Chapter 8: The End of Skill

Chapter 8

The End of Skill?

Is it possible that skill will wither and die? Then what? For all their life-enhancing qualities, might skills disappear? Might we become a species devoid of skill? Might we be left with only the skill-free part of our nature intact? Might other animals become more skilled than we are? It could be argued that this is already happening, or has happened: for we have been steadily handing over of our old skills to machines for donkey’s years—handwriting to typewriters and then computers, calculating to calculators, artifact construction to machines, car washing to car washes, etc. But there is a brand-new threat on the horizon: artificial intelligence and robots. There may soon be AI doctors, lawyers, accountants, psychotherapists, teachers, professors, sex partners, spouses, priests, and presidents. These all possess skills that could in principle be duplicated in an artificial system. If the biological brain is a computer, couldn’t a man-made computer run the same programs? It might know more, cost less, be indefatigable, less annoying, friendlier. And couldn’t this lead to robot actors, comedians, news anchors, artists, scientists, philosophers? After all, intelligence and creativity are based in the brain, so all we need is an equally capable artificial brain, whether squishy or hard. Doesn’t this lie somewhere in our not-so-distant future? In which case our own skills will atrophy and become extinct.

The question is how bad this would be. In some ways it sounds like utopia, in others dystopia. I don’t mind losing my ability to sign checks, launder clothes, and sweep floors. What about clerks, cashiers, and bag handlers? Of course, they will need other employment or simply live idly off the robot-run state—but their skills will hardly be missed. The issue is whether our present skills can be replaced by other more agreeable skills, given that humans need some skills if they are to flourish and be happy. Here the picture doesn’t seem so bleak: people can simply play games of skill, take up ballroom dancing, learn to play musical instruments, sing. Let AI do all the boring, heavy, dangerous stuff; we can just do the fun stuff. We may also develop a new type of economy in which you can choose to have your house cleaned by robots or by real humans (the latter being more expensive)—regular and premium service. The same for actors, doctors, lawyers, philosophers, etc. This is what we see in many science fiction films, and it seems to work nicely. It might even be good for marriages. Consequently, skill will not disappear from the human race; it will simply shift its location. Human life might be better than ever. Organic versus non-organic—take your pick.

Will speech survive the AI revolution? I think probably not, because speech is an effort and subject to all sorts of limitation and malfunction. It will be better to have a unit inserted into the brain that sends out the intended messages with no need to employ the larynx and lungs. Deafness will no longer be a problem, because actual ears are not involved; the message just goes straight into a brain receiver. Speech skills, as we know them, will not be needed and will fade away. Skill at kissing, though, that will not disappear, because no one wants to kiss with a device’s artificial lips—they want to use their own. Same for other sensitive parts of the body. In the case of language, we use a rather ramshackle piece of apparatus originally designed for other purposes, mainly eating, and nothing much would be lost by switching to something more streamlined—telepathic, in effect. I would love to be able to communicate with other people and animals without moving my mouth—and my old ears are long past their prime. Give me a pair of artificial internal ears and I’ll be a happy camper, but don’t ask me to eat with an artificial mouth that tastes nothing. It’s a mixed bag, but not a depressing or terrifying one.

What about competitive sports? What if an AI tennis racket is designed that can deliver pace and topspin more effectively than the human arm? Moreover, everyone can afford to buy the racket, so the playing field will be level. That does seem rather dismal: you just need to get your racket on the ball and it rockets into the corner. That would ruin the game. Already rackets have remarkable powers that have changed the face of tennis—what if we went back to wooden rackets that require more from the player? Some players may want to switch to the new AI-enhanced racket, while others will stick to old-fashioned rackets. What about bowling balls equipped with a homing device? Human imperfection and fallibility seem to be part of the appeal—who wants to see a ballet of robots making perfect pirouettes? The world will doubtless be changed by AI; skill will not be what it was. But it may not drive human skill to extinction, just transform it. Our skill set has changed over time, and it will do so again. I wouldn’t mind living in a world of super-fast and expert dentists that never keep you waiting and get you out of there in five minutes flat; same for surgeons. On the other hand, I’m not so thrilled at the idea of robot lovers that feel nothing and just go through the external motions.

Human skills may yet reach their high point with the advent of AI—no more tedious soul-destroying labor that takes years to acquire. It will be replaced by skills people love to exercise. It will be like retirement only much better. That is, if AI doesn’t destroy us first.[1]

[1] Someone should write a history of skill from ancient times to the present (and beyond). What have we lost and what have we gained? What is the best skill of all time? It seems that human skills are getting better all the time (is the same true of tiger skills?). Is there an upper limit to human skill such that at some future time we reach a permanent plateau?