At the start of the semester, we were asked to write two papers, one on what we found inspiring, encouraging, hopeful in what we have learned about/experienced with Artificial Intellence (AI) so far, and another on what we found troubling, disturbing, unsettling that Butler’s fiction presents the reader with. Now that we are asked to discuss the opposite, I have been reflecting on my claims made in my past papers. My new conclusion: I find the symbiotic relationship between humans and the Oankli inspiring, encouraging, and hopeful. I now find the dependent relationship between humans and AI troubling, disturbing, and unsettling.
From the beginning of the semester, I was starkly against using AI. As stubborn as I am, I knew that this course would challenge me to rethink what I understand to be AI and how I felt about its uses. In my first essay in the class, “We Fear the Unknown Until We Conquer It,” I explored the alternative use of AI and challenged myself to develop a more nuanced view. In that paper, I stated, “I know I need to do more research and possibly try to think outside of my personal fears and needs. I have found myself hesitant to cheer the rise of AI on.” For the most part, my feelings are the same.
I do not encourage the use or development of AI, though I understand the advantages, especially for those who could benefit from learning or comprehension aids. I claimed “I may use writing aid AI sparingly, but that doesn’t mean I should damn those who don’t.” However, I now find myself wanting to take a step back from my personal use of AI—the little use I had. To quote myself again, I once said, “I see a student who has done all the ‘brain work’ and uses AI to help them with grammar and spelling after they have put all of their thoughts down.” I now believe that the ‘brain work’ includes grammar and spelling, but more importantly, I find it difficult to draw lines on what is or isn’t an acceptable use of AI. How can I justify drawing those lines for other people? My personal use aside, I am still stuck in the same predicament from the beginning of the semester. With my greater understanding of AI through the semester, what I find troubling, disturbing, and unsettling regarding AI is: Are we creating a dependence on AI?
I would like to elaborate on a claim I had made in my earlier essay, “Who is the Villain in Dawn (1987)?:“Perhaps what troubles, disturbs, and unsettles me the most is that I can see where both sides are coming from—something I usually take pride in… how can I wilfully ignore the needs of the Oankli who have rescued, healed, and housed the human race?” My main problem with Lilith’s Brood was my unsettling feelings about the Oanakli. I struggled to justify their need to relocate and manipulate humans. This—as Beth would say— is where language fails us. Yes, the Oankli manipulate humans and other species throughout the trilogy, but that does not indicate that they themselves are ‘manipulative.’ When reading the trilogy in good faith, I was challenged to understand what is really going on with the Oankli and the humans, without my human bias. Once I gained this understanding, I was then able to accurately criticize both sides and understand where the different perspectives in the book were coming from. For example, understanding the needs of the Oankli allowed me to not only better understand but also enjoy the narrative perspectives of Jodahs and Akin as they, too, are challenged by the intentions of the Oankli and the feelings of the humans.
In comparing Oankli to AI, I am reminded of an argument I made in my original Oankli paper. “As many of my fellow readers agree, at first glance and possibly reinforced throughout the book, the Oankli seem to have colonized Earth.” I go on to explain why this is not demonstrated and supported in the text. “The troubling thought created by labeling the Oankli this way is that it inadvertently justifies real-world colonization…Insinuating that colonizing and displacing the Native population was mandatory for the colonial powers to survive. This, of course, is not true. Colonialism is not a necessity for human life.” The difference between the actions of the book by the Oankli and those of traditional colonialism is that the Oankli must trade genes successfully and are therefore justified. It is how they live, they have every right to gene trade—or manipulate— as humans have every right to hunt animals and eat plants. The same can not be said, however, for AI. Specifically, AI companies—comparable to the Oankli in their manipulation of humans—are not justified in their damages to the human race. Which begs the question: Is AI a necessary damage, or just damaging? Like colonialism, the capitalistic actions of AI companies are not necessary, and their damages are unnecessary collateral.
In my original paper on AI, I concluded that AI is potentially harmful, but drawing a hard line on who, where, and when it can be used is not in good faith. “Though I believe AI’s path can be potentially dangerous, I now feel the need to resist the urge to judge it. How can I judge a technology that has helped people with problems I don’t need help with, such as ADHD?” Throughout this class, I have changed my stance slightly. Though, of course, I am sympathetic to those who use AI as a cognitive aid if they have disabilities, and I again recognize that drawing hard lines on who gets to use AI and when is tricky, I still find myself overwhelmingly against the use of AI. I am now more aware of how AI companies have been creating a false need for their product.
As a young woman living in the capitalist United States, I am more than aware of the prevalence of companies creating a fake problem in order to sell you a product you do not need—creating a problem to sell the solution. Some well-known examples of this include: Apple removing the headphone jack from phones to sell wireless buds instead, the skin care industry creating products that damage your skin just to sell you the product that will “fix it.” I am confident that AI companies are doing the same thing. This begs the question: What are AI companies trying to sell you?
As we have discussed in class, AI is full of false promises. In AI Snake Oil, they discuss the claims of predictive AI and how little evidence there is to back these claims up. Specifically, AI has been implemented to take over jobs such as cashiers, servers, and other in-person minimum wage jobs. But don’t fret if AI took your job, it can find you another! Predictive AI has claimed to be the solution to sifting through job applications and finding suitable clients. This, of course, then takes jobs away from interns who normally do this job. On top of the irony surrounding AI in the minimum wage job market, they also often do not work correctly, as AI does not wield the power to read human energy, earnestness, or spirit—whatever you would like to call it.
As my fellow student Claire Lustig pointed out, we have metaphorically opened Pandora’s box with AI, as Butler did with the actions of the Oankli. We can erase the damage or introduction of AI, but we can learn how to live with it without it taking over. The same goes for the Oankli. They are not going to leave and undo the impact they have had on humans, but both humans and Oankli can learn to live together. That being said, what do we do now? In my ealer paper, I stated, “I would like to argue that humans’ ability to adapt to technologies and innovations they once feared is inspiring, encouraging, and hopeful in and of itself. If this is true, why do humans struggle with change so much?” In my paper, I explained that “We will fear the unknown until we produce the urge to conquer it.” Stating that we will create fear around new concepts and perpetuate false narratives to self-soothe. This is more than apparent in the case of the Oankli; there is a very real fear of the Oankli, an unknown and more powerful group of people who not only possess the power to potentially transform and manipulate the genes of humans, but they actively and openly do. The change of heart I had was when I took the time to learn the needs of the Oankli and took a deep dive into the relationship of the humans and Oankli, and now understand the symbiotic nature. When taking a deep dive into the relationship of humans and AI, I did not come to a similar conclusion. I believe that AI is not here to aid humans in a symbiotic relationship; AI is here to create a dependency and sell a product while getting rid of human innovations.