“It will take our jobs” is, at least, a claim about work.
“It will replace us” is something else.
The difference is easy to miss because the verb is almost the same. But the object has changed. A machine no longer takes something we do. It replaces the people who do it.
That sounds like a natural extension of automation. If machines can perform more and more of the tasks that humans perform, perhaps eventually there will be nothing left for humans to do.
But notice what has happened.
A job can be replaced because another system can perform the activities that constituted it. A human being is not a job. To say that humans will be replaced therefore requires some account of what, exactly, is being replaced.
There are several possibilities.
Perhaps humans will become economically unnecessary: machines will perform the productive activities on which societies depend.
Perhaps humans will become functionally unnecessary: whatever humans can do, machines will be able to do as well.
Perhaps humans will become culturally unnecessary: machines will produce art, language, ideas and relationships, leaving little that is recognisably distinctively human.
Or perhaps “replace us” means something much stronger: that another kind of entity will occupy the place currently occupied by humanity.
These are not the same claim.
Yet they can easily become compressed into a single sentence:
AI will replace us.
The compression matters because each step removes something that the previous claim still took for granted.
If AI takes some jobs, humans remain.
If AI takes most jobs, humans remain, although their economic circumstances may change profoundly.
If AI can perform most human activities, humans still remain as the beings who have constructed and used those systems.
But if AI replaces us, then the question is no longer what humans will do.
It is why humans would remain at all.
That is a very large conceptual step.
There is another complication. Replacement normally implies some kind of equivalence.
A replacement part occupies the place of another part because it can perform the relevant function. A replacement worker performs the relevant work. A replacement technology performs the relevant operation.
But what would it mean for one kind of being to replace another?
A forest does not replace a tree when the tree dies. A new species does not simply replace an old one in the way a component replaces a component. Ecological succession changes relationships among organisms, resources and environments.
Even evolutionary replacement is not simply substitution. A population changes because the organisation of life changes.
So perhaps “replace us” smuggles a particular model into the argument: that humanity occupies a role in the world that another intelligence could simply take over.
But what role?
The answer changes the claim.
And there is something else worth noticing.
When we say that machines will replace us, we have already moved beyond describing what machines can do.
We are imagining a future relationship between kinds of beings.
The machine is no longer merely a tool that performs an activity. It has become a possible successor.
That is a striking transformation in our description.
First, the machine takes a task.
Then it takes a job.
Then it replaces the worker.
And now, apparently, it can replace us.
At this point the machine has acquired something more than capability in our imagination.
It has acquired a place in the story of what comes next.
The next question almost writes itself:
What happens when the successor is imagined not merely as replacing us, but as having something to gain by doing so?
No comments:
Post a Comment