Blasé Capital Brain versus AI

It is just a matter of years. Within 24-36 months, yes 2-3 years, artificial intelligence (AI) will match our brains, or human intelligence. After a similar prediction by OpenAI’s Sam Altman, who faced two personal and violent attacks recently, Ben Goertzel, the father of artificial general intelligence (AGI), or human-like AI, sets a similar timeframe. Hence, the way we work, think, believe, act, and decide will be done by either Claude or ChatGPT, or even Meta and Google AI. If the machines become like humans, it is inevitable and imperative to ask, what will the humans do? A simplistic way to answer is to swear by technology, and claim that it will relieve the pressures on humans, make them relax, and enable them to enjoy the pleasures of life. Of course, such assumptions were proved wrong in the past, as they are likely to be in the future. Past tech made humans work harder, despite the huge hike in productivity, and created more stress, problems, and disorder.

While one can discuss the social, political, philosophical, cultural, moral, and religious implications of AGI, what presses us more urgently is the economic-cum-business consequences. In one line, we are worried about jobs, incomes, savings, investments, and expenditure. In another one, what makes us nervous is the possible inability to acquire and enjoy modern assets and gadgets, and give the best to our children. In this respect, there is a bad, sorry scary, nah nightmarish scenario, according to the future sketched by Goertzel. He talks about a massive ‘job apocalypse,’ which may “render the vast majority of current professions obsolete.” This was his overall assessment in a “blunt’ podcast that talked about AGI’s economic consequences. “Once you have a human-level AGI, the vast majority of human jobs become obsolete,” the reverend guru said irreverently. The only hope is that the transition will not happen overnight but in phases. As if to calm us, he said that it would be similar to the adoption of AI. What? AI? It has already roasted and toasted us within three years since 2022.

Forget about his timeline. Maybe Goertzel has a sense of humour that we do not possess. Maybe his sense of three years is like the three millennium because that is what it possibly took humans to reach from a stage of minimal farm-based intelligence to AI. But if he is right, and we are being a bit pessimistic about it, our lives will change in 5-10 years.

First, many professionals, or the so-called skilled professions, may fall by the wayside faster than manual jobs. Forget about coders, writers, lawyers, artists, and graphics persons. Even the current AI roles will be ancient, and forgotten, like is the case with prompt engineering jobs that were crucial two years ago but not now. In effect, the ones with the basic household-related skills such as plumbing, electricians, painters, possibly teachers (which is a good sign; imagine the revival of the teachers as they were a few decades ago, or possibly not because they were still not respected enough then, as is the state now) will triumph.

One just hopes that the guru is wrong, as is Altman, and Claude, and others. Sorry, let us not include Claude, the AI, which will possibly be the forefather of AGI. One further hopes that the politicians, policy-makers, and the rest, who know next-to-nothing about AI, or AGI, or even prompt engineering, are right. A recent parliamentary report in India quoted the IT ministry as maintaining that tech, or AI, will not reduce but increase jobs.

The Indian prime minister too felt that past experiences show that new tech does not take away jobs but forces humans to acquire new skills, which hikes the number of jobs. Let us hope, just to be confusing, that the guru is right in another respect that the world of AGI can imply the emergence of an ‘utopian world,’ which marks the end of the 9-to-5 (sorry, 9-to-10) grind, and leads to a better quality of life. Humans will spend more time with families, and loved ones, as “robots handle the heavy lifting.” The people will have the freedom to “pursue hobbies and creative endeavours that offer emotional fulfillment rather than just a paycheck.”

But wait, was not this the simplistic explanation we gave at the beginning of this article? More importantly, has not this been proved wrong, at least in some ways, again and again. Yes, people have more time for holidays, and spend a lot on entertainment. But this is restricted to a few sections, and even the holidays come with higher stress. Of course, different studies and different metrics can show different results. Of course, the number of jobs is up despite tech disruptions. But no one has explained the counter whether jobs would still be up minus tech. More crucially, productivity has gone up, and the world has more access to modern amenities and facilities. More nations were pulled up from the depths of poverty in the last century. Yet, hundreds of millions suffer, and remain underprivileged. Tech obviously helps the fortunate, whose population or proportion shrinks, from radio, TV, Internet, to AI. Now, on to AGI, and what not.