(Man vs. Machine) Vs. (Machine + Man)

Artificial intelligence is poised to be one of the last greatest and riskiest innovation that will ever be made by humanity. Computers are evolving at a rapid pace, and this has made us aware that our position in the hierarchy of lifeforms is not a permanent one. The result of this awareness has been uproar, mostly among intellectuals, who are continually finding the task of guiding the rest of us through the binary coded maze of the 21^st century complicated. We don’t yet know how the development of AI will turn out, but two scenarios have been proposed as the most likely. Scenario number one involves the man versus machine paradigm, where we oppose but eventually submit to our computer overlords. The second scenario is based on the man plus machine model where we help AI help us, humanity happily coexists with superintelligent machines and possibly upgrades itself into one. We can all agree that scenario two is the most desirable. However, the difficulty lies in making it the most probable. At the moment, both situations can play out.

The probability that humanity will be engaged in a losing battle with AI is pretty high because of our stupidity and insecurity. Ignorance is the primary reason this is likely to happen. Nick Bostrom, who has warned that AI might lead to our extinction, compares our current situation to that of a child playing with a grenade (Bostrom). We might be the ones developing the AI, but that does not imply we have a clue what we’re doing.  We might giggle as we pull the pin, but we’d be blown to bits before we realize what happened. Our advantage is that we have been aware of our knowledge limit, which is primarily why the most significant branch of AI development is machine learning. Computers can learn because they are now capable of listening and seeing, which makes independent knowledge acquisition possible. However, we have no way of telling the kind of power that we have handed machines, and this is what makes AI an existential risk (Bostrom).

Another reason we might form an antagonistic relationship with AI is linked to our insecurity. Via machine learning, humans will become economically expendable. Many things that we do will be done better by robots, and future businesses will optimize through full-scale automation. This doesn’t augur well for humans since many of us will be left jobless, and without jobs, many capitalist souls will lack a raison d'être. By the time we reach the halfway mark of this century, we are likely to witness the emergence of a useless class (Harari). A social class that makes no economic or artistic contribution to the economy. This is likely to happen because it is becoming increasingly difficult to create jobs that humans can do better than computer algorithms. The difficulty emerges from the “singularity hypothesis” where machines continually improve themselves, including their ability to improve themselves (Bostrom). As such, it will always be a matter of time before robots learn the novel jobs created for humans. Consequently, humanity’s sense of insecurity will be amplified leading to the perception of AI as rivals, an attitude that sets the stage for an antagonistic relationship. The cornerstones of such a relationship are already in place.

In the early months of 2016, the Kenya United Taxi Organization gave the government a 7-day ultimatum to lock Uber out of Nairobi claiming they were being driven out of business, quite literally1. This was basically a bunch of humans urging a human government to help them keep an algorithm out of their business. The humans failed, and the government sided with the algorithm, a position that prompted random attacks and arson against Uber drivers2. This will be the position mechanics, doctors, lawyers, stock brokers, and soldiers are likely to find themselves in. You might argue that making us jobless isn’t an existential threat. However, how we react to being jobless will make it so. We might think the taxi drivers over responded by burning other people’s cars, but that’s how we are likely to react as a species. Once AI is perceived as a threat to human bliss, we might throw a tantrum and embark on a journey to destroy it. However, if we decide to pull the plug, AI algorithms might get into defense mode and pull our plug first. They are intelligent after all, and will be able to counter any attack. Furthermore, their sense of self-preservation might make them wary of a self-destruct code being sneaked in by insecure Homo sapiens. We’d be doomed in such a scenario.

