ABSTRACT
Artificial Intelligence, whether intentional or not, has successfully permeated into every conversation. Its limitless, foreboding, efficiency, and most noteworthy quality of adaptability can be cause for concern: where does all this innovation lead to? Trying to make sense of a rapidly changing world is quite burdensome, especially when enhanced by tools that threaten to be more than tools. However, this arduous future can be aided by referring to he who made sense of the human condition: Aristotle. Interpreting his perspective on true quality of life and implications of robots in The Politics, we conclude that so long as AI remains an instrument and nothing more, humans ought to use the instrument solely for achieving philosophical friendship. With capacity of speech and thought, humans are the greatest of all creatures and must maintain this status by keeping AI interaction within the confines of mere life, shielding our exceptionality. The true threat lies in whether we let AI usurp our capacities; we then threaten to become enslaved to our own technology.
The only constant in today’s world is change. We are surrounded by innovation, with new developments and tools to implement in our daily lives, and thus, change the way we do work. One of these tools that is increasingly prevalent in our daily lives is Artificial Intelligence. With the limitless quality of adaptability, where do we draw the line for using AI to work? For questions like this, we must look back to move forward. In this paper, I aim to answer the question; how would Aristotle feel about using AI? Based on my interpretation of his viewpoints outlined in his work, The Politics, I conclude that Aristotle would advocate for the use of AI so long as it remains an instrument for humanity to achieve philosophical friendship.
Before getting into the argument, it is important to define clearly what Artificial Intelligence is in this context. AI is an ever-learning machine that takes a defined input to produce a defined output that can refer to a vast amount of information in an instant. It is important to note that AI is adaptive and can be taught to deal with increasingly complex problems. This takes Aristotle’s reference to robots where he endorses slavery from “…instruments [that] were able to perform its function on command or by anticipation…” to something malleable that can change (I.4.1253b). Aristotle believed in a natural hierarchal structure where some rule and some are ruled based on the capacity of self-governance. AI is developing at a concerningly fast rate, soon to come into proximity with ideas of self-governance. There is increasing potential for AI to make decisions that we follow. This is where Aristotle would have taken issue with AI.
Humans are peculiar and inimitable, as Aristotle argues that “…man alone among the animals has speech,” and that humans have the unique “…perception of good and bad and just and unjust…” (I.2.1253a) Human speech involves a level of complexity and abstraction that distinguishes us. Our speech allows for the articulation of the abstract, reasoning, the judgment of values, and the passage of knowledge across time and space. It is this quality that has allowed us to form communities and develop civilizations. Enter the potential danger of AI’s capability of adaptation to eventually surpass human speech capabilities, which emphasizes the importance of intended limitations in programming AI. Humans must maintain their position as those “…which can foresee with the mind is the naturally ruling and naturally mastering element…” only assist with improving one’s “mere life” to move one closer to the “good life,” one of introspection and realization of one’s true potential. If our lives were not as busy, we would “no longer have a need for subordinates, or masters for slaves,” but because this is the case, there is a necessity, where AI can be used as a tool (I.4.1254a). Aristotle Humans need leisure, to live, and to find philosophical friendship. As a result, being busy is not good. “Life is action, not production; the slave is therefore a subordinate in matters concerning action” (I.4.1254a). A “good life” is not merely of pleasure or wealth, it is fulfillment and virtues. Therefore, AI should only be used to help humans become less busy in the pursuit of temporal happiness and focus more on what makes a more fulfilling life such as friendship, love, pursuit of honor.
Aristotle would advocate for humans and AI to coexist and maintain a hierarchy of humanity ruling over AI as a slave. AI should be observed as an instrument, such as “the pilot’s rudder…is an inanimate instrument, but his lookout an animate one” (I.4.1253b). Notice here, as Aristotle points out that the instrument without its operator is useless, emphasizing humanity’s uniqueness. If we ought to use AI, it must be on our terms, by our touch; humanity can never be replaced, and the only one to judge its use is also us (I.2.1253a). We, the builders, are essential to AI being used along our journey. “The maker of a house…is not the only one to have some knowledge of it, but the one who uses it judges better than he does” (III.11.1282a). We are responsible for its development and its regulation. However, this must be done with the intention of not becoming a slave to technology. “For one who does not belong to himself by nature but is another’s, though a human being, is by nature a slave” (I.4.1254a). We must not spend all our time concerned with AI, because we violate the hierarchy. Aristotle would also call for concern here; not only does AI show the potential to become a slave that gives us more work, but rather it leads to one that assumes our inimitable human capacities.
If we interpret AI as an instrument incapable of ruling, an impure substance, while humanity, capable of reason is pure, and “just as impure sustenance mixed with the pure makes the whole more useful than the small amount of the latter, but each separately is incomplete with respect to judging” (III.11.1281b) humanity and AI can maintain a delicate equilibrium. This involves a balance of self-sufficiency, where “…self-sufficiency is an end and what is best” for humanity, but AI cannot become self-sufficient. AI must remain incomplete, remain artificial, or else it will become a danger to humanity (I.2.1252b). Aristotle says that “when its coming into being is complete is…the nature of that thing…” where the nature of AI is a means from an input to an output (I.2.1252b). Here, we can interpret guidance for how AI, an instrument, should be programmed; with one task, and one task only, as he emphasizes “each instrument would perform most finely if it served one task rather than many” (I.2.1252b). Confined to not deliberate, reason, and judge, AI remains another tool for humanity. The scary reality we must steer away from is one where AI serves our desires and our bodies, as seen in mere life, while potentially doing our thinking and ruling for us, the crux of our particularity.
In conclusion, Aristotle would advocate for the use of AI so long as it fulfills the obligation of a slave; humans should not occupy themselves with menial tasks, but rather, have time to introspect towards philosophical friendship. AI is an instrument with a foreboding quality of adaptation. However, it is contingent upon developers and users of AI to construct and maintain such a boundary to sustain AI within the confines of mere life while not replacing our peculiar qualities of speech and judgment. In true Aristotelian fashion, we must use our wisdom to make the right choice.
References
Aristotle, The Politics. trans. Carnes Lord. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013.
