I don’t want to merge with AI, Mr. Kurzweil.

And I’m sure you won’t like my reason.

Instead of deciding on left or right, we should first pave the road. Photo by Pablo García Saldaña on Unsplash.

Ray Kurzweil once again recently proclaimed that the only way for us humans not to succumb to an eternal, all-knowing superintelligent AGI god is to merge with AI.

He refers to that kind of AI that is currently being programmed by his Silicon Valley tech bros and governed by nothing more than their internal corporate structure and maybe some shareholder interests. This is not so much a problem to him as merely the only way AI development can thrive because of the natural pressure to reduce mistakes enacted on private companies by the market. Regulatory concerns are — in his world — not only fatal to progress but also unnecessary since other countries will surely develop the technology in all possible means even if we don’t.

I respect and share his views regarding the fact that history has mostly proven to provide a steady growth of prosperity for humankind, regardless of short-term shocks through wars or the development of key technologies like the atomic bomb.

But what I despise about him, Peter Thiel, and all the other transhumanist tech “philosophers” is that there are only ever two versions of the future that can be envisioned: theirs or none.

But are we really trapped on the conveyor belt towards inserting a chip in our neocortex? Is there nothing that will stand in our way towards the final destination of building a Dyson sphere and living tranquilized in some sort of VR universe, as uploaded minds? Are we that estranged from our surroundings already?

It might be true that the history of our species consists not so much of living in harmony with nature but rather working against it and devising ever more clever ways to subdue the Earth. It might even be true that this circumstance should — against the fact that most of us feel differently, thinking about this on an emotional level — not be taken in a judgemental way, since it is the only ability that allows us to still exist to this day.

But I argue that it would be wise to try and perfect the way we wish to live by today before designing a life that might not even fit tomorrow.

There are problems which have clear solutions right at hand that are not being touched out of fear to misallocate resources in the race towards AGI. Schools are dragged into the discussion around whether or not they can equip children for the future while what they would really need now are better staffing ratios, that allow teachers to really focus on the social and psychological needs of their students. The quality of software has drastically declined over the last decade, from times where we would spend a large amount of money on a finished, polished product to the days of never ending security patches, data leaks, rent seeking, and personalized ads, yet we think us on the brink of designing the last software ever to be built, while all it can produce now is sloppy Code that lacks deeper understanding.

What I try to say is that in the gold rush surrounding AI now, combined with the multiple crises we are facing, it is easy to lose focus on what we can actually do to improve our lives. In such a situation, it is easy to fall for fatalist narratives. But I hope that some day in the near future, we will finally regain our sense of action and self-efficacy and start to work again on the things we can change, instead of surrendering to the things that seem inevitable.

And then, I hope to live a happy and comfortable life without the need for a chip in my head.