In reaction to concerns about Artificial Intelligence (AI), some proponents will describe it as ‘just another tool.’ The reality is likely to be quite different, as AI technology tends to not merely be used by people, but to shape the people who use it. In considering issues like this, the growth in AI technology needs to be seen in some kind of historical perspective.
The industrial revolution was a tipping point in modern economics and technology. One of the things it did was to increase the proportion of machines and reduce the use of tools. A “tool” is a thing which increases the capabilities of both man and beast as an extension of the body. The hammer adds strength for striking a nail. The plough harnesses the power of the ox. The scythe effectively slices blades of grass. Knitting needles allow the working of yarn into clothes.
Typically, tools are simple and they integrate into the way the body functions. The hammer is designed to be the right size and weight for the human hand. The scythe is the right length for the body to swing in a particular motion. Tools are made to adapt to human and biological realities. However in a limited sense, man also adapts to tools in his pursuit of craftsmanship. The skilled and proper way of using given tools is cultivated for mastery of some craft, trade or household task. Tools exist in perhaps every field of human life.
Machines are generally more complex. They are usually developed as systems- various parts that often aim to accomplish a certain task technically. They generally work for man rather than with man. Machines have their own kinds of motion, independent of human life. Having often tended to decrease bodily motion and exertion, they render tasks quicker and enable production with less manpower (or horsepower). They are designed for the task at hand with less regard to the form and peculiarities of the human body. Machines are also often built in conjunction with other machines, being designed more for interfacing with other machines than with human bodily realities. Traditionally, tools are used but machines are operated. In this, the human takes a step out of the foreground.
Unfortunately, this can lead to a downgrade in the dignity of the tasks once given to the craftsperson. This need not necessarily be so, but in actuality it has often proven to be the case. The craftsperson once accomplished his tasks with his tools. However when such work is heavily mechanised, a craftsperson (such as a shoe maker or a rope maker) is perhaps no longer required. To be sure, other work is created- but it often becomes the work of a technician to keep machines running and repair any faults. Later on, the number of technicians and the pay they receive can be reduced as the machinery scales up or becomes simpler to use. The need for the craftsperson may be surpassed altogether. A set of simple buttons and levers can be operated by anyone given the right instructions. French historian and philosopher Jacques Ellul describes these trends well: “The worker, no longer needed to guide or move the machine to action, will be required merely to watch it and repair it when it breaks down.” The work has been transformed from that of the craftsperson, to that of the technician to that of the operator. This can even be true for many tasks which have been simplified in the domestic realm - to be undertaken by the use of some machine or gadget. The post-industrial household is therefore slowly emptied of its workers and household servants that would have done various forms of manual work. The tasks of homemaking begin to be seen as menial- rather than being dignified ‘domestic arts.’
In one sense machines are intended to serve man. However, in another sense this is inverted- as man’s role becomes to step back and tend to the machine. Commenting on this trend Ellul notes that “Man’s role is limited to inspection.” The machine must therefore increase in dignity, as the worker decreases. The machine must receive more financial investment, while the worker languishes in poverty. Wages are suppressed and jobs are lost as human labour is seen as just a “human resource” to be reduced from the bottom line where more profit is to be made.
One may argue that we are now beyond the age of the machine. Much of our time in the world of things is spent interacting with what we call “devices.” Devices are typically complex, possessing intricate technology hidden by an appealing and simple software interface. But a device can nevertheless be seen as a form of machine- the trend to move away from skilled tools has been further developed. The reduction of human effort has been achieved through computer chip technology, software and the internet.
Under this schema, is Artificial Intelligence a tool, a machine, or a device? The answer to this isn’t entirely straightforward. In reality it could be a combination of these things and more besides. One thing seems fairly certain though. The attendant possibilities and pitfalls that came along with and after the industrial revolution are also risks for AI. Artificial Intelligence will certainly render tasks quicker to achieve and increase the capabilities of many industries. Will corporations seek to use such gains in efficiency and output to reduce staffing hours and jobs? Given that an inherent goal of contemporary capitalism is to maximise the profit for shareholders, it seems the likely answer in many cases will be “absolutely.”
