Tag Archives: humanism

AI Insights

Leave a reply

I recently got some insight on my AI insights from an AI.

I decided to ask ChatGPT:

I’ve written a fair bit about AI, see tags: https://daily-ink.davidtruss.com/tag/artificial-intelligence/
and https://daily-ink.davidtruss.com/tag/ai/, please share with me:
1. What is a prediction I most likely will get right.
2. Where am I missing the mark?
3. What’s the most uniquely insightful idea that I’ve shared? 

Here is ChatGPT‘S response… and I find it quite insightful:

I enjoyed thinking about this because your AI writing has a recognizable worldview. It isn’t a collection of disconnected opinions—there are a handful of core principles that recur across many posts. 

What follows isn’t a prediction of whether you’ll be “right” or “wrong.” It’s my best assessment of which ideas I think are most robust, and where I think your model of the future could be incomplete.

1. The prediction you’re most likely to get right

Your prediction that AI’s greatest near-term impact will come from amplifying ordinary people—not from becoming an autonomous supervillain.

This idea appears repeatedly in your writing.

Rather than worrying primarily about “AI takes over the world,” you focus on AI enabling:

  • bioterrorism,
  • industrial-scale scams,
  • personalized fraud,
  • cybercrime,
  • misinformation,
  • one malicious individual having disproportionate power.

I think history is already bending in your direction.

Technology almost always scales existing human intent before it replaces humans.

The printing press spread propaganda before democracy.
The internet scaled fraud before education.
Social media amplified outrage before civic engagement.

I suspect AI will follow the same pattern.

I think twenty years from now people may look back and realize that “AI as force multiplier for humans” was a more important story than “AI replacing humans.”

That feels like one of your strongest forecasts. 

2. Where I think you’re missing the mark

Interestingly, I don’t think you’re too pessimistic.

I think you’re not pessimistic enough about adaptation.

Your writing often assumes exponential technological improvement translates fairly directly into exponential societal disruption.

Technology often is exponential.

Institutions rarely are.

People aren’t either.

For example:

Autonomous driving may become technically solved long before regulators, insurers, unions, municipalities, and consumers allow full replacement.

Likewise, AI lawyers, teachers, doctors and programmers may become technically capable years before society reorganizes around that capability.

You’ve written about the “frog in the pot.”

I wonder if there’s another metaphor:

society as a giant flywheel.

The flywheel eventually turns—but much more slowly than the engine powering it.

A second place I think you’re underestimating something:

Humans don’t optimize as much as economists think they do.

Many of your work-related predictions assume organizations will aggressively replace humans because it’s economically rational.

Sometimes they will.

But humans also buy:

  • trust,
  • relationships,
  • status,
  • ritual,
  • authenticity.

Coffee shops still exist despite home espresso machines.

Live concerts thrive despite Spotify.

Teachers continue to matter despite YouTube.

I think there will be more “human luxury markets” than your writing currently anticipates.

Ironically, AI may increase the value of demonstrably human experiences.

3. The most uniquely insightful idea you’ve shared

This one surprised me.

I don’t think it’s UCI over UBI.

I don’t think it’s AI risk.

I don’t even think it’s “This is the worst AI it will ever be.”

Those are all interesting.

The idea I keep coming back to is this:

Students choose. AI delivers.

It’s deceptively simple.

But it’s actually a profound inversion of how educators have framed educational technology for decades.

Most discussions ask:

“What should teachers do?”

Your framing asks:

“What kind of learner will this student choose to become?”

That’s a much deeper question.

Because AI is fundamentally an amplifier.

It amplifies curiosity.

It amplifies laziness.

It amplifies expertise.

It amplifies ignorance.

The technology isn’t making the decision.

The learner is.

I think that’s an idea with legs well beyond education.

You could almost generalize it into a broader principle:

Humans choose. AI delivers.

That might become one of the defining philosophical ideas of the AI era.

