Artificial intelligence represents a fundamental shift, not just a technological advancement, prompting a re-evaluation of human identity, work, and societal structures, moving us towards a more individualized and potentially more human future.
Mind Map
クリックして展開
クリックしてインタラクティブなマインドマップを確認
What impact do you think AI [music] will
have on the workforce? And do you think
we're headed for an identity crisis?
>> And this is the question that's
fascinating about AI. What else can I
become? Very few people have the courage
to ask that question. Why? Because they
look in the mirror in the morning and
they see an engineer or a doctor. They
don't see a person.
>> If they're not looking at artificial
intelligence and asking what are we
going to become with this technology?
Would you say it's the beginning of the
end for them?
>> The fundamental thing we need to
understand in this AI conversation, the
purpose of technology is to relieve you,
the human, of chores. and then of work.
Work in the sense of minor work, not
work to create art, not the work to
create worldliness. If Picasso was alive
today, he would have been the first one
to embrace maturity.
>> There is the fear that we're going to be
in this doom scroll of AI generated
nonsense and we'll just look at fake
lives. But I think that's [music] just
going to be temporary. In a world where
everything is actually about the individual,
individual,
>> the influencer will be gone. So the
influencer influences people to do the
exact same thing. And we are advocating
right now for the opposite. Technology
is allowing you to be you. Social media
may [music] be one of the biggest
casualties of AI. You wrote in your
book, refusing to engage with the tools
of disruption does not make your work
more authentic. It makes it less
relevant. [music] I'm sorry.
Welcome to I've Got Questions, the
podcast where we break down emerging
technologies and what they actually mean
for your life. I'm your host Jane Bll.
Today I'm joined by my friend, my former
professor, professor and strategic
foresight adviser Alexander Manor. For
people who are right now doubting AI's
potential, its its potential impact,
what would you tell them?
>> I will tell them that AI is different
than all the other technologies we we
moved through in civilizations. Most
technology that we created came about as
an answer to a problem like the problem
solution thing. So it was typically an
answer to a question. Um how do I carry
water in a portable container that gives
us the cup? How do I suspend the human
body above ground? That gives us the
chair. How can I solve this problem? So
everything came as a solution or as an
answer. Uh AI in all its forms
specifically now there's a surfacing of
generative AI uh came as a question and
that question essentially when we
transition to a new technology we the
first thing we do by default we adapted
to everything else we do in the past and
then the question becomes what what now?
What else? What else can I do with this?
AI right now is asking us the question,
what do you want to become? What else
can you be?
>> And is that question also pointed at
companies if they're not looking at
artificial intelligence and asking what
are we going to become with this
technology? Would you say it's the
beginning of the end for them?
>> Oh, it's interesting you phrase it the
beginning of the end. I phrase it the
other way. The end of the beginning. So,
um, now everybody has GPT on their
phone. It's the end of the beginning.
Now we can actually start using it for a
different purpose than just asking
stupid questions which we know the
answers to
>> anyway. Right.
>> Right. It's about starting to ask the
questions that we didn't even know we had.
had.
>> Exactly. And starting to ask fundamental
questions understanding that this is a
foundational technology that disregards
all the other technologies because it
replaces them in a way in which it
becomes invisible. Like our work becomes
invisible. our equipment, our machinery
becomes invisible and things just take
care of themselves. And that is a very
hard proposition to to accept as an
organization with an infrastructure
because the question becomes what
happens to my infrastructure? What
happens to the people working for me?
Well, we had the same issue with agriculture,
agriculture,
>> right? Who is your company when we
stream electricity and one day we start
to stream artificial intelligence and
it's that much embedded in the walls.
It's in the homes and we don't think
about it. The question was the same when
we made cables and then we invented Wi-Fi.
Wi-Fi. >> Mhm.
>> Mhm.