However, some have argued that such a conclusion is Hollywood inspired and is only possible in Sci-Fi movies. Those who take this position argue that it is possible for humans to develop AI in a benign way that makes it possible for us to co-exist with superintelligent machines. Nicholas Agar points out that we might not know how to control AI yet, but that through continuous development of AI, we might make a breakthrough (Agar). AI will help us deal with the risks it poses. Secondly, current AI algorithms are clumsy, and their development is incremental (Agar). As such, rather than being decimated by an explosion of intelligence, we are likely to witness a stage by stage growth in artificial intelligence, which makes it possible for humans to influence the direction this development takes by correcting human “unfriendly goals” (Agar). As to the economic future of humans, the development of AI might take some jobs from people, but it will also lead to the emergence of new jobs that algorithms will not be able to perform. However, as we mentioned earlier, this is unlikely to be the case for long. Therefore, although humans should not be oblivious to the risks AI pose, we need not worry about being rendered worthless or wiped out by superintelligent robots.

So which of these scenarios is likely to play out? Honestly, we do not know.  At the moment, each scenario is probable and the problem currently facing us is how to make it possible for man and machine to help each other build the future. The manner in which we should go about this is still not clear. I’m of the opinion the answer lies in the decoupling of morality from consciousness. AI was made possible because of the “great decoupling’, when we finally realized awareness is not a prerequisite for intelligence (Harari). We need a second decoupling that will enable us to disentangle morality and consciousness.

Our current fears and faith about AI are based on the notion that humans operate on a higher moral ground. As a result, the idea that AI might develop no moral code makes as wary of what this technology might do to us. On the other hand, the impression that human moral superiority will help us teach machines Kantian moral imperative makes us have faith in our ability to control AI. These two views are based on the assumption that morality will remain a monopoly of conscious, carbon-based lifeforms, specifically humans. However, we need to think of morality as distinct from consciousness if we are to solve our current conundrum. AI is not, and might not evolve to be a social life form. Therefore, the evolution of their morals will not follow the path of social animals like humans. However, this does not disqualify the probability that a silicon-based superintelligence will develop a sense of morality on its own. It is highly probable that intelligent machines will base their morals on algorithmic values rather than emotions like humans do. For instance, computers can’t feel disgusted, which is an emotion at the core of many human moral decisions. Whether or not humans develop the ability to conceptualize the possibility of an unemotional moral code, and understand it once it emerges, will determine the kind of relationship we will have with superintelligent machines. In turn, this relationship will decide whether or not we have a man vs. machine or man+machine future.

Works Cited

Agar, Nicholas. "Don’t Worry about Superintelligence." Journal of Evolution and Technology (2016): 73-82. PDF.

Bostrom, Nick. Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.

Harari, Yuval Noah. Homo Deus. London: Vintage, 2016. Print.

End of the Line for Amateur Agriculture

As I type this, three and a half million Kenyans will most likely go to bed hungry today. Six of the forty-seven counties in Kenya are food insecure, and more counties are likely to follow if the rains continue being scarce. All this in a country where thirty-eight million people are employed in the agricultural sector, and clichés like “Agriculture is the backbone of the Kenyan economy” are thrown around in classrooms, sitting-rooms, and airwaves. Much attention has been given to the sector, but the paradox of a starving agricultural economy has continued to baffle successive administrations. This kitendawili has been so complex that Uhuru Kenyatta’s government has figured it is time Kenya became an industrialized country. If the plan becomes successful, Kenya will be on the path taken by other developed countries. However, much thought has to be given to how transitioning from an agricultural economy to a manufacturing one will mean for our food security, another core “pillar” of the current administration.

As a country, Kenya is following the capitalist model of development. Western countries have successfully pulled off this plan, and have been zealous in selling it to the rest of the world. In these countries, agriculture accounts for very little regarding GDP contribution and employment. In 2015, the contribution of American farms was 1% of the total GDP, and direct on-farm employment accounted for 1.4% of full employment1. In Europe, the picture is the same, and in a country such as Sweden only 3% of the economically active are employed within the agricultural sector, and in 2016 only 1.3% of Sweden’s GDP was from agriculture2. Despite the small size of their agricultural industries, Sweden (81.7%3 of total households) and the USA (87.7%4 of total households) are food secure. If Kenya is to industrialize, the figures recorded by our agricultural sector, 24% direct GDP contribution and 60% full employment, need to drop drastically5. Here’s the catch, even with these figures we can’t feed ourselves. The agricultural output of 29 million Kenyans who work in the sector can't feed the producers and the 19.3 million Kenyans engaged in industry and service sectors. More than 51% of our population lacks access to adequate food. Therefore, as the economy makes the transition to industrialization, and the agricultural sector shrinks, food security is going to continue being a problem. Corruption and inefficiency on the part of the Kenyan government will ensure even more Kenyans starve. However, this need not happen... Forever

