Summary

The article critiques the concept of 'inevitability thinking' and its impact on creating unfounded myths about technological progress, particularly in the context of peak oil theory, self-driving cars, and artificial intelligence.

Abstract

The article discusses 'inevitability thinking,' a belief that certain technological advancements are unavoidable, leading to widespread expectations that may not be grounded in reality. It uses the peak oil theory, the hype around self-driving cars, and the promises of artificial intelligence as examples of how this mindset can create myths about progress. Despite predictions, fossil fuels remain prevalent, autonomous vehicles are not yet integrated into public roads, and AI, while advancing, has not led to the predicted revolutions or replaced human professions en masse. The author warns against the dangers of overestimating technology's capabilities and the potential societal costs of chasing these utopian visions without a basis in scientific skepticism and acknowledgment of the limitations, such as the absence of consciousness in AI and the challenges of abductive reasoning.

Opinions

The author is skeptical of the peak oil theory, which predicted the imminent depletion of fossil fuels, highlighting that fossil fuels continue to be dominant.
The article suggests that the excitement over self-driving cars has been overblown, as they have not been integrated into public roads as expected.
There is a critical view of the AI hype, stating that while AI has made progress in certain domains, it has not led to the widespread changes or revolutions that were forecasted.
The author points out that AI lacks the ability to acquire consciousness, which is essential for true intelligence, and thus, AI cannot fulfill the exaggerated expectations set by experts.
The article emphasizes that AI is limited in its reasoning capabilities, particularly in abductive reasoning, which is based on intuition and common sense guesses.
The author quotes Eric J. Larson, who argues that the path to human-level AI is not inevitable and that such beliefs are more imagination than reality.
The article concludes by urging society to question overly optimistic technological visions and to consider the potential negative impacts of misguided technological pursuits.

How ‘Inevitability Thinking’ Creates Myths About Progress

Beware of false prophets of progress

What’s inevitability thinking? It’s the solid and rigid belief that something will happen in the future. It’s a prediction with no conditions attached to it.

A clear example of inevitability thinking was the peak oil theory. In the late seventies, people used to warn that the world would run out of fossil fuels soon. Later they postponed the inevitable to the early 21st century. Fossils fuels continue to dominate the energy sector in the third decade of the 21st century.

A frenzy of excitement and euphoria typically precedes the advent of every new technology.

Technology buzz is a natural occurrence. Problems arise when people create expectations about the false dawn of extraordinary progress.

Self-driving cars

The hype about driverless vehicles is a typical example of inevitability thinking and techno-Utopianism.

The buzz about automating transportation began decades ago. The media carried stories about how accidents would become history when clever algorithms replaced careless and stupid human drivers. They told us we wouldn’t experience chaos on the roads anymore as computers were efficient than humans.

As the stories went, the driverless vehicles would pick us up at our doorsteps. All we had to do was to sit back, relax and enjoy the ride.

The public heard scary stories of how millions of taxi drivers and truck drivers would lose their jobs.

Fast forward to 2021. We haven’t seen a single driverless car rubbing shoulders with human drivers on public roads anywhere in the world. We have witnessed autonomous vehicles operating in controlled environments like office campuses and dedicated lanes where the messy human drivers were not allowed.

The hype about Artificial Intelligence

Another glaring example of inevitability thinking is artificial intelligence(AI).

We heard stories about how AI-driven technologies would replace humans in most professions. People warned us of revolutions when millions of people who lost their livelihoods would revolt against their governments.

There has been tremendous advancement in AI technologies. AI works better than humans in a limited number of domains like medical diagnostics. Computers can beat world chess champions easily.

But we haven’t seen the promised AI revolution. What we have seen is limited use of AI in specific sectors only. It has been more about unproven promises than proven demonstrations of AI’s anticipated capabilities.

AI cannot acquire consciousness, which is the distinguishing mark of an intelligent living entity.

Without general intelligence, AI will never deliver on the tall claims made by experts. Artificial General Intelligence (AGI} is another utopian dream that falls under the fallacy of inevitability thinking.

AI researcher Eric J. Larson in his book, “The Myth of Artificial Intelligence: Why Computers Can’t Think the Way We Do”, says AI is capable of inductive inference and deductive inference but not abductive inference.

Inductive inference moves from observations and knowledge to conclusions. Deductive inference proceeds from previous experience to conclusions.

The abductive inference is reaching conclusions based on intuition and common sense guesses. Without the ability of abductive reasoning, AI will not come anywhere near the human brain’s ability to reason intuitively.

The fairy tale narratives about AI are silent on consciousness and abductive reasoning.

“The myth of artificial intelligence is that its arrival is inevitable, and only a matter of time- that we have already embarked on the path that will lead to human-level AI, and then superintelligence.We have not.The path exists only in our imaginations.” ( Eric J. Larson)

According to Larson, inductive inference, deductive inference and abductive inference are distinct- one cannot substitute another.

Final thoughts

Inevitability thinking makes us think success is inevitable. It promotes a false notion about progress. Whether it is about driverless cars or AI, Utopian technological visions violate the scientific spirit of open-minded inquiry and scepticism. The allure of false dawns blinds researchers to intractable problems like the inability of machines to acquire consciousness.

We should interrogate over-optimistic visions peddled by techno-utopians because societies will have to bear the costs of failed and misconceived technological experiments.

Thanks for reading.