johnmaconline

You have nothing to fear. 

Yes, keep your eyes open, but don’t be afraid. 

If you’ve been following along here, you know we’ve been exploring AI, its current and future capabilities, and whether we should fear the flapping jaws spouting doomsday scenarios.

Will AI become sentient? Will it matter?
Will AI destroy the human race?
Will AI become better than us?
Will AI take our jobs?
Will AI render us useless?

At this point, I’m not afraid of Player Piano, and I’m not afraid of Skynet.

Player Piano posits a future where humans no longer have utility and, by extension, purpose. We’ll just trudge through our lives without purpose while the machines do the work. That’s a very low view of humanity. History tells me that this couldn’t be further from the truth. History says that humans rise up. We no longer need to carry water from the stream three hours a day, yet we’ve filled those three hours with more utility and purpose. 

Will some people feel useless or lack purpose? Yes, of course. Just like today. But not everyone. Humans will rise up and find their place in the order of things. 

I’m not afraid of Skynet because, well, I just don’t see it. What I mean is I don’t understand what would drive the sentient AI to destroy us. Destroying the human race doesn’t seem like a data-driven outcome. That seems like an emotionally driven outcome. AI, even “sentient” AI, won’t be driven by emotions. 

Remember, the way AI works (could change in the future, and then we’ll have to reassess) is not like a human. Similar to how humans can use an airplane to fly, but we still can’t fly — not really. Not like a bird can fly. Our current computing AI systems will scale up, become faster and more capable, but not in the way a human mind is capable. 

Neural nets are interesting. More power and faster are interesting. Quantum computing is even more interesting. But these are still airplanes, not birds. 

I’m deep in the throws of evaluating and using some of the various AI tools in my professional setting as the leader of a software development and DevOps team. I’m using ChatGPT and Bard in earnest. Can it help me? Is it scary? Am I part of the problem?

I’ve read, watched, and listened to many AI evangelists talking about how much it’s helping them in their day-to-day work. Here’s my evaluation of ChatGPT (GPT-4) and Bard’s current ability to make useful contributions in the software engineering world:

There’s something there, but it’s like a crappy intern at best. 

It can do some things, but it needs constant attention, is always asking questions it shouldn’t have to, misunderstands very clear instructions, has a myopic view, and generally makes me want to give it to someone else to mentor. 

This is why a new field of “prompt engineering” has popped up. But if I gotta be a prompt engineer to make it do what I want, how is that helping the general population? 

But at some point, it’s definitely gonna take some jobs. 

If you’ve experienced job replacement or been negatively affected by outsourcing and automation, then you understand one of the existential threats of AI. AI will take jobs, or rather, shift jobs and rearchitect the scale of the workforce in some areas. But technology has been doing this throughout the history of human work. One could argue that we haven’t seen a technology like AI to date, but neither did we see electricity, the internet, and airplanes. 

Some will rise above, and unfortunately, some will not. 

You can ignore the doomsayers. At least the dystopian predictors. Keep your eyes open for opportunities. Keep your eyes open for ways you can add value and make an impact. Engage your humanity. 

But that advice isn’t novel or revelatory in any way. That has always been true. 

This world was built for humans, at least the current version is. You and I are humans. Don’t ever forget that. Lean into it. 

Intentional gratitude.

It’s simple. It’s powerful. It requires (the illusion of) free will. 

If I had to pick one singular practice that has made the most significant positive impact on me, it’s the practice of intentional gratitude. I know this not because I walk around in some enlightened state. I know it because I rarely walk around in that enlightened state.

Until I start practicing again, and then I taste it again. 

I fall off the wagon, and the spiral starts. I kick against it. I lay my head on the soft pillow of victimhood. I think, “why?”

But deep down, I know. I fight against it for a while with excuses like time, difficulty, and “It won’t keep working.” Then I sit down in the quiet morning before I start the work day and get started. I make the list. I think about the list.

And slowly, if I commit, my mood lightens over the next few days or weeks. I feel less burdened. Therefore, I am less of a burden.

I know it because I observe those around me, and I see the spectrum. Light resonating off like a main sequence star or getting sucked in like a black hole. 

The real magic of practicing intentional gratitude is that you can change everything without changing anything. 

I don’t know if biochemistry precedes the thought or if the thought proceeds from biochemistry.

But would an AI ever think to itself, “I’m blessed.”

I suck at negotiation. Always have.

Winning a negotiation is about gaining leverage. Gaining leverage is the art of knowing what the other side cares about. I suck at that art. 

Luckily, here come the hagglebots.

Procurement departments rejoice! Bots with all of the info, including what makes the other side tick, will soon be on a tear. Hagglebots will be putting the squeeze on the supply chain. 

I’ve paid almost full price for my cars. I’ve rarely made headway on salary or benefits moving into a new job. I can’t remember a touchy situation when I successfully extracted what I wanted. 

But that doesn’t mean I’ve always come out of negotiations feeling like a loser. 

There’s more to winning a negotiation than any objective measure because winning is a feeling. You’ve won if you felt like you got a good deal. The best negotiators know this. If you can make the other side feel like they’re getting a good deal, i.e., the proverbial win-win, then you’ve actually won. 

