As Long as Human Beings Have the Element of Choice and Exercise That Element of Choice, Technology Will Stay the Slave and Man Its Master

As long as human beings have the element of choice and exercise that element of choice, technology will stay the slave and man its master (2000 words)

Technology has been integrated into society in a more rapid fashion that it’s an evolving part of humans’ everyday lives to the point it’s relied upon. Without realising it technology has become the master, humans no longer dictate it and most either do not make a choice or are not offered one. This essay will identify how much control technology has and if that lack of choice is forced through manipulation, persuasive methods, and new evolving technologies; or if technology has exposed human frailties to cause a loss in some characteristics that define humans i.e. free will, and conclude if it is a natural evolution that technology should become the master to prolong human existence.

To understand the characteristics of humans and technology it is important to define their interpretation and some researchers’ concept of the subjects to see if there is any overlap between the two. Vaknin, (2002) describes that a human being shows behavioural unpredictability, and can rationalise decisions based on moral judgment. Humans use basic survival instinct to evolve by manipulating their social and physical environment i.e. technology, which will be one of the points covered in this paper. Suggesting that humans have qualities to show they are still in control of their own destiny. One of humanities strengths is they are aware of their own mortality, backed up with the expression of free will. In contrast to Selinsky (2011) who believes that the human body is a technology itself and a multidimensional self-building, self-making machine when the ‘machine’ (our body) gets out of balance. Whose view is human and technology are one that has the ability to adapt, learn and build on itself. An opinion seconded by Kurzweil, (2008) who has the perception that switching machine off replicating human intelligence implies forms of euthanasia. A personal perspective of human characteristics is they can vision and have the right to express their imagination. Using that talent to adapt and build new technologies shows that humans have a choice if they are to pursue with the path of technology.

Heidegger (1993) defines technology as a means to an end. He argues that humans remained confined to technology and regardless of humans accepting its existence. That technology is a result of human activity and the manufacturing and utilisation of tools and machines, and the needs and ends that they serve, all belong to what technology is. “The will to mastery becomes all the more urgent the more technology threatens to slip from human control.” Is a view suggested by (Heidegger 1993) where he believes the conception of technology attempts to relate man with technology to ensure humans remain in control.

Friedman (1997) shares a view that human beings are still free moral agents although influenced by technology. Whilst they act predictably, predictability does not warrant them as automated. There is a lack of evidence to date to suggest computers have not demonstrated their ability to form their own intentions or to make their own choices and cannot yet be classed as free moral agents to dictate humanity. Subsequently when computers still make serious mistakes it is programmers, users or even nature are blamed.

One of the themes of this paper is to highlight those who are not offered a choice and identify those that exploit the way technology is used to manipulate that lack of democracy. Governments and private organisations have been using technology as a means of surveillance and control for many years (Gandy, 1994 cited from Tsagarousianou, 1988). A concern shared with Warwick (1998) who highlighted implications with real-life potential applications of the technology. They raised fears that surveillance technology knows when employees enter/exit a building or logging data to track performance levels. This would show that the lower order of society can be controlled and observed through both man and machine at the same time. The social spectrum of higher classes – those organisations and individuals with power and authority are able to manipulate and motivate those below them through technology but can exploit technology’s availability to reach niche or wider areas which they wouldn’t normally. It would seem technology has a greater influence on those with a lack of choice and opinion, offering no democracy to the lower order but on their part could be perceived for the ‘greater good’ to aid in surveillance over terrorist plots, produce earlier contingency plans for natural disasters or focus on a wider target market in a political campaign. The presence of these technologies are not very obvious, or it could suggest that humanity are used to being observed and manipulated for so long that it’s accepted and ‘blended into the background.’

Humans are used to the presence of technology and it’s convenience that technology is used to manipulate and to exploit weaknesses of their characteristics such as choice. Questions do have to be asked if they even want to make a choice. Some people argue that the public is too trusting towards technology. Without thinking people download constantly, browse online without virus checks or interact with it due to an error free background. Friedman et al (2000) cited from Schellenberg (2001). This implies an element of naivety from the public and although it is their own choice and responsibility for any potential risks it questions whether their choice of using the technology is warranted. The trust implemented into that technology has shown that some humans do not want to make a choice, or devoid of any opinion as they use without thinking but for the technology to decide. This would indicate perhaps an element of control is required from technology or AI to take charge of the situation without human consent – to avoid greater threats in the future. One factor that exposes the lack of choice through humans is persuasive techniques. It would show that in time persuaders have used technology to amplify their techniques and influence human behaviours such as cult/political leaders with microphones etc (i.e. manning the machine). It is recently that such technologies have been developed and are actively persuasive on their own without the user. (Berdichevsky and Neunschwander, 1999). The point of this research implies that for the time being technology is not advanced enough to carry out objectives on its own, that it still requires a master (human) to command it.