But this misses a crucial point: namely, the loss of the forms of physical and intellectual work for the workers themselves. The loss of labor that is truly human. Ellul predicted that “industrial technique will soon succeed in completely replacing the effort of the worker.” This can be portrayed as a noble aim for those looking to promote such technologies. But does the worker himself want to have all effort eradicated? Does the worker want to lose the pleasure of a hard day’s work, of stretching her body and his mind with the various tasks of the day?
There is something not quite right in seeing all physical effort as drudgery, as something to be replaced if possible. To be sure man must now work by the sweat of his brow (Genesis 3:19) to bring forth bread from the ground and produce all of life’s necessities. But work, including bodily work, was originally good. And it still retains much of its good purposes. There is a danger of decreasing bodily exertion till the body can be done away with altogether. Such an approach is inherent in much of transhumanism. Transhumanists want to augment the human body or even transcend bodily limitation altogether. Adding computer chips to the brain, connecting one’s consciousness to the cloud, and achieving human immortality are various projects that are proposed. Both transhumanism and artificial intelligence have advocates who propose the potential of redefining work. This includes accomplishing tasks via the power of mega-computing that would have previously taken many hours of human intellectual activity.
Presently, physical labour has often been outsourced to foreign countries or delegated to machines where possible, through industrialization. Common justifications for this include the idea of humans focusing on more intellectual or creative work which they might find more fulfilling. Here however, the ‘progress’ seeks to go one step further: to reduce the activity of the human brain, thus making the intellect more and more obsolete. Artificial Intelligence is often promoted as being far more efficient than its human counterpart could be. But such a focus is often the remnant of the industrial era. Commenting on industrial automation up to the 1950s, Ellul examined such thinking which effectively claimed that: “Man must have nothing decisive to perform in the course of technical operations; after all he is the source of error.”
A risk of these trends is becoming clearer. Think of it as secular humanism but without the humanism. Secular humanism is an ideology without God at the center. In part, it seeks the flourishing of mankind and a celebration of humanity’s uniqueness and capacities for agency and good in the world. However, to achieve such an aim as this without any transcendence at the center can be shown to be eventually bankrupt. Nevertheless, at least it attempted in many ways to be both humane and human. Transhumanism however, seeks to transcend human bodily reality. The humanity is removed from the secular humanism and the danger is a new form of secularity which will be left in its place. One where humans are then to be further adapted to the machine rather than the machines made to adapt to human realities.
The service of inanimate things is not new. In the Old Testament we see pagan nations (and sometimes even the people of God themselves) make idols out of wood, stone, gold and so forth. The irony and tragedy is that people ended up worshipping and serving the very things they had made with their own hands. God gave such materials for human use, for work, life and the proper worship of Himself. When the things of beauty became a source of pure admiration in themselves, idolatry led to the service of idols which have no life, the giving up of one’s strength and even the sacrificing of one’s own children.
The worries that artificial intelligence could become ‘god-like’ have already been expressed by some. The Christian should be able to identify that only God is all knowing and all powerful. Yet we do need to reckon with the reality that AI can become an idol, and all that such a reality might entail. Such idolatry is often thought to only include the affections. But servitude and sacrifice are two aspects which bring a very real force to idolatry.
One of mankind’s purposes is dominion. Dominion, crucially, is not domination, but rather responsible care over the rest of creation for God’s good purposes. The body is a crucial aspect of this task. Any approach to artificial intelligence that seeks to replace the human task of dominion and totally do away with the body as a vector for this task is contrary to God’s plans for humankind. Such proposals show that AI is not quite the tool some claim it will be, especially when it coalesces with transhumanist aims. That is to say, that there are those who aren’t interested in the human body as a focal point of life in this created order. Rather, the body is seen as something to eventually overcome- being integrated into something ‘greater’ and more advanced. Such enthusiasts then claim that humans greatest duty will be to serve the machine. Such a vision of artificial intelligence is not just about technology. It is also a vision of society, meaning and anthropology. At its worst it is an attempt to turn the created order upside down.
Humanity was made in the image of God. To represent God’s goodness and justice to the rest of creation. We ignore this identity to our own ruin. If we radically outsource this task of dominion we do so to our own destruction. It will lead to a withering away of our abilities and capacities, till there’s little left of humanity’s agency, but a shell whose purpose is to make sure the machine stays functioning.
Aston Fearon lives in the Midlands, UK with his wife. With a particular focus on public theology, he thinks and writes about theology and culture.
Topics:
