AI conversations are everywhere, with good reason. Influencers, experts and policy makers alike are wading through the extreme complexity brought on by something moving faster than any of us can quantify. Some posit the speed is the result of powerful people’s quest to be the first to harness the most powerful advancements of our lives, but I’m not sure it matters who is responsible. The speed is here and the horse in many ways has already left the barn.
We can talk about regulations. We can talk about guardrails that mitigate environmental effects and use by nefarious actors. We can talk about loss of human connection. These conversations are happening and critical to ensuring we are monitoring this powerful technology.
However, there is one conversation that I don’t hear very often, if at all. And it’s one that causes me to jump out of my chair with retort as I listen to Steven Bartlett of the Diary of A CEO podcast making his way through AI expert after AI expert. Steven admits repeatedly that he continues to explore this topic with varied guests, because he doesn’t feel satisfied yet with the answers. He is still searching for something, even if he isn’t quite certain what that something is. But I think I know what it could be.
Overall, all of us are trying to figure out what it means to be human in a world where AI can do most of what we are paid to do. Yet, we are answering this question through a current lens that is way too narrow to fit the moment. We are trying to understand how AI aligns with our historical and existing landscape, how it makes sense alongside all that we’ve built, how it can possibly work without tearing everything apart. We are looping over and over along the same pathway, but the same pathway isn’t the answer.
Here’s the thing. This may be the moment that everything gets torn apart. And not in a violent or destructive way, but utilizing first principles thinking to look at our societal architecture. In a world of AI, what is most important? What do humans need? How do we remain healthy, fulfilled and prosperous? How do we find meaning and connection? Building it from the ground up, we may find that our current systems of economy, government, education among others are not applicable to this new world. We may find that we need an economic system that rewards something other than manual and intellectual labor. We may find that the human value proposition goes far beyond productivity and into creativity, innovation and relationship. How do we reward those? How do we create a livelihood that rewards those pieces?
For if AI can replicate much of what we are doing to support our livelihoods as humans today, if jobs are already being displaced due to AI’s power, access and possibility, then resisting it by espousing and clamoring about its horrific impacts alone isn’t going to solve it. It’s like warning about a tornado, standing outside as it’s barreling through. We need to act. We need to redesign. We need to move now to ensure our society is prepared and as protected as possible for impact.
I often consider Einstein’s suggestion that the same thinking that created the problem will not solve the problem. I believe this is one of those moments for new thinking. We need to consider the future we are building without the laden lens of what already is. Our current societal framework wasn’t built with an AI world in mind. Systems are already buckling under the pace of change and technology. AI takes this to a whole new and potentially catastrophic level. So instead of collapsing under the fear-inducing future, we need blue sky thinking that builds from first principles. Perhaps one answer is universal basic income. As jobs are displaced, how can we be proactive about ensuring people are taken care of, that their basic needs are met? Critics argue that many will choose not to work if UBI comes into play. That argument halts us. But again this is using an old lens. Does work as we know it today have the same relevance in an AI world? Is that the definition of human value? Or could it be creativity, innovation, artistry and relationship to one another? UBI may be just the thing that allows our human value proposition to flourish.
Our livelihood deserves to be tied to our intrinsic value. There will be those who want more for their lives and they can be incentivized to do more. Perhaps government could act as a venture capitalist incentivizing the big ideas that keep society moving, evolving and meeting the demands of a new day?
Our world and society are shifting meaningfully and I might argue evolutionarily. These moments need to be met with more than narrow, current day thinking. This is a blue sky moment to rethink what it means to live as a human being on this earth. Some might call this idealism, unrealistic, impossible, but isn’t that what being human is? Growing beyond the formerly impossible? Finding the needle under the haystack? We have done this repeatedly in our history, and we will do it again here. Time is of the essence, though. Right now, AI is creating the future without us.