Although persuasion is still a type of choice whether to use that technology, it exploits weaknesses amongst humans and those would make decisions without evaluating the alternatives and purely relying on the technology – it is necessary to remember that it was humans that built/designed/implemented the technology in the first place. To avoid catastrophes and mistakes due to human error, the design point of view is a key component of technology as computers have the ability to project realism and simulation.

The convenience of technology has influenced human lives so much, they have altered attitudes, behaviours and personalities and the way lives are lead. Although Berdichevsky and Neunschwander, (1999) believe that it was accidental and incidental and the technologies were developed not for persuasive methods but to advise, or offer a ‘choice’.

This next discussion discusses that emerging developing technologies are a threat to the qualities that identify human beings such as free will, as the characteristics and identities of humans and machines are now becoming increasingly blurred. This isn’t a new threat as the Luddite movement proved. Brennan (2004) Artificial Intelligence (AI) is technology of a human-like competence that aims to replicate the performance of human intelligence and is the key danger to how long humans have left to decide if technology the way forward before they are not even offered a choice. In the early stages, the field of AI’s main goal was re-evaluating the invention of computer programs to have the general problem-solving abilities of humans. (Nilsson, 1995; Tveter, 1999) AI is now at the beginning of another transition that intends to utilise human performance programs, ultimately making the requirement for humans insufficient.

There are many science fiction films that second the opinion of Nilsson and Tveter that the evolution of technology – particularly AI will advance to the point that humans will be the subject of slavery become inferior and rely solely upon machines/technology to perform daily activities and make decisions IMDB, (2011). Eventually AI will disobey and overthrow humans – whether the AI is presented in a physical format or outthinking humans via persuasion and manipulation. Examples of modern films are; I, robot, Matrix, Terminator, Blade Runner. Although these might be written off as fictitious fantasy, it shows there is a common theme amongst movie producers that such ideas can be thought up. Although AI may presently be at a minimalistic level (in contrast to the movie plots) there is an increasing agreement that fiction will become reality, presented through the films they have produced. Movie producers have based their stories on foundations on existing articles and actual research. Although there was a lack of resources to support this argument the similarities of themes support the claim of a rapid development of AI and a potential threat. The only variable of uncertainty to question is the date of the humanity would be regarded inferior. ‘Undoubtedly we 're going to see machines, computers that are more intelligent than we are perhaps by 2030 - how are we going to cope with that?’ (Warwick, 1999) Although Brennan (2004) argues that it is hard to predict future trends of technology.

Moldovan, D et al (1992) suggests that people have wanted to build machines since the computer age began that perform human like activities. Which implicates ignorance and laziness from humans, that should technology ever disobey an order, it would be humans own fate. Moldovan also believes that any such occurrence of technology displaying ability in solving day to day problems is far away. Although this study was conducted in the 90’s there is evidence to suggest such an occurrence could be sooner rather than later.

Warwick (2002), a cybernetics professor specialising in robotics believes that if humanity fails to act now a result could be humans versus machines. One solution he believes is to link humans with machines to create cyborgs, part human, and part machine which he has advanced knowledge and understanding through a career in this field.

Warwick’s opinion and negative outlook for humanity in the future, the message that he addresses is a ‘if you can’t beat them join them’ tone and that being human is not enough in this age. He highlights that humans treat those inferior with contempt that it is evolution that humanity is under the same threat. There are moral and ethical issues surrounding Warwick’s vision and solution in genetically crossing machine and human. There is the implication of ‘playing God’. Peters, (1997) Warns that manipulation of natural processes may lead to a disaster, ‘one ironically triggered by human action but uncontrollable by human remedy’.

Based on Zuboff’s (1988) case study at US power plant based Piney Mill. Zuboff believes that building an intelligent machine preserves the boundaries between those who command and those who obey as their management team were unclear of whether the smart machine would work for them or the other way around. Zuboff recommends that for humans to master the technology and master the workplace, humans require two components – competence and performance.

