“Now did the Lord say that machines ought to take the place of livin’? And what’s a substitute for bread and beans?”—Johnny Cash, The Legend of John Henry’s Hammer
Dr. Imani Perry—brilliant author, professor— recently came to Buffalo to discuss her most recent book Black in Blues: How a Color Tells the Story of My People. Being one of my favorite authors, I purchased a ticket and was excited to see her speak.
Where’s the Beef?
Having taken ill suddenly that afternoon, I didn’t make it. In an effort to make the best of it, however, I decided to watch one of her interviews hosted by the DC Library a year earlier. If you are familiar with her work, you’ll know that it’s no surprise something she said during the interview struck me.
In addressing a question on AI, Dr. Perry started to discuss the differences between original artworks and their corresponding facsimiles. One of the recognized values in the original, she notes, is the ability to see the brush strokes and other details of the work. With that, she says, comes an element of human contact that cannot be replaced.
When she said those words, I thought of being at the art museum with my daughter and looking for the items Jackson Pollock had inadvertently memorialized in his painting (e.g. the match stick he used to light his cigarette and the unlucky fly that lie dead beneath a glob of paint). As the docent explained Pollock’s process, I could better appreciate the art as I envisioned him circling the canvas, riveted, and carelessly flinging matches and crushing mosquitos.
Dr. Perry’s words did something else. They made clear, in an instant, the AI problem: facsimiles of human creativity, of human life deny us of the human contact we crave.
Off With Their Heads
This reminded me of an article I had just read in the Atlantic: AI and the Future of Work: What’s the Worst That Could Happen? by Josh Tyrangiel.
Tyrangiel reports many CEOs—under pressure to deliver results—are giving directives to “cut the head count.” If the end goal is to lower the head count, however, what is the human role in such a world?
To illustrate, let us pretend we succeed. The CEOs of the world are able to successfully whittle down all human labor to one or two lucky souls who get to keep their jobs. The lone person has no creative responsibility—that has all been delegated to AI. The worker’s responsibility is limited to pressing a button or two. The worker has essentially become the AI’s human host.
For me, this starts to become reminiscent of Madeleine L’Engle’s the man with the red eyes, the primary conduit for IT. In fact, in her Newberry Award Acceptance Speech, L’Engle suggests her book was a response to a world that was perhaps becoming too focused on productivity.
“These are forces working in the world as never before…for standardization, for the regimentation of us all, or what I like to call muffins of us, muffins all like every other muffins in the muffin tin.”—(L’Engle, Newberry Award Acceptance Speech, Aug. 1963).
Thus, it seems she may have been a bit of a Nostradamus on this point.
Progress?
Jesus once said, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” Is AI really made for man if it undermines his purpose and leaves large swathes of people unemployed and—for some—unemployable? Seemingly, AI is, in truth, meant to boost productivity, the bottom line, and benefit a very specific type of man (while that lasts).
Silver Lining
I like to end my jeremiads1 with a little bit of hope. It comes, again, from Dr. Perry.
During the same interview, she reminds us why it was so important to remember that slaves preferred the color blue in their clothing; held on dearly to single beads from their homeland even after having been stripped naked and packed into the bottom of a filthy ship; made special clothes for themselves; dreamed; loved; grieved; and celebrated small victories. Namely, it is our desire and capacity for all of that and more that makes us human, that preserved the humanity of the enslaved when the powers-that-be sought to make them believe otherwise.
Those in power may have fooled some, but the ancestors of those same slaves—and many others—are alive today, because our humanity is God-given and can never be stripped from us.
Thus, if we want the greatest quality of life for the greatest number of people, I think we should take care as to how we employ AI.
Even if the worst comes, however, I believe the Spirit that lies within us all will ultimately prevail.
- I often found myself relating to Jeremiah as I read through the Old Testament. So, when I saw the root of the word, I couldn’t help but laugh out loud. ↩︎
