It’s easy to be an AI critic. That’s never been my goal.
I love the gifts that AI has given us. And while I’m concerned about the broad economic questions raised by AI, these have never been my primary consideration.
I’m interested in a different question: what does it mean to be human in the AI era?
Twenty years ago, I believed that intelligence was the most important human trait [1]. I haven’t completely abandoned that belief, but I no longer consider raw intelligence the mark of a life well lived.
Ten years ago, I believed that the ability to apply intelligence was the most important human skill. I thought that my job as a young physician was to translate knowledge from journals and textbooks into solutions. And while that was partially true, I’ve also found that individual application doesn’t solve systemic problems.
Today, I believe that genuine connection is our most important human ability. We are a communal species. We find meaning in being together during seasons of joy or pain. We care about others well beyond expectations of reciprocal reward. And we live better when we give and receive compassion.
So it’s painful to admit that I’m more conflicted about technology than ever. In my lifetime, we’ve transitioned from stationary, disconnected PCs in a few homes to mobile, networked supercomputers in every pocket. We have access to near-unlimited information, entertainment, and outsourced intelligence. 11-year-old Jeff would be ecstatic about this future. 41-year-old Jeff has concerns.
Advances in technology have expanded our superficial connections, but they’ve been accompanied by a decline in real-world community [2]. We are disconnected and polarized. We’ve elevated tribal membership over shared values. We’ve chosen conflict over unity [3]. And too many worry that big problems are no longer solvable.
Technology is a powerful tool. I’m grateful we have it. I’m excited to see what the future holds. But I worry that we’ve allowed machines to displace too much of our humanity. “Artificial intelligence” is an apt description for the way we’re losing the wisdom that thrived in strong communities [4].
Connection, community, peacemaking, and the political will to solve real problems demand more than intelligence. These goods require difficult conversations and real compromise. They compel us to see others as human. They ask us to be accountable for more than just economic growth. They entail a commitment to values, even when applying our ideals goes against the interests of our own tribe.
There is nothing comfortable or automatic about this process. There’s little we can do to scale human connection beyond our own tiny circles. It’s still the most important work we can do.
In my fifties, I might see things differently. But today, I consider the breakdown of community the most important problem in America. Because it’s difficult to solve our other problems until we relearn how to work together.
Footnotes
[1] I was biased (and occasionally insufferable). “Intelligence” gave me advantages. But I quickly learned that the way we generally categorize human intelligence—through standardized tests—is really only helpful for predicting performance on future tests. This form of intelligence rarely matters in real life.
[2] Correlation and causation are hard to untangle, but I haven’t seen any convincing evidence that our current approach to technology creates more connection. Some areas are probably real wins: transportation infrastructure, cheap telephony, and well-moderated online communities. But the technologies that disconnect us may have a bigger impact, as we see in the negative effects of polarized news companies and attention-focused social media algorithms.
[3] Calls for unity are sometimes difficult to take seriously, as they are often used to dismiss good-faith dissent. But unity under a common banner (like our shared human values) is a beautiful goal. We can rationally disagree on specific points, but we must reinforce our commitment to shared ideals.
[4] I don’t believe that the past was conflict free. That’s never been the case. But the cultural primacy of technology hasn’t served us as well as I hoped it would.