What do you think?
Rate this book
God, Human, Animal, Machine: Technology, Metaphor, and the Search for Meaning
A meditation on what it might mean to be human in an age of ever-accelerating technology.
Audible Audio
First published August 24, 2021
About the author
Meghan O'Gieblyn
4 books172 followersI write essays, features, and criticism for Harper's Magazine, The New Yorker, Bookforum, n+1, The Point, The Believer, The Guardian, The New York Times, Paris Review Daily, and other publications. I am the recipient of three Pushcart Prizes. One of my essays was included in The Best American Essays 2017; another was a finalist for a 2019 National Magazine Award. My first book, Interior States, won the 2018 Believer Book Award for nonfiction. I also write an advice column for Wired. My book God, Human, Animal, Machine will be published by Doubleday on August 24, 2021.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 340 reviews
November 2, 2021
I recently got a job as a software developer at a university which is mired in a lot of nasty scandals right now. I don't mind the job too much because it's 100% remote so it allows me to detach what I'm doing from who I'm doing it for. Whenever I strike up a conversation with someone and tell them what I do for a living, they either tell me, "Wow! You taught yourself how to do that. Super cool!" which makes me proud, or "Oh... you work at [university name?] well, we all start somewhere I guess" which makes me want to die in a hole.
Which is why I began reading more about tech stuff. I have a fairly pessimistic view of technology (thanks to all my English lit professors who are pro-physical books only and print-everything because the internet ruined our ability to think etc) but if I'm going to work in IT for the foreseeable future, I should at least try to make sure some good comes out of it, right?
Well O'Gieblyn did absolutely nothing to help me assuage my fears of technology. What she did illustrate is how the blind ascent of technological metaphysics (super trendy now) borrows entirely from the language of classical Christianity. O'Gieblyn's exploration into the field of AI, Quantum Mechanics, and Multiverse theory leads inevitably to a dead-end every time she thinks she's out of the maze of religion. The narrative of her departure from Christianity constantly interrupts her foray into the dizzying world of technology: what she thought she left behind is still there to haunt her because the analogy of classical metaphysics (Being, Consciousness, Bliss as DB Hart puts it) has implanted itself deeply in all of our metaphors. As these scientists use metaphysical language to analogize technology, biology, and physics, O'Gieblyn is, similarly, analogizing science's own use of religious language by using her story as the source of her metaphors.
So this book is so much more than a book about technology. It's a book about language, metaphysics, and metaphors, disrupted by stories of Calvin's god, alcoholism, and the failed attempt at leaving religion all together. It didn't convince me to leave my job, however, but it did convince me that our relationship with technology is so, so complicated.
Which is why I began reading more about tech stuff. I have a fairly pessimistic view of technology (thanks to all my English lit professors who are pro-physical books only and print-everything because the internet ruined our ability to think etc) but if I'm going to work in IT for the foreseeable future, I should at least try to make sure some good comes out of it, right?
Well O'Gieblyn did absolutely nothing to help me assuage my fears of technology. What she did illustrate is how the blind ascent of technological metaphysics (super trendy now) borrows entirely from the language of classical Christianity. O'Gieblyn's exploration into the field of AI, Quantum Mechanics, and Multiverse theory leads inevitably to a dead-end every time she thinks she's out of the maze of religion. The narrative of her departure from Christianity constantly interrupts her foray into the dizzying world of technology: what she thought she left behind is still there to haunt her because the analogy of classical metaphysics (Being, Consciousness, Bliss as DB Hart puts it) has implanted itself deeply in all of our metaphors. As these scientists use metaphysical language to analogize technology, biology, and physics, O'Gieblyn is, similarly, analogizing science's own use of religious language by using her story as the source of her metaphors.
So this book is so much more than a book about technology. It's a book about language, metaphysics, and metaphors, disrupted by stories of Calvin's god, alcoholism, and the failed attempt at leaving religion all together. It didn't convince me to leave my job, however, but it did convince me that our relationship with technology is so, so complicated.
