Many people who leverage generative AI (GenAI) products like ChatGPT, Claude, Grok, or Copilot often cite what I call the “pragmatic argument” as a justification.
What’s the pragmatic argument? It works. Translation? Look at what I can do! Look how much more efficient and productive I am! I must find a way to use it!
But with all the risks I document in my new book, [Un]Intelligence, I wonder: Is there any Big Tech product we wouldn’t buy after hearing a Big Tech sales pitch? Is there any line we wouldn’t cross, just to gain more efficiency or productivity? Is there any human ability we wouldn’t surrender for the latest, shiniest, supposed superpower?
Principles Over Pragmatism
A good friend of mine shared this axiom with me:
- If principle is clear, pragmatism is irrelevant
- If principle is not clear, pragmatism has an important role to play
If this is true, then the question is, are there principles that should limit the power of pragmatism over GenAI? To help us find an answer, let’s try to imagine a technology that we wouldn’t use on principle.
1. The ring of power from The Lord of the Rings.
Tolkien’s famous ring symbolized the temptation of incredible power, but at a deadly cost. Many people in the story wanted to use the ring for “good” to save their people by conquering their enemies. But the cost of using the ring was enslavement to the most evil sorcerer on the planet.
Principle: Don’t sell your soul to the devil for any reason, even to supposedly save lives.
2. The demon-possessed slave girl in Acts 16.
She could accurately predict the future, and her masters made a lot of money by selling her powers of foresight. She even told the truth about the apostles’ identity. In a previous article, I asked: if your spouse was dying, would it be right to follow a pragmatic course and ask the demon-possessed slave girl for advice, since it might work?
Principle: Don’t pray to demons or practice divination for any reason, no matter how pragmatic or helpful it might appear.
3. A drug that promises super-human powers.
Think of something like Jeremy Renner’s character used in the movie The Bourne Legacy to enhance his physical and mental prowess. What if a real company invented a drug like that and started giving it away for free to anyone who wanted it. It must be taken every day, but super-human strength and mental acuity would be granted to all who swallowed the pills every day. Side effects? Well, some Luddites, absolutists, or otherwise backwards “get off my lawn” types may claim there are studies that show risks of psychoses, homicidal tendencies, even death. Should we take the risk?
Principle: We’re not transhumanists. We’re not interested in superhuman medical enhancement, whether chemically or digitally.
4. A new, popular, powerful, and (now) familiar Big Tech product.
Imagine a technology that is designed to capture the attention of every person on the planet. It’s sold as an enhancement to every area of life. It was created by stealing the writing and artwork of every author and artist they could find. It was tuned by exploiting the labor of third-world countries. It is powered by conquering other third-world countries for their precious rare-earth minerals, and by damaging the environment with unfathomably large computer farms.
Imagine that those who use this technology face real physical, mental, emotional, relational, and spiritual harm. They risk losing skills they’ve developed and forming a lifelong dependency. And imagine that the people who sell this tech and who are capturing almost every government, corporate, financial, media, educational and religious institution believe they’re making a God, and that they are ushering in a future transhumanist utopia of eternal life.
But wow, look at the incredible stuff you can do! Look at how efficient you are! Look at how much money you can make! And anyway, if I don’t, my competitors will … and then what?
Principle: Products with predatory, dehumanizing, and idolatrous designs should be rejected.
Want to learn more about the claims I make in that last point, and how they apply to GenAI? It required 275 footnotes in my new book to push back against the popular pragmatic narrative. I welcome you to consider these principles for yourself.
2 responses to “Is There A Line We Wouldn’t Cross to Gain Efficiency? A Big Tech Product We Wouldn’t Buy?”
Thanks for writing this book. I’m sure in some ways it’s not easy to speak out against this nonsense when so many want to embrace it. But I think your thoughts and stance on the matter is right. We need voices like yours. So thank you. I ordered my copy of your book. I’m looking forward to reading it.
Thank you so much for your encouraging comment and for ordering a copy of my book! I’ll look forward to hearing what you think!