AI and the Human Experience

AI. Even the Pope is jumping into the conversation and offering opinions. If your job hasn’t already been replaced by a robot, you may either worry about being replaced by automation and intelligence or are trying to convince yourself that AI can never replace the work you do.
 
When automation was introduced to the factory floor in 1913 by Henry Ford, it replaced entire shifts of workers. However, the first known automation device was introduced in 1764, the Spinning Jenny, to assist the textile industry. In 1947, transistors kickstarted the electronics age. In 1961, the first robot stood side by side with a factory worker. In the 1990’s, computers predominately aided manufacturing. And today, we see the rise of AI, driving both factories and other industries worldwide.
 
Considerations for early automation included increasing safety and reducing repetitive motions for humans. Automation brought the work to the employee with conveyor belts, reducing the time it took for completing the task and increasing productivity. 
 
There was a cost to all this automation. The initial investment was immense, the demand for maintenance and training of technicians could be costly, and networked systems increased cybersecurity risks. Behind these risks was also opportunity: new industries to build the automation, specially trained technicians and the rise of IT security personnel. 
 
The human experience was also integral to the success of automation. Automation required human support and adaptation. Industries that included human stakeholders at the table were able to thrive and navigate the changes more successfully. Examples of these discussions included decisions about the types of automation, addressing the impact to the community, planning for the implementation process and the re-training of workers, as well as anticipating unforeseen challenges.
 
In theory, this shouldn't be any different for today’s evolution into AI. While individuals and professions worry about the loss of employment or viability in the future for their career, impacts to communities seem to be the larger impediment to the growth of AI. AI requires a tremendous amount of resources to operate. Water, electricity, and harmful impacts to the environment are top concerns from the communities where data center projects are being proposed or have already been built.
 
This is where the human experience becomes critical in the conversation about the current trend in automation. It’s no longer about an assembly line; it is about the capacity to critically think and receive constructive feedback. To ultimately have autonomy in our identity about the work we do, and the things we believe are most important to us. This may include our family, our community and the future. AI is not a critical thinker. AI is not concerned about the impact of data centers on communities. AI isn’t thinking about the future of it’s great-grandchildren. AI is not your friend, significant other, or someone you can really trust. AI operates based on the information that a human feeds it whether it is you or some unknown data feeder that doesn’t know you or even share your same values. 
 
AI has its value for humans just like the Spinning Jenny did in 1764. The Spinning Jenny created more opportunities for humans; it didn’t diminish human needs. AI is diminishing the human experience by creating fear (loss of career, identity, work opportunities), destroying communities (polluting water, increasing demands and costs of electricity, replacing farmlands), and being developed without clear benefits and costs to most humans.
 
The success of the human experience and AI is dependent on having multiple stakeholders at the table making decisions about the future of AI and data centers. This is happening in some communities, and I have colleagues facilitating those conversations. Yes, it is slowing down the rapid development of a potential data center. Yes, it will probably increase the costs for the data center. Yes, the data center may choose to not build in that area. Given the long-term impacts of a data center, this sounds like smart planning. This is putting the human experience first because the reality is that AI capabilities, just like automation on the factory floor, tends to bring value to a small percentage of the stakeholders; the ones who will financially benefit from reduced costs and greater productivity. 
 
We don’t really need AI. Humans are already experiencing, providing or receiving the “benefits” of what AI is trying to replace. It tends to be inequities in accessibility to those benefits that creates different experiences. As a society, we can generally agree that when something “fixes” a problem that provides a societal human benefit (i.e., vaccines for polio or measles, seatbelts in cars, stop signs and signals) that the benefits will outweigh the risks. Polio no longer exists, measles is no longer a public epidemic, injury after a car accident is reduced, and drivers can safely enter and exit intersections. But AI replacing the expertise of your doctor, the creative mind of a poet, the emotional intelligence of a mediator, or the local knowledge of a taxi driver, I would question the value and need of replacing the human experience with a thing that has no heartbeat, empathy, or accountability. Further, AI cannot provide real relationships because AI isn’t human.

Are we willing to prioritize the human experience? Where we create space for the messiness, differences, multiple voices, expertise, values, and need for autonomy and connections that can only be experienced as humans?
 
Reference:
​https://www.sohoify.com/did-automation-start-in-manufacturing-guide/