In the face of this "new era" of artificial intelligence, we must return again to the question of technology. We must confront technology finally, interrogating it from the position of existence (Being-itself).
We first need a radical dissociation from technology itself. This is because we are within the frame of technology: it determines our way of thinking. Technology creates the very paths from which we believe we can choose. It presents the possibilities of the future. Indeed, what do almost all "visions of the future" not only contain, but insist upon and center around? Can we envision any future at all without resorting to technological progress? Many would argue that we cannot: the future is only possible insofar as we continue to innovate technologically.
But must we accept these premises? Must we accept a priori that in confronting technology itself, the very concept of humanity's future is contingent not only on the preservation of technology as we know it, but on the absolute advancement of technology?
Absolutely not. In rejecting these first principles, we must radically dissociate from technology itself in order to view the possibilities on the horizon that do not require technology.
What is the Technological Frame?
To dissociate, we must first understand precisely what the technological frame is, we must identify its edges and corners, we must grapple with the limits of the frame to discover the world beyond the frame.
This is a more complex process than it might at first seem. Take, for example, Plato's allegory of the cave. The general story is of a prisoner who has, for his whole life, lived with others imprisoned in a cave. He is chained to a wall, and for his entire life has only ever seen the shadows on the wall when others walk by behind him carrying objects. He never sees the objects or the others themselves, only shadows.
Of course, one day, the prisoner manages to free himself and escape the cave. He discovers the world itself, with its color and third dimension. Now, the common purpose of this allegory is relevant here: one might extrapolate that the technological frame is the condition of the prisoner while imprisoned, and we, like the prisoner, must escape the cave to identify life outside the technological frame. However, that is not the point I wish to make. Rather, we must interrogate this allegory further and understand that the prisoner's emancipation is ultimately enframed by the cave itself. The prisoner's only framework for understanding, interpreting, and processing the world is contingent still on his experiences within the cave. Nevertheless, the prisoner still recognizes his emancipation and descends back into the cave to free his fellow prisoners and lead them up into the real world.
The lesson here is to recognize that even if we can identify the limits of the technological frame and see beyond it, the task is not yet over. To fully emancipate ourselves from the technological frame, we must fully escape it and interrogate the extent to which we might still view the horizon through the frame we believe we have escaped.
Another example comes from the final scene of The Truman Show.1 Jim Carrey's character has sailed onto the open water and, we can extrapolate, is already experiencing a freedom from the artificially created society in which he found himself. And yet, just as he believes he has attained his freedom, his boat hits the edge of the world. He must still escape the world itself, climb the stairs and exit the door into the truly real world. The point here is that we must not allow ourselves to be deceived and believe freedom has been attained within the frame. This is a necessary possibility, as any truly threatening frame must offer within its own parameters the possibility of an "enframed emancipation," where individuals are free to believe they have escaped the inevitable doom of the frame. This tension is necessary to sustain the frame. This is why the dissociation of the frame must be a radical one. It is not enough to attain the feeling of emancipation. We must well and truly free our entire Being from the frame.
The technological frame, then, contains the very axis on which we measure human potential (and thus, of course, ensures its own sustained existence by inserting itself into the very progress of humanity…)
Why is the technological frame so dangerous?
The technological frame adjusts our view of the world and affects the very thinking of the world. In accord with Heidegger, technology is not the technical machinery and code itself, but rather the technical thinking that we engage in as a result of the ubiquitous technology.
It is well documented that the use of technology changes human behavior, right down to the neural synapses. While there is a measurable change in one's neurobiology, can we assume that the only changes are the ones we are capable of measuring? To go beyond Heidegger, we must also question whether there is a soulful change to our existence that occurs through our increased technological contingency.
For Heidegger (writing almost a century ago, and therefore well before the digital technology which, I believe, is most concerning), technology reduces Being to a standing-reserve. This is seen clearly in mining, fracking, quarries, and deforestation. Our technological advances have reduced the fields, forests, and essence of the earth into resources.
While this poses its own questions, we shan't dwell here too long. The real issue with a technological frame is that it ultimately will fail to distinguish humans themselves from these other resources: humans will ultimately become part of the standing-reserve. Their primary value will not be some inherent humanity, but the degree to which they can offer themselves as a resource.
There are three potent examples of the manner in which this has already occurred, at least in western society: (1) online commercialism and the veil of factory conditions; (2) social media and the reduction of humanity to a product; and (3) the "gig" economy (especially when taken to its natural conclusion under the auspices of OnlyFans and the like.)
Online Commercialism
It is no coincidence that alongside the unimaginable advancements in technology over the past century, we have also seen a substantial increase in consumer-focused commercial activity. This increased demand, along with the ability to make almost any purchase online, has resulted in what we already know (and yet ultimately fail to do anything about): unethical working conditions for those who produce the products purchased, including the labor of children too young to be in such an environment and at the expense of their education.
