Radio Free New Hampshire: New Worlds And Old Words

By Michael Davidow, InDepth NH

AI recently solved a handful of math equations that our finest minds have been investigating for decades. It absorbed the work that has been done to date and used it for a base. Mathematicians are crying foul. Like taking a helicopter to the top of Mount Everest, one stated.

With people paying cash to ride shotgun into outer space (also to the top of Mount Everest, for that matter), that complaint sounds quaint. But I still sympathize. High level mathematics is as creative and intuitive as art. Mathematicians love their field because it’s human. Its practice brings them joy. Now AI is taking that away.

Its challenge to other professions is not far behind. The fear is we’ll lose our ability to think big thoughts if we have them simply handed to us. The fear is we’ll be less happy for that convenience. It’s a nice fear to have because it implies that we want those thoughts. We like to think that we like to think.

Whether we do is a different question. Dostoevsky posited otherwise in his story about the chief officer of the Inquisition, called to consult about a difficult case. Jesus has returned, bringing his message of love and hope again. He has also been arrested again and called to account accordingly. The state’s Grand Inquisitor meets him in his cell to explain the indictment he faces. Jesus gave freedom to all mankind. He placed the kingdom of heaven in their hands. But the average man can’t manage that burden. We are too weak and too tired. The church was forced to correct Jesus’ mistake. It was hard work, accomplished at great cost. And they weren’t about to let the Second Coming ruin things.

Dostoevsky was no fan of the western church, which he thought undermined man’s struggle to find meaning in this world. To struggle, he implied, was holy work. But many shared his character’s pessimistic take on things. Our own country was founded as an explicit statement of faith in mankind’s ability to govern itself, but our early leaders still lost sleep over the wisdom of their plans. They also devised the safest set of institutions possible to make sure no demagogue could ever take power. When asked what sort of government they’d made, Ben Franklin famously replied, “a republic – if you can keep it.”

We test those limits more every day. Voters on both the left and the right trust their fellow citizens less and less. The media landscape makes it hard to engage in serious debate rather than mere sloganeering. Emotions run high and common sense falters. And into this scene steps AI, with its promise of progress, neutrality, and efficiency. That it robs us of creativity may seem like a small price to pay. After all, we can’t all be mathematicians.

So some might embrace it, others might fight it, and others might try to find a middle path. Limiting its reach at all, though, won’t be easy. This is partly because of politics but also partly by design. Many Silicon Valley executives practice the philosophy of effective altruism, a school of thought that favors the welfare of the many over the hopes of the few. It’s an updated version of utilitarianism, which shares roots with socialism. But its emphasis on what can be seen and measured pushes its adherents towards material goals rather than moral or spiritual ones. It is Dostoevsky’s Grand Inquisitor on steroids.

Aldous Huxley wrote about technology and utilitarianism in his novel Brave New World. Following Dostoevsky’s footsteps, he saw the church perfected by the factory, with humanity withering under an onslaught of wealth and plenty. He wrote his nightmare vision nearly one hundred years ago, well before computers, never mind AI. He had lived through the First World War, though. Rejected by the British Army for bad eyesight, he nevertheless learned a great deal. The First World War featured machine guns. Weaponry outstripped tactics. Men were killed in industrial batches and their generals did not know how to stop it. Huxley became a pacifist. Hitler had other ideas. But Huxley’s grim story could be written tomorrow about today.

Clear thinking has often tended in that direction. In the second century, a rabbi named Eliezer ben Chasma taught that the science of the Greeks was interesting, yet it only dealt with minor concerns. He considered it more important for people to study the laws of sacrifice. Those words made little sense to me when I was young. But if anything, my colleague undersold his argument. Because when science takes precedence over faith, the consequences are dangerous. Right now, they seem existential.

With AI knocking on our doors, we had better be mindful of ancient wisdom. We should remember the laws of sacrifice.

Davidow writes Radio Free New Hampshire for InDepthNH.org. He is also the author of Gate City, Split Thirty, and The Rocketdyne Commission, three novels about politics and advertising which, taken together, form The Henry Bell Project, The Book of Order, and The Hunter of Talyashevka, Chanukah Land can be found here. And his latest novel Interdiction can be found here.

This story was originally published by InDepth NH.