The Specter of Technopoly: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Human Agency
In Terry Gilliam’s simultaneously beloved and hated 2013 film “ The Zero Theorem” we are presented with a dystopian vision of a world where technology has eroded individuality and blurred the lines between work and leisure. The protagonist, Qohen Leth, grapples with a seemingly meaningless task in a virtual landscape, symbolic of the loss of purpose in a hyper-technologized society. This cinematic portrayal serves as a poignant starting point for examining the potential impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on our future, particularly when viewed through the lens of Neil Postman’s visionary work, “ Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology” (1992).
Postman defines a Technopoly as a society where technology is deified, traditional cultural narratives lose significance, and human agency is increasingly surrendered to technological systems. He argues that in such a society, “the culture seeks its authorization in technology, finds its satisfactions in technology, and takes its orders from technology” (Postman, 1992, p. 71). The world of “The Zero Theorem” seems to embody this concept, with its characters navigating a reality where corporate interests and technological imperatives dominate every aspect of life.
As we stand on the cusp of an AI revolution, the warnings embedded in both Gilliam’s film and Postman’s book take on renewed urgency. The increasing sophistication of AI systems raises questions about the future of human decision-making and individuality. In his book “Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control” (2019), Stuart Russell warns that as AI systems become more capable, there’s a risk of humans becoming increasingly reliant on them, potentially leading to a loss of agency and skills.
The collapsing boundary between work and leisure, a theme in “The Zero Theorem” is already becoming apparent in our AI-augmented world. The ubiquity of smartphones and AI assistants means that work can intrude into every moment of our lives. This echoes Postman’s concern about technology redefining social institutions and norms. As he puts it, “Technopoly eliminates alternatives to itself in precisely the way Aldous Huxley outlined in Brave New World” (Postman, 1992, p. 48).
However, it’s crucial to note that neither “The Zero Theorem” nor “Technopoly” presents a deterministic view of technology’s impact. In Gilliam’s film, human connection counters technological alienation. Similarly, Postman, while critical of unchecked technological progress, believed in the power of human culture and education to resist the totalizing tendencies of Technopoly.
Recent works on AI ethics echo this resistance through human connection and critical thinking. In “AI Ethics” (2020), Mark Coeckelbergh argues for the importance of maintaining human values and ethical considerations in developing and deploying AI systems. He suggests that by fostering critical discourse and maintaining human oversight, we can harness the benefits of AI without surrendering our agency and cultural values.
The challenge is to navigate the path between technological progress and human flourishing. As Sherry Turkle argues in “Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other” (2011), we must be mindful of how technology shapes our relationships and sense of self. She writes, “We expect more from technology and less from each other” (Turkle, 2011, p. 295), a sentiment that resonates with the themes of isolation and lost humanity in “The Zero Theorem.”
In conclusion, as we move into the age of AI, the warnings embedded in works like “The Zero Theorem” and “Technopoly” serve as crucial reminders of what’s at stake. The erosion of individuality, the blurring of work and leisure, and the potential loss of meaning in a hyper-technologized world are not inevitable consequences of technological progress. Instead, they are challenges we must actively address.
By maintaining a critical perspective on technology, fostering human connections, and ensuring that our AI systems are designed to augment rather than replace human decision-making, we can work towards a future where technology serves human values rather than supplanting them. In doing so, we may avoid the dystopian fate of Qohen Leth and instead shape a future where technology and humanity coexist in a more balanced and mutually beneficial relationship.
References:
Coeckelbergh, M. (2020). AI Ethics. MIT Press.
Gilliam, T. (Director). (2013). The Zero Theorem [Film]. Stage 6 Films.
Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. Vintage Books.
Russell, S. (2019). Human Compatible: Artificial Intelligence and the Problem of Control. Viking.
Turkle, S. (2011). Alone Together: Why We Expect More from Technology and Less from Each Other. Basic Books.
Originally published at https://www.hegemonaco.com.