March 29, 2022
wow. this book was incredibly eye opening for me. i have so many thoughts about it that i am going to try to consolidate into a (hopefully concise) review.
this book covered a variety of topics like transhumanism, consciousness, religion, and technology. i was fairly new to much of what was discussed in this book, but i was still able to follow along for most of it.
meghan o’gieblyn outlines arguments for and against many philosophical ideas and theories as well as provides context for her own perspective on these issues.
this book gave me a newfound interest these topics, and i’ll definitely be reading more about them in the future
4/5 stars
this book covered a variety of topics like transhumanism, consciousness, religion, and technology. i was fairly new to much of what was discussed in this book, but i was still able to follow along for most of it.
meghan o’gieblyn outlines arguments for and against many philosophical ideas and theories as well as provides context for her own perspective on these issues.
this book gave me a newfound interest these topics, and i’ll definitely be reading more about them in the future
4/5 stars
October 19, 2021
"God, Human, Animal, Machine" is a book addressing our disenchantment with technology. The author is Meghan O'Gieblyn, a former fundamentalist Christian who went through the whole troubling lack of God syndrome. I think she went through a Nihilism phase, but what do I know? Her lack of faith lends a novel perspective to mind-brain duality and many other issues that crop up as Artificial Intelligence becomes more capable.
Humans have a superiority complex. We enshrine reason and like to say that we are exceptional. When an AI does something impressive, we scoff and say that it wasn't a huge deal. The same thing applies to humans and chimps. We share 99 percent of our DNA with the humble chimpanzee. Humans can reason, we can plan things out, we can use tools, we can compose symphonies. Chimpanzees throw their feces at each other. I admit, chimps use tools and have a social hierarchy to some degree, but that's peanuts compared to what a human can do. There I go with the human superiority thing, though.
I remember when Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov in Chess. People used to think that Chess was too challenging for a computer; it required thinking or something beyond brute force calculation. Those people were mistaken. When shown to be wrong, they said, "well, I guess it doesn't require thinking." I can only imagine what the creators of those AI programs thought when that happened.
The book is a series of essays on technology and religion. It makes for a fascinating read. I got this book from the library, and at first, I thought they mislabeled it. I realized I was wrong when I saw that all of the entries were essays, but that is my one complaint.
All in all, this book was great. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
Humans have a superiority complex. We enshrine reason and like to say that we are exceptional. When an AI does something impressive, we scoff and say that it wasn't a huge deal. The same thing applies to humans and chimps. We share 99 percent of our DNA with the humble chimpanzee. Humans can reason, we can plan things out, we can use tools, we can compose symphonies. Chimpanzees throw their feces at each other. I admit, chimps use tools and have a social hierarchy to some degree, but that's peanuts compared to what a human can do. There I go with the human superiority thing, though.
I remember when Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov in Chess. People used to think that Chess was too challenging for a computer; it required thinking or something beyond brute force calculation. Those people were mistaken. When shown to be wrong, they said, "well, I guess it doesn't require thinking." I can only imagine what the creators of those AI programs thought when that happened.
The book is a series of essays on technology and religion. It makes for a fascinating read. I got this book from the library, and at first, I thought they mislabeled it. I realized I was wrong when I saw that all of the entries were essays, but that is my one complaint.
All in all, this book was great. Thanks for reading my review, and see you next time.
September 21, 2021
O'Gieblyn begins her work with discourse on the word 'enchantment'. It is a powerful choice. She reminds her readers that humanity once inhabited a world of enchantment: rocks and trees were possessed of spirits; soothsayers and shaman conjured spirits to attempt some level of control over human lives; bad things happened because more powerful spirits were offended in some way. Religion arose as an organized system of enchantment that people were content with until the age of science, when empiricism began to poke holes in its foundations. Humans nevertheless appear to have a deep need for enchantment, and as O'Gieblyn so adeptly points out, technology has become the newest vehicle in our effort to be beguiled. All of our efforts to define or recreate consciousness fall short in the end because all fall back on the language of enchantment, and that is the crux of the problem. Though she never says so explicitly, it occurred to me as I neared the end of this important work, that without language, our consciousness remains at the level of our non-verbalizing cousins the apes. Whatever consciousness is, we can't define it with words, so it remains, ironically, a mechanism of enchantment. This is easily the best work of philosophy I've read in quite a while.
February 20, 2024
Așa cum bănuiam și după titlu, și după descriere („o carte erudită care îmbină istoria, critica și filozofia”, volumul semnat de Meghan O’Gieblyn nu este deloc o lectură facilă, nu-și propune să fie o carte obișnuită de popularizare a științei.
