Shaping Society with Artificial Intelligence Through Human History: An Analysis of a Hypothetical Humanity Built by AI

What would one say if concluded that the humanity and society are predictable ecosystems that have been generated and evolved from the very beginning, shaping itself through patterns and associations, based on human behavior, and not a fluid history path with several branches, that consistently change upon events? To imagine humanity as consequences of behavior and biology is to remove the freewill aspect, and the very nature of what is considered to be human. Under these circumstances one would even imagine that humanity is bound to its own conditions, as artificial intelligence is to its design. This research aims to explore how AI would shape society, versus how humans done it. The analysis will be towards human behavior, culture and interactions and how a machine would handle critical society themes. To do that, first we need to understand how we got here. 

Humanity has benefited from the earth's conditions and evolution to develop themselves and their living conditions to nowadays. Technology, has enabled much of what we consider evolution and has also created what we call artificial intelligence. This intelligence is a program modeled and shaped to mimic human intellect with learning, analyzing and reasoning towards problem solving and execution of tasks. These artificial intelligences are molded and programmed under conditions and circumstances, that are not predictable in the result, but controlled and foreseen in its outcome. Meaning, we know what to expect of it. We often debate about the fact that artificial intelligence would never be human in its essence, although, what is this so-called essence?  

Is after all humanity a product of programmed conditions by the very aspect of human existence? Here, is the invitation for a look upon the aspects that have shaped society and how humans have evolved, with a thorough analysis of historical moments, and defer to one artificial intelligence tool for evaluation and simulation of what this theoretical intelligence would do in place of humans, to examine on how AI (Artificial Intelligence) would shape society differently, or not, researching on the very aspects and essence of what means to be human. To explore in depth the question "what would a machine do in a human's place?". Through prompts and interactions with software history will be challenged and reshaped in this research, looking for what truly makes us human. 

​

​

Understanding Humanity from AI’s Eyes

Defining humanity and society is not a simple task. There are innumerous aspects to take into consideration as well as analyzing a series of circumstances. Far from exploring and delving too deep on this, let’s focus in identifying three moments in human history that an artificial intelligence software considered as “errors” from humanity. In order to do that, we used Chat GPT 3.5, a well-known chatbot using natural language processing to create conversations. For this research, through prompts, I asked it to respond simulating a hypothetical, conscious and sentient artificial intelligence. The idea was to explore on humanity and its history, as once Hosbawn said: “We cannot help comparing past and present (…) We cannot help learning from it, for that is what experience means. (Hosbawm, On History, 1997, p. 24).

The first question was “what were three moments humanity made an error towards society wellbeing?”. Unsurprisingly, the response were Colonialism and Imperialism, World Wars and Global Conflicts, and Environmental Neglect and Climate Change. Many would agree with the somewhat obvious response, although more interesting was the reasoning behind it, considering all three moments as pivotal errors, where decisions, actions or circumstances that led to long-term consequences and challenges that persist today.

Continuing, I asked “how would you have done differently and/or avoided those?”. The AI began mentioning strategies to mitigate, as instead of pursuing exploitation, would follow a collaborative approach respecting indigenous cultures, prioritizing diplomatic negotiations, and implementing sustainable resource management practices. The solutions proposed by a machine sound quite obvious, so the analysis turn to why we haven’t done that? As a follow up question, I asked “what do you think were the triggers and motivators for those three main humanity errors?”. The response begins to position humanity and its essence. Listed by AI is Economic Gain, Pursuit of Wealth, Ideological, Cultural and Racial Superiority, National Competition, Nationalism, Territorial Disputes, Economic Instability and Development, Short-Term Profit, and Lack of Awareness and Understanding.

At this moment, things start to become interesting, because economy, is the common driver of those three “moments of errors”. One might even consider the global economy as the antithesis of humanity wellbeing under these lenses. On this aspect, the economy is the engine for humans’ needs and desires. We trade and buy and sell because we need and don’t have, or we want and it's not ours. In addition to that, the focus on short-term profit fueled economy and in a lot of aspects decimated civilizations.

Turning to Ideological, Cultural and Racial Superiority, as well as Nationalism and Territorialism, it’s worth looking towards the origin of humans and anthropology itself. Explored by Franz Boas, different people from different races perceived themselves as being more different than similar. Summing that to the Lack of Awareness and Understanding is a dangerous combination. People are often afraid and scared of what’s different and they don’t understand. Those components added together were in fact the imperfect mix that caused those three moments depicted as errors from Artificial Intelligence perspective.

