Human Husbandry
the human use of human beings
Human Husbandry
I saw the announcement that Sam Altman and John Ives are teaming up to create a new AI technology. As I was looking into what they were planning to do, I came across the concept of ‘ambient AI’ — a process of harvesting the products of human interaction 24/7. I knew the activity but did not know the name.
I grew up in an agricultural region in the Rocky Mountains and have been, in the past, a participant in what is called ‘animal husbandry’.
Ambient AI sounded like ‘human husbandry’ — humans being harvested for their ubiquitous social fabrications while living out their daily lives. The harvesting is essentially unobtrusive, as I understand it, similar to the harvesting of products from livestock.
Cattle, sheep, and other domesticated animals remain passive or indifferent while their wool, milk, and other commodities are being harvested. A lot of people seem passive or even pleased about being harvested for their products as well.
The idea of the ‘Human Use of Human Beings’ through the automation of technology was introduced in the middle of the last century by Norbert Wiener, a cybernetician.
He extolled the benefits of automation for society while admitting there were risks as well. AI is a form of automation that is being rapidly developed and dependent on human husbandry.
Harvesting humans with AI technology for the benefit of AI owners has been going on for some time. I have been surprised at how docile and passive the responses to this have been on the whole. Responses have been in some form or other similar to: “this is the way it is now—go along to get along — adapt!”.
Maybe it is because the owners are accomplished people whisperers, extolling the virtues of being willingly harvested. Maybe it is because people expect greener pastures down the road. In the meantime, they look forward to the next hit of dopamine in the feedlot each day.
It feels like the famous frog in the pot of slowly warming water scenario.
Why aren't the problems with AI solved in the beginning? Why not then, initially before they become reality? Why aren't these issues discovered, analyzed and corrected before they become a reality?
Think about it. Could it be that the problems were incorporated into the technology on purpose? Can it be that there is no regulation on this kind of technology. Surly those who brought us AI thought about the downside. No? Well, now we see the reality of AI and we know it is duplicitous to some degree. So, does that mean that we must be husbanded without any opportunity to resist, or even be forewarned? Isn't this a brand of "techno-brainwashing"? What is the real intent here? To create a tool or to create a brain distortion by surreptitiously addicting our minds away from difficult thinking by immersing us into a dopamine stupor? Duh!
(I used AI to find some of the big words above and wish to give credit to Siri for spelling them for me. But she(it) didn't come up with the questions, I did!)