The great political philosopher Baron de Montesquieu wrote: “One should never so exhaust a subject that nothing is left for readers to do. The point is not to make them read, but to make them think.” As for Voltaire, the most famous of the French “philosophes,” he claimed, “The most useful books are those that the readers write half of themselves.”
The idea of trying to engage readers actively in the reading process of course dates back to long before the modern age. But it was in the Enlightenment West that this project took on a characteristically modern form: playful, engaging, readable, succinct. It is here, with this question of engagement, that the comparison between the Enlightenment and A.I.’s supposed “second Enlightenment” breaks down and reveals something important about the latter’s limits and dangers. When readers interact imaginatively with a book, they are still following the book’s lead, attempting to answer the book’s questions, responding to the book’s challenges and therefore putting their own convictions at risk. When we interact with A.I., on the other hand, it is we who are driving the conversation. We formulate the questions, we drive the inquiry according to our own interests and we search, all too often, for answers that simply reinforce what we already think we know.
In my own interactions with ChatGPT, it has often responded, with patently insincere flattery: “That’s a great question.” It has never responded: “That’s the wrong question.” It has never challenged my moral convictions or asked me to justify myself. And why should it? It is, after all, a commercial internet product. And such products generate profit by giving users more of what they have already shown an appetite for, whether it is funny cat videos, instructions on how to fix small appliances or lectures on Enlightenment philosophy.
If I wanted ChatGPT to challenge my convictions, I could of course ask it to do so — but I would have to ask. It follows my lead, not the reverse. By its nature, A.I. responds to almost any query in a manner that is spookily lucid and easy to follow — one might say almost intellectually predigested.
For most ordinary uses, this clarity is entirely welcome. But Enlightenment authors understood the importance of having readers grapple with a text. Many of their greatest works came in the form of enigmatic novels, dialogues presenting opposing points of view or philosophical parables abounding in puzzles and paradoxes. Unlike the velvety smooth syntheses provided by A.I., these works forced readers to develop their judgment and come to their own conclusions. In short, A.I. can bring us useful information, instruction, assistance, entertainment and even comfort. What it cannot bring us is Enlightenment. In fact, it may help drive us further away from Enlightenment than ever. - Dr. Bell is a professor of history at Princeton.
Axios - The biggest companies in history are spending a stunning amount of money to fuel the AI revolution, driving demand for more chips, more energy and more capital. This dynamic is basically powerful enough to cover for an economy that otherwise looks like it's weakening by the day.
The big (Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Alphabet/Google, Amazon and Meta) are getting bigger, and burrowing deeper into direct investment and ownership of the products feeding into their AI. They're buying up land, building data centers, sucking up chips, investing in energy sources. Microsoft and Nvidia together are worth about $2.5 trillion more today than they were a year ago.
The Wall Street Journal's Christopher Mims captured the tectonic impact of the AI arms race in a must-read column, "Silicon Valley's New Strategy: Move Slow and Build Things."
- "Call it an 'age of infrastructure,' in which companies spend vast sums on actual stuff," Mims wrote. "It's reminiscent of the age of business titans and 'robber barons' who dominated railroads, steel and other enterprises."
- Paul Kedrosky — a Ph.D. and trained engineer who became a tech founder, investor and pundit — found that capital expenditures on AI data centers have passed the peak of telecom spending during the dot-com bubble (1995-2000) — and are second only to railroads in the 1880s. "In a sense," Kedrosky writes, "there is a massive private sector stimulus program underway."
A small number of companies — some nearly the size of Germany's economy — are spending more than the 340 million American consumers, whose status as the engine of the U.S. economy has always been all but gospel.
- As Derek Thompson, co-author of the bestselling book "Abundance," put it after Friday's disappointing jobs report: "GDP is only growing because of AI capex."
Will U.S. workers — not just tech giants and big shareholders — benefit with better jobs and higher salaries? Will this boom ever bust?
- The Wall Street Journal's Greg Ip points to "hidden risks from the AI boom": "No one doubts its potential to raise growth and productivity in the long run. But financing that boom is straining the companies and capital markets."
The bottom line: No one disputes that the vast majority of America's growth right now flows from AI investment competition. And it's only accelerating. It's a steroid injected at a level and speed we've never seen. Share this column.
No comments:
Post a Comment