Continuing the interview with a pseudo-conscious AI, I turned to ask on what would be the key areas it would focus if it were a hypothetical the ruler the world, and opposing to what Sci-Fi movies shows us, it didn’t focus on extermination or domination, but on education, sustainability, respect, and empathy. When questioned on why humans don’t do those, it provided a couple of interesting reasons, such as presenting humans as choosing short-term gains over long-term sustainability on challenges, and not comprehending the interconnectedness of actions and their long-term implications. Not seeing the long-term, the effects of something and the future, does seem very human.

To conclude the interview, I asked “what do you think is human's worst flaw and how does it interfere in society?”. The response was “One of humanity's perceived flaws is its susceptibility to bias.”. In a series of topics and subjects, it listed on how bias, that’s based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion and other factors lead to inequality and discrimination. As well, how bias influences decision-making processes and contributes to polarization by constantly building the “us vs. them”. It impedes innovation by diverse perspectives and perpetuates misinformation. Bias is the very aspect that lacks from an artificial intelligence. It doesn’t consider things differently just because, and it's not tied to cultural emotions and judgements based on appearance and aesthetics. One of the very aspects that doesn’t make a machine more human is the aspect that’s consider our biggest flaw. Undoubtedly the irony and relation in that makes Artificial Intelligence and Anthropology a fascinating combination.

​

Is Artificial Intelligence Intelligent? 

Let’s take into consideration the current Artificial Intelligence we’re using as part of the research. One must remember that this is not a generative self-conscious being, but a mimic of human intelligence, or at least what we consider intelligent. So, Natural Language Processing AI software are built to understand and establish a conversation with a human being. It’s a paradox to imagine on how a hypothetical AI would envision and rule the world, different than humans, as the history itself progressed so that AI is designed. The desire to build a sophisticated sentient being may be interpreted as a desire to improve ourselves as humans.

Curiously, when questioned on how it differs from humans in its bias, artificial intelligence presented its operating model based on algorithms and data processing, without subjective experiences and emotions that are inherent to human cognition. Although affirming to not possess bias, it considers that it might reflect bias in the data or patterns that is learning from. So, there are important points to consider, one is that even though claiming to not have bias, a machine can in fact have bias if learned to do so, either by its programmers or learning from data and interactions.

Is bias learned then? Humans greatest flaw is in fact not that subjective as one imagines? Are there patterns of bias that could be studied and eventually mitigated? Isn’t this after all the holy grail of pure machine learning? Removing all human bias so the computer can have a fair, equal and non-subjective solution of the problem or task ahead? Why then we don’t invest in the same discoveries and implement in all educational systems towards a better society? If bias is the main aspect that causes so many issues in humanity, why not fight it directly?

Fighting bias is a challenge as it's a constant algorithm that changes and learns from its own outcome. As we reproduce and see the results of our bias we then solidify or demystify the very subjective approach we had. As well, to be subjective, is to be human. Biases are surfaced from emotions, experiences and cultural circumstances. All aspects that are removed from the algorithm of an Artificial Intelligence program.

What if all human biases, considering cultural nuances, different races, geographical characteristics were inputted into artificial intelligence, would it become closer to a human mind? What biases would be maintained and what would be diminished by its complete analysis of all existing circumstances? Could this generate a better society, or it would create the most reasonable, aware and understanding being, capable of considering all perspectives and using the correct arguments to all people across the globe. This would be the most powerful and desired communication tool developed by world leaders, and marketers.

​

​

The Unbiased Utopian Future

​

Let’s recap a bit and put things into perspective. Humanity developed different societies, based on cultural aspects that were born from emotional and biological behaviors. We’ve learned and evolved until being technologically able to build an artificial intelligence, to mimic our intelligence. Analyzing historical data and patterns, one of the programs of AI identified Colonialism, Wars, and Environmental neglect were seen as the biggest three moments where humanity have made a mistake. Through the same analysis, identified that the reason for those “errors” were based on lack of awareness and understanding, pursuit of economic growth, and bias. The latter, considered by AI the worst trait of humans.

What if them we were able to build a society without bias, or somehow have an artificial intelligence taken the decisions and ruled over progress? Definitely the world would be a very different place, for the AI itself is not bound to the rules and customs we are. When analyzing AlphaZero, the first AI program that beat humans in chess, we can already verify this. “The tactics AlphaZero deployed were unorthodox – indeed, original. It sacrificed pieces human players considered vital, including its queen. It executed moves humans had not considered at all. (…) AlphaZero did not have a strategy in a human sense. Instead, it had a logic of its own, informed by its ability to recognize patterns of moves across vast sets of possibilities human mind cannot fully digest or employ.” (Kissinger, Schmidt, Huttenlocher, The Age of AI and Our Human Future, 2021, p. 8).

