The Age of Spiritual Machines: When Computers Exceed Human Intelligence (33 page)

First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary. Either of two cases might occur. The machines might be permitted to make all of their own decisions without human oversight, or else human control over the machines might be retained.

If the machines are permitted to make all their own decisions, we can’t make any conjectures as to the results, because it is impossible to guess how such machines might behave. We only point out that the fate of the human race would be at the mercy of the machines. It might be argued that the human race would never be foolish enough to hand over all the power to the machines. But we are suggesting neither that the human race would voluntarily turn power over to the machines nor that the machines would willfully seize power. What we do suggest is that the human race might easily permit itself to drift into a position of such dependence on the machines that it would have no practical choice but to accept all of the machines’ decisions. As society and the problems that face it become more and more complex and machines become more and more intelligent, people will let machines make more of their decisions for them, simply because machine-made decisions will bring better results than man-made ones. Eventually a stage may be reached at which the decisions necessary to keep the system running will be so complex that human beings will be incapable of making them intelligently. At that stage the machines will be in effective control. People won’t be able to just turn the machines off, because they will be so dependent on them that turning them off would amount to suicide.

On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite—just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system. If the elite is ruthless they may simply decide to exterminate the mass of humanity. If they are humane they may use propaganda or other psychological or biological techniques to reduce the birth rate until the mass of humanity becomes extinct, leaving the world to the elite. Or, if the elite consists of soft-hearted liberals, they may decide to play the role of good shepherds to the rest of the human race. They will see to it that everyone’s physical needs are satisfied, that all children are raised under psychologically hygienic conditions, that everyone has a wholesome hobby to keep him busy, and that anyone who may become dissatisfied undergoes “treatment” to cure his “problem.” Of course, life will be so purposeless that people will have to be biologically or psychologically engineered either to remove their need for the power process or to make them “sublimate” their drive for power into some harmless hobby. These engineered human beings may be happy in such a society, but they most certainly will not be free. They will have been reduced to the status of domestic animals.

—Theodore Kaczynski

YOUR CYBERNETIC POET WRITES SOME INTERESTING LINES ...

 

 

I’d be interested in your selections.

 

WELL, LOOKING AT THE FIRST FEW POEMS IN YOUR COLLECTION:

Sashay down the page ...
through the lioness / nestled in my soul ...
forming jewels from the falling snow...
the juice of eternity,
/
the spirit of my lips ...

 

BUT THE POEMS DON’T ALWAYS FULLY TRACK, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN.

 

Yes, readers tolerate a little more discontinuity in verse than in prose. The fundamental problem is the inability of contemporary cybernetic artists to master the levels of context that human artists are capable of. It’s not a permanent limitation, of course. Ultimately, we’ll be the ones having difficulty keeping up with the depth of context that computer intelligence is capable of—

 

WITHOUT SOME ASSIST—

 

From computer extensions to our intelligence, yes, exactly.

In the meantime, the Cybernetic Poet is good at being an inspirational assistant. While its poems don’t always make it all the way through, it does have some real strength at finding unique turns of phrase. So the program has a mode called The Poet’s Assistant. The human user writes a poem in a word-processing window. The Poet’s Assistant watches her write and fills the rest of the screen with suggestions, such as, “Here’s how Robert Frost would finish that line,” or, “Here’s a set of rhymes and/or alliterations that Keats used with that word,” or, “Here’s how Emily Dickinson would finish that poem,” and so on. If provided with the human author’s own poems, it can even suggest how the user herself would finish a line or poem. Everytime you write another word, you get dozens of ideas. Not all of them make sense, but it’s a good solution for writer’s block. And you’re welcome to steal its ideas.

 

NOW WITH REGARD TO COHEN’S PICTURES ...

 

You mean Aaron’s pictures ...

 

OH, I GUESS I’M NOT SENSITIVE TO AARON’S FEELINGS—

 

Since it doesn’t have any—

 

NOT YET, RIGHT? BUT WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS THAT AARON’S PICTURES DO SEEM TO MAINTAIN THEIR CONTEXT. THE WHOLE THING KIND OF WORKS FOR ME.

 

Yes, Cohen’s Aaron is probably the best example of a cybernetic visual artist today, and certainly one of the primary examples of computers in the arts. Cohen has programmed thousands of rules on all aspects of drawing and painting, from the artistic nature of painted people, plants, and objects to composition and color choice.

Keep in mind that Aaron does not seek to emulate other artists. It has its own set of styles, so it is feasible for its knowledge base to be relatively complete within its visual domain. Of course, human artists, even brilliant ones, also have a boundary to their domain. Aaron is quite respectable in the diversity of its art.

 

OKAY, JUST TO SWITCH TO SOMEONE MUCH LESS RESPECTABLE, YOU QUOTED TED KACZYNSKI TALKING ABOUT HOW THE HUMAN RACE MIGHT DRIFT INTO DEPENDENCE ON MACHINES, AND THEN WE’LL HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO ACCEPT ALL MACHINE DECISIONS. BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE IMPLICATIONS OF ALL THE COMPUTERS STOPPING, AREN’T WE ALREADY THERE?

 

We are certainly there with regard to the dependence, not yet with regard to the level of machine intelligence.

 

THAT QUOTE WAS SURPRISINGLY—

 

Coherent?

 

YES, THAT WAS THE WORD I WAS LOOKING FOR.

Kaczynski’s whole manifesto is rather well written, not at all what you would expect given the popular portrait of him as a madman. As political science professor James Q. Wilson of the University of California wrote, “The language is clear, precise and calm. The argument is subtle and carefully developed, lacking anything even faintly resembling the wild claims or irrational speculation that a lunatic might produce.” And he has gathered quite a following among anarchists and antitechnologists on the Internet—

 

WHICH IS THE ULTIMATE IN TECHNOLOGY.

