(versione italiana qua)
There have been warnings for some time. When the first generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools became available, we first heard loud cries against the spread of disinformation, a subject that is certainly very delicate, but which is often treated with an embarrassing selective amnesia, given that those who have power have always used it to manipulate information so as to maintain and extend it (repaid, as far as possible, by those who did not have this power and want to conquer it). We arrived, in the name of 'correct' information, to demonize any opinion or discussion happening in non-traditional media, forgetting Gramsci's lesson on newspapers as tools used by interest groups that have the means to try to influence public opinion, even going so far as to turn scientific viewpoints into truths of faith to be blindly believed.
Then we assisted to the spread of articles generated by GenAI tools and published by media once recognized as authoritative. Next came channels of 'customized news' presented on video by synthetically generated journalists. A few weeks ago, we assisted to the viral spread of pornographic deep-fake photos of a famous American singer. To the discredit of a category that until a few years ago still had an almost absolute ethical rigor in publishing, we are witnessing the phenomenon – embarrassing for those who, like me, work in this field and have been educated in another era – of more and more researchers cheerfully using these tools to flood scientific journals with fake articles.
Now we have the definitive proof that in the future the only events we can really believe in will be those that take place in our presence. In fact, in a financial company, an employee was convinced to transfer 25 million dollars to a fraudulent bank account by means of a virtual meeting via video conference, attended by the company's CFO and other staff members. However, everybody but the unlucky guy who eventually made the transfer, had been synthetically generated by GenAI. According to what was reported, the scam had started with the usual phishing e-mail, but, due to the employee's well-founded puzzlement, evolved into a completely fabricated 'scam' which fully succeeded. A note of caution (you never know!): I have verified, to the best of my ability, the truthfulness of this piece of news but, even if it was not, it does not change the substance of my argument.
We must be aware that this is the reality in which we currently live in. As they say in these cases, 'the genie is out of the bottle' and it will certainly be impossible to get it back in. The reason is that GenAI can offer enormous opportunities to improve everything we do, if we know how to use it well. As I discussed in my book 'The Informatics Revolution', GenAI tools are among the most powerful examples of a cognitive machine, i.e. a machine automating human being's intellectual capabilities, replicating on a different level what an industrial machine performs at physical level. I consider a positive aspect the fact that a machine can have this ability. In this sense, I completely agree with what Charles W. Eliot, who was president of Harvard University for forty years, from 1869 to 1909, turning it in-to one of the most important universities in America, said at the end of the 19th century: '
With the spread of GenAI tools, actions done in presence and being physically in a place will become more and more valuable and relevant. I expect, on the one hand, the development of a market for synthetically generated 'cultural' products for mass consumption. This is already happening for books (e.g. travel guides) and for music (e.g. on streaming platforms). But, on the other hand, this will recover and boost the value of theatrical performances, concerts and artistic events in presence, which I consider a positive effect.
Obviously, the social consequences of this technological development must be carefully considered, because we risk transforming, at least in our Europe that has seen in the post-World War II period the development of a much more equal and balanced society than we had in previous centuries, our communities into new feudal domains, now linked not to the possession of land but to that of digital infrastructures.
Think for instance of the various services that are important in any democratic society: if we are not careful, those who can pay will have the human doctor or lawyer or teacher, for everyone else there will be the synthetic one. Quite rightly, Daniel Dennett, one of the sharpest thinkers in the field of artificial intelligence, argued that the undeclared use of fictitious persons should be a crime prosecuted as severely as the prosecution of counterfeit money dealers. There is at stake, he rightly argued, the future of our civilization.
They will try to convince us that having an 'artificially intelligent' professional will be for our sake, when in fact it will serve the purpose for which we have seen digital technology used over the last 50 years. That is, to increase productivity while keeping workers’ wages more or less at the same level, thereby increasing the profit share without allowing the working class to take advantage of productivity gains and thus ultimately widening the gap between social classes.
In a world where every document has become digital and can therefore be easily altered or generated at will, any document loses its value as a testimony of what happened. Unless it is clearly and unmistakably linked to a reliable and credible author. Technological solutions based on the certification of the identity and authenticity of the instrument used to generate a certain con-tent are beginning to become available (this is happening in the field of photography). In short, they work in the same way as the electronic identity card which we can use to prove who we are when operating on digital platforms. These will not necessarily be the final solutions: for instance, the many mechanisms for certifying the origin of e-mail messages that have been invented decades ago are not yet widely used. Nor should it ever be forgotten that even these solutions, although highly sophisticated, can be altered, given sufficient resources and the right circumstances. And care must also be taken not to exasperate this approach by pretending to certify every expression of human thought, since this – by effectively preventing dissent – would lead to the destruction of democracy.
Therefore, more and more, in our digital future, the roots of trust will become again associated to human beings and relationships in presence.
This is a return to the ancient that I hope we will learn to appreciate again, of which there is linguistic evidence (which those who have done classical studies should remember) in the verb of the ancient Greek expressing the action of 'knowing' (I know = οἶδα), which is nothing but the past tense of the verb expressing the action of 'seeing' (I see = ὁράω). Thus, 'I know' because 'I have seen', in the first person.
I really hope this will be the dominant motif of our future: the increasing importance of the physical dimension in an increasingly digitized society.
The future worth living will be in presence.
--The italian version has been first published by "StartMAG" on 6 february 2024.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento
Sono pubblicati solo i commenti che rispettano le norme di legge, le regole della buona educazione e sono attinenti agli argomenti trattati: siamo aperti alla discussione, non alla polemica.