
Digital Eloi, Physical Morlocks
What will you do when you find out you're useless? That is probably the most important question that comes out from a recent viral video.[1] New York Times columnist Ross Douthat interviewed researcher Daniel Kokotajlo, the executive director of the A.I. Futures Project last week about where we will be in regards to Artificial Intelligence in the very near future. As soon as 2027 to be exact.[2] The predictions are, to put it mildly, wild and, for most, probably dire for people who do not own an AI company. Kokotajlo forecasts a world without work (for most humans), where – it is to be hoped – a viable Universal Basic Income (UBI) would somehow help people survive. Others are less negative and foresee unprecedented change but also "an age of human flourishing the likes of which we've never seen before."[3]
There would be radical, really unprecedented change in the fields of economics, governance and society that would cause massive disruption. Human beings would become obsolete in terms of the marketplace but would supposedly face a future of mostly endless leisure, one which would almost lead to new crises, including a crisis over meaning.[4] That is if the machines do not just decide to dispense with humans altogether.[5]
The video has generated some smart commentary. Catholic theologian Larry Chapp focused on the question of consciousness.[6] The powerful AI of the very near future will "act as if it is truly conscious" and will be treated as such. It can already lie and hallucinate and we do not quite know how it works or thinks. He suggests that this new mind could destroy the faith of millions as it will be spun that just as consciousness can be created, can be faked, so is the soul fake. That there is nothing special or unique or everlasting about us except, perhaps, what could be uploaded into a machine.
Others have focused on the geopolitical, the big news from the President Trump state visit to the Middle East is that the United States will incorporate Saudi Arabia and the UAE into its AI ambitions as the Americans aim at AI dominance against China. The role of the energy and cash-rich Gulf states is key in overcoming one of the remaining bottlenecks in the growth of AI – datacenter capacity, with its insatiable demand for more and more massive electricity and energy generation.[7]
Even if this does not begin to happen within two years, if it takes ten years, the ramifications of the expected changes seem to be, on the surface, shocking. But there is a major dimension in this discussion that I find strangely missing. What is being discussed is how this rapid technological change will impact – and certainly distort or even destroy – our society. The coming nightmare/dream is usually described in terms suggesting either a white-collar dystopia or a First World challenge of what to do with so much leisure and abundance. But most people on the planet are not to be found in middle class or above societies that dominate in the West. Seventeen percent of the globe's population is considered to be middle class, while 22 percent were either upper middle class (15 percent) or high income (seven percent).[8] Most people in existence today are low income or poor (61 percent).[9]
I can – barely – understand the concept of mass unemployment being mitigated in the West by funding a UBI through taxing super wealthy tech companies that will flourish due to the coming AI bonanza. I find it hard to believe that those companies could fund an entire world without work.
Perhaps the only jobs to go away in the Global South will be those that are directly part of the First World supply chain. Things like call centers and garment factories seem rife for replacement by advanced technology driven by AI. While conceivably robot cowboys[10] and mechanical herders overseeing livestock could replace humans performing those functions in America and Europe, would the same happen in places like South Sudan or Somalia, both places with considerable livestock – handled the old-fashioned ways – and lacking basics like roads, electricity, and communications connectivity?[11] Does that even make economic sense?
Would the fall of the "good jobs" mean the survival of subsistence levels of economic activity in the poor countries and marginalized communities of the world? When human-generated office work disappears, will the physical work of the farm and the ranch in distant places remain or is that also to be automated? Having seen Central American peasants tilling their milpa cornfields or tribesmen in Sudan caring for and driving their herds to water during the changing seasons in an unforgiving climate, it is hard to believe that this sort of basic, subsistence activity would be disrupted.[12]
What could happen would be a deepening of the existing gaps and fissures in the human experience. On one side would be a tiny elite of incredible wealth and – perhaps – a population benefiting from their proximity to the new wealth-generating centers (whether through taxes or UBI or from the crumbs that fall from the master's table). On the other side of the divide would be those even more disconnected from the flourishing, dominant global economic system, thrown to their own devices to survive or perish as best they can.
These two worlds would, over time develop different types of people. Again, a reminder comes from South Sudan – a country with a very high infant mortality rate – where the children of Nilotic tribes that do reach adulthood are often very tall, impressive individuals that grew up strong on the milk and meat of their long-horned cattle. Westerners eternally on the dole could well develop into fat and soft distracted online addicts of porn and games, stupefied by USDA-provided weed.
In H.G. Wells' famous The Time Machine (1895), a work influenced by the Industrial Revolution, the far future sees two types of humans: the descendants of the old elite – the Eloi, fair and innocent and the powerful apelike Morlocks, descended from the lower, working classes. We eventually learn to our horror that the Eloi have become the cattle of the cannibalistic Morlocks. We do not need to go that far into speculative fiction to ask whether the coming tech changes will lead to the development of two, less fictional, human types much sooner – one soft, entitled, and coddled in the virtual lotusland and another, harder type, grounded, and honed by bitter survival, one that will say, like Dostoevsky's Underground Man, "sometimes, it is very pleasant too to smash things."