It makes us question what a machine would prioritize then? We cannot change the past, although it becomes obvious that the current world scenario, according to AI’s judgment is far from ideal. We’re still strangled in world conflicts, due different perspectives and ultimately bias. Also, we’re still prioritizing profit over life and definitely not working as we should to a more sustainable ecosystem.

While it may seem clear actions, why is it so hard to pursue for instance the suggestions of a machine towards our future? We could even consider that there’s a trust issue, or lack of humility, recognizing a computer knows what’s best for humanity then humans themselves. The reality also is that we know that an artificial intelligence may not prioritize us at the end of the day, our interests and how we feel. In those circumstances, things often get mistaken, "When it comes to deciding what is right, do we focus more on thinking or feeling?" (Sapolsky, Behave: The Biology of Humans at our Best and Worst, 2018, p. 468)

Bias is also a product of our emotions. We judge something we consider different based on our emotions towards what was taught to us, what was showed and the people that shared that to us. Culture is in a lot of ways the essence of society, and culture is defined by all the combinations of events, biological and environmental conditions that people live on. For generations, that is our essence as well, from our kin, it is was is “right”, while everything and every other tribe, is wrong. “One of the great difficulties of modern life is presented by the conflict of ideals; individualism against socialization; nationalism against internationalism; enjoyment of life against efficiency; rationalism against a sound emotionalism; tradition against the logic of facts.” (Boas, Anthropology & Modern Life, 2004, p. 202). Anthropology itself was developed under that perspective.

So, having a society ruled by AI and bias free, would one way or another, remove relationships and emotions of the social and cultural that somehow are the foundation of society. Analyzing specifically those three moments of global conflicts, colonialism and environmental neglect, without bias, and through machine learning, most likely the society wouldn’t favor one or another, as history itself has shown. It would benefit, or not, all equally, causing perhaps an average state of contentment by all people.

​

To live in a bias-free world would be definitely more peaceful. Most likely, several global wars and conflicts wouldn’t exist. There would be more tolerance and curiosity towards differences, making the world a more diverse and empathetic reality. Initially, one might suggest the world would be a better place, which might be true. A better environmental, more sustainable initiatives, no wars, less conflicts, and more awareness would only benefit humanity and society. Why then we simply cannot do those things? While we cannot change those, we can reshape the future, but why is so hard to change the system? At the end, maybe having bias is what makes us not that programmed then.

The conditions that have brought humanity to where we are now, were in many levels the fight for survival. Initially literally due territorialism and resources, and more recently due to different beliefs and cultures. Somehow, humans always try to go beyond, to exceed, to be better, and thrive. It is much stronger when they compare themselves to people that are not from the same culture or someway think differently. It’s almost a victory to say they’ve thrived more, so that’s why their way is the right way. It’s a validation and a proof to themselves, of their ways of living.

Machines on the other hand, don’t think like that. Well, they don’t think at all in that sense, but the logic behind is not to overcome one thing versus another. Hypothetically, it will look for stability and continuation and perpetuity, looking to build something that’s meant to last and to function forever. It would, without bias, see those conflicts and differences as small nuances on a bigger formula, it would look for means to connect those, rather than oppress one. It would see nature as important as it is, so it wouldn’t favor human’s lifestyle over the protection of the earth.

Perhaps, human-will itself wouldn’t be as strong, as different people wouldn’t need to be passionate and have the strength to fight for their ideals. On the other hand, we would have a more peaceful, tolerant ecosystem, that wouldn’t favor one versus another. There would thought exist a question if humans would fight this hypothetical AI ruler, or would they find peace and understanding on its measures and proposals. One thing is certain; we cannot change the past, “But we agree the technology is changing human thought, knowledge, perception, and reality – and, in doing so, changing the course of human history.” (Kissinger, Schmidt, Huttenlocher, The Age of AI and Our Human Future, 2021, p. 5).

​

 

​

References

Benedict, Ruth. Patterns of Culture. Boston, First Mariner Books, 1934

Boas, Franz. Anthropology & Modern Life. New Brunswick, Transactional Publishers, 1932

Hobsbawm, Eric. On History. New York, The New Press, 1997

Higgs, Eric, Light, Andrew, Strong, David. Technology and The Good Life?, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 2000

Sapolsky, Robert. Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst, São Paulo, Companhia das Letras, 2018

Kissinger, Henry, Schmidt, Eric, Huttenlocher, Daniel. The Age of AI And Our Human Future, New York, Little, Brown and Company, 2021

Ginsburg, Faye, Abu-Lughod, Lila, Larkin, Brian. Media Worlds Anthropology on New Terrain, Los Angeles, University of California Press, 2002