The Apple iPhone, arguably the most ubiquitous consumer product in the 21st century, is manufactured in China in rather secretive, but otherwise well-known working conditions. And those conditions are not good. But those conditions are so hidden away, physically distant from the consumer, and in such high contrast to the public image of the company selling the phones, that it's easier not to care. However, those factory workers have become commodities. They have already been reduced to a standing-reserve.
This is the same (or worse) with clothing companies like Nike. Incredibly sought-after sneakers that sell for several-hundred dollars are manufactured for a minimal fraction of that price overseas, where the laborers are likely paid less than $1 per hour (and may be minors.) They have already been reduced to a standing reserve.
Online shopping has only worsened the issue. Not only are you totally removed from those who manufactured the product, you are totally removed from the company itself. If you want to hold anyone accountable, there may not even be a physical store for you to go into and talk to someone. And yet, there are hundreds of people that have had a hand in producing the product you have purchased whose humanity has been reduced to a standing reserve, to a resource that is being exploited rather than a human in and of itself.
Social Media
Similarly pervasive and far more pernicious is the reduction of every user of many online platforms to a product, a resource to be harvested. A general rule is that if something is offered to you on the internet for free, you are likely the product. This has led to a multitude of issues related to the standing reserve. Firstly, our lives have been reduced to data and information. Location, time spent looking at certain posts, interactions, accounts followed, Googles searched, movies watched, the list goes on. Everything we do is tracked, packaged, and sold.
Even worse, however, is the increasing amount of time spent on these platforms. It's no secret that they are designed to psychologically manipulate you to spend as much time as possible on the platform, even if you regret the time spent later. It's programmed to be addicting. The time spent on a technological device per day for many Americans is terrifying. Every waking moment that isn't taken up with a responsibility (and many moments that are) are spent scrolling Instagram, Facebook, or Twitter, or browsing Reddit, YouTube, or TikTok. No one is satisfied with boredom anymore. (It might be a stretch to say that people used to be satisfied with boredom, but rather that boredom was simply a part of life that had to be accepted. We don't have to accept it anymore, and that's the problem.) This way of thinking itself is a result of technical thinking: we must always be "doing". A computer is either awake or asleep, like us. And when a computer is awake, it is doing something. It only rests when it sleeps. We, too, believe that we must be doing something when we are awake, and frankly, we'll sleep when we're dead.
Each one of us, to the extent that we habitually use social media, have already become part of the standing-reserve. Not only have we become a resource to be mined for data, but our subjectivity and individuality are reduced into a collective dataset to be processed, analyzed, and interpreted in order to manipulate us to buy more stuff, spend more time online, and do less real things outside without our phones and TVs and screens.
The Gig Economy
Finally, we come to an aspect of technological advance that at first represents a real positive change: the "gig" economy. The ability for people to earn money on their terms through apps like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash etc. provides never-before-available options for those living paycheck to paycheck, those between jobs, or those unable to find other work, the ability to earn money quickly.
However, these positive attributes do not negate the possibility of some drawbacks. It should be all too clear by now that these gig economy jobs all too easily reduce humans to a standing-reserve, to a "fleet" of drivers ready to pick up customers at a moment's notice. Furthermore, the pervasive element of technology is not the fact that we have smartphones, apps, and GPS etc. to make these sorts of services possible. Rather, it is the pricing and payment model integrated into these services. The amount of money a driver is paid varies from trip to trip, time of day to time of day, demand, etc. It is unpredictable because there is an artificially intelligent algorithm making all of these calculations at a moment's notice. It makes planning one's future rather difficult.
Most perversely, the gig economy has reached its inevitable conclusion in OnlyFans. There, individuals can create a profile with a paywall and upload pictures and videos to their subscribers. It can be anything from "just" feet picts all the way to full pornography. And while some champion OnlyFans as a great feminist tool to "take back" women's sexuality, create a direct and safe relationship with those who want to consume their "content," and just like the more traditional gig economy jobs mentioned above, provide extra income, that's not quite an accurate depiction.
OnlyFans is not feminist. In fact, it's quite the opposite. It reduces its "content creators" (not sure if there's a specific name for them?) to their physical attributes and ability to elicit arousal and desire from those online.
It also, for most, does not create that direct and safe relationship with those consuming the content. The vast majority of OnlyFans accounts do not make much money, if any at all. This drives those who need the money into a more and more desperate situation in order to get a following on OnlyFans.
What this technology does do, however, is convince plenty of young people–women in particular–that this sort of transactional behavior is ethical, appropriate, and empowering. It is none of those things. Rather, it enables men to profit off the backs of these young creators who "reduce" themselves to these physical-body focused attributes. Each profile is essentially a resource for others looking to satisfy an urge or lust. And all of this is okay because the women are being paid for it!2
This reduction to pure sexuality should be anathema to the women's rights movement, and to feminists. And yet, OnlyFans is somehow celebrated as the empowerment of women to use their bodies as they please. But on OnlyFans, their freedom is exercised precisely how the patriarchal society of men would want them to!
