Skip to Content
This article has been translated from Japanese using AI
Read in Japanese
This article is in the Public Domain (CC0). Feel free to use it freely. CC0 1.0 Universal

The Fate of Thinking: AI and Humanity

I'm contemplating how society and our way of life will change with the advancement of AI.

As AI takes on intellectual labor, it might seem as though humans will have less to think about. However, I believe that a different kind of thinking, distinct from the intellectual labor of the past, will be required of humans.

This is similar to how mechanization freed humans from physical labor to some extent, but at the same time, demanded other types of physical activity.

These other types of physical activities involve delicate tasks using hands and fingertips, such as the skilled labor of artisans or operating computers and smartphones.

Similarly, even if we are freed from intellectual labor, we cannot escape the intellectual task of thinking.

So, what kind of intellectual activity will be demanded of us?

In this article, I will present my thoughts on the shift in software development paradigms in the age of AI, and explore our "fate of thinking."

Process-Oriented Software

I propose process-oriented as the next paradigm, moving beyond object-oriented approaches.

This concept views the central module of programming as a process. A process is initiated by events or conditions, is handled by various roles according to its predefined sequence, and eventually terminates.

This method of considering a series of steps, from initiation to termination, as a single unit aligns well with human intuition.

Therefore, software and systems can be understood with processes at their core, from requirements analysis to implementation, and through to testing and operation.

After implementing the primary processes in a system, auxiliary processes or processes for adding new functionalities can be plugged in.

Some additional processes may start independently based on events or conditions distinct from the main process, while others may begin when conditions are met by the main process.

However, even in such cases, there is no need to modify the main process. It suffices to define the additional process to start when the main process fulfills its initiation condition.

Furthermore, because a process is treated as a single module, its definition includes all the processing it performs.

Beyond that, a process also possesses variables and data areas to store information required during its execution, as well as the aforementioned initiation conditions.

Since a process is a unit module encompassing all necessary processing and data areas, there is a high likelihood of duplicate implementations of processing and structured data across numerous processes.

While one approach is to use common modules, it is not incorrect to instead steer towards tolerating duplication.

Specifically, with AI assisting programming, it is plausible to conclude that having many similar but distinct implementations across multiple modules poses no issue.

The standardization of processing and data types primarily aims to reduce the amount of code in developed software, making it easier to manage and understand.

However, if the costs of managing implementation code are significantly reduced by AI, the necessity for standardization diminishes.

Therefore, the policy of avoiding software structure complexity dueated by standardization, and instead defining all processing and data structures individually for each process, even with considerable duplication, is entirely reasonable.

This implies moving away from the concept of overall optimization and striving for individual optimization. The lack of standardization allows for individual tuning of similar processes.

Individual Optimization Society

Just as with software applying process-oriented thinking, in a society where advanced productivity is achieved through AI-driven automation and efficiency, the mindset shifts from overall optimization to individual optimization.

This is a phenomenon that can be called an individual optimization society.

Our society has various standardized values and criteria, such as rules, common sense, manners, and general knowledge.

However, if these are strictly applied to all situations, inconveniences arise in many exceptional cases.

For this reason, while we value standardized values and criteria, we also permit flexible judgment based on individual circumstances and situations.

These might be explicit exceptions written into rules, or rules stating that judgment should be made on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, even without explicit codification, they might be implicitly understood.

For example, laws also explicitly state various exceptions. In addition, even when not explicitly stated in law, sentencing is influenced by individual cases through the judicial system. Extenuating circumstances are precisely the idea of reflecting individual situations.

Looking at it this way, we can see that the concept of individual optimization, which originally involves carefully checking the individuality of all situations and making judgments based on that individuality, is already deeply ingrained in society.

On the other hand, it is certainly inefficient to carefully judge every single matter individually. Therefore, in an era where high efficiency is crucial, overall optimization is sought.

However, as society becomes highly efficient due to AI, the value of pursuing overall optimization will diminish. Instead, an individual optimization society will surely be realized, where careful judgments are made for each individual situation.

Subjective Philosophy

Making individually optimized decisions according to the scene and situation means that, instead of immediately applying a common judgment, one must deliberate deeply.

I call this ethical perspective, where the act of deep deliberation itself holds value, subjective philosophy.

Every event, "here and now," inherently possesses an individuality distinct from all other events. The "self" who makes a judgment, taking this individuality into account, is charged with a commensurate responsibility.

Ignoring individuality and making standardized, formulaic judgments, or abandoning deliberation and making arbitrary decisions, is unethical, regardless of the quality of the outcome.

Conversely, even if a judgment leads to unintended negative consequences, the judgment itself is ethical if it was sufficiently deliberated from multiple perspectives and accountability is fulfilled.

Thus, as we become able to move beyond the concepts of efficiency and standardization, we will likely enter an era where subjective philosophy, as a form of on-demand individual optimization, becomes necessary.

Framework Design

Whether in philosophy, society, or software, a framework—a conceptual structure for thinking—is crucial for optimization.

This is because the direction of optimization changes depending on the perspective from which each subject is viewed and how it is evaluated.

From the perspective of overall optimization, frameworks need to highly abstract various things to make them as simple as possible. In this process of abstraction, individuality is lost.

On the other hand, in the case of individual optimization, it is desirable to grasp and evaluate events or subjects from multiple perspectives, tailored to their specific nature.

For overall optimization, only a handful of people were sufficient to consider what kind of framework should be used to understand various things.

Most people simply needed to perceive, evaluate, and judge matters according to the frameworks devised by those few individuals.

However, in the case of individual optimization, many people will need to devise frameworks for each specific matter, in order to appropriately grasp its individuality.

For this reason, the ability and skill to design frameworks will be required of many people.

The Fate of Thinking

Organizing our thoughts in this way, a future emerges where, even as artificial intelligence takes over the intellectual labor previously handled by humans, we cannot cease to think.

We will be liberated from intellectual labor aimed at productivity and material wealth. However, the individual optimization society and subjective philosophy will, on the other hand, demand that we design individual frameworks for each matter and engage in deep deliberation.

This places us in a situation where we must continue thinking, even more so than in current society.

AI can perform intellectual labor and make judgments that anyone can make. However, for matters for which "I" am responsible, AI can only provide information, present judgment criteria, or offer advice.

The final decision must be made by "me." This is similar to how, even now, individuals can consult authorities, parents, or friends on various decisions, but cannot delegate the judgment itself.

And in an era of advanced efficiency, not engaging in deep, individual judgment will no longer be permissible. This is because the excuse of being "too busy to think" will no longer hold true.

In such an era of advanced efficiency, we will be unable to escape the fate of thinking.