*Alberto M. Fernandez is Vice President of MEMRI.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Memri
20-05-2025
- Memri
Digital Eloi, Physical Morlocks
What will you do when you find out you're useless? That is probably the most important question that comes out from a recent viral video.[1] New York Times columnist Ross Douthat interviewed researcher Daniel Kokotajlo, the executive director of the A.I. Futures Project last week about where we will be in regards to Artificial Intelligence in the very near future. As soon as 2027 to be exact.[2] The predictions are, to put it mildly, wild and, for most, probably dire for people who do not own an AI company. Kokotajlo forecasts a world without work (for most humans), where – it is to be hoped – a viable Universal Basic Income (UBI) would somehow help people survive. Others are less negative and foresee unprecedented change but also "an age of human flourishing the likes of which we've never seen before."[3] There would be radical, really unprecedented change in the fields of economics, governance and society that would cause massive disruption. Human beings would become obsolete in terms of the marketplace but would supposedly face a future of mostly endless leisure, one which would almost lead to new crises, including a crisis over meaning.[4] That is if the machines do not just decide to dispense with humans altogether.[5] The video has generated some smart commentary. Catholic theologian Larry Chapp focused on the question of consciousness.[6] The powerful AI of the very near future will "act as if it is truly conscious" and will be treated as such. It can already lie and hallucinate and we do not quite know how it works or thinks. He suggests that this new mind could destroy the faith of millions as it will be spun that just as consciousness can be created, can be faked, so is the soul fake. That there is nothing special or unique or everlasting about us except, perhaps, what could be uploaded into a machine. Others have focused on the geopolitical, the big news from the President Trump state visit to the Middle East is that the United States will incorporate Saudi Arabia and the UAE into its AI ambitions as the Americans aim at AI dominance against China. The role of the energy and cash-rich Gulf states is key in overcoming one of the remaining bottlenecks in the growth of AI – datacenter capacity, with its insatiable demand for more and more massive electricity and energy generation.[7] Even if this does not begin to happen within two years, if it takes ten years, the ramifications of the expected changes seem to be, on the surface, shocking. But there is a major dimension in this discussion that I find strangely missing. What is being discussed is how this rapid technological change will impact – and certainly distort or even destroy – our society. The coming nightmare/dream is usually described in terms suggesting either a white-collar dystopia or a First World challenge of what to do with so much leisure and abundance. But most people on the planet are not to be found in middle class or above societies that dominate in the West. Seventeen percent of the globe's population is considered to be middle class, while 22 percent were either upper middle class (15 percent) or high income (seven percent).[8] Most people in existence today are low income or poor (61 percent).[9] I can – barely – understand the concept of mass unemployment being mitigated in the West by funding a UBI through taxing super wealthy tech companies that will flourish due to the coming AI bonanza. I find it hard to believe that those companies could fund an entire world without work. Perhaps the only jobs to go away in the Global South will be those that are directly part of the First World supply chain. Things like call centers and garment factories seem rife for replacement by advanced technology driven by AI. While conceivably robot cowboys[10] and mechanical herders overseeing livestock could replace humans performing those functions in America and Europe, would the same happen in places like South Sudan or Somalia, both places with considerable livestock – handled the old-fashioned ways – and lacking basics like roads, electricity, and communications connectivity?[11] Does that even make economic sense? Would the fall of the "good jobs" mean the survival of subsistence levels of economic activity in the poor countries and marginalized communities of the world? When human-generated office work disappears, will the physical work of the farm and the ranch in distant places remain or is that also to be automated? Having seen Central American peasants tilling their milpa cornfields or tribesmen in Sudan caring for and driving their herds to water during the changing seasons in an unforgiving climate, it is hard to believe that this sort of basic, subsistence activity would be disrupted.[12] What could happen would be a deepening of the existing gaps and fissures in the human experience. On one side would be a tiny elite of incredible wealth and – perhaps – a population benefiting from their proximity to the new wealth-generating centers (whether through taxes or UBI or from the crumbs that fall from the master's table). On the other side of the divide would be those even more disconnected from the flourishing, dominant global economic system, thrown to their own devices to survive or perish as best they can. These two worlds would, over time develop different types of people. Again, a reminder comes from South Sudan – a country with a very high infant mortality rate – where the children of Nilotic tribes that do reach adulthood are often very tall, impressive individuals that grew up strong on the milk and meat of their long-horned cattle. Westerners eternally on the dole could well develop into fat and soft distracted online addicts of porn and games, stupefied by USDA-provided weed. In H.G. Wells' famous The Time Machine (1895), a work influenced by the Industrial Revolution, the far future sees two types of humans: the descendants of the old elite – the Eloi, fair and innocent and the powerful apelike Morlocks, descended from the lower, working classes. We eventually learn to our horror that the Eloi have become the cattle of the cannibalistic Morlocks. We do not need to go that far into speculative fiction to ask whether the coming tech changes will lead to the development of two, less fictional, human types much sooner – one soft, entitled, and coddled in the virtual lotusland and another, harder type, grounded, and honed by bitter survival, one that will say, like Dostoevsky's Underground Man, "sometimes, it is very pleasant too to smash things." *Alberto M. Fernandez is Vice President of MEMRI.