We can see, then, precisely how humans are already being reduced to a standing reserve, and technology's role in such a reduction. When an individual views his fellow humans through this technological frame, he will also fail to object to their reduction to standing-reserve. He, too, has been convinced that OnlyFans is the "ethical, empowering" version of the (admittedly far more problematic and equally technology-contingent) online pornography such as PornHub. He believes it is quite alright to view a woman online as simply that, as a transaction on a screen where he can satisfy some neurological craving.
We don't mind the horrific labor conditions for many of the products we buy because, for us, it's almost invisible. They are so far away, and are not even part of the company that we're buying from. And the internet enables us not to think about it, and even be secretly thankful that this is the case because it allows the products we buy to be somewhat affordable. (Of course, the Nike shoes that are so sought after are equally made in these terrible conditions but sell for hundreds more than they cost to produce, where the corporation can make a double-whammy of producing the shoes for dirt-cheap overseas and then ultimately creating a hyper-successful marketing campaign that raises the demand so high that the profit margins grow exponentially.
Unframing Ourselves
This is the sort of technical thinking that we must avoid if we are to radically dissociate ourselves from technology. (Again, I reiterate, this is necessary to fully interrogate the extent to which technology should play a role in our lives.) One way to identify such "technical thinking" is this: whenever it seems there is no other option available–that we must either charge forwards deeper into the technological abyss or remain precisely where we are (while, of course, competing world powers continue down the abyss anyway)–we must recognize this precisely as a result of technical thinking. There is another way. But to even see the path, one must perform this radical dissociation from technology.
Sociologically, we can understand those most invested in the progression of technology, just as we can understand those religious fundamentalists who wish to see their own religion take over the world. These are the individuals most deep inside the cave, most heavily tied up, and least likely to even want to escape. They are the ones convinced that greater shadows are yet to be cast on the wall, shadows we cannot yet even imagine.
So, how are we to "unframe" ourselves from this technological frame? What does the process look like?
First, I want to address and clarify the difference between what I refer to as "reducing to a standing-reserve" and other forms of Being-in-the-world. One might rightly object and say, "Yes, we are using our advancements in technology to harvest resources from the world, but we were always doing this in some way or another. But now, instead of farmers working the land tirelessly, we have advanced machines that, quite literally, do all the heavy lifting. First, what is the difference, and second, is this not an improvement to be celebrated rather than a disaster to be criticized?
If we step back in time, three or four centuries, we must understand that one's view and understanding of the earth was absolutely different than it is now. The earth was not a resource to be harvested so much as it was an instrument to be learned. One had to develop a relationship with the earth, work with it, to reap any sort of benefit. It is only as a result of technical thinking that we now view the world as a standing-reserve. And indeed, under many contemporary lines of thinking, what is to prevent us from viewing humans simply as such too?
When someone questions the criticism of these technological developments, especially as they relate to electricity, medical advancements, and the like, one must also remember that they are thinking within the technical frame. What is the goal of humanity? What is it to be human? Is it to live as long and as healthy a life as possible? Is it to experience as much enjoyment as possible? Is it to reduce suffering as much as possible? None of these strike me as particularly convincing arguments. Again, this is not to say that we should simply do away with all of these technological advancements, but that we should reframe our view of them and our relationship with them.
Medical advancements have been, on the whole, a positive. Many born deaf or hard of hearing now have an excellent chance of experiencing sound. Many accidents that cause significant trauma to the body are now far less life-threatening than they were even one century ago. These are all good things.
If we are to remove ourselves from the technical frame, what is our alternative? Philosopher Martin Heidegger suggests poēsis, or the poetic frame.
Heidegger distinguishes two forms of truth, epistēme and alētheia. Epistēme is a technical form of truth, it is the form of truth of which technical thinking is a child, and is produced by technical thinking. They are in a dialectical relationship with each other.
Alētheia, on the other hand, is a poetic form of truth, it is a revealing, a "coming-forth" from the ground, or even a "coming-forth-from-Being-itself". This is the form of truth that we are missing when we view existence through a purely technical frame. Before the technical frame, truths would reveal themselves to us. There was a "coming-forth". We could even say, in terms of farming, for example, that the earth consensually gave forth its (literal) fruits through the gentle yet laborious work of those willing to spend their time to make space for such a revealing.
Contrast this to the challenging-forth thrust upon the earth, or upon the animals, in factory farms and industrial facilities. We have earned the technical knowledge to successfully and repeatedly produce these same results on a large scale, but we have missed out on the revealedness when humans are directly involved in such an endeavor. Anyone who has involved themselves in small-scale farming will understand this.