Principalul ei subiect este, desigur, relația dintre diferitele forme pe care umanitatea le-a avut sau le-a creat de-a lungul secolelor, cu accentul pe ultimele decenii: de la Dumnezeul pe care l-a creat (autoarea fiind, în tinerețe, o creștină devotată, pentru a deveni la maturitate un ateu convins) până la felul în care oamenii au creat și dezvoltat tehnologii avansate, ajungând - poate - la apogeu prin crearea inteligenței artificiale.
- „Timp de secole ne-am spus că suntem făcuți după chipul și asemănarea lui Dumnezeu, când de fapt El e cel făcut după chipul și asemănarea noastră.” -
De altfel, un subiect care se regăsește la aproape fiecare pagină este cel al conștiinței, a felului în care omenirea se poate trezi, la un moment dat, cu o mare problemă sau o mare mirare: inteligența artificială să devină atât de dezvoltată încât să capete conștiință! Oare ce va însemna asta pentru viitorul nostru?
Principalul ei subiect este, desigur, relația dintre diferitele forme pe care umanitatea le-a avut sau le-a creat de-a lungul secolelor, cu accentul pe ultimele decenii: de la Dumnezeul pe care l-a creat (autoarea fiind, în tinerețe, o creștină devotată, pentru a deveni la maturitate un ateu convins) până la felul în care oamenii au creat și dezvoltat tehnologii avansate, ajungând - poate - la apogeu prin crearea inteligenței artificiale.
- „Timp de secole ne-am spus că suntem făcuți după chipul și asemănarea lui Dumnezeu, când de fapt El e cel făcut după chipul și asemănarea noastră.” -
De altfel, un subiect care se regăsește la aproape fiecare pagină este cel al conștiinței, a felului în care omenirea se poate trezi, la un moment dat, cu o mare problemă sau o mare mirare: inteligența artificială să devină atât de dezvoltată încât să capete conștiință! Oare ce va însemna asta pentru viitorul nostru?
May 11, 2023
Kesinlikle okunması gereken bir kitap. Burada her yazacağım satırın kitabın değerini düşüreceğine düşünüyorum. Okuyucunun, kitaptaki alıntılar ve yazarın yorumları ve düşünceleri üzerinde düşümesi ve kafa patlaması gerekiyor. Bir kaç kere okumakta fayda var.
July 14, 2022
3 stars: good but not great
This book touches on a lot of my favorite topics, but does so by way of meandering. Granted, I enjoyed the places to which the author meandered, but it didn’t leave me with a cohesive impression at the end. I did like to hear these topics discussed by a former fundamentalist Christian.
This book touches on a lot of my favorite topics, but does so by way of meandering. Granted, I enjoyed the places to which the author meandered, but it didn’t leave me with a cohesive impression at the end. I did like to hear these topics discussed by a former fundamentalist Christian.
March 1, 2024
Meghan O’Gieblyn propune câteva întrebări ce merită puse în balanță.
Ne aflăm la începutul unei noi epoci - inteligența artificială este disponibilă maselor, avem tot felul de case inteligente, spațiul virtual și cel real se îmbină din ce în ce mai fluid. Așadar, acest avans tehnologic presupune și schimbarea umană intrinsecă.
Ce ne rezervă viitorul? Care este limita sănătoasă pe care ne-o putem impune în raport cu tehnologia? Câte dintre obiceiurile și activitățile noastre le putem delega a.î. să atingem un punct optim, în care conștiința umană nu își pierde valoarea? Ce este, în fond, conștiința și poate fi ea simulată sau conservată?
Volumul îmbină concepte atât din aria ciberneticii, cât și a filozofiei, și structurează fiecare temă de gândire în 7 eseuri interconectate. Trebuie să menționez că este destul de dens în materie de referințe și mi-ar fi plăcut mai multe idei și viziuni proprii autoarei.
Ne aflăm la începutul unei noi epoci - inteligența artificială este disponibilă maselor, avem tot felul de case inteligente, spațiul virtual și cel real se îmbină din ce în ce mai fluid. Așadar, acest avans tehnologic presupune și schimbarea umană intrinsecă.
