What Are We Worth?
Start writing a post
Politics and Activism

What Are We Worth?

A response to Gary Buckley.

105
What Are We Worth?
Kurzweil

My good friend Gary Buckley and I are, apparently, both obsessed with the societal impact of economic automation. He wrote two consecutive articles about it, and I wrote three—not that there is any kind of competition going on here, mind you, because that would just be silly. But to throw one more article onto the pile, I wanted to address a couple of questions that he raised in his last article, "Are Humans Better Than Machines?":

Can robots replace human simplicity? Will robots ever be creative or feel empathy? Do the superior productive capabilities of automation reduce human value?

To put each respective answer succinctly: yes, most likely, and absolutely not.

Robots can replace our simplicity because their efficiency in any task they can perform improves at a rate we simply can't match. Gary accurately pointed out that, at the moment, "Humans can write more colorfully [than machines can]." But humans are not getting better, faster, or cheaper at writing, at least not at the rate that machines are. In fact, one news-writing bot was recently released for free - and research into automated creative writing is underway right now. Gary also said that, at the moment, "[H]umans can fold laundry better [than machines can]." But the same principle applies to laundry as to colorful writing. In fact, a robot by the name of Baxter can already be taught to fold laundry. And as CGP Grey said, "Even if Baxter is slow, his hourly cost is pennies' worth of electricity while his meat-based competition costs minimum wage. A tenth the speed is still cost-effective when it's a hundredth the price."

Software and hardware updates will soon be available for Baxter, but probably not for us. We cannot improve at anywhere near the rate that machines can, so they must eventually surpass us in economic productive value.

Gary also used the argument that "[h]umans will always continue to invent and create, which will continue to supply work for humans." First of all, this is an assumption. It has been true throughout history, but that does not mean it will remain true—just like the non-existence of instantaneous global communication was true for thousands of years, until it wasn't. It is a fallacy to say "what has always been true will always remain true," especially when available evidence indicates that the winds of change are blowing. Second, it is accurate based on current trends and predictions that the percentage of paid work done by humans will decline even if a shrinking group of humans can still find paid work as innovators or because of innovators.

Finally, it is possible that human capacity for innovation will be outdone by AI. While most machines right now are incapable of creativity, it is likely that more software complexity and processing power will lead to more creativity. One way that AI can become creative is by making connections between seemingly unrelated data points that humans never could due to their inability to crunch vast swaths of data from a huge variety of sources. It can also incorporate a random number generator into its idea generation process, in selection or creation of data, to reach a wider variety of possibilities and to be more "genuinely creative."

Automation will replace a huge percentage of human workers, and there are ways that AI could become creative. But can a machine feel empathy? It depends on how empathy is defined. The Free Dictionary defines empathy as "Theability to identifywith or understandanother'ssituation or feelings." Google defines empathy as "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." Wikipedia has a similar definition: "the capacity to understand or feel what another being (a human or non-human animal) is experiencing from within the other being's frame of reference." Under these definitions, which are what most people I have encountered usually seem to mean when they say "empathy," several non-human social animals appear to show empathy, including dogs, elephants, chimpanzees, and some rodents.

Even with today's young supercomputer technology, we have simulated part of a rat's brain, which is the first step in a project that aims to simulate a human brain. Another project using simpler representations of neurons simulated a mini-brain that scored almost as well as humans did on math tests. We could give a machine empathetic software by virtually simulating the brain of a human or another animal capable of empathy, or potentially by reverse-engineering parts of such a brain and incorporating them into an AI program. This may be impossibly difficult at the moment, but there is no time limit for humanity to disprove the sentence "machines cannot replicate empathy."

However, if we define empathy as requiring a soul, then we wade into much murkier waters. For example, do the aforementioned animals capable of empathy as it is commonly defined have souls? Also, computer processing power has been increasing exponentially over the past few decades, and is likely to grow even faster in the future due to advances in quantum computing. If we eventually simulate a full human brain, would that simulation have a soul? And if you say no, how would you respond if it asked you why?

I will not pretend to have an answer to these heavy metaphysical questions. My point is that defining empathy as "requiring a soul" is inconsistent with how the term is generally defined, opens a huge philosophical can of worms and, if only humans have souls, leads to a circular argument: "only humans can have empathy because empathy is something that only humans can have."

With all of that said, humans will still be valuable even if machines and AI eventually surpass our simplicity, creativity, and empathy. Human intrinsic value is not reduced by automation or advancements in AI because a human's intrinsic value is not measured by comparison to machines, especially in terms of how much money they make or how many widgets they produce. It is very dangerous to conflate the intrinsic value of the human experience with human economic productive value, especially when the latter is in decline.