>> So what are we doing all the companies
making cables? Well, they didn't have
the vision or the foresight to
understand the cable was a bridge to
another technology. And that's the story
of most technologies. They are a bridge
to another technology. The fundamental
thing we need to understand in this AI
conversation. The purpose of technology
is to relieve you the human of chores
and then of work. Work in the sense of
menial work. work to accomplish tasks,
not work to create art, not the work to
create the Taj Mahal. That is the real
work to create worldliness, to create
signs that we existed. And
>> we're definitely going to dive all the
way into work. But with every new
technology, especially general purpose
technologies, whether it's electricity,
the internet, the steam engine, there
are winners and there are losers. Which
companies that exist today that we use a
part of our daily lives do you think are
most at risk of being disrupted by
artificial intelligence?
>> Whoa, there's so many um so many I would
say not companies but fields of human
activity which turn around to become
organ organized work for people. The
obvious ones are repetitive work. The
obvious ones are advising. The obvious
one are I will even say consulting. any
kind of advisory role uh uses the brain
of a group of people but generative AI
uses the brain of the entire neural
network you cannot compete with that and
not only cannot compete but it does it
in a fraction of a second so now how
many people will be I I don't want to
use that word unemployed because issue
is much deeper than unemployment the
issue is uh the meaning of life the
meaning of their life the meaning of
their professional life as opposed to
what life it is about which is you not
your profession. So the difference
between the me the I the ego the self
all all of those things are getting
right now not destroyed but challenged
by the questions AI is posing. I don't
want to name a company because I don't
want to create a fear because
>> but the reality is with every new
technology the companies that were in
the top 20 change right
>> so the companies that you think you
can't live without at one point
eventually become relics of the past or
they adapt but they aren't central and
do you believe that that's going to
continue that there's no reason why that
line randomly stops
>> no I'll give you an example uh one of my
books I had made a list of the top and
uh back capital market capitalization
companies in 2000 and then the same list
in 2015 completely different names. All
the companies in 2000 were either
financial services or uh energy. Uh of
all those companies at the top banks and
so on, none of them exist today in the
top 10. The top 10 companies in 2015
were strictly in the behavior economy.
strictly companies who produced very
little but gave you space to behave in a
way in which you couldn't behave before.
So they created what I called behavior
spaces. The iPhone is a behavior space.
Some people think it's a product. The
people who thought it was a product and
I don't want to mention the company that
was leading at the time in the market
>> didn't make it
>> right. The company who actually in a
board me in a meeting of a shareholders
called the iPhone a toy. It was
absolutely right. It is a toy and that's
why it was successful. because you it
was a toy for discovery. It was a
magnifying lens to the universe. That
was amazing. The Black Bay was not that.
The Black Bay was just a communication device.
device.
>> So technically, you could look at the
top 10 list right now of the biggest
companies in the world. And it is
possible that we project 10 years into
the future and if history tells us
anything, it's up for debate who will
continue to hold those places. There's
one thing that you wrote in your book.
Refusing to engage with the tools of
disruption does not make your work more
authentic. It makes it less relevant.
And so I think for people that's obvious
when it comes to a business. If you
don't get on the internet, if you don't
pick up the phone, it's over. But there
are many artists or individuals who feel
if I'm a writer, I want those words to
come from me. But you're saying it's not
that it makes you authentic or
inauthentic. It actually just makes you
irrelevant. How? completely look at the
history of uh human communication and
human expression of thoughts and
feelings, right? We depend on what is
available uh wood, uh water, color, uh
paint. So, we start painting, sculpting,
we start making tools to express
feelings. We start going into a cave to
put a drawing on the wall 10 kilometers
in. Like, this is stunning. There's no
light there. Why did humans want to mark
their presence? That's what work is.
when they create you know the history of
who you were at the time and I can see
it 10,000 years after. So we used all
this technology to express ourselves and
every time we have a new technology we
express ourselves in a more deep in a
deeper more complex ways and in a more
transmittable culturally transmittable
way. The transmission of culture with
technology right now is stunning. So now
if I'm an artist and I'm not using the
technology most available to me and
readily available, am I relevant or am I
a relic of the past? I don't want to
answer that question because the answer
is obvious. If Picasso was alive today,
he would have been the first one to
embrace mid journey. And because he
embraced everything with a speed that
nobody else did because artists were
always at the forefront of experimenting
with technology to actually understand
what else can I do with this? What else
can I become? And this is the question
that's fascinating about AI. What else
can I become? Very few people are the
courage to ask that question. Why?