Ce ne rezervă viitorul? Care este limita sănătoasă pe care ne-o putem impune în raport cu tehnologia? Câte dintre obiceiurile și activitățile noastre le putem delega a.î. să atingem un punct optim, în care conștiința umană nu își pierde valoarea? Ce este, în fond, conștiința și poate fi ea simulată sau conservată?
Volumul îmbină concepte atât din aria ciberneticii, cât și a filozofiei, și structurează fiecare temă de gândire în 7 eseuri interconectate. Trebuie să menționez că este destul de dens în materie de referințe și mi-ar fi plăcut mai multe idei și viziuni proprii autoarei.
December 9, 2021
I used to be a huge religion nerd as a kid. And my dad and my uncle were huge physics and mysticism nerds. I had The Tao of Physics and stuff by Paul Davies lying around the house growing up.
This book is a series of personal philosophical meditations and critiques of various answers to the mind-body conundrum from religion, neuroscience, physics, and computer science. The author is engaging and witty, with a wry sense of humor. Themes overlap and build, but in a way that allows you to slowly meditate yourself on what she's saying. Do we even have agency, or are we just a training set for the machines? The only non-absurd option is to believe in the former.
This gets 5 stars because it is very much my jam.
This book is a series of personal philosophical meditations and critiques of various answers to the mind-body conundrum from religion, neuroscience, physics, and computer science. The author is engaging and witty, with a wry sense of humor. Themes overlap and build, but in a way that allows you to slowly meditate yourself on what she's saying. Do we even have agency, or are we just a training set for the machines? The only non-absurd option is to believe in the former.
This gets 5 stars because it is very much my jam.
December 4, 2021
This short book explores some very profound questions: the origins of consciousness, the nature of artificial intelligence, and how ideas are transmitted through our society, just to name a few. The author comes at these topics from an interesting angle: as a formerly devout fundamentalist Christian who has turned atheist. But, in the end, what she bites off is simply too much ground to cover in a book of only 270 pages. She writes not as a philosopher looking to build an argument, nor even really as a personal essayist sharing a narrative of how she arrived at her own views, but rather as a journalist interested in "covering" the sequences of new ideas that have emerged in various fields. This leads to a conflation between that which is in vogue and that which is actually true—in the sense of being defensible from philosophical argument—leading her essays to veer towards the very kind of groupthink she documents in her final chapter on "virality".
For those interested in cognitive science, the philosophy of mind, and artificial intelligence, I would recommend instead Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter, A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russel, and Deep Thinking: Where Machine Intelligence Ends and Human Creativity Begins by Gary Kasparov.
For those interested in cognitive science, the philosophy of mind, and artificial intelligence, I would recommend instead Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas Hofstadter, A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russel, and Deep Thinking: Where Machine Intelligence Ends and Human Creativity Begins by Gary Kasparov.
February 15, 2022
This was interesting and touched on a lot of concepts I wonder about when I'm feeling introspective. It didn't really feel cohesive as a "book" though. I'm not a student of philosophy, so maybe I was missing something, but quite often it felt like going from one chapter to the next was more like finishing one essay and moving on to another that may or may not be loosely connected to concepts from the last one. I actually like essay collections, so I was fine with that, but if there was a central point tying everything together as a book, I missed it. It also seems to me that she spends a weirdly strange amount of time throwing away ideas exclusively on the basis of and while chiding herself for, not being atheist enough. I'm not religious myself and can't argue against the concept of atheism, so my reaction wasn't one of personal religious fervor so much as not being interested in hearing atheism evangelized at me any more than I am Christianity. She established her religious beliefs (or lack thereof) at the beginning of the book and having them repeated at random was jarring enough to distract from the larger point surrounding it. That and rejecting a philosophical concept on the basis of "I don't believe in God(s)" strikes me as no less a flawed argument than "the Bible says". So yea, raises some interesting questions and got me to think about a few things, but structurally it felt a bit sloppy/lazy. I kind of read it wondering if her editor is terrified of her and suggesting changes.
December 6, 2023
I like the idea of re-enchantment, and I seeem to encounter it more and more in my reading lately. Ms. O'Gieblyn discusses at length how Enlightment style rationality never seems to provide complete and satisfying answers. Surely there must be something more out there. Rational scientific theories are always in the end just metaphors, so we err if we accept them too literally, though we also err if we just accept a religious explanation for everything that we don't immediately understand. We struggle to rationalize quantum mechanics and relativity, or to truly understand the observer problem in quantum mechanics or to come up with a complete explanation of consciousness. Perhaps the answer will come in accepting mystery, in finding truth in the irrational. The risk is that embracing the irrational in social matters can also lead to horrible injustice and inhumanity. Still, I am attracted to the ideas of panpsychism and intergrated information theory that Ms. O'Gieblyn discusses. I need to read more about them.
