“Devising challenges that are new, useful, and achievable can be as difficult as solving them. Rather than specify a task that neither humans nor machines have ever done before, why not ask the research team to design a machine that replicates an existing human capability? Unlike more ambitious goals, replication has an existence proof that such tasks are, in principle, feasible and useful.”
In a recent article, “The Turing Trap: The Promise & Peril of Human-Like Artificial Intelligence”, Erik Brynjolfsson argues that our obsession with creating human level artificial intelligence are problematic in that they not only disempower large swaths of people but also lead to under-exploration of what humans and machines could do together.
But in the same way that he notes that AI and human intelligence don’t have to be at odds with one another, I think he misses that automation and augmentation also don’t need to be competing interests. In fact to create higher levels of human augmentation, it makes more sense to first automate tasks.
To me, artisanal markets are a prime example of how automation helps expand augmentation. When a once mundane field becomes automated, it becomes soulless. It’s only by filling the world with millions of carbon copies that we create room for improving the status quo. By removing the need to produce, you allow for creativity and artistry to flourish.
While art and soulless corporatism are often seen as two competing sides, I’m starting to think that the soulless “art” actually has a use in further pushing real art. Rather than exploring tiny variations on existing themes and ideas, things best left to the corporate world, artists can continue pushing new bounds.
Automation sets frontiers for augmentation to push beyond.
Anyways.
Actually, if you really think about it, if you’re an uber-wealthy CEO, automation is augmentation. Augmentation is defined as doing something that you couldn’t do by yourself. If you’re a business leader automating labor, you now have the capability of producing more value for less cost. Erik’s article is less about automation and augmentation being on two different sides and more about who gets to be augmented in the first place.
I’m really glad you cited Erik’s article, it was a really well written read.
I feel like your example of artisanal markets and art is interesting but not comparable to Erik’s argument. If jobs are automated so heavily that the majority of people who aren’t included in the technological elite don’t have access to wealth or a chance to get it, these artisanal markets may exist, but from who and for who?
Secondly, I think your argument about soulless vs real art is interesting on its own. Speaking from a perspective of having a small glimpse inside the entertainment industry, many creative and genre defying studios rely on an artistic pipeline that from an outside perspective is incredibly automated. Yet this automated structure doesn’t prevent studios from creating works that have never been done before, it makes it possible, because creating original content doesn’t get created in a vacuum. It gets created with a strong production structure and resources/talent working in a professional “corporate” synchronization. Yes, indie content exists, but that’s a conversation in itself though.