Isaac Asimov and The Impact of AI

Set in the year 4722 A.D, Isaac Asimov’s novels The Naked Sun and Caves of Steel paint a picture conveying a strong contrast between two potential paths humanity may take. In essence, it raises the question of whether we will choose to build walls, or endeavour toward exploration. In Asimov’s novels, the eight billion Earthmen choose to build walls. They are strongly against the adoption of robots, fearing the consequent inferiority of humans, as well as the prospect of space exploration. They live exclusively in large domed cities, such as New York or Sydney, and have no contact with the natural world, not even with sunlight. They work in a strictly organised society, with arrangements not so dissimilar from China’s social credit score system, although more focused on productivity than conformity. On the other hand, the Spacers have, many centuries ago, split off from the Earthman and spread their wings into space. They have colonised around fifty planets, all of which have a larger population of robots than of humans.

Now, at my time of writing here in the mid-2020s, I find the contrast of the Spacers and the Earthman to be particularly relevant. Where are we destined to go? It appears at this point most likely that we will march toward technological progress (but at what cost?), yet at any point this may of course be challenged. What are my reasons for this view?

Our “democracies” are not real democracies in the sense that they follow well and truly the desires of the people, and instead are becoming increasingly oligarchic. Short terms are held by politicians completely lacking in long-term focus and dedication, and, coupled with sheer incompetence, there is no clear outline nor any means of genuine execution of such plans. As a result big tech companies, such as OpenAI, Google and xAI, – who do have both competence and a long-term company vision – are taking advantage of the situation to rapidly advance our progress in AI, albeit doing so with the heavily predominant lure of profit.

So, if this is the path that we are, whether deliberately or not, set to take, then there are some more important questions that must be pondered. For one, how far will this lure of profit take us? If taken too far, it may breed oligarchic oppression, or even a restructuring, to put it mildly, of our humanity? If robots replace all the jobs which most humans dedicate their lives to, it will be wise to limit our population, and restructure our societal endeavours. Perhaps it will become those non-economic pursuits of art and philosophy and athletics that will take precedence. Yet only so many people are adept to this, and many instead, in their vulnerability that naturally arises from lack of purpose and ability, may fall into the traps of terrible regimes that cover themselves in a glaze of utopianism. To divert ourselves away from this madness that must stem from overpopulation, what can we do? Genetic engineering and long lifespans? That was the Spacer’s practice, and it may be the path we take.