The danger of artificial intelligence in dismantling our cultural systems

Artwork created by an artificial intelligence generator (social networking sites)

There is no doubt that we are entering a new era with amazing technological development; An era in which humans have come to find in artificial intelligence what enables them to reach high levels of creativity, whether this creativity is scientific, technical, or artistic and literary. We imagine, while we are in overwhelming amazement at the accelerating daily discoveries of this intelligence, that we are rising in the ladder of humanity to higher levels in which we are close to achieving enjoyment and stability in existence.

However, whoever carefully looks at the state of the world and the strife, pandemics, wars of starvation and extermination it is witnessing, it will soon become clear that humanity is entering a stage of stifling crisis on more than one level, especially on the moral level.

We have the right to ask: Are we, by entering the era of super-intelligence technology that exceeds the natural, innate intelligence of humans, falling into negligence? Heedlessness that precedes decline, as we understand from the words of some ancient people, where they say: “He who is heedless will fail”? Perhaps the reasons for this question are many, including the fact that technology has begun to establish in humans a sense of mastery in the universe, a feeling that creates a feeling of greatness, strength, and power, distracting its owner from contemplating his natural position among other creatures.

It is now possible for every person, no matter how limited his fortune in these arts, to compete with the creators who have long experience in them. This matter, even if on the surface it appears positive, liberating creativity, has major repercussions on the relationship between individual creative talent and collective heritage.

The German philosopher Martin Heidegger played a major role in alerting us to the dangers of blindly following technology in our modern context. His book: “The Question of Technology” (Die Frage nach der Technik) is considered one of the most important books that attempted to penetrate the essence of technology, instead of considering it merely a neutral, malleable tool in the hands of man. According to Heidegger, technology is a system for understanding the world that is difficult for humans to understand and control. In this sense, it represents an existential threat and concern.

Heidegger goes on to say: Technology represents a threat to authentic existence, an existence in which human creativity is the result of cooperation and partnership between man and nature. This is because the mind, when it becomes technological, only thinks of nature as a subject of measurement, modification, and exploitation.

It can be learned from Heidegger's speech that technology, as a self-contained mental system, does not care about the connections that exist between man and the universe, as much as it cares about achieving material profit and interest, whether at the expense of the earth or at the expense of others.

What we see in terms of accelerating daily technological discoveries leads us to believe that technology has already entered the stage at which it is changing the features of authentic existence, and threatens to tear apart the existing ties not only between man and the universe, but also between man and his fellow man as well. It is sufficient for us here to stop at one of the many clear examples of the dangers of the technological system on the cultural ties that connect the creative individual to his cultural and societal environment.

Technology companies have created an artificial intelligence system called (Dalle.E), which is a name derived from two words: the name of “Salvador Dali”, the famous Spanish painter (Dali), and the name of “WALL.E”, the robot, the hero of the movie (WALL.E). . The choice of the name comes to indicate a clear meaning, which is that the innovative system aims to achieve creativity that is the result of human interaction with the machine, or an interaction between their intelligence, such that it is difficult to determine whether the work accomplished is human art or technological programming.

It suffices for you to type two words on the computer, such as “table” and “head,” or “monkey” and “book,” or “clouds” and “fire,” or any two words you choose, and you will achieve endless artistic combinations of these words. Among the compositions are what you want to become part of your intellectual property, so that you can sell them or submit them to compete in artistic competitions and the like.

This is puzzling, and prompts us to ask: Is this creativity from humans, or is it from machines? Or is it from both of them?

Here we understand what Heidegger was aiming for behind his criticism of the technological system. When contemplating the aforementioned system, we realize that we are entering a new phase in which creativity has become a partnership and interaction between man and machine, after the original existence had a partnership and interaction between man and nature, and between man and culture.

There are many risks inherent in technology, perhaps the most prominent of which is the risk of losing jobs, as Carl Benedikt Frey explains in his valuable book: “The Technology Trap.” However, the risk of losing jobs is considered a temporary risk that may be combated by creating new jobs. This is almost nothing compared to the dangers posed by artificial intelligence as it enters the stage of mixing man and machine.

It is true that with this mixture, an end is put to the arts of illustration, for example, and every person, no matter how limited his fortune in these arts, becomes able to compete with the creators who have a long history in them. This matter, even if on the surface it appears positive and liberating for creativity, has major repercussions on the relationship between individual creative talent and collective heritage.

Before delving into the type of harm that accompanies the combination of human-machine creativity, it would be appropriate for us to pause here briefly with the poet “T. s. Eliot” (TS Eliot) for the purpose of clarifying the concept of creativity first. Eliot, author of the book Tradition and the Individual Creative Talent, believes that the creative individual in the field of poetry, for example, must fully comprehend his poetic heritage, since Homer was the first poet in this heritage.

The talented, creative individual, according to Eliot, does not start from a vacuum, but rather emerges from a common sense, sculpting his poetic images from interaction with the cultural space extending over time, and does not expand the horizons of creativity, except to the extent that he demonstrates the ability to adhere to established taste standards. What is meant by Eliot’s words is that the creative individual will not be creative unless he proves his ability to dissolve in the spirit of heritage.

Elliott comes from the conviction that true creativity comes only through interaction with a cultural environment, just like Heidegger, who in turn comes from the conviction that creativity in existence comes only through interaction with nature. The intention of these two pioneers of thought and criticism in the modern Western context is to warn of the danger of being led by individual creativity, which is accompanied by the fragmentation of meaning and the independence of the individual sense from the collective sense interacting with the land and heritage.

When we understand the intent of “Elliot” and “Heidegger,” we will have understood the type of harm that accompanies artificial intelligence technology, as manifested in the “Dalle.E” program and its like. This program, which makes creativity an interaction between man and machine, instead of remaining an interaction between man and nature or man and heritage, brings the creative individual to the ultimate level of liberation from the constraints of common cultural sense and taste, and the peak of separation from nature.

Human-machine creativity does not adhere to pre-established standards for artistic creativity, but rather starts from an abstract idea in order to reach another, more abstract idea. In addition, the flow of this creativity is inexhaustible, such that an individual with little luck in the arts of drawing can complete works of art in one hour, what requires a capable artist a year of effort.

Abstraction on the one hand, and abundance on the other hand, are considered two of the factors that contribute to the fragmentation of the human artistic system linked to land, culture and heritage. Creative works performed by man-machines are born with new standards. This is what brings art out of the circle of cultural creativity, that is, that which is governed by cultural controls that imbue it with meaning, to the circle of personalized individual creativity.

With artificial intelligence, we are entering a new historical phase, in which artistic creativity turns into mere digital applications, and then every individual will be able to turn into a creator and be satisfied with his creativity, dispensing with the creativity of others. Or if you want, you can say; Artificial intelligence is today in the process of moving humans to a stage where they become creators and consumers at the same time, consuming what they create.

There is no doubt that this technology has aspects in which it could be improved; But it has other faces that are beautiful and ugly. Artificial intelligence, by transforming artistic creativity into a mere program or digital application, contributes to the dismantling of culture, and moves human creativity from the stage of interaction with land, place, and culture, to the stage of interaction with machines, where everything becomes creativity, and where meaning is imbued with meaningless things.

Thus, artificial intelligence increases our distance from ourselves and from authentic existence. It also increases our separation from heritage and common sense. We become vulnerable to the influence of fleeting words and images that have no resolution.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al Jazeera.