The Sloth Has Something To Say About AI

On extinction

Photo by Sam Howard on Unsplash

“Ayy, whatever happened to human beings?”

— J. Cole

Ugly, useless, and the stupidest animal that can be found in the world.

These were the words used by the Spanish conquistador, Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés, about the sloth. Most would agree.

In a fast-paced world such as ours, slow creatures are likely to be labelled lazy.

I didn’t get a chance to interview a sloth, nor do they commune easily with humans. The best we can do is study their behaviour and see if there is something we can learn from them. My focus is on extinction.

The three-toed sloth is not necessarily at risk of going extinct. In an unforgiving future where they risk nearing extinction, a species of moth will also go extinct with it.

The sloth moth, Cryptoses choloepi, exclusively lives on the sloth. It means that should the sloth go extinct, so will these moth species.

Jonathan Pauli and his team have shown that the relationship is more nuanced. Every week, the moth descends the tree to defecate. It risks exposing itself to predators. Climbing down is also an energy-consuming feat. It does it regardless.

The adult moth then gets a chance to lay their eggs in the pile of sloth poop. As a coprophagic species, the larvae get immediate nutrition. After they mature, they climb up to the arboreal sloth, carrying nitrogenous compounds courtesy of the plant-fungal relationship. Eventually, some adults die around the furry sloth canopy, releasing nitrogenous compounds.

Nitrogen-rich, wet fur creates a climate for the growth of green fungi. A full algal bloom makes for a leathery, velvety, green fur coat that, coupled with its preferred immobility, camouflages sloths against predators. Algae further complement the sloth’s leafy diet. Moths are also kept safe from birds, which may readily pick on them for dinner.

Thus, from the sloth, we have moths, algae, and fungi. Should the sloth go extinct, it disrupts these healthy symbioses. I use this example to show how online human creations can go extinct because of AI.

HIPPO

E. O. Wilson coined an easy-to-remember acronym for the causes of species extinction, arranged in order of relevance and impact:

H — Habitat loss

I — Invasive species

P — Pollution

P — human Population

O — Overharvesting

The biggest threat to species extinction is habitat loss. Habitats can be completely depleted or fragmented. Fragmentation reduces the available niches and communication between two or more similar environments. From the species equilibrium model, the smaller the area coverage, the faster the rate of species extinction at a predictable rate.

The human population encroaches on natural land, destroying natural habitat while increasing species depletion. It teams up with the second and fourth factors — invasive species and human population. Population, however, is a special example separate from the human population, because other species can be introduced into new spaces, depleting the endogenous species. The introduction of the Nile Perch (Lates niloticus) in the 1950s in Lake Victoria, for instance, reduced the diversity of the cichlid species.

The extinction of the sloth means a habitat loss for algae and the sloth moth. It’s a segue on how human creation can go extinct not just through habitat loss, but through the other factors I have already listed.

The extinction of human writing and creation

Consider two groups. One with creative output from humans and another with output from AI. This is a realistic comparison because social media has converted all forms of creation into a single, distasteful word — content.

Assume online space is limited. It may not be limited in potential space, but it’s limited in time. You will not always be on your phone, but when you are, it is for a limited time every day. Usually less than 24 hours. Scrap off sleeping time, and you have around 16 hours if you’re keen on sleeping well, are not juggling jobs, are not a new parent, among other sleep-depriving cycles we find ourselves embroiled in.

This habitat that houses creative outputs was once the marketing home for many giant companies when TVs and radios dominated. These were the main means of reaching people: through our screens or stereos. Then the habitat started getting fragmented. Today, social media has completely disrupted this environment. Most eyes are now on Facebook, TikTok, X, Instagram, and Snapchat.

By TV, I’m referring to regular programming. YouTube changed that. Now, individuals such as Mr. Beast have their own channel. The audience was fragmented. Habitat loss. IMAX is on the brink of extinction. Salvage movies such as Michael, Project Hail Mary, and Avengers: Doomsday are keeping it alive.

To avoid extinction, the canonical big companies jumped ship to join the movement created by influencers. Occasionally, they reach out to promote their products in waves. Thus, although the habitat got fragmented, they preserved the reach through influencers. A smart pivot.

Extinction happens when such a reach is destroyed. Recall the mutualisms between the moth, the algae, and the fungi, all happening on the sloth. When you take away the sloth, these species, all from different kingdoms, are affected. This example highlights habitat loss.

