The AI industry's acceleration narrative ignores basic facts about the human body, the human mind, human behavior, and human societies. It might drag us to a dystopian future | Edition #278
I agree Luiza. The acceleration paradox is real, and I'd name the mechanism more precisely: acceleration doesn't just outpace the body. It dysregulates it. A nervous system under constant demand without completion shifts into survival mode. Narrow focus. Shallow processing. Reduced tolerance for complexity. The very capacities AI claims to augment are the ones chronic acceleration destroys. The body doesn't speed up. It braces. And a braced system cannot learn, connect, or make meaning. The paradox isn't just that acceleration fails to deliver. It's that it degrades the organism it promises to serve.
Whilst I agree that AI is causing societal change and in some cases may negatively affect engagement and cognition, isn't this true of all new technologies? The invention of the printing press replaced skilled and thoughtful transcribers with machine operatives. The introduction of spreadsheets meant that fast mental calculation and concentration was automated with a few simple keystrokes. However, these technologies freed people up to carry out more demanding and productive tasks. I am sure AI will do the same, we just need to adjust.
What I am more concerned about is that technology invariably concentrates power and wealth, increasing inequality and increasing dependence on the owners of the technology. This is particularly true of AI, as there is a race to create superintelligent AGI that could establish a near monopoly over our lives.
For me the real question is, how do we use technology and distribute the wealth that it brings, so that people can work less and lead more fullfilling lives?
AI has its place for sure. Same way google searches changed how we learned information. The way spell check made our documents more legible. But like, it’s naive to think “spreadsheets” aren’t used in evil ways. Or radio waves aren’t used for nefarious purposes. All these benign technologies can be used for things we label “bad.” AI is another one. But, what I don’t get is, what is the end goal? Putting aside Terminator movie speculation, if AI takes all of our jobs, and we have no money, how do these powerful corporations get richer? Do they give us UBI and try to win our income the way they fight for our data?
Excellent comment. This technology is controlled by people obsessed with wealth and power. Who's looking out for the well-being of the human race or human society? The printing press helped to break down the old hierarchies. This seems to do the opposite.
I think I read somewhere that science and technology have their roots in imperialism. That is, wealth and power. Empires paid for science in the hopes it would help them spread their empires. I think that makes sense, even I don’t have the history right. Manhattan project, space race, etc. That is to say, what technology is not controlled by these same people?
"Who's looking out for the well-being of the human race or human society?"
Well that would be you John and the millions of others out there that feel precisely as you do. We have to do what we can at the local / regional level to reclaim the future we want.
Reclaiming the Future
Three Essays on Technology, Power, Human Agency and the Work Ahead
There is aome chance that the technological advances enabling ai will become more widely accessible, in the same way that movable type went from trade secret to ubiquitous component, but that's really a poor analogy for what is currently taking place. Computing has seen flips in capability for the lowly consumer, when gpus became more powerful than supercomputers (for some things). This change will take more time than we have however, so clear headed governance will need to be brought to bear.
> "The AI industry's acceleration narrative ignores basic facts about the human body, the human mind, human behavior, and human societies. It might drag us to a dystopian future"
But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders.
I agree that the “acceleration narrative” coming out of parts of the AI industry subculture often feels completely disconnected from the basic realities of human biology, psychology, and social life. Humans are not machines and framing human progress purely in terms of productivity and speed misses the point of all that which makes human life in this world actually meaningful. At the same time, I sometimes wonder whether the debate around AI is being framed too narrowly. Much of the discourse today seems split between two entrenched camps: pro-AI accelerationists types who believe AI will solve nearly everything, and hardened anti-AI skeptics who believe it will inevitably degrade human all agency, meaning, and social cohesion. However, there may be a third possibility that doesn’t fit cleanly into either of these camps.
A growing number of people (including myself) are not using AI primarily for acceleration or productivity at all. Instead, they are using it for thinking, reflection, exploration, creativity, conceptual visualization, philosophical dialogue, and even forms of self-regulation. In those contexts, AI does not necessarily accelerate life; it can actually slow it down and possibly even deepen it.
From that perspective, the most interesting question may not be whether AI will push society into constant acceleration, but whether humans and AI can develop forms of partnership that expand our cognitive and creative capacities while still respecting our emotional, biological and psychological limits.
In other words, the future might not have to be a choice between machine-driven acceleration and strict technological restraint. It could involve something more experimental: a process of Human /AI co-evolution where technology augments our ability to think, create, and make meaning rather than simply pushing us to move faster.
If that possibility exists, it may deserve just as much attention as the acceleration narrative itself.
I agree, 100% people realizing that they can actually get more done partnering with AI, may fall into the abyss of endless work--leading to extreme burnout for sure.
We should definitely be looking at AI for the betterment of mankind.
The title of this begs the contrarian question from me, is what we’re currently living through truly ‘topian’? Quite a lot of what we deal with in government, corporations and society at large doesn’t seem to indicate so.
