It’s robots all the way down

The media have been all abuzz about the latest AI language platforms. It is clear that these systems are going to have a dramatic impact on just about everything, perhaps greater than the impact smartphones had a couple decades ago. It is also clear that the net impact will be negative: these platforms represent a solid and resonating click of the ratchet of techno-dependency.  

It goes far beyond students cheating on term papers. It’s future students never learning to write—because why would you ever need to write if your smart device can do it for you with zero effort on your part? And it goes far beyond the classroom. There are a large number of jobs—entire career paths—that are going to evaporate because they will have been completely outsourced to the technology.

News stories and articles about these systems follow a familiar techno-sycophantic pattern. They lead with the obviously problematic features of the new tech, reveling in the dystopian implications. But then they quickly shift to excited declarations of imagined future benefits. “They can be beneficial for kids with learning disabilities” and “they can be incorporated into the classroom as a powerful teaching aid” are two entirely unsupported claims that I heard recently.

Sounds familiar. When smart phones entered my classroom and immediately siphoned off my students’ attentional reserve, I distinctly remember many of my colleagues gleefully altering their course curricula to include “smartphone activities.”

This is how all major technological innovations are received: first acknowledge the obvious negative, and then exaggerate any crumb of potential positive until the negative fades into the background as a small price to pay for progress. The technology itself is always seen as entirely neutral and benign. “It’s not the technology’s fault that students are using it to cheat.” It is also always seen as being completely inevitable, like a force of nature that emerges from the techno-ether and develops according to its own ontological imperatives.

On second thought, maybe the net impact of these AI systems might be positive after all. Here’s a possibility that just occurred to me. ChatGPT and its relatives are only the early stages in what is quite likely to be a complete technological absorption of public communicative acts. In a short time, social media content will become entirely AI generated and AI curated. There will eventually be nothing “social” remaining. It will be robots responding to tweets and memes and videos that were created by robots. And at that point, there will be no reason at all for actual human beings to engage with the system. Real life will be the only place left where actual humans can interact with other actual humans.

Imagine what that would be like. Imagine how wonderful it would be if you and I could spend all our time with each other IRL.

Another sportsball season begins

Football season has started, apparently. Professional football, of all of the so-called sports, is perhaps the clearest example of successful corporate exploitation of male fragility. But civilized males are not fragile by nature. They have been rendered fragile by intentional design.

Marketing 101: create the perception of a deficit and then offer your product as the needed solution.

But the culture industry goes one step further than mere perception. It actually creates the deficits to be filled. It emasculates in ways both physical (e.g. the powerful phytoestrogens in beer) and psychological (the many narratives of masculinity that are embedded from earliest childhood). It then offers up testosterone replacements in the form of highly commodified professional sports, sponsored by products that acquire a potent masculine aura through association (“Dodge trucks are ram tough”).

The mojo-dojo bro-verse will claim that football is about competitive skill and strength and strategic intelligence. And this is probably true in terms of explaining the vicarious fascination and obsessive attention it elicits from fans, the majority of whom display a demonstrable deficiency in all of these things.

An interesting contrast: compare what a running back is required to do (or choose your favorite sport and player position) with a hunter-gatherer climbing 130 feet up a tree freestyle in order to pull a honeycomb out of a massive and occupied beehive. When the hunter-gatherer hangs out with the other guys later on, he is very unlikely to be engaged in any competitive sport involving tests of skill or strength or strategic intelligence (despite Yanomamo-inspired myths to the contrary). It is much more likely that he will be engaged in games of chance, where luck plays the deciding role. After all, there is no need for him to demonstrate his skill or strength or strategic acumen because he just climbed 130 feet up a tree and pulled the honeycomb out of a massive beehive.