 

Yes, that irony has not been lost.

 

BUT WHY QUOTE KACZYNSKI? I MEAN, ...

 

Well, his manifesto is as persuasive an exposition on the psychological alienation, social dislocation, environmental injury, and other injuries and perils of the technological age as any other ...

 

THAT’S NOT MY POINT. I DOUBT THAT THE LUDDITES ARE HAPPY HAVING HIM AS A SYMBOL OF THEIR IDEAS. YOU’RE SORT OF DISCREDITING THEIR MOVEMENT BY USING HIM AS THEIR SPOKESPERSON.

 

Okay, that’s a legitimate objection. I suppose I could defend my extensive quote as providing an important example of a relevant phenomenon, which is violent Ludditism. The movement started with violence, and the challenge to the human race posed by machines is fundamental enough that a violent reaction during this coming century is a strong possibility.

 

BUT YOUR USE OF THE QUOTATION SEEMED LIKE MORE THAN JUST AN EXAMPLE OF SOME FRINGE PHENOMENON.

 

Well, I was surprised how much of Kaczynski’s manifesto I agreed with.

 

SUCH AS ...

 

Oh, so now you’re interested.

 

IT WAS KIND OF INTRIGUING, AND APROPOS TO THE OTHER THINGS YOU’VE BEEN TELLING ME.

 

Yes, I thought so. Kacyznski describes the benefits of technology, as well as its costs and dangers. He then makes this point:

A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can’t get rid of the “bad” parts of technology and retain only the “good” parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science, and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can’t have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.

 

So far, so good. He then makes the basic judgment that the “bad parts” outweigh the “good parts.” Not that this is a crazy position, either, but nonetheless, this is where we part company Now it is not my view that the advance of technology is automatically beneficial. It is conceivable that humanity will ultimately regret its technological path. Although the risks are quite real, my fundamental belief is that the potential gains are worth the risk. But this is a belief; it’s not a position I can easily demonstrate.

 

I’D BE INTERESTED IN YOUR VIEW OF THE GAINS.

 

The material gains are obvious: economic advancement, the shaping of material resources to meet age-old needs, the extension of our life spans, improvements in health, and so on. However, that’s not actually my primary point.

I see the opportunity to expand our minds, to extend our learning, and to advance our ability to create and understand knowledge as an essential spiritual quest. Feigenbaum and McCorduck talk about this as an “audacious, some would say reckless, embarkation onto sacred ground.”

 

SO WE RISK THE SURVIVAL OF THE HUMAN RACE FOR THIS SPIRITUAL QUEST?

 

Yeah, basically.

 

I’M NOT SURPRISED THAT THE LUDDITES TAKE PAUSE.

 

Of course, keep in mind that it’s the material, not the spiritual gains, that are seducing society down this path.

 

I’M STILL NOT COMFORTABLE WITH KACZYNSKI AS A SPOKESPERSON. HE IS A CONFESSED MURDERER, YOU KNOW.

 

Certainly, I’m glad he’s behind bars, and his tactics deserve condemnation and punishment. Unfortunately, terrorism is effective, and that’s why it survives.

 

I DON’T SEE IT THAT WAY. TERRORISM JUST UNDERMINES THE POSITIONS BEING PUBLICIZED. PEOPLE THEN SEE THE TERRORIST’S PROPOSITIONS AS CRAZY, OR AT LEAST MISGUIDED.

 

That’s one reaction. But remember the society of mind. We have more than one reaction to terrorism.

One contingent in our heads says “those actions were evil and crazy, so the terrorist’s thesis must also be evil and crazy”

 

But another contingent in our heads takes the view that “those actions were extreme, so he must have very strong feelings about this. Maybe there’s something to it. Perhaps a more moderate version of his views are legitimate.”

 

SOUNDS LIKE THE PSYCHOLOGY OF HITLER’S “BIG LIE.”

 

There’s a similarity. In Hitler’s case, both the tactics and the views were extreme. In the case of modern terrorists, the tactics are extreme; the views may or may not be. In Kaczynski’s case, many aspects of his argument are reasonable. Of course, he does end up in an extreme place.

 

YEAH, A PRIMITIVE CABIN IN MONTANA.

 

That’s where the manifesto ends up, too—we should all return to nature.

 

I DON’T THINK PEOPLE FOUND KACZYNSKI’S NOTION OF NATURE VERY APPEALING, AT LEAST NOT JUDGING BY PICTURES OF HIS CABIN.

 

And, as I said, there’s not enough nature to go around anymore.

 

THANKS TO TECHNOLOGY.

 

And the population boom—

 

ALSO FACILITATED BY TECHNOLOGY.

 

So we’ve passed the point of no return. It’s already too late to go the nature route.

 

SO WHAT COURSE DO YOU RECOMMEND?

 

I would say that we shouldn’t view the advance of technology as just an impersonal, inexorable force.

 

I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE ACCELERATING ADVANCE OF TECHNOLOGY—AND COMPUTATION—WAS INEXORABLE; REMEMBER, THE LAW OF ACCELERATING RETURNS?

 

Uh, yes, the advance is inexorable all right, we’re not going to stop technology But we do have some choices. We have the opportunity to shape technology, and to channel its direction. I’ve tried to do that in my own work. We can step through the forest carefully

 

WE’D BETTER GET BUSY, SOUNDS LIKE THERE ARE A LOT OF SLIPPERY SLOPES OUT THERE WAITING FOR US.