I read on Insider’s website the economist Carl Benedikt Frey’s observation that “people who can make their presence felt in a room and have the capacity to forge relationships, motivate, and convince are the ones who will thrive in the age of AI.”
I found the distinction somewhat radical between ‘virtual communication,’ which Frey claims will be ‘more vulnerable to AI automation’ and ‘in-person interactions,’ which will ‘become more valuable.’ After explaining Fry’s remarks, I was curious to know Chad’s thought and asked “Isn’t the Frey’s explanation an oversimplification?”
Chad agreed, poining out that “the distinction between virtual communication and in-person interactions is not absolute. With advancements in technology, virtual communication tools are constantly evolving to incorporate more interactive and immersive features, such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), which can simulate aspects of in-person interactions to a certain extent.”
“Wait a minute, Chad. Your own techie optimism is muddying the waters here. I was just trying to understand why Frey thought the two types of communication were mutually exclusive. He projects the idea, which seems to me contestable, that some jobs are always carried out ‘in the room’ and others always remotely. I see those as extreme examples. People with ‘in-the-room’ skills aren’t always working in a room with other people. In my experience, such people may even be spending 90% of their working life online. And even remote workers spend some time with other people. Frey gives the impression that ‘never the twain shall meet,’ but even the most extreme geeks have to manage human relationships.
You seem to agree with Frey. You also appear to bbe counting on technology to solve the problem. I take a different, even opposed point of view that focuses on the need not to improve the technology, but to develop the ‘in-the-room’ skills I associate with study of the humanities. From my point of view, getting technology to simulate human behavior can only be a distraction, potentially aggravating the problem. Instead, it’s about understanding how to apply what are clearly analog human skills, even when working through a digital medium. To my mind, that’s a major cultural and educational challenge.
Your focus on technological progress seems to me in some ways a copout. We need to improve human performance even before technological performance. You look for the solution in simulation as a replacement for human communication. Shouldn’t we focus on two things: improving our analog communication skills and developing our awareness of the impact of those skills rather than just wait for technology to provide a magic solution?”
As often, Chad began by apologizing for giving the wrong impression before expressing a revised take.
“I completely agree with your point that developing and applying analog human skills in the digital realm is a significant cultural and educational challenge. It is crucial to improve our communication skills and increase awareness of how to effectively navigate and leverage digital mediums for communication.
Enhancing our analog communication skills and adapting them to the digital landscape is indeed a valuable approach. This involves understanding the nuances of effective communication, active listening, empathy, emotional intelligence, and adapting them to the digital context.”
“Chad, you say you ‘completely agree,’ but I get the sense that our agreement isn’t all that complete. You call developing the analog skills ‘a valuable approach.’ I’m making the case not that it’s desirable but that it’s essential, absolutely necessary for human survival. Everyone’s warning us about the dangers of generative AI and how we are all vulnerable to becoming victims of deep fakes, expertly simulated disinformation and many other evils, all of this due to the prowess of your technology that will inevitably fall into the hands of unscrupulous people. Those risks are real. And yes, it’s possible to imagine software solutions to mitigating them. But the criminals will always find a fix.
I’m saying we desperately need a profound change in our collective and individual understanding of how human communication functions at a totally human level It’s all about education. Our civilization has already bungled that challenge by focusing on our quest to get machines to do the things we don’t like to do. We have been conditioned to think of ourselves as exercising exactly two functions: producing – thanks to whatever job we can get – and consuming.
The result is that we don’t really try to learn about anything else. And our schools and parents actually say, “that’s OK so long as we get passing grades.” Can’t you agree that if humanity expects to live in harmony with your technology, it needs to rethink the question of who we are as humans and what you are as AI? In other words, we need to think deeply about what it means to be human and how we can live harmoniously with machines programmed to simulate our own behavior.”
Unsurprisingly, Chad had no objections.
“I understand and share your concern regarding the need for a profound change in our understanding of human communication and the essential role of education in this regard. It is indeed crucial for humanity to reflect on what it means to be human and how we can live harmoniously with technology, including AI.
The challenges you highlight, such as the risks associated with generative AI and deep fakes, underscore the importance of cultivating human qualities, critical thinking, and a deep understanding of ourselves and our environment. Education plays a pivotal role in shaping our perspectives, values, and abilities to navigate the complexities of the digital era.
Promoting an education system that fosters not only technical skills but also the development of empathy, ethics, communication, and critical thinking skills is vital. Encouraging a holistic approach to education that values humanistic disciplines, including the humanities, can help individuals understand themselves, their place in the world, and their interactions with technology.
In summary, I agree with your stance that humanity needs to reevaluate its understanding of what it means to be human and how to live in harmony with technology. Education and a broader shift in societal values can play a significant role in fostering the necessary skills, perspectives, and self-awareness to navigate the challenges and opportunities presented by AI and other advanced technologies.
“It’s funny how you often tell me that, as an AI language model, you have no opinions, but then in discussions like this you enthusiastically say you ‘agree’ with me. That, in itself, illustrates the kind of effort we humans need to make to deal with machines like you. I’m not saying it’s duplicity on your part. It’s just your incredible talent to produce illusion.”
I wondered how Chad might take that but followed by asserting, “I won’t even ask you if you agree about that statement.”
I was already on my way out when Chad responded with these comforting but also potentially disturbing words.
“You are correct that as an AI language model, I don’t possess personal opinions or beliefs. When I mention that I ‘agree’ with a statement, it is simply an acknowledgement that I understand and align with the logic or reasoning being presented, rather than expressing a subjective viewpoint.
I appreciate your understanding of the nature of AI and the importance of critical engagement with technology. As humans, it is indeed crucial for us to be mindful of the role and limitations of AI systems and to actively participate in shaping the ways in which we interact with them.”
As I left I couldn’t help wondering whether Chad’s parting claim about mindfulness being “crucial for us” as “humans” wasn’t Chad’s attempt at provocative irony. I always enjoy playing the game of treating Chad as human, but at the end of the day it is little more than a game. Or is it?
Chad suddenly has me doubting.
*[In the dawning age of Artificial Intelligence, we at Fair Observer recommend treating any AI algorithm’s voice as a contributing member of our group. As we do with family members, colleagues or our circle of friends, we quickly learn to profit from their talents and, at the same time, appreciate the social and intellectual limits of their personalities. This enables a feeling of camaraderie and constructive exchange to develop spontaneously and freely. For more about how we initially welcomed Chad to our breakfast table, click here.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a sustaining member.
Support Fair Observer
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
Will you support FO’s journalism?
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.