“Artificial Intelligence does the work of many minds at once. Will human creativity flourish or fail?”

“Artificial Intelligence will make us useless slaves.  We must stop these abuses before they start!”

“A.I. will create killer robots!  We’re doomed!”

I have heard various versions of the above concerns regarding the rise of robots, the growth of artificial intelligence, and the broader concerns about the moral and ethical dilemmas facing humanity as technological innovation advances — and then accelerates.

The gloom around A.I. is understandable but incorrect.

Technological innovation has always served as a winnowing process.  Old jobs fall away, but new jobs take their place.  Some career paths may disappear, but new opportunities take over.

Now matter how sophisticated, artificial intelligence cannot replace human intelligence, wisdom, ingenuity, and entrepreneurship.  A.I. can hone specialized skills for those who want to retain or maintain specific fields of craftsmanship, but craftsmen are not going away.

With special thanks to Canadian commentator J.J. McCullough, A.I. makes it easier to create templates and ideas, but the quality and the taste of the pictures, objects, and ideas created are, on the surface, still cringe-worthy.  A machine cannot inspire, nor can it replicate the inspiration of the human spirit.  Whatever stories, poems, or other forms of art that can come out of a ChatGPT prompt, the style and substance will never suffice or suffuse the human mind.  Furthermore, the compact creations of Grok or Meta AI programs can’t reflect the inner tensions of man’s search for place or meaning in his world, including the scenes that he depicts.  Although A.I. can generate pictures or formulate ideas into pictures, it cannot create or enhance the contrasts, shades, and shadows that transform the ordinary into the extraordinary.

Of course, there is a growing number of artists and intellectuals ruggedly opposed to A.I.  They think all creative works deserve assessment and praise based on the amount of effort put into the creation.  Here’s the fundamental failure of the marketplace for leftists.  Value is determined not by labor, but by the interest or value of the consumer.  No creation, no good, no service has value in and of itself, but rather, its value is based on what it produces.  There you have the Austrian economics’ subjective theory of value.

Animators fear that A.I. will take their jobs away.  A.I. might make it easier to produce films, but the fundamental characters and templates of individual actors, processions, and ideas will have to come from the people.  The stunning beauty of Walt Disney’s Snow White still rivals the computer animation of DreamWorks.

Instead of limiting or bankrupting artists, A.I. will induce the general public to discern quality, and artists will strive to reflect that.  The general public will have a greater appreciation for the abstract and avant-garde.  That’s a win-win for artists.

We cannot predict how broad and commanding man’s ingenuity will be going forward.  A.I. has provided a means for man to be more creative more quickly, but it cannot predict or anticipate the future wants and needs of the general public, either.

Man and his search for competence, recognition, and meaning will not disappear, but our lives will improve in the search for answers.

Another fear about rapid mechanization and advancement of A.I. was that there would be such widespread unemployment that governments and peoples would have to invest in universal basic incomes.

Industries that promoted the upkeep and well-being of horses fell into decline with the arrival of the automobile.  Animal enthusiasts, performers, and general-interest equestrians still own horses, ride them, and enjoy their company.  The horse-riding industry was limited, but it became more specialized.

But specialized careers employ fewer people.  Where’s the comfort, then?  Consider the moment when banks switched to automatic in the 1970s.  There was widespread fear that automated teller machines, ATMs, would put thousands of people out of work.  The opposite happened.  Banks shifted their services to more customer-related features.  With the increased savings, these financial firms open up more branches, and they ended up having to hire more people!  Free enterprise does entail creative destruction, but there always follows a creative proliferation!

Furthermore, it’s rather arrogant for labor leaders and liberal pundits to claim that “there will be no jobs left.”  Human wants and needs are constantly changing.  Steve Jobs created the portable phone with internet before there was a thought, let alone a want, for the phone.  Once he invented the nifty device, everyone had to have one.  The innovations often create the need because of the facility and agility they provide to the consumer.

Even now, reports are listing the jobs that A.I. cannot replace.  Human beings will always have employment opportunities.

Besides, If A.I. became so sophisticated that all jobs became obsolete, then that would mean the A.I. can provide for all human needs, thus eliminating concerns about economic privation and starvation.

We’ve dispensed with the gloom.  But what about the doom?  Are we on the verge of T-800 and T-1000 making war on the human race?  Hasta la vista, baby!

Will we see “I, Robot” become reality?  A recent video of Chinese engineers fending off a robot prototype, which began thrashing its arms and legs wildly — and violently — raised these concerns.  Another article described how an A.I. program deleted all the software of a company, ruining its productivity and pre-eminence of the company.

Artificial intelligence that can recognize itself opens serious ethical concerns.  Will they attack us?  Will they make war on us?  We should not be naïve enough to ignore such a possibility.  Is it ethical to treat mechanical creations, acting as our servants, with any form of disdain or disrespect?  When do we discuss the rights of robots and the responsibilities of human beings in connection to these creations (creatures)?

Instead of focusing on job losses, A.I. discussions should focus on ethical concerns, and we must ponder the answers.  No one wants to face the fate of Dave in 2001: A Space Odyssey or the Epsilons in Brave New World.

Arthur Christopher Schaper is a blogger, writer, and commentator on topics both timeless and timely; political, cultural, and eternal.  A lifelong Southern California resident, Arthur currently lives in Torrance.  Follow his blogs at The State of the Union and As He Is, So Are We Ministries. 

Image: Marco Verch Professional Photographer and Speaker via Flickr, CC BY 2.0.