In a rush to force AI on us, policymakers are embracing a technology that is exceptionally good at destroying the things that bring meaning to our lives.

In recent weeks, we’ve seen footage of mathematicians crying because AI has triggered an existential and spiritual crisis for their profession.

AI has made the race to publish mathematical breakthroughs pointless, according to the Australian professor at the centre of an international controversy this week.

Mathematics professor Francesco Maggi, when discussing the “remarkable ability” that large language models (LLM) have to generate mathematical proofs, says the technology poses a challenge to something deeply human.

So what are we doing?

Do policymakers appreciate that people are extremely concerned about a technology that has a powerful ability to devalue human creative expression?

We’re living in a world of major system collapse, and policymakers are forcing technology into our homes (and data centres into our neighbourhoods) that will undermine the very things that bring meaning to our lives, and that would otherwise help us to cope with a collapsing world.

  • blind3rdeye@aussie.zoneEnglish
    3·
    4 days ago

    There has been focused emphasis on STEM teaching and research (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) for years now. And its easy to see why: STEM is what makes modern tech possible. New inventions, new ways of building and using old inventions, better understanding of the physical laws of the universe; and so on. At face value, it sounds like pretty good stuff. Imagine what amazing tech will come next…

    But I think we’ve missed something. In particular, we’ve sidelined the philosophical / human study of what is the goal? There has been this implicit assumption that more is better. More tech. More stuff. Faster stuff. Bigger stuff. Stronger / lighter / more connected stuff… So we focus on creating all that stuff. But perhaps that never should have been the goal in the first place. The good life does not necessarily need all that, and in fact, I think soon we’re going to have to come to terms with the idea that a lot of it might actually be detrimental. We could end up less happy, less sustainable, less engaged in our community, less wise, less motivated to do anything at all. Apathetic, and pathetic.

    I think we overshot with STEM. I’ve worked professionally as a scientist, and a programmer, and a mathematician. But I now reckon we need art and philosophy more than we need technology. We need to work out what is actually good; and I don’t believe the answer is “more”.

    • Taleya@aussie.zoneEnglish
      3·
      4 days ago

      I think every STEM needs to have mandatory social science modules. We got here because tech bros don’t fucking understand how to human

    • arbilp3@aussie.zoneOPEnglish
      3·
      4 days ago

      Couldn’t agree more.

      We could end up less happy, less sustainable, less engaged in our community, less wise, less motivated to do anything at all. Apathetic, and pathetic.

      A lot of people seem to already be there. Of greatest concern to me is the increase in mental health challenges among the young. They have the major part of their life ahead of them and they don’t like what they see. The techno-connectivity we’ve inflicted on them in the insatiable hunt for more profits has and is hurting many of them.