As AGI looms over the horizon, is it time to redefine human purpose?
ChatGPT introduced its newest model last week which could create 3D games like Snake in a minute with the right prompts. It was also technically superior to the previous model, and it feels like the company is on a fast track towards Artificial General Intelligence, where AI knows things better than the collective human population. By the company’s estimates, they should reach that landmark in 10 years, but at the rate they are going, it is no surprise if they reach it much earlier.
As I was pondering about this, I came to the realization that a decade in some cases is too long and too short in some other cases. So, what will humans be doing when AGI can do the thinking and the action in a far more efficient way than humans could ever could? Does it not erode the purpose of humans? What are the ethical concerns of this rapid technological advancement? I talked about this to a friend who is an AI researcher, and he was equal parts hopeful and equal parts terrified about the prospect of AGI. But one thing he said that resonated with me, was that we need to think past the assumption that human beings can only find purpose in work. He went so far as to say that we should consider retiring that concept in the next few decades. With AGI at the helm, humans can be free to pursue whatever their heart desires. They can choose to be a musician, a gamer or go into a niche field, that was previously inaccessible because of many factors. But even with that explanation, I was concerned about the ethics of rapidly introducing AI into the modern workforce. While I am not against AI implementation, I am certain that it should be used to simplify our workload and do our jobs for us. This is perfectly summarized by Joanna in her tweet:
Also, when AI can create “good” art (I use the word good in quotes because it is subjective), it generally feels cheap, and factory-made. I believe Art is created from depth, depth of thinking, depth of experience and depth of living life in general. While it helps budding artists generate art at a rapid rate, I also think it promotes the erasure of great artists of the past like Van Gogh and Picasso. When everyone can create “good” art, I think there will be good art, but no good artists. This is even applicable to work in general, when AI can do everything better than you can, what gives you the purpose to get up in the morning and do things when you can just laze around all day. This also prompts a question, how will people be able to survive if AI is doing everything, will they have to rely on government benefits and if so, how can the government provide benefits to everyone. However, I do not have answers to that question, plus I think that requires a separate discussion.