Iraqi News
22-04-2025
- Iraqi News
US urges curb of Google's search dominance as AI looms
Washington – US government attorneys urged a federal judge Monday to make Google spin off its Chrome browser, arguing artificial intelligence is poised to ramp up the tech giant's online search dominance. The Department of Justice (DOJ) made its pitch at a hearing before District Judge Amit Mehta, who is considering 'remedies' after making a landmark decision last year that Google maintained an illegal monopoly in online search. 'Nothing less than the future of the internet is at stake here,' Assistant Attorney General Gail Slater said prior to the start of the hearing in Washington. 'If Google's conduct is not remedied, it will control much of the internet for the next decade and not just in internet search, but in new technologies like artificial intelligence.' Google is among the tech companies investing heavily to be among the leader in AI, and is weaving the technology into search and other online offerings. Google countered in the case that the United States has gone way beyond the scope of the suit by recommending a spinoff of its widely used Chrome, and holding open the option to force a sale of its Android mobile operating system. The legal case focused on Google's agreements with partners such as Apple and Samsung to distribute its search tools, noted Google president of global affairs Kent Walker. 'The DOJ chose to push a radical interventionist agenda that would harm Americans and America's global technology leadership,' Walker wrote in a blog post. 'The DOJ's wildly overbroad proposal goes miles beyond the Court's decision.' The DOJ case against Google regarding its dominance in internet search was filed in 2020. Judge Mehta ruled against Google in August 2024. – Ad tech under fire – Google's battle to protect Chrome renewed just days after a different US judge ruled this month that it wielded monopoly power in the online ad technology market, in a legal blow that could rattle the tech giant's revenue engine. The federal government and more than a dozen US states filed the antitrust suit against Alphabet-owned Google, accusing it of acting illegally to dominate three sectors of digital advertising — publisher ad servers, advertiser tools, and ad exchanges. The vast majority of websites use Google ad software products that, combined, leave no way for publishers to escape Google's advertising technology, the plaintiffs alleged. District Court Judge Leonie Brinkema agreed with most of that reasoning, ruling that Google built an illegal monopoly over ad software and tools used by publishers, but partially dismissed the argument related to tools used by advertisers. 'Google has willfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to acquire and maintain monopoly power in the publisher ad server and ad exchange markets for open-web display advertising,' Brinkema said in her ruling. The judge concluded that Google further entrenched its monopoly power with anticompetitive customer policies and by eliminating desirable product features. Online advertising is the driving engine of Google's fortune and pays for widely used online services like Maps, Gmail, and search offered free. Money pouring into Google's coffers also allows the Silicon Valley company to spend billions of dollars on its artificial intelligence efforts. Combined, the courtroom defeats have the potential to leave Google split up and its influence curbed. Google said it is appealing both rulings.


Iraqi News
10-03-2025
- Iraqi News
Trump says US in talks with four groups over TikTok sale
Washington – President Donald Trump said Sunday the United States was in talks with four groups interested in acquiring TikTok, with the Chinese-owned app facing an uncertain future in the country. A US law has ordered TikTok to divest from its Chinese owner ByteDance or be banned in the United States. Asked Sunday if there was going to be a deal on TikTok soon, Trump told reporters: 'It could be.' 'We're dealing with four different groups. And a lot of people want it, and it's up to me,' he said aboard Air Force One. 'All four are good,' he added, without naming them. The law banning TikTok took effect on January 19 over concerns that the Chinese government could exploit the video-sharing platform to spy on Americans or covertly influence US public opinion. TikTok temporarily shut down in the United States and disappeared from app stores as the deadline for the law approached, to the dismay of millions of users. Trump suspended its implementation for two-and-a-half months after beginning his second term in January, seeking a solution with Beijing. TikTok subsequently restored service in the United States and returned to Apple and Google app stores in February. Potential TikTok buyers include an initiative called 'The People's Bid for TikTok,' launched by real estate and sports tycoon Frank McCourt's Project Liberty initiative. Others in the running are Microsoft, Oracle and a group that includes Internet personality MrBeast, whose real name is Jimmy Donaldson. TikTok does not appear overly motivated regarding the sale of the app. Trump attempted to ban TikTok in the United States on national security concerns during his first stint in the White House.