Zuboff (1988) also questions that advanced technology has forced humans into a fateful choice or the alternative is working for the smart machine as the nature of work is changing. Computer (1992) points out that integrated intelligent systems are increasingly used to control numerous life critical systems in healthcare, education, air travel, society and nuclear power. They will replace human operators in hazardous environments and handling dangerous materials, reducing risks to humans. Although the consequence is that lower level workers have been robbed of skill and employment without any choice. The case for the decision makers is they are forced into choice just to remain competitive. Zuboff suggests a worker for the future would require an extremely flexible personality and adaptable so they would not fall behind or severely affected by a technology shift. Suggesting that to prolong the existence of humans, they require to be manned which relates back to the earlier perception of the ‘greater good’.

The findings in this argument would suggest that humanity needs to adapt and become flexible in the interaction with technology. Vaknin’s (2002) study shows the distinction between man and machine/animal is they are devoid of choice - merely slaves to genetic and human programming. A machine doesn’t express free will, but questions that when bionics are introduced at what point does the term human cease to be used.

In conclusion the speed of development for technology – particularly AI there is a danger of humanity falling behind if they do not make decisions quickly. AI is a man-made invention ultimately suggesting that humanity has naturally started the next phase of evolution without even realising it. The naivety and ignorance shown by humans would again point out that perhaps they now require an element of control from machines to prevent a complete extinction sooner than expected. If humans do wake up and realise they can exercise choice and should technology be seen as too much of a threat the solution would be to switch it off or slow down the process of development. Although it shows humans are manipulated and persuaded too easily now it may come at a price before humanity decides to act. Technology even in the eyes of the law is now being compared a par with humans in terms of rights, implying that it already may be too late.
References

Berdichevsky & Neuenschwander (2011) Submitted to Communications of the ACM
Ethics of Persuasive Technology

Brennan, L and Johnson V (2004) Social, Ethical and Policy Implications of Information Technology, London: Pg 49, 121

Computer (1992) Health, Computer architects for intelligent systems, IEEE Computer Society, Vol 25 No 5, May, Pg 6

Friedman, B (1997). Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heidegger, M (1993) "The Question Concerning Technology," Basic Writings Ed, New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1993. [online] Available at: http://www.wright.edu/cola/Dept/PHL/Class/P.Internet/PITexts/QCT.html

IMDB, (2011) The Internet Movie Database, Available at: http://uk.imdb.com/ (accessed: 22 Sept 2011)

Kurzweil (2003), ‘Biocyberethics: should we stop a company from unplugging an intelligent computer?’ KurzweilAI.net, Sept. 28, [online] Available at: http://www.kurzweilai.net/biocyberethics-should-we-stop-a-company-from-unplugging-an-intelligent-computer

Moldovan, D; Lee, W; Lin, C; Chung, M (1992), "SNAP: parallel processing applied to AI," Computer , vol.25, no.5, pp.39-49, May [online] Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=144394&isnumber=3863

Nils A & Nilsson, (1995) "Eye on the Prize", Stanford University, AI Magazine, [online] Available at: http://www.dontveter.com/caipfaq/ai.html Peters, Ted. (1997) Playing God? Genetic Determinism and Human Freedom. London and New York: Routledge, 1997. [online] Available at: http://www.enotes.com/science-religion-encyclopedia/playing-god

Schellenberg K., (2001) Computers in Society, 9th ed, McGraw-Hill, Guildford Pg 87

Selinsky (2011) THE HUMAN MACHINE ... a Trouble Shooter 's Manual Vol 2, [online] Available at: http://thehumanmachine.net/joom/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=44&Itemid=42 (accessed: 20 Sept 2011)

Tsagarousianou, R; Tambini, D; Bryan, C (Eds.) (1998) Cyberdemocracy: technology, cities and civic networks. London: Routledge. Pg. 41

Vaknin, S (2003) Issues in Ethics 1st ed, Project Gutenberg EBook, Available at: http://www.manybooks.net/support/v/vakninsa/vakninsaetext05iseth10.exp.html

Zuboff, S. (1988) In the age of the Smart machine: the future of work and power. New York: Basic Books. Pg 245-46

References: Berdichevsky & Neuenschwander (2011) Submitted to Communications of the ACM Ethics of Persuasive Technology Brennan, L and Johnson V (2004) Social, Ethical and Policy Implications of Information Technology, London: Pg 49, 121 Computer (1992) Health, Computer architects for intelligent systems, IEEE Computer Society, Vol 25 No 5, May, Pg 6 Friedman, B (1997). Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nils A & Nilsson, (1995) "Eye on the Prize", Stanford University, AI Magazine, [online] Available at: http://www.dontveter.com/caipfaq/ai.html Vaknin, S (2003) Issues in Ethics 1st ed, Project Gutenberg EBook, Available at: http://www.manybooks.net/support/v/vakninsa/vakninsaetext05iseth10.exp.html Zuboff, S