Because they look in the mirror in the
morning and they see an engineer or a
doctor. They don't see a person. They
see themselves as the self created
through education, through being pushed
to do certain things by peer groups,
family and so on. Self-actualization
became an obsession for people without
people understanding what does
self-actualization even mean. You're not
actualizing your your being. You're
actualizing the self society wants of
you engineer,
doctor, professor [laughter]
and so forth. Even in the terms of art,
if you look at the tools a modern-day
artist wants to hold on to, at one
point, those were radical technologies
that people objected to or thought they
were a fad. Even I remember reading
about the invention of of films and
movies and everybody who went to theater
thought that it was a fad because it was
much more accessible uh that it was
cheap and it was a lower art form.
>> Yeah, it was democratizing expression
therefore is not art. All right. So
photography democratized image capture.
I don't have to be a painter to capture
this image. Now the painters had a
choice. Do I continue to paint realistic
images or do I transform my art? And it
actually transformed art.
>> So if paint led to the painter and
instruments led to the musician, camera
to the photographer, video camera to the
filmmaker and now the internet to the
creator economy, what type of artist
will AI invent? Oh, it's fantastic,
fantastic question.
So the question is does the artifact
create the master or the master creates
the artifact? Other words, did the piano
invent Bettoven or the the piano
invented Bettoven? So Bettoven became
actualized through the piano. So I think
you will have right now a mass of
creative people that didn't even know
they were creators. There'll be a
freedom. It will give them an explosion
of potential. I can do this. And then
when people start actually experimenting
with this technology, they stop asking
the question, what happens when I don't
have a job? Well, you would do this
stuff. You will create images of
contemplation for other people.
Contemplation is what we do and other
animals don't.
>> We're seeing so much AI slop. I mean, if
you are to see something was written by
AI, it was an AI generated image. Right
now, for the most part, it's
uninteresting. It's uninspiring. And is
that because we're still fitting in what
we did with the old technologies into
this new frame. So it's when right now
we're driving cars on roads designed for horses,
horses,
>> right? We are still creating with AI
from our imagination and from its
imagination which means from what we
know that exists and from from what AI
was trained on images it was trained on.
And I think at one point we'll move to
another level of creativity which I
named creative generativity in which we
will entrust the eye to create to
generate and that will be a new form of art
art
>> and I think the most unstoppable artist
of the future is going to be the artist
that finally recognizes their taste >> brand
>> brand
>> is no longer is no longer confined to
their craft. And you write in your book,
rather than laboring over the detailed
designs for a house, we articulate our
ideal dwelling and a software system
translates our desires into
architectural blueprints. So does this
theoretically mean if a fashion designer
or a local designer who has really great
taste could in an AI world be the best
person to design your home and the
architecture for your home? Because AI
makes the math make sense and I can take
that fashion designer. I can articulate
what it is that I want to feel in my
home and then that designer actually
becomes the architect.
>> Sure. Because don't forget what
professions are about. They're
mechanical translations essentially. So
a lot of professions are forcing people
to create things for a machine. Right
now because the machine understands only
numbers right now AI can do that faster
and much better than anyone. Why much
better? It's trained on on a wider
spectrum of knowledge. So it's a
perception of what exists is huge. And
then it replaced a lot of professions
which depended on the knowledge from the
past and the skills to create uh a
sustainable framework for a house like a
phys like a that defies gravity and so
on. Well that those are numbers that the
machine can do much much faster. And
then the question becomes so what will
the human do? Well the human will enjoy it
it
>> or articulate what it could be. Of
course that that and then the
combination that you mentioned of
fashion designer designing a house could
lead to an unexpected something really
beautiful which is transcending your
imagination. That's the whole point. The
whole point of AI right now is to
transcend and the whole experience you
have with images created it transcends
anything you imagined.
