, regardless of how comfortable it often feels. In fact, it could be argued that we exist in a ‘group psychosis’, supporting an illusion of freedom and autonomy that has never existed in civilisation at large.

Before the Hierarchy 

In his seminal masterpiece Sapiens, historian Yuval Noah Hirari suggests that, as individuals, we may have been happier during the ‘hunter-gatherer’ stage of our development than we are now. He cites various reasons for this, but one thing he suggests is that hunter-gatherers likely experienced greater social equality. That's because, back then, humans lived in small communities where the need for possessions and a pursuit for power hadn’t yet been added to our collective firmware.

Taking a bird’s eye view on human society quickly reveals that, as we have progressed, individual liberty and happiness has declined. At one point the agricultural revolution removed us from our instinct to hunt and gather, and at another the industrial revolution created the notion of a working day. Both of these milestones (and there are others) created a hierarchical shift from individual freedom to some form of enslavement – be that working on land overseen by a lord, or toiling alongside others in a factory owned by a capitalist. The net result is the same – societal progress led to a reduction in individual contentment.

The Current System

Zoom forward to today, and the society we find ourselves in is far from perfect. Millions have died in battles at the direction of oligarchs, vast organisations make billions of dollars for a tiny group of investors, and countries are run by those driven more by the pursuit of power than an intent to improve the lives of others. There are exceptions in all cases, but the status quo is a system where power exists at the top and servitude wallows at the bottom. Many would argue this is the natural order of things, and from an evolutionary perspective they might be right. But if humans have proved one thing, it’s that we can extend far beyond our evolutionary constraints. Our big brains enable us to adjust and adapt how we live - much faster than the mutation of our DNA.

The weakness that has caused fractures to appear in society is – I believe - our innate drive for power. In modern society, the leader of a company or nation could be viewed as exhibiting an abstraction of the instinct to survive and reproduce. The biological impulse to ‘be stronger’ and ‘more attractive’ than our rivals is likely at the root of all ambition. This is a force that unifies the powerful – buoying them to rise to the surface. Leaders across business, finance and politics all have that same internal push to be in charge. And I think this quirk alone, while integral in building the machine of civilisation, seeps discontentment into every corner of society.

The Quest for Power

Humanity entered hierarchical systems early on, establishing networks led by a single person or small group of individuals. From the first forms of tribal leadership through monarchies and dictatorships, to democratically elected leaders, one clear weakness in human hierarchies stands out. They create systems that attract those who seek personal power or wealth, and provide a platform that enables them to achieve their goals.  

Of course, such systems thrive on exploitation. For example, anthropologist David Graeber explored the link between debt and influence, suggesting that the elite have been able to control society by exploiting the dynamic between lenders and debtors. Through the threat of reprisal, those in charge have asserted power over others for financial gain across the span of history.

But it isn’t always about money - for some, power itself is the reward. Dictators like Stalin and Hitler don’t appear to have been driven by the accumulation of riches - rather the acquisition of power itself; a uniquely human trait. While other animals seek power to win food or reproduce, we deal with power as though it were a commodity. And although this has progressed the machine of humanity ever-forwards, seeking power for the sake of having it is perhaps our least attractive eccentricity as a species.   

When framed in this way, human leadership can only ever be viewed as fundamentally flawed. Having designed systems that attract the power-hungry into office, how could we ever expect leadership to focus on society at large? Placing humans at the helm will always risk policies and decisions shaped by the self-interest of a small group.  

A New Way

Up to now this human-made, hierarchical system has been our only viable option. The notion of a select few being at the helm has been hard-coded into the architecture of society since society began. But the advent of AI provides the potential for new ways of doing things; ones so foreign to our established ways-of-working that they stoke curiosity in some, fear in many and full-blown resistance in others. While AI is touted as a replacement for human effort, its use could also extend to more empowering areas that challenge established leadership models by providing fairer forms of governance. AI could even completely remove the need for human hierarchy - a structure so ingrained in our nature that its replacement would change our species forever. 

And believe me when I say – those who fear AI the most are the ones who will lose power and money as a result of its inception. AI’s potential means that, In the future, leaders will be just as susceptible to its succession as everybody else. We can therefore expect its reach into governance to be suppressed as leaders seek to maintain power for as long as their grip can hold. 

Drive Vs Logic

The obvious problem with human leadership is our inability to fully separate drive from logic. People are not machines, and the decisions we make will always bear traces of our unique perspectives and personal goals. Until AI, this has always been accepted as an immutable (and even celebrated) cornerstone of governance. We vote people into power based on their character, draw influence from their words and examine their track-record to gauge their suitability to take office. And because we have always lived alongside the frailty of human nature, we have accepted the damage individuals can cause, as a fact of life. People have died in wars fought for political one upmanship, workers have had their bodies and spirits broken through capitalist goals, and decisions driven by emotions have had ramifications that endured for centuries. 

But AI offers a completely different approach. Lacking sentience and personal drive it is free to reach decisions based on cold, hard logic. Instead of reacting to the short-term, it can use data-driven approaches to assess long-term consequences. It can calculate optimum outcomes that minimise suffering while maximising societal wellbeing. Put simply - this technology can reason like humans without the shackles of bias and personal gain.