One of the critical issues that need to be addressed for us to conquer drought once and for all is to change the modus operandi, and image of the farmer. Today, farming is often viewed as the occupation of the old retiree or the frustrated youth unable to find employment. The issue is not that such a demographic is involved in farming, after all, agriculture is the most amateur-friendly economic sector. The problem lies in the transference of knowledge. Despite the investment in agricultural training in all levels of education, Kenyan farmers are still amateurs. Firms in the sector dedicate much of their resources to extension services aimed at upgrading the production methods employed by farmers. This is the case because few of those trained in agriculture become full-time farmers. Instead, they join the legions of trainers deployed to train the inexpert youths and retirees on how to become better farmers. As a result, the sector’s output continues to stagnate despite investments in new technologies and training models. In a country where there's an extra mouth to feed every 20 secs, stagnation in food production is catastrophic.

It is high time those equipped with technical knowledge go to the fields themselves because amateurs cannot handle the challenges now faced in the agricultural sector. Climate change has become a significant problem and is a contributing factor to our current food crisis. Adapting the country’s farming practices to overcome this problem will require the efforts of our best farmers and rethinking of our farming models. For instance, livestock farming is responsible for 14.5% green house gas emissions and is partly responsible for causing climate change (Rojas-Downing, Nejadhashem and Harrigan). In Kenya, the livestock sector employs 50% of those working in the agricultural industry and contributes 40% to the agricultural GDP7. Do we get rid of livestock farming and sacrifice the economy for the sake of the planet? If yes, how do you cushion pastoralist communities from the economic and cultural loss? If not, is there a sustainable way to keep livestock?

We are not going to find the answers to such questions in policy board meetings and conferences, but by experimenting with our farming practices, creating models that address such challenges, and tweaking them until we optimize our farming operations in a sustainable manner. The expected shrinking of the agricultural sector due to the industrialization of the country means that we can’t proceed with amateurish M-Os. As fewer farmers are trusted with the food security of millions of households, we better be damn sure those farmers know what they are doing or risk subjecting even more Kenyans to food insecurity. Having experts as farmers would also cut the costs agribusiness firms incur in their endeavors to train farmers, and such resources can be diverted to R&D. Needless to say that such farmers would not be taken advantage of by politicians. For example, they would know whether farming genetically modified crops is good or bad and so on. It would also make it easier for knowledge and technology to diffuse from colleges and labs to the farm, facilitating faster achievement of efficiency, which is the hallmark of agricultural success.

We live in the 21^st century, at a time when the world is interlinked via the internet, air, and sea. Unlike previous eras, the surplus in one country can be easily transferred to another part of the world experiencing a deficit. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics and agriculture will know that “if people starve to death…it is because some politician wants them to” (Harari). In this era, food security is a political issue, and anyone pointing at the skies is lying. We need to work towards making our agricultural sector efficient by letting our best farmers, and those trained in farming to apply their knowledge. Once the pros are in the fields, and we have a supportive, corrupt-free government, no Kenyan will ever go to bed hungry.

Works Cited

Harari, Yuval Noah. Homo Deus. London: Vintage, 2017. Print. 

Rojas-Downing, M. Melissa, et al. "Climate change and livestock: Impacts, adaptation, and mitigation." Climate Risk Management (2017): 145-163. Print.