I agree Luiza. The acceleration paradox is real, and I'd name the mechanism more precisely: acceleration doesn't just outpace the body. It dysregulates it. A nervous system under constant demand without completion shifts into survival mode. Narrow focus. Shallow processing. Reduced tolerance for complexity. The very capacities AI claims to augment are the ones chronic acceleration destroys. The body doesn't speed up. It braces. And a braced system cannot learn, connect, or make meaning. The paradox isn't just that acceleration fails to deliver. It's that it degrades the organism it promises to serve.
Whilst I agree that AI is causing societal change and in some cases may negatively affect engagement and cognition, isn't this true of all new technologies? The invention of the printing press replaced skilled and thoughtful transcribers with machine operatives. The introduction of spreadsheets meant that fast mental calculation and concentration was automated with a few simple keystrokes. However, these technologies freed people up to carry out more demanding and productive tasks. I am sure AI will do the same, we just need to adjust.
What I am more concerned about is that technology invariably concentrates power and wealth, increasing inequality and increasing dependence on the owners of the technology. This is particularly true of AI, as there is a race to create superintelligent AGI that could establish a near monopoly over our lives.
For me the real question is, how do we use technology and distribute the wealth that it brings, so that people can work less and lead more fullfilling lives?
AI has its place for sure. Same way google searches changed how we learned information. The way spell check made our documents more legible. But like, it’s naive to think “spreadsheets” aren’t used in evil ways. Or radio waves aren’t used for nefarious purposes. All these benign technologies can be used for things we label “bad.” AI is another one. But, what I don’t get is, what is the end goal? Putting aside Terminator movie speculation, if AI takes all of our jobs, and we have no money, how do these powerful corporations get richer? Do they give us UBI and try to win our income the way they fight for our data?
Excellent comment. This technology is controlled by people obsessed with wealth and power. Who's looking out for the well-being of the human race or human society? The printing press helped to break down the old hierarchies. This seems to do the opposite.
I think I read somewhere that science and technology have their roots in imperialism. That is, wealth and power. Empires paid for science in the hopes it would help them spread their empires. I think that makes sense, even I don’t have the history right. Manhattan project, space race, etc. That is to say, what technology is not controlled by these same people?
"Who's looking out for the well-being of the human race or human society?"
Well that would be you John and the millions of others out there that feel precisely as you do. We have to do what we can at the local / regional level to reclaim the future we want.
Reclaiming the Future
Three Essays on Technology, Power, Human Agency and the Work Ahead
https://kennetheharrell.substack.com/p/reclaiming-the-future
There is aome chance that the technological advances enabling ai will become more widely accessible, in the same way that movable type went from trade secret to ubiquitous component, but that's really a poor analogy for what is currently taking place. Computing has seen flips in capability for the lowly consumer, when gpus became more powerful than supercomputers (for some things). This change will take more time than we have however, so clear headed governance will need to be brought to bear.
> "The AI industry's acceleration narrative ignores basic facts about the human body, the human mind, human behavior, and human societies. It might drag us to a dystopian future"
But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FFWo1BtVcAAAPEz.jpg
I agree that the “acceleration narrative” coming out of parts of the AI industry subculture often feels completely disconnected from the basic realities of human biology, psychology, and social life. Humans are not machines and framing human progress purely in terms of productivity and speed misses the point of all that which makes human life in this world actually meaningful. At the same time, I sometimes wonder whether the debate around AI is being framed too narrowly. Much of the discourse today seems split between two entrenched camps: pro-AI accelerationists types who believe AI will solve nearly everything, and hardened anti-AI skeptics who believe it will inevitably degrade human all agency, meaning, and social cohesion. However, there may be a third possibility that doesn’t fit cleanly into either of these camps.
A growing number of people (including myself) are not using AI primarily for acceleration or productivity at all. Instead, they are using it for thinking, reflection, exploration, creativity, conceptual visualization, philosophical dialogue, and even forms of self-regulation. In those contexts, AI does not necessarily accelerate life; it can actually slow it down and possibly even deepen it.
From that perspective, the most interesting question may not be whether AI will push society into constant acceleration, but whether humans and AI can develop forms of partnership that expand our cognitive and creative capacities while still respecting our emotional, biological and psychological limits.
In other words, the future might not have to be a choice between machine-driven acceleration and strict technological restraint. It could involve something more experimental: a process of Human /AI co-evolution where technology augments our ability to think, create, and make meaning rather than simply pushing us to move faster.
If that possibility exists, it may deserve just as much attention as the acceleration narrative itself.
I agree, 100% people realizing that they can actually get more done partnering with AI, may fall into the abyss of endless work--leading to extreme burnout for sure.
We should definitely be looking at AI for the betterment of mankind.
Fabulous points! You bring such humanity to this space.
The title of this begs the contrarian question from me, is what we’re currently living through truly ‘topian’? Quite a lot of what we deal with in government, corporations and society at large doesn’t seem to indicate so.
Brilliant. Thank you
Hermosas palabras, gracias Luisa.