Would an AI ever think to itself, “I feel like I got a good deal.”

We can’t (yet) control the weather. Neither can AI.

If the surf’s up, the powder is fresh, or the breeze is strong and steady, you gotta jump on it. Cancel your chores and grab your board.

Neither we nor AI can control when the mood hits us just right.

If a serendipitous opportunity pops up to dance with your partner, play catch with your son, or have lunch with your daughter, you gotta jump on it. Cancel your chores and grab a hand.

AI has no idea. No amount of programming, training, and machine learning could ever give it a clue.

So let it do its thing. Let it do the chores. Maybe give it more of your chores.

Don’t waste the moment.

AI should be the CEO of the Effective Altruism movement. 

In fact, it’s inevitable. Which is kinda ironic because the Effective Altruists are also “helping to create the field of AI alignment research.”

Effective Altruism’s principles:

• Prioritization — because human intuition isn’t good enough
• Impartiality — because human connection isn’t good enough
• Truthseeking — because human belief isn’t good enough
• Collaboration — because a single human helping another human isn’t good enough

Effective Altruism seeks qualification of need through computation. “Look at the numbers (that we’ve decided are the important ones).” AI runs circles around humans at numbers. Therefore, AI will get us to the objectively correct vision of the world faster and better than any human could. 

There’s just one problem. 

There is no objectively correct vision of the world. Therefore, there is no objectively correct way to get there. Therefore, there is no objectively correct way to use our individual and collective resources to help others.

True effective altruism is, always was, and always will be about personal connection to those whom you want to help. Giving freely from your sense of humanity. 

For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in;

Matthew 25:35

Would an AI ever think to itself, “I’d like to invite him in.”

Time is everything. 

Time is the one resource that we can never recover. A wish for one more year, one more day, one more minute. Regrets of missed opportunities, wasted time, and wrong place at the wrong time. 

Chronos is time as you and I experience it. The ticking of the second hand. The serial march of one thing after another. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Objectively quantified and measured. 

Productivity is the quest for expanding chronos. Get more done in the same period of time. AI is the just latest tool that promises to expand chronos. 

Kairos is also time, but ontologically very different. A theologian might describe it as God’s time. A secular philosopher might describe it as the right time or the opportune moment. 

Kairos is time you remember. Kairos left you yearning for just a little while longer. 

As a kid, I remember skimming through my great-grandfather’s journals. Volumes of dry, daily entries about the weather, visitors, and current events. But every once in a while, I came across some extended entries providing a glimpse into thoughts and feeling about the otherwise dry course of events. 

Today’s smartphone camera roll serves as your journal. Scroll back, and you’ll find grocery lists, road signs, notes, and a million other everyday objects scattered through the faces and places. 

Chronos turned kairos.

AI knows nothing about kairos. At least not now. 

Would an AI ever think to itself, “I just wish I had one more day.”

AI should do your work chores. 

You know the Eisenhower Matrix? Urgent versus important, etc. A method like this helps us because we tend to put off the hard stuff. The human stuff. We use excuses of urgency or money or whatever else we can grab onto to justify prioritizing the wrong tasks. 

Chores are one of those categories of tasks that we use as an excuse. Here’s what the brilliant Seth Godin has to say about chores:

“Entrepreneurs, artists and freelancers [my input: and all workers] often spend a lot of time on chores. We justify this because outsourcing chores to others costs money, and in this moment, money is tight.

But that’s not the real story. 

The truth is that if we stop doing chores, we have to do real work instead. The things that aren’t repeatable or proven. The things that are emotionally difficult, creatively challenging or simply requiring exploration and guts to pursue.”

Seth Godin — Chores

Chores in non-work life do provide value. They help connect us to the physical requirements of life. The bottom of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and whatnot. 

But in our work, we often justify doing chores because of our emotional resistance to doing the real work. The work that matters. 

AI doesn’t care. It’s happy to do the chores. It would never think, “I don’t want to do this menial task.” So let it. 

Because if AI does your chores, you can be the free-thinking human. We need you to be.

Faster, cheaper, better. 

I’ve been on the front lines of outsourcing almost my entire career. I’ve hired, led, and worked with off-shore software teams and contracting firms for over 20 years. I help my current company work and scale better through automation. And yes, now I’m exploring how AI systems like ChatGPT can accelerate and improve our work. 

Maybe that makes me one of the evil ones. Anti-American or anti-human even. Contributing to the downfall of our culture and spiraling into a Player Piano dystopian world. 

Spoiler alert: I don’t see it that way. My motto has always been, “If a different person or machine can do my job faster, cheaper, and better, then let’s do that. I’ll find some other way to add value.”

I have always seen it that way because I truly believe that each human has value and purpose. My job is to find purpose and add value where I can. In the case of outsourcing, automation, and AI, it’s being the adult in the room. 

For me, using outsourcing, machines, and AI to do work isn’t about replacement. It’s about enhancement. Allowing each of us to contribute more of the things that the humans need to contribute. 

New technology has always replaced or removed jobs, but we humans have always found new purpose and better ways to add value. 

For example, should “faster, cheaper, better” be the goal? 

I guess it depends. 

Would an AI ever think to itself, “It depends.”