Gary did hit the nail on the head with his eloquent description of the intrinsic value of the human experience, which he describes as distinctly different from human economic productive value: "the simple is what makes life worth living. Feeling the sunshine on your face, snapping your fingers, breathing fresh air—all trivial occurrences. Yet perhaps the most faithfully joyful ones. Humans can enjoy the relational aspect of chatting with an old friend or getting lost in the world of a novel…To truly live — to thrive — human beings must love and be loved. People must feel raw pain and pure ecstasy to know the human experience."

All of these simplicities are a vital part of what makes life worth living, which is true whether or not "machines simply cannot replicate" them. And they are not only still possible but easier for us in a world where a human does not need to work for a living because machines, our beautiful creations that represent one of our greatest accomplishments as a species, do the undesired grunt work that is necessary for our survival.

Even if robots take over everything that we currently consider "paid work," including the simple work, humans can work at and enjoy all kinds of unpaid activities. There is no economic incentive to automate an unprofitable activity, so unproductive fun is much less likely than productive work to be "automated away." And even if an activity (e.g. productive fun) is automated, humans can still do it without being paid if they enjoy it for its own sake, so very few activities will be "automated away" that are intrinsically desirable. Robots will simply alleviate the need for a precarious "work-life balance" by taking our work and thereby giving us more life. They will give us the time and resources to live freely as we see fit, free to enjoy our simple and relational humanity.

For more information on this subject, check out some of the articles that Gary and I have written:

Gary's Automation Articles: "In Defense Of The Robot Painting" and "Are Humans Better Than Machines?"

My "Automating the Workforce" Series: "Part 1: The Crisis Is Here," "Part 2: Meet The Machines" and "Part 3: The Future Of Humanity"

Report this Content
This article has not been reviewed by Odyssey HQ and solely reflects the ideas and opinions of the creator.
Student Life

100 Reasons to Choose Happiness

Happy Moments to Brighten Your Day!

32401
A man with a white beard and mustache wearing a hat

As any other person on this planet, it sometimes can be hard to find the good in things. However, as I have always tried my hardest to find happiness in any and every moment and just generally always try to find the best in every situation, I have realized that your own happiness is much more important than people often think. Finding the good in any situation can help you to find happiness in some of the simplest and unexpected places.

Keep Reading...Show less
Christmas

Remember The True Meaning of Christmas

“Where are you Christmas? Why can’t I find you?”

2998
A painting of the virgin Mary, the baby Jesus, and the wise men

It’s everyone’s favorite time of year. Christmastime is a celebration, but have we forgotten what we are supposed to be celebrating? There is a reason the holiday is called Christmas. Not presentmas. Not Santamas. Not Swiftmas. Christmas.

boy standing in front of man wearing santa claus costume Photo by __ drz __ on Unsplash



What many people forget is that there is no Christmas without Christ. Not only is this a time to spend with your family and loved ones, it is a time to reflect on the blessings we have gotten from Jesus. After all, it is His birthday.


Keep Reading...Show less
Golden retriever sat on the sand with ocean in the background
Photo by Justin Aikin on Unsplash

Anyone who knows me knows how much I adore my dog. I am constantly talking about my love for her. I attribute many of my dog's amazing qualities to her breed. She is a purebred Golden Retriever, and because of this I am a self-proclaimed expert on why these are the best pets a family could have. Here are 11 reasons why Goldens are the undisputed best dog breed in the world.

Keep Reading...Show less
Featured

Boyfriend's Christmas Wishlist: 23 Best Gift Ideas for Her

Here are the gifts I would like to ask my boyfriend for to make this season unforgettable.

89598
Young woman opening a Christmas gift

Recently, an article on Total Sorority Move called 23 Things My Boyfriend Better Not Get Me For Christmas, was going around on social media. I hope the author of this was kidding or using digital sarcasm, but I am still repulsed and shocked by the lack of appreciation throughout this article. I would like to represent the girlfriends out there who disagree with her standpoint -- the girlfriends who would be more than happy to receive any of these gifts from their boyfriends.

Keep Reading...Show less
Two teenage girls smiling

The 2000s were a time that many young adults today can look back on, joyfully reminisce and somewhat cringe at the trends and the fads that we all used to love and adore. Here's a list of things from the golden 2000s that will have one feeling nostalgic about all of those times.

Keep Reading...Show less

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Facebook Comments