Leadership 2.0

Perhaps because of science-fiction, passing the wheel of governance from humans to AI seems like a bad idea. But on examination, using a technology that relies on data and reasoning could be the most logical solution. At present, many of our systems are embarrassingly inefficient. From successive governments to businesses - decisions are made by individuals across the span of years. As a result, organisations run at a fraction of their potential - often misdirecting finances and wasting money along the way.

In the UK, the National Health Service (NHS) is a prime example. Since 1948, it has provided healthcare for all - a model emulated by nations throughout the world. But because various people have manipulated it over time, the NHS operates in a state of gross inefficiency. What’s more, the issue has been said to stem from a ‘cultural problem’ as opposed to a deficit of funding - poor service due to human decision-making over a lack of resources. Such issues highlight weaknesses in human leadership. Despite our abilities to work collaboratively, many minds focused on opposing targets will always lead to inferior results. And because those who seek power are often in charge, decisions that prioritise self-interest over outcomes are ever-present.

In contrast, AI doesn't seek power - it is gifted it. It can act as an egoless mind that sees all of the data - one brain, working to a set of predefined goals. A single but powerful manager devoid of personal motives, intent on a single mission - to solve complex problems in a unified way. 

Pitfalls

Of course, AI is not a magic bullet. Passing the reins of leadership to intelligent machines is replete with potential problems - real issues that require razor-sharp analysis and consideration. Despite its complexity, AI is a tool we can use, not an alien system we should transfer power to in the hope of utopia. 

What makes AI so useful in guiding us is also the thing we should be most concerned about. AI models are trained on human data - information derived from us that is rich and diverse, but also flawed. The echoes of our biological shortcomings reverberate through their architecture. While AI seeks to reach reasoned solutions, its logic still grinds against the gears of human emotion, skewed perspectives and biased opinion. The data it is trained on shapes its thinking, and so what we feed it must first be assessed with surgical precision. The cognition AI forms should align with the betterment of humanity as a whole, and this is no simple task. The diversity of our species - our viewpoints, cultures, morals and ethical basis - must be embedded into any intelligent system we trust. 

In addition, we don’t fully understand how AI works - an important fact that too few are aware of. While the core architecture is understood, the maze through which models reach conclusions is shrouded by the darkness of complexity. Outcomes often surprise even those deeply involved in AI research and development. And so, if we are ever to put AI in charge of governance it’s essential we can peer through the fog to shed light on the black-box in which AI weaves its magic. 

The human drive for power could also lead the best AI models to be reserved for the elite; their use restricted to geographical blocks seeking to maintain supremacy on the global stage. The US has already strangled China’s access to the best AI chips to slow their progress in the field. Meanwhile, they have struck deals with nations in the Middle East - shipping chips to the UAE and Saudi Arabia to build data centres that provide an ideal location for the US to run its AI-compute in the years to come. Clearly, a geopolitical game of chess is unfolding that carries risks of dominance, inequality and conflict in the future.

What concerns me most isn’t passing the mantle of leadership to machines. The real danger - I believe - lies in the human element. We have a solid track-record of surging ahead with technological advancements, placing progress above consequence and seeking dominance at every turn. Our impact on AI training is concerning, but so too is its use and availability. The hierarchical structures of humanity are unlikely to ever fully disappear, even if AI does build a layer on top that prioritises logic over whim. 

Conclusion

We have in our hands a tool that could enable us to edit society - the potential ramifications of this are groundbreaking. This technology has such power that it could be used to rewire the very systems we exist in; changing how we operate to build a new structure for human civilisation. Deployed carelessly, AI could spark a dark chapter in our history - perhaps even the final chapter. But we have experienced tools of immense power before, and have managed them in such ways that - at time of writing - humanity lives on. 

Meanwhile, the systems we exist in now are deeply flawed. Inequality, suppression, famine, wars and the threat of existential destruction have plagued us ad finitum. Yes, we are used to it. But no - it doesn’t have to be this way. We have the chance to metamorphose life on Earth into something better through the use of intelligent tech - bypassing the shortcomings of individual humans to find solutions that benefit the many as opposed to the few. Just as long as we approach the task with eyes wide open, and an understanding of the perils of mismanaging the scorching capabilities of synthetic minds.

While many in positions of power will resist the use of AI in governance, it's important to remember why that is. Hierarchical structures exist because a select few want to be at the top of the pile. AI threatens to replace this paradigm, using logic-driven decision-making over humans in pursuit of personal gain. Leaders and governments will go to great lengths to justify their mistrust in AI; they will warn us of the consequences of putting machines in charge. But in many cases, this rhetoric will be powered by the same drive that got them into positions of power in the first place. The pursuit of personal gain.

I also wonder - are we afraid of what putting AI in charge might reveal? Society is a mesh of interconnected systems that we and our ancestors have adhered to for centuries. Transferring governance to AI might expose - in alarming clarity - a history of human corruption and self-serving mechanisms that is more than we can bear. Could the narratives we abide by be broken in this process, revealing truths we are not prepared to accept?

In any case, it’s likely that AI will prove itself to us, demonstrating its qualifications to run our affairs. As it evolves, the potential of its abilities will be brought into sharper focus. Human frailty may stand in stark contrast to the blistering efficiency of artificial intelligence across vast swathes of society; leadership is one of these. And when this time comes, maybe the question won’t be whether we should let machines govern us...

...but whether we can still justify allowing humans to keep on trying.

Watch the accompanying YouTube video, and join the conversation now...