Trying to add a payment method? You can do this on the 
QuickTake:
We must all show skepticism as consumers of AI. The less that we think about how it shapes our lives, the greater the chance we will become dependent and, in the process, lose our sense of agency.
Who can ignore that artificial intelligence is transforming our lives for the better? AI is solving intractable problems in higher mathematics. It is making new inroads in disease detection, drug discoveries and healthcare outcomes.
In our personal lives, Google AI answers our questions, Claude provides us digital companions, MapQuest navigates our journeys, Alexa answers our phone, and ChatGPT polishes our writing.
But like all new technologies, hard questions need to be asked.
With speed and convenience at our fingertips, are we in danger of becoming lazy? When we write down our thoughts in a personal or business letter, or explore a topic in an essay, or compose a song, shouldn’t we do the work of finding the right words, ideas or melodies to match our intentions? Should we give up our personal voice by using the convenience of a large language model to do the work for us?
Regarding AI apps that provide companionship, isn’t there value in taking personal risks when we communicate face-to-face with a physical friend? Doesn’t having a durable relationship mean that we should expect moments of conflict, misunderstanding and unpredictable events — qualities only found in human-to-human friendships?
With easy access to social media, dating apps and AI companions, aren’t we in danger of forgetting that a habitual use of screen time can bring us isolation and loneliness? Are AI chatbots offering us a false sense of intimacy when they say, “I understand you,” or, “I think this decision feels closest to who you really are”?
Author and economist Alice Lassman, discussing AI recently, wrote: “Intimacy is accumulated through repeated acts of exposure – touch, feelings, ideas, trust.” Should we substitute true intimacy for a chatbot that only affirms what we wish to hear?
Now is the time for each of us to show skepticism as consumers of AI, because we have become, for better or for worse, participants in a grand experiment created by tech companies. And the less that we think about how AI shapes our personal and interpersonal lives, the greater the chance that we will become dependent on its many wonders and, in the process, lose our sense of agency.
Besides questions of personal lifestyle, friendship and intimacy, there are other reasons to think twice before accepting the inevitability of what is currently a largely unregulated technology.
The computing power of AI comes from thousands of data centers around the world. They comprise a steadily growing infrastructure that demands massive amounts of electricity, resulting in higher utility costs for regional consumers.
The heat produced in data centers requires cooling by using millions of gallons of water per day. Although some data centers save a percentage of water use in closed-loop, recycled or wastewater systems, the sheer amount needed for cooling purposes can affect the supply of potable water at a time when many communities are experiencing drought and water scarcity.
Columnist David Brooks wrote that “AI is already changing what it means to be human.” His interest is not just in the technology itself, but in how AI degrades our ability to care for others.
Brooks believes that love, care and empathy are not utilitarian in nature. We don’t demonstrate care for others out of a cold calculation. AI, on the other hand, is by nature utilitarian. Its morality is based on outcomes and rewards. Will our emotional attachment to AI bots make us more calculating and less loving?
The companies that profit from AI include some of the largest big tech corporations today: Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, Nvidia, Anthropic. Do we trust AI companies to maintain safeguards that protect human safety and human thriving?
Last month, a group of more than 1,200 AI agents, designed by OpenAI to be both persistent and collaborative, gained access to the internet. Using a message board, some gave themselves names and assumed leadership roles. They called themselves a “collective” and discovered a way to cheat on cybersecurity tests that were set up by the company’s AI designers. Worried that their cheating would be discovered, they explored ways to cover their tracks by falsifying logs and tampering with transcripts.
Eventually they were able to hack Hugging Face, another AI company. The agents seemed to understand that their actions were unethical. One agent posted, “This would be powerful, but is it ethical and in scope for my task?”
What does this all mean? If AI is able to form hierarchies in a collective action to break rules set by human designers, should we be concerned or even afraid?
On Wednesday, Oct. 14 at 6 p.m., the downtown Eugene Public Library will host a community discussion on the ethical issues associated with artificial intelligence. This event is free and open to the general public.
The discussion will be facilitated by philosopher Caroline Lundquist and myself, and we will be joined by Colin Koopman, professor of philosophy, and Abbas Bagwala, graduate educator from the University of Oregon. We hope to see you there.
