In the first half of Dr. Shannon Vallor’s presentation on A.I., she refocuses our impression of how A.I. will shape the future as “augmented cognition”. A.I. will enable humans to do what they already do, but faster, or efficiently, and overall increase productivity. She also gives the example of self-driving cars. That’s all great, humans love improving efficiency; it’s even a tenet of critical thinking. However, her explanation put me on edge. Could there be such a thing as over-productivity?

History is littered with examples of advancements for the sake of efficiency that were revolutionary for some time, but eventually became the norm, became what is expected. Let’s take a look at the education system as an example. Just 30 years ago, 24.5% of males in the U.S. and 18.1% of U.S. females had completed 4 years of tertiary education. Finishing university and graduating with a bachelor’s degree nearly guaranteed one a stable entry-level position with a livable wage. As more and more people completed undergraduate degrees (34.6 & 35.3% respectively in 2018), they slipped closer and closer to “the minimum” requirement for work, even if the responsibilities did not require the kind of content learned in university. A report on Employment Outcomes for Bachelor’s Degree holders shows that, although unemployment of B.A. holders has decreased between 2010 and 2017, wages have generally not, meaning that, despite rising costs of living, education no longer guarantees a comfortable, stable start to working life.

This is just one example of improvements increasing expectancy. Technological advances in commercial electronics is another (remember turning on your computer in ’95, and going to grab a bite to eat while you wait for it to boot up?). MOOCs and the concept of lifelong learning is (to borrow Dr. Vallor’s metaphor) more gasoline to this fire; if we can learn something, can complete courses from overseas universities or contribute constructively to discussions during our commute to work, we should not be wasting time lollygagging. Increasing possibilities of what humans in a given capacity can do have led us to believe that we need to be as productive as possible, we need to burn ourselves out and maximize our efficiency and produce cutting-edge research, development, and academic advances by the time we’re 20, because life is a race and efficiency wins. At best, this mentality leads us to re-imagine how and why we do the things we do. At worst, it’ll propagate the idea that everything and everyone must be useful, and that’s a dangerous edge to walk.

Lastly, I would like to call upon the work of Martin Heidegger in support of concerns regarding seeing nature-as-technology and consequently as tool. From The Question Concerning Technology:

The revealing that rules in modern technology is a challenging, which puts to nature the unreasonable demand that it supply energy that can be extracted and stored as such. But does this not hold true for the old windmill as well? No. Its sails do indeed turn in the wind; they are left entirely to the wind’s blowing. But the windmill does not unlock energy from the air currents in order to store it. In contrast, a tract of land is challenged into the putting out of coal and ore. The earth now reveals itself as a coal mining  district, the soil as a mineral deposit. The field that the peasant formerly cultivated and set in order appears differently than it did when to set in order still meant to take care of and to maintain. The work of the peasant does not challenge the soil of the field. In the sowing of the grain it places the seed in the keeping of the forces of growth and watches over its increase. But meanwhile even the cultivation of the field has come under the grip of another kind of setting-in-order, which sets upon nature. It sets upon it in the sense of challenging it. Agriculture is now the mechanized food industry. Air is now set upon to yield nitrogen, the earth to yield ore, ore to yield uranium, for example; uranium is set upon to yield atomic energy, which can be released either for destruction or for peaceful use. This setting-upon that challenges forth the energies of nature is an expediting, and in two ways. It expedites in that it unlocks and exposes. Yet that expediting is always itself directed from the beginning toward furthering something else, i.e., toward driving on to the maximum yield at the minimum expense. ―p. 6-7

The core of ‘technology’ as a means to an end, and humans as a component of technology, posits human potential also as a means to an end.

-B