"When people try to sell you on the idea that the future is already settled, it's because it is deeply unsettled. I think that, y'know this promise of an artificial intelligence future, is really just a collective anxiety that very wealthy, powerful people have about how well they're gonna be able to control us. If they can get us to accept that the future is already settled - AI is already here, the end is already here - then we will create that for them. My most daring idea is to refuse."
"The proposal for a post-human future is one where there will be human beings who will just be treated inhumanely. We're not going to stop making people or humans, they're just saying we're not going to treat you as humans. And I refuse. And I think that we all can."
Many prevalent AI narratives present inevitability, but the future remains unsettled and contingent. Wealthy and powerful actors promote settled futures to secure control and manage public acceptance. Current AI developments, including limitations of large language models, show that a fully AI-dominated society is not guaranteed. A plausible post-human scenario risks normalizing inhumane treatment of people by redefining who counts as fully human. Historical precedents demonstrate that injustices were once framed as inevitable. Collective refusal and organized resistance can interrupt trajectories that would concentrate benefits for the rich and preserve human dignity.
Read at Futurism
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]