A Dialectical Critique of ChatGPT & Co.
A (in)human(e) premise and an artificially intelligent conclusion
A trains-a-coming and the flag of artificial intelligence on top of the front locomotive are waving mightily in the wind of public fanatism, speculation, and fear.
Regardless of the professional domain one currently finds oneself in, whether it be education, industry, science, or service, everyone fears being left behind by the train departing from the Silicon Valley station. Even more, people are increasingly afraid of being run over by the artificial intelligence train and ending up alone at the train station of unemployment, not getting picked up.
“Will artificial intelligence replace us?” is a question that we encounter more and more in magazines, YouTube headlines, and more or less interesting LinkedIn content posts. Above all, it raises the futuristic question: “How much human is embedded in this promising artificial intelligence technology?”
To address this, it is helpful to turn off the computer (or ask Alexa to do so) and take a brief walk to the bookshelf where Adorno and Horkheimer are residing (even if only for aesthetic reasons).
The dialectic of Enlightenment (and technology)
In the “Dialectic of Enlightenment,” Adorno and Horkheimer describe how the idea of Enlightenment and rationalization have turned from a noble hope of human empowerment to a monster that has turned against its own creators to haunt them back. The idea of the philosophical duo was not entirely new. Max Weber had already developed the basics of how rationalization and categorization can lead to disenchantment, disappointment, and disillusionment with human nature. Horkheimer and Adorno, though, went a step further and exposed the fascist element of the process of rationalization.
It was no coincidence that they were in exile in the USA when they wrote the “Dialectic of Enlightenment," fleeing from the furious terror of the Nazis. But by experiencing the threat of the Nazis firsthand, they were able to observe something that found its way into their later work. Namely, the hidden fascistic tendencies and the more or less ruthless extrapolation of an idea: a form of thought was conceptualized and rationalized to the most extreme, and everything outside and beside this epistemological form was cut off, mutilated, and murdered—opinions and people alike.
More human than human?
This leads us to the question: is the Enlightenment, the triumph of the logical, the rational above all, a representation of something deeply human? If we perceive what we do daily, being enslaved in a mechanically ordered cultural and economic process, as the essence of being human, then yes, artificial intelligence is intelligent and can replace us. Artificial intelligence is much better at evaluating databases, and working with numbers makes no demands and is unlikely to unite with others for better working conditions.
However, if we understand human existence as something that cannot be represented by symbolic and cultural orders, as something we feel in resonating relationships, then we have a different premise and arrive at a completely different conclusion.
If the premise is that we understand the often dull symbolic and cultural reality as the essence of being human, then yes, the conclusion is correct that artificial intelligence can replace us.
But if we see deep resonating relationships, all-encompassing failures of existence, and the inability to fully flourish in reality as something deeply human, then we have a completely different premise and arrive at a completely different conclusion: that a symbolic entity cannot replace this human experience that lives between its connections, like Georg Simmel has beautifully shown in his founding writings of modern sociology.
“Now tell me, how do you feel about religion?” Gretchen asked Faust and answered at the same time, “You are a sincerely good man, but I believe you don’t care much about it.” If we turn this quote to the topic of artificial intelligence, we can well imagine that Gretchen would ask the question today in a somewhat different way: “Now tell me, how do you feel about artificial intelligence?” and would hopefully respond the same way, “You are a sincerely good man, but I believe you don’t care much about it.”
