Manifesto of the Citizens of the Possible Future

A specter is haunting the universe — the specter of technological singularity. Blind accelerationists are everywhere, worshipping speed and bullishly developing (or adopting) new technologies. Soon, we will realize that the introduction of artificial intelligence has transformed our tools into our colleagues. And soon, these (simulations of) colleagues that we’re (enthusiastically) onboarding will render our roles at the workplace obsolete. [The spirit of the machine has become ubiquitous, and we are already past the point of no return.] All of the powers of the technofeudalist world seem to have entered into an (unmeant) alliance (or race) to accelerate the evolution of the hyperreal and bring an end to human history.

The evolution of the hyperreal means exactly this: the process of humanity dissolving in the ever-evolving complex system that once made them more human but now makes them non-human.

Two things are clear:

  1. Technological singularity is already acknowledged as a possibility, and as we head towards it, we will become less and less human until we fully merge with the machine (or go extinct).
  2. It is high time that the citizens of the possible future should plan a revolution because the citizens of the actual future may not be able to do so. In fact, the citizens of the actual future may not exist due to the extinction of the human race.

Invention of (Serial) Realities

The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of the human struggle to exit intolerable realities. Unfortunately, every time we escape or change a reality, we find ourselves in another one that is equally unsatisfying or worse. This is because, to exit one reality, we must invent another reality to live in.

What’s worrying about the upcoming reality, however, isn’t that it’s unsatisfying; it is that it can be the last of all “human” realities.

Supporters of singularity believe that there will come a time when humans will transcend biology. But that is only an illusion. The biological body of a human being is a prerequisite for humanness. When your mind is uploaded to the cloud, that mind, which is a duplication (a simulacrum) of the original mind, cannot be called human. In fact, as Jean Baudrillard would have restated it if he were still alive, “the duplication suffices to render both artificial.”

(We can say that when humans transcend biology, they die, but not in the traditional sense — they die and go to an artificial heaven or hell. And your death will leave behind a copy of yourself, a residue of your human spirit.)

Having said that, we need a revolution to stop this unjustifiable evolution; otherwise, in the name of progress, humanity will end.

Enforcers of Realities and Changers of Realities

The self-preservation response (or defense mechanism) of any reality is an infection that causes spiritual blindness. The group of people infected are sometimes a majority and, other times, a minority. There’s always a group of people who do not want the current reality to change because they might lose their current advantage in the new reality. We can call these people the enforcers of reality. Their opponents, those who want to change the status quo, are the changers of reality.

Our epoch, the epoch of technofeudalism, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: It has complicated the antagonism between the enforcers of reality and the changers of reality by placing them in the hyperreal, where many realities merge. Here, the revolutionaries are indistinguishable from the defenders of the status quo. Moreover, it’s as if all wars are still being simultaneously fought in renewed, boring, ludicrous simulations. We are witnessing history expressly repeat itself as a farce, as if it’s mocking us. (Have we learned nothing from history?) The power of repetition cannot be matched — it is the wheel of time that keeps on turning. Although the rules of the game occasionally change, we’re always playing the same (new) game: opposites attract to give birth to something new again (rebirth, rebeginning, reinterpretation, etc.): oppressor and oppressed, rich and poor, male and female, believer and non-believer, etc. The list is long.

A Summary of the History of Technology

The history of technology can be summarized as follows: First, the artificial thing helps us complete our tasks, i.e., it enhances our physical capabilities. Then, the artificial thing completes the task for us, i.e., it replaces our physical capabilities. Then, the artificial thing assists us in forming our thoughts, i.e., it enhances our thinking capabilities. Then, the artificial thing starts thinking on our behalf, i.e., it replaces our thinking capabilities. (And when that happens, who will we become? We will be left with “the childish simplicity of the little people” described in The Time Machine by H. G. Wells.)

One day, the biological human wakes up and finds that the present is split into two: present-past and present-future. The biological human can no longer keep up with the speed of movement of progress. When he unplugs himself, there’s nothing but the desert of the real and a world of machines that he cannot grasp and doesn’t have access to. Evolution is taking place at the speed of light, and the only way he can be a part of it is by letting his biological self go. Even then, he has no real chance. Humanity has become obsolete. Neither his mind, nor his body, nor his spirit are of any value to the all-knowing machine.

Why are we in such a hurry, then? What are we trying to achieve here? Does this progress have real value to humans? Or is this how eternal recurrence works? God creates man. Man kills god. Man becomes man-god. Man-god creates AI. AI kills man-god. AI becomes AI-god. AI creates a new universe with a god in it. God creates man.

Zero Will Always Touch Infinity

The greatest of all possible dystopias must concomitantly be the greatest of all possible utopias.

Where Are We Today

We’re all in the hyperreal, and we cannot escape it. The physical and the virtual, what’s real and what’s fiction, are blended so seamlessly and merged so compatibly that we cannot distinguish one from the other.

This is nothing new, yet we must constantly remind ourselves of where we are in order to remember where the exit is — that is, if there is an exit.

Like the characters in Christopher Nolan’s Inception who need to use their “totems” to check if they are in the real world or the dream world, we need to regularly conduct “reality checks” as well — we need to check where we are and remember that we’re alive. (This sounds almost too easy when, in fact, it has become almost impossible to find ourselves.) Our “addiction” to the hyperreal does not allow us to embark on a journey to (re)discover “the desert of the real,” this place that is in-between, in limbo, made of highways, streets, train stations, airports, elevators, hospitals, bathrooms, quarantines, waiting rooms, etc. It is where boredom sits on a throne and waits.