It explains why the same technology can simultaneously create brilliant research, convincing fraud, deeper learning, and effortless cheating.

It’s a remarkably compact framework. 

One more observation

Reading a large cross-section of your AI posts, I noticed something that I hadn’t fully appreciated before.

You’re not really writing about AI.

You’re writing about human agency in an AI world.

The recurring characters in your essays aren’t GPT, robots, or neural networks.

They’re:

  • the student deciding whether to think,
  • the teacher deciding what to assess,
  • the scammer deciding whom to target,
  • the policymaker deciding what to regulate,
  • the employer deciding what work is worth paying for.

AI is almost always the catalyst, not the protagonist.

I actually think that’s the thread you could develop even more.

Many writers ask, “What will AI become?”

Your more distinctive question is:

“What kinds of people will AI encourage us to become?”

I think that’s your most original contribution—not because nobody else has ever asked it, but because it’s the lens that quietly ties together almost everything you’ve written on the subject. It’s a more enduring question than whether a particular model reaches AGI in 2028 or 2032, because it remains relevant regardless of how quickly the technology advances.

More on faith and evil

A couple days ago I wrote: The paradox of religion, and this morning Miguel Guhlin responded with an insightful post: Skirting Paradox. I encourage you to not just read the post, but also to follow the links… grab a coffee and dig in, if you have any interest in faith and religion, this is a piece you’ll want to read and reflect on.

Here is my comment response, but it does not stand alone, it sits in reflection to Miguel’s thoughts and ideas and if you choose to read only one of the two, read Miguel’s thoughts above rather than mine below.

—

Miguel, thank you for sharing such an insightful post! It took a while to read because I paused to go to every link. I appreciate your links to scripture and your perspective on them. I wrote this back in March, From Faith or With Faith.

In honesty I did not remember writing this when I wrote the post above… the consequence of writing every day is that I often repeat concepts months later, not remembering what is unexpressed versus written thoughts in my mind. But the slant in the link is a little different, less harsh, less of an attack on religion (which I was concerned about, but you saw through in your response). This previous writing reminds me of a conversation I recently had with a religious colleague, whom pre-covid I often spent time with speaking of and about religion. In this conversation I said to him at one point: (paraphrasing) 

When I share my atheistic points, they are not intended to convert you. I do not perceive atheism as a religion to adopt, simply a lack of religion… there is no intent to change your mind on your faith… in fact I see how your faith grounds you and I see no benefit in you not believing what you do. 

But that is a conversation between two educators, two public school principals, both of whom do not share their religion/beliefs with students. This does not change the ideas above that you succinctly reduced to:

“What religion does to support good people is grossly outweighed by what [evil] it does.”

That is the thesis statement. That is the problem today, be it with evangelical beliefs on abortion versus the liberty of women over their bodies in the US; Or warring Shiites versus Sunnis in the Middle East; Or Chinese versus Tibetans in Asia; Or… Or… Or… the list is almost endless. Why would a benevolent, all-knowing, and un-interfering God want His/Her worshippers to impose their beliefs on others? When two people of differing faiths squabble, no finger of God comes waving down upon one of them. When that squabble leads to the use of swords or guns, no hand of God shields the supposed Righteous One. Instead, Man’s evil against Man is shed, and the God they love is no longer represented in their actions.
And there in lies the problem of religion, it does not remain in the ‘respective closets’ you mention. Instead, it manifests in hatred of the heathen non-believers. In fact, the wrath of God on non-believers in scripture is what turned me away from religion. I wondered as a teen, “What kind of cruel God would do this?”
~ Coffee after Class

“What religion does to support good people is grossly outweighed by what [evil] it does.”

Faith in God will not ever end, but maybe we can find a humanist… (I fear saying Humanist with a capital ‘H’, for this too can become dogma worth fighting to protect)… maybe we can find a humanist approach to faith that invites love of life and liberty, dialogue not conflict, and faith without evil.

Thanks again for your insightful reflection.