>> And is this what you mean when you say
we're moving to a narrated economy? So
right now we're in the industrialized
economy. The future will be the narrator
not the creator. the narrator would be
the best articulator of the intent and
happens that the narrator was always the
best articul society that's how we have
Homer Shakespeare you know these guys
did what they narrated right they they
told us a story about something that
might have not even existed we are
dependent on this narrator like that's
why we talk about the narrative arc of a
movie it it is what sustains our
interest in that form of art the
narration part so the creator part is
physical, mechanical, skill-based
3D printing. I don't have to talk to a
3D printer. I have to tell it what to do.
do.
>> Now, the 3D printer might be a
collaborator because at one point it
might have an opinion because it might
have a memory of what was created before
and might tell me you're infringing on
somebody's patent. I already created
that shape. And that'll be a normal
thing to expect. Just like in music, we
code music with uh uh traceable digital
information so we don't uh break uh
royalty agreements. So the same thing
will happen with shapes. Products will
be encoded. The ambient will understand
each product and what its meaning is and
will be able to tell you don't do this
or do this. So you've stated that our
future with AI could become more human
and in the products and in the services
that we design because we will be able
to have things that are designed for us
as individuals. So don't just I don't
want to shop online and get that couch.
I want to design a couch based on how I
feel, what I want, what I'm looking for
in my budget and everything becomes
about the individual. So if I'm looking
at the future of shopping, if we'll even
call it that, the idea that we all surf
on the web and look at the same couch
will be a relic of the past. Whatever I
imagine that's a product of what I feel,
my budget, AI designs that in a custom
way. I just articulate it. Or maybe my
ambient AI systems in my home know it
and the 3D printer brings it to life. So
we get a customized future.
>> Right? I recently worked on the future
of uh marketing in the era of generative
AI. And I imagine uh packaging. So
imagine packaging that has absolutely
zero uh uh design on it. Just an empty
box, but you are embedded. You have
you're an augmented individual. You have
glasses or you have implants or you have
contact lenses. So when you walk into
the store, the packaging becomes what
you want it to become.
>> It has the colors that you like. It's
why because the system, the ambient
system knows who you are and what are
your biases. It even brands it for you.
In other words, the branding becomes
hyper personal. Things will not be
called the same thing. Actually, it's
absurd if you think about it to call the
same thing for everybody. That become
completely customized to you. How's that
possible? It's possible right now. Like
the embedded situation exists, glasses
existed. Every single company is working
on XR glasses. Some declared that do it.
Some are keeping it uh stealth. But
everybody's clearly understanding that
this is the future of displays. Well, if
the future of displays is here, then the
future of packaging is also here.
>> So, if you walk into a store, we will
all see different things based on what
our intent is or what we're looking for.
So, for people who believe, but that
experience brings us in community. Why?
I don't want to see a different couch
than everybody else that keeps this
shared reality that our reality will
become too customized, too
individualized. What would you say to
that? Your iPhone doesn't look like my
iPhone and I don't hear anybody
complaining. So we customize everything
anyway. As soon as we can, we customize
it. So why should I not customize my
life and then we can exchange lives? I
can tell you this is Hey, look at me.
And we have a subject to discuss in that
moment. Right now we have everything is
boring. You you have the same couch as me.
me.
>> It's true.
>> Yeah. I mean ideally not. But
>> it's true though. Why are we all looking
at the exact same furniture when we we
call ourselves individual
>> individuals but we shop in a way that's
for the masses?