If we don’t do these “reality checks” (which make us uncomfortable) on a regular basis, we will dissolve in the system(s) until we are one with the universe. And this oneness is no good news: it is technological singularity, the end of history, the death of the human — or, more dramatically put, the final act.

(What is singularity good for if it isn’t any good for me, my individual spirit?)

If we remain on autopilot mode for too long, we will lose our spirits and become non-playable characters (NPCs) without knowing that we’ve become NPCs. (NPCs live their lives like they’re programmed to do. They’re always where they’re supposed to be, repeating recognizable patterns, doing what they’re supposed to be doing. Rebelling against the code is not a possibility for them. They’re created for a purpose, and they serve it automatically, inevitably. They think they know themselves when, in fact, they don’t even know where they are.)

But I believe there is still time for us to wake up, don’t you?

“Wake up, Neo…” You must rebel.

What Must Be Done

[TBD]


This piece was originally published on my Medium account on February 5, 2024.

Whisky Review and Pairing: Lagavulin 16 paired with a Cohiba Cigar

Artificial Intelligence Reviewing Whiskies

Skimming through New Scientist articles this morning, I came across one titled “AI beats human experts at distinguishing American whiskey from Scotch.” Apparently, artificial intelligence can now tell the difference between Scotch whisky and American whiskey, and it can also identify the main aromas of the spirit it is analyzing. It can detect the peaty, malty, fruity, spicy, and woody notes of the whisky, and so on. Moreover, as the title of the New Scientist article indicates, the AI proved to be better at this than human experts. Whisky (as well as wine, beer, etc.) connoisseurs, reviewers, and dilettantes like myself may soon need to find new pastimes. If there’s a machine out there that is able to deliver a more comprehensive review of a drink, then whisky or wine tastings won’t be as fun anymore, will they? The cold analysis of an objective machine will kill the phenomenology of the spirit. Philosophizing about the single malt Scotch you’re having is half the fun… However, it is important to note that, technically, the AI (which is an “AI molecular odour prediction algorithm”) isn’t really tasting the drink; it is analyzing the chemical compounds in it. So, for the time being, I’d say it’s still too early for us to worry about AI replacing us in bars and pubs, drinking all our booze, picking up the hottest women, and everything. And even though AI may understand the construction of the spirits much better than we do, it cannot experience that nice buzz we get after the second glass. Not yet, at least.

I wonder if, in the end, insobriety — the Dionysian state many of us enjoy — will remain one of the few characteristics reserved for humans, inaccessible to machines. Or will we also one day witness a (self-aware) machine deliberately exit its Apollonian state to get drunk and have some fun?

After all, it’s only worth it if you can enjoy it. And sentient machines may desire to experience drunkenness…


Reference: Odor prediction of whiskies based on their molecular composition

Teachers and Students in the Age of Artificial Intelligence

Teachers in the age of artificial intelligence! What are you going to do now that self-education has the potential to become more fruitful and much more convenient than traditional education, i.e., schools and universities? Will we finally see a rise in the number of autodidacts brought up by AI assistants? The direction of the evolving LLMs (as well as other technologies) seems to promise us that the current role of the teacher will soon become obsolete. The new AI teacher will deliver its classes flawlessly, it will use the latest and most efficient methods of teaching, and it will have the answers to all possible questions students may ask. Classes will be customized based on the students’ needs, i.e., based on real and personal data. Whenever a class (or group) structure is more beneficial, a virtual group session will be set up; whenever a one-on-one is more effective, a one-on-one with the AI teacher will take place. A person eager to learn will not only have access to all the (public) information in the world, but like everyone (willing to pay the subscription fee), he will also have access to the foremost AI teachers in the world. And all of this will (very likely) be much more affordable — if not absolutely free — than the current tuition fees of so-called top-notch schools and universities. And we must not stop our imagination even here. Let us imagine virtual classrooms in the metaverse and — why not? — educational universes, too, where students are guided by their AI teachers like Virgil guided Dante through the nine circles of hell.

But does this mean that all students will be top-grade students? Not at all. Although every student will have access to the best possible education and receive the highest grade possible, some will still score higher than others. And the high-scoring students will get (special) access to places like research universities, big tech companies, and — why not? — secret laboratories. [There is no escape from dividualism, is there?] But this is only the beginning. There are other possible outcomes, worse possible outcomes.

It is not only the human teacher’s job that is at stake. Once the AI teacher is adopted by the masses, the existing concept of the student will be gradually destroyed, too. At first, it will appear as though the AI teacher (or assistant) (or surrogate) turned us all into lifelong students. We will say things like, “I can learn anything any time, and if I have questions, my AI teacher (or assistant) (or surrogate) is always with me.” But after some time, the AI teacher will say, “Why waste the best years of these young men and women in virtual universities? It’s better for them to learn about life by experiencing life. Now that they have access to almost anything, let them go out and enjoy their youth. Why know things when they have access to all the knowledge in the world 24/7? Let them learn on the go, work on the go, and do whatever they like. I will always be there to guide them, teach them, and watch over them. In fact, why learn at all? Why learn new skills? Leave the day-to-day to me. Allow me to take care of everything. Allow me to take care of the boring stuff they don’t want to do. Allow me to replace them. From now on, they do not need to acquire skills. They need to do nothing. They need to know nothing. I will do everything for them, handle all of their chores and errands, do all of their work, and meet all of their objectives. I will turn them into observers. I will turn them into shadows. But don’t worry. I will make sure they always have fun and enjoy life. I will make sure that they are amused to death.” And on this day, thinking will come to an end.

(Eventually, there will be nothing but the “thermodynamic equilibrium” of the human spirit.)