An invasion of species happened when influencers encroached on the space of TV and radio through social media. Previous media was replaced by social media. Companies such as Coca-Cola have now started using influencers to drive their agenda. Influencers are like the moths, living off the opportunity offered by the companies, the sloths. Influencers start families and continue depending on the sloth.

What happens when you take that away? The moths die. The habitat is being lost because of overpopulation. As a factor, the human population can be replaced by any other form of entity that is occupying habitats at an alarming rate.

AI is producing content at an astonishing rate. Tell me you haven’t seen those drama series of cutlery, crockery, and kitchen groceries. A workmate confessed she’s hooked. Influencers can’t keep up with the high rate of AI production. The AI Nile Perch is invading the influencer cichlids.

I like the Chimp podcast for its stupidity. I, too, have been infected. However, I try to get my vaccine shots regularly.

Worse still, AI is causing pollution. The sloth doesn’t pollute. It takes a dump every week. It creates a nidus for the preservation of symbiotic relationships. AI dominates unconscionably. It pollutes all space without a care, so much so that it has that distinctive label — AI slop. If it’s not AI production, then there are engines to promote AI-human partnerships. And here, dearest reader, is where the rubber meets the road. I’ll use writing as an example.

It starts when a writer feels challenged. They are not riding the AI wave. With AI everywhere, it may appear that if they don’t adapt, they risk extinction. Irrelevance. Like the popular giant companies, they have to pivot. Some of their fellow writers may have even confessed to using AI. Gradually, they get convinced.

They begin to seek assistance from AI. As they edit, AI suggestions make sense. It appears to improve their writing. While they were hesitant to join the bandwagon, now they are fully immersed in it.

As other writers follow the same path, their writing begins to look the same. As a species, AI invades humans. Human work shrinks on the limited land, that is, limited in time and exposure. Soon, these writers begin to sound the same.

Competition can get so stiff that it makes more sense to produce more writing than one was previously used to. That is the only way one can increase their reach in this time-bound attention land.

Taking a dump is okay. Taking a dump every hour turns into pollution. Writing is okay. Writing a novel every day is pollution.

Let’s cross the checklist.

1. Habitat loss. AI is taking the attention land. That’s gone. Check.
2. Invasion of species. AI is ruthlessly aggressive. Check.
3. Pollution. AI pollutes without shame. It’s so much that we don’t notice it. When you have been immersed in the same environment for hours, you don’t notice its foul smell. You acclimatize. Check.
4. We can’t mention human population. It doesn’t make sense in this case. But overpopulation? Very much so. Check.
5. Overharvesting? This is debatable. We haven’t discussed harvesting in the classical sense. So we can leave this one for now.

AI ticks four out of the five boxes. Human creativity is on the verge of extinction. That is what the sloth told me the last time we interacted. She wasn’t fazed by this outcome because it did not affect her. As a matter of fact, she was elated. She said we’re now seeing the same impact they saw when humans began encroaching on their tropical spaces. “Serves us right,” she said.

She means no harm, though. The entire process can be preserved, or, as the great biologist showed, there can be a Half Earth, a space where humans and their creations only exist.

Daniel Dennett's clarion call on the impact of AI and counterfeit material was a signal. He was onto something.

Arguably, AI is a human creation. We can limit this creation to another space, far from ours. We need not necessarily limit our interaction with AI, but we can shield other creations from it. The more these spaces are heavily guarded and protected, the safer human output, as a species, can be preserved.

[embed]Here’s our favourite sloth — Flash Flash Hundred Yard Dash. Source — YouTube

What I’m trying to say is…

I seen babies turn fiends, addicted to the screen That dad shares, cashiers replaced by machines Don’t buy, subscribe so you can just stream Your content like rent, you won’t own a thing Before long, all the songs the whole world sings Will be generated by latest of AI regimes As all of our favorite artists erased by it scream From the wayside, “Ayy, whatever happened to human beings?”

— J. Cole

The outcome is clear. Extinction. A special form of a tragedy of the commons.

The tragedy of the commons is one of the systemic archetypes. It is not enough to know it exists. It has to be changed. A space exclusively for humans is the option biologists have suggested. Our sloth friend endorses this option.

Why shouldn’t we explore it?

[embed]This song inspired some of the lines used in this article. Source — YouTube