>> Yeah. So actually the store is a mass
it's a mass distribution store. So we
declare ourselves I want to be part of
the mass. At the same time we declare I
am completely independent and I have my
own system of beliefs. So that's the contradiction
contradiction
the paradox and that's that's exactly
what will be transformed will become
finally individuals. That's what I when
he mentioned becoming more human. That's
what I meant. Allowing your humanity to
transcend the form imposed to you by
others and you create essentially your
reality which becomes you and then we
can exchange realities. We can actually
have a port an exhibition of realities
if you want. Now people that are
watching this right now might think this
is totally crazy. This is totally out
there. No. every single technology
allowing uh the creation of what we are
discussing here exists right now. So
we're not discussing uh science fiction,
we are discussing what Peter Draer
called what has already happened and has
not yet made its full impact.
>> And this this idea of mass consumerism
where we all see the same thing will
just be a chapter in history. And when
you think about something like fashion,
the whole point of fashion is to express
your individual sense. And we always
look at history where everybody had
their own unique artisian design. In a
future it will be affordable for each of
us to just design the thing we want that
nobody else has and it's an expression
of ourselves that if anything is making
us closer to ourselves but we're using a
technology to do it
>> and it will change society the structure
of society. It will change the whole
idea of uh look at my car and look at my
clothes and look look at my watch. It
will change all that because your watch
will become irrelevant. My watch is
nicer than yours.
>> Status symbols in a world where
everything is actually about the individual.
individual.
>> The influencer will be gone.
>> The idea of the >> sadly
>> sadly
>> and and speak more about that. The
influencer is gone in a world with
customized individual AI first. Why is
the influencer gone? And I don't mean
automated gone. I mean why does an
influencer not make sense in the future?
because the influencer is uniting it's
converging uh aesthetics and desire to a
very specific outcome and that's exactly
the mass outcome. So the influencer
influences people to do the exact same
thing and we are advocating right now
for the opposite. Technology is allowing
you to be you. Now that's a choice you
can make but the problem with the
influencer they exist because of the
numbers that sustain the ecosystem of of
influencer. If that system collapses,
the influencer drops to the earth and
becomes him or herself. Right.
>> Right. So the internet led to the
creator economy and the idea of the
influencer. AI takes that away
>> in a way. Yes. Well, the internet is I'm
not connecting it to the internet. The
internet will still be that distribution,
distribution,
>> but the idea of an influencer makes less
sense in a world where AI makes it so we
will have everything custom. We will be
so individualized and you can afford
your whole individual aesthetic. Well,
it's a very simple thing and actually if
people bother to read mass law for real,
the last thing
>> hierarchy of needs.
>> Yeah. The the last thing or the
so-called hierarchy which is not a
hierarchy. Uh it's not
self-actualization but transcending
self. Transcending self is exactly this
revolt against what society forced me to
become an engineer, a doctor and so
forth and transcend that and become a
person that cares about others and
manifest itself or herself in the world
in a way it's not influencing anybody.
It's a form of the good, right? So then
if you transcend the self, say if you
self-trcendence is the objective here,
then clearly the influencer has no role
because the influencer is about the
self. The influencer is about creating
the self that you are not and that you
are to aspire to be you you're aspiring
to be that person or emulate that
person. So that's a creation of self. I
feel like social media may be one of the
biggest casualties of AI. And here's why
I think that the entire premise and the
entire value proposition of the current
platforms is that they connect us to
real people. Right? Whether that's me
signaling to a potential suitor, a job
opportunity to my friends and family, we
post because other people see. Even if
it's one person,
>> in a world where we don't know if it is
a portion on the other end, or if we are
a human, that entire value proposition
breaks. If you're posting for a bunch of
large language models, the idea of
signaling goes away. And signaling is a
psychological phenomena for millennia.
So, I think social media doesn't make
sense in a world where we can't
guarantee it's a human posting or it's a
human watching. And then I also think
media will still want to connect in some
way, but it doesn't make sense that
it'll be on these in the same
infrastructure. It's akin to the news
stations trying to stay relevant by
posting 60-second Tik Tok clips.
>> We will do something different on
different platforms. And so, I think if
the platforms don't evolve, they will be
the biggest casualty. even though they
are building the tools themselves
>> that will give them a big disruption or
they'll face the innovator's dilemma.
>> Well, there first of all it become decentralized.
