In the discussion about AI, a lot has been said about the fear of automation. Yet, not enough is said about augmentation. Automation replaces human work while augmentation enhances human work. Just think about mowing your grass without a motorized lawn mower and you get the picture of what augmentation looks like. Without it, you would have to cut all the grass, sweep it into piles and then throw it in the trash. The motorized mower does steps 1 and 2 at once while also diminishing your physical exertion in the process. AI technologies do the same but for work that requires thinking.
AI and Augmentation
Visionaries at Amazon and Google, imagine a future in which digital assistants like Alexa will cut through all the tech fragmentation present in our current devices. How? Think about how many apps exist on your phone. Wouldn’t be easier to have all those apps managed by a digital assistant? In organizing and simplifying our digital life, AI could eliminate the current inefficiencies of keeping up with so many apps giving us time to do other things. This would not only help our personal lives but also greatly simplify our work lives.
Think about how many different software you had to learn just to do your job. What if this software could be simplified through an AI interface? Think about a device that you don’t have to type to get what you need, instead you can simply speak to it in normal conversation.
There lies the promise of AI: its ability to augment our abilities to get things done. It can not only remove repetitive and inefficient tasks but also helps us improve on what we already do well. I certainly would love to have a digital assistant help me write this blog faster. It turned out to be a total failure so I am still waiting for better AI writers. The question becomes, will these Silicon Valley titans achieve their dreamed augmentation.
The False Promises of Automation
Contrary to augmentation, automation seeks to replace humans with machines that do job faster for cost-saving reasons. Think about the demise of manufacturing in this country, mainly driven by automation in factories. Consider the impact of truck drivers with the introduction of driver-less trucks. While companies could save millions by dispensing drivers, the human cost in lost income and social isolation would also be significant.
Automation does not lead to less work. At the beginning of the last century, some believed that because of the progress of technology, soon we would be working 4 hours a day or less. The thinking was that as machines automated manual work, humans would be free to sit by the pool seeping a margarita while the work gets completed. Needless to say, this scenario did not pan out.
Instead, we witnessed was the emergence of whole new work functions that now were needed to maintain the new technological ecosystem. Did we achieve new levels of productivity? Yes, but it certainly was not a linear process. As we could do more with less, organizations also started expecting workers to do more with their tools.
Above all, there has been an exponential increase in complexity. If automation enthusiasts envisioned a simpler future where work became easier they were woefully mistaken. The implementation of computerized machines added a whole sleuth of new requirements that weren’t there before. Surely that created the need for new occupations to emerge. Yet, as we look back at the 3 previous industrial revolutions, did they foster human flourishing?
A Theology for Machines?
As we approach the 4th industrial revolution, this augmentation vs automation framework allows us to reflect theologically on the role of machines. A theological view of technology, one that puts humanity before profit, will focus on steering tools towards augmentation as opposed to automation. It starts with how we view work. Is it a means to an end or an inherent part of our humanity? A utilitarian view of work will easily lead to the immoral way of automation. On the contrary, seeing work as an expression of our God-given humanity, can therefore see machine as allies rather than competitors for work.
Here we can also reflect on tools (technology) as an extension of the Imago Dei on us. God’s image imprint in us compel us to be creators through tools. On the flip side, the Bible often cautions us about the limitations of humanity. The Judeo-Christian tradition teaches us that there is only one Creator God who is greater than humanity. Any human attempt to usurp God’s place will be fraught with disaster.
Regardless of faith tradition, a theological view of technology will often ask the question: is this tool augmenting a human ability or replacing it? If it is replacing, what is the human loss? If it is augmenting, what are its limits? These questions alone should provide us some much-needed guidance as we step into the uncharted waters of Artificial Intelligence. May we ask them sooner rather than later.