This lack of revealedness, or coming-forth, is precisely the uncomfortable tinge that underlies many in the vegan/vegetarian circles. What do we mean when we say that so-and-so animal has been treated in an inhumane fashion? Does this not strike you as odd? How can an animal that is decidedly not a human be treated inhumanely? Is not every encounter with an animal inhumane, decidedly by the nature of the beast? Aside from our anthropomorphic relationships with our pets, the idea that we can treat animals either humanely or inhumanely is laughable! Unless we recognize that when we label the certain treatment of animals as humanely or inhumanely, it is not a description of the received treatment of the animal, but a description of the subject providing the treatment. To treat a cow like a piece of meat or a milk dispenser without recognizing its essential cowness is inhumane because it is decidedly not human to treat a cow as such. A human treats a cow as a cow, first and foremost.
Another interesting example is that of the "climate crisis" or man-made climate change. This is not a cause that can be won/universally backed based on data alone. It is simply not clear that man's recent efforts are polluting the earth to such a degree that the extent to which the world is warming is alarmingly greater than it otherwise would be within its macro-climate patterns over the past one to two-thousand years. However, this does not mean that we can entirely forget about our treatment of the earth. One of the great consequences of the "sustainability" movement is a move away from the aforementioned Nike sweatshops and towards, again, a more humane method of producing products that we desire and/or use in our daily lives. This change in understanding would, again, permit us to pursue the most "ethical" modes of living, consuming, and building, without the political shit-show on the surface, such as EV mandates and penalties for using certain types of energy.
So now we are starting to see what it might look like to radically disassociate from the technical frame. And the goal is alētheia, or revealing-truth, encouraging a bringing-forth from the ground rather than challenging-forth the resources we (believe we) desire and/or need.
How does this revelation help us in our desire to better understand our relationship to emerging artificial intelligences? First, we must recognize that AI can only ever produce epistēme, technical knowledge. This should come as no surprise, given that it is epistēme that is in the dialectical relationship with technical thinking. AI, thus far, is only ever producing anything based on what is already there: its words are based on the words of others, already present on the internet. Its images are based on the analysis of images already created. Because of this, it can never create something truly and artistically unique. While it is not uncommon for artists to use what they know, take inspiration from others, and respond to the art of others in creating their own unique works of art, this is entirely different than AI's approach. And here, we can clearly use again the distinction between epistēme and poēsis.
When an artist uses another's work, (unless, of course, it is merely copied), he uses it as an instrument to reveal forth the art that is already a possibility within himself. He is in relation to the art from which he is creating something new. He is engaged in the dialectical process (the "dialogue", even) within which he takes the art that inspires him, uses it to produce something new, and in turn also offers a new interpretation of the art from which he produces something new. This is poēsis! Now, without even saying anymore, we clearly understand how AI is limited in this regard, how it is completely unable to engage in this same process, even though one can prompt it to "create x based on y" and it can produce a superficial yet aesthetically shallow and meaningless result.
I can even take this essay itself as an example: how could you get AI to write this essay, with the ideas contained herein? I don't believe you could. And this is because this essay is a product of my particular brain, with its idiosyncrasies, its diverse array of life-knowledge, and my meandering points brought only together for the first time here (as far as I know, no one is discussing factory farming, the perils of OnlyFans, Heidegger, and AI in the same conversation… if they are, we should connect.) Not that what I am writing here is necessarily insightful or full of original thought, and it certainly isn't required to be in order to be poēitic. But you start to see what I mean: there is a something that cannot be reproduced by artificial intelligence. Many artists (photographs, graphic designers, and writers especially, as these are the "arts" that AI is already producing complete works already) are referring to this something as soul. But we all kind of know this, and yet do not know what it means. We understand that, to an extent, there is the "soul" of an artist in his work. Nevertheless, we look at the end-result of many artificially produced images and works and cannot yet identify the difference.
And yet, can we really say that AI will ever produce a piece of art as emotionally despairing as Caravaggio's Sacrifice of Isaac, or as evocative of uniquely American loneliness as Hopper's diner? It is unlikely, even if it can produce aesthetically similar copycats.
To radically dissociate from our technical frame, we must return to "the things themselves." We must see a cow as a cow, art as art, human as human, in the most essential sense. And perhaps this will solve even more problems than we realize.
There’s enough in this movie for it to have its own essay as it relates to Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, and facing the abyss. If you watch the embedded clip, pay close attention to the moment when he says “in case I don’t see you, good afternoon, good evening, and goodnight,” laughs, and then steps into the void!
The CEO since 2021 has been a female, Amrapali Gan, but prior to that, the business was founded by, and run by, Tim Stokely. His brother continues as COO and his father as CFO.
Expecting your next post to be delivered via carrier Pidgeon.