There are a lot of things to like about the book, but my favorite moment was explanation of Donald Trump's behavior by analogy to the behavior of non-human AI - random acts, followed by strange choices that seem inhuman, followed by relentless pursuit of a successful formula once discovered. It put our former president in a new light for me.
There are a lot of things to like about the book, but my favorite moment was explanation of Donald Trump's behavior by analogy to the behavior of non-human AI - random acts, followed by strange choices that seem inhuman, followed by relentless pursuit of a successful formula once discovered. It put our former president in a new light for me.
December 23, 2021
A few chapters in and I already have a page of notes. Some of it is a little beyond me, so sometimes I need to reread passages to grasp it and sometimes I just keep going ... depending on how interesting I find the concept she is talking about. The stuff I find interesting is .... well, interesting A.F. Like how she compares the promises of the trans-humanist movement to the promises of the Christian church, and how the lure of that promise hasn't gone away. Like how science itself replace religion for a lot of us, but the need for some kind of enchantment (taken away by our belief in science rather than the spiritual) in our lives has created a pseudo science to fill the void.
This book is just packed with interesting ideas along with the history and possible future of these ideas. O'Gieblyn describes theories on the rise of -and what constitutes- consciousness, theories on what constitutes reality itself. She explores the changes machine learning has brought to the field of law enforcement and the judicial system, the protestant work ethic, the singularity and transhumanism.
In particular I liked her thoughts on algorithms -the black box of data, possibilities and patterns- that provides us with recommendations, most likely outcomes, predictions from the weather to market prices. The author has an extensive knowledge of the bible and drew a comparison between the old testaments demand for complete faith in god's will to the blind faith we know but in the algorithm's outcome.
And what of our future? Do we dig in our heals and hold fast to the quirks and foibles that make us human or do we throw our lot in with machine learning, hoping it does a better job of managing things than we have done? She quotes an early 20th century philosopher who said science was meaningless because it gives no answer to the most important question of all which is how to live one's life. On the other hand ... some -who believe the singularity is inevitable- suggest the only way humans can remain relevant in a world where A.I. is more influential, more powerful and are -in every way imaginable- more important than humans is to merge with A.I. To evolve. To become post-human. Trans-human.
She poses so many considerations and of course there is absolute no way to know for certain what is the best path forward, which has always held true throughout all of history.
This book is just packed with interesting ideas along with the history and possible future of these ideas. O'Gieblyn describes theories on the rise of -and what constitutes- consciousness, theories on what constitutes reality itself. She explores the changes machine learning has brought to the field of law enforcement and the judicial system, the protestant work ethic, the singularity and transhumanism.
In particular I liked her thoughts on algorithms -the black box of data, possibilities and patterns- that provides us with recommendations, most likely outcomes, predictions from the weather to market prices. The author has an extensive knowledge of the bible and drew a comparison between the old testaments demand for complete faith in god's will to the blind faith we know but in the algorithm's outcome.
And what of our future? Do we dig in our heals and hold fast to the quirks and foibles that make us human or do we throw our lot in with machine learning, hoping it does a better job of managing things than we have done? She quotes an early 20th century philosopher who said science was meaningless because it gives no answer to the most important question of all which is how to live one's life. On the other hand ... some -who believe the singularity is inevitable- suggest the only way humans can remain relevant in a world where A.I. is more influential, more powerful and are -in every way imaginable- more important than humans is to merge with A.I. To evolve. To become post-human. Trans-human.
She poses so many considerations and of course there is absolute no way to know for certain what is the best path forward, which has always held true throughout all of history.
December 3, 2023
4.5 illuminating and haunting. Deeply unsettling for a modern reader living in a world on the verge of singularity, perhaps. A world that is increasingly unknowable to us inside a “black-box” of algorithms, computational processes and AI that may or may not be conscious. And as a result, a world inhabited by a people that must now ask what it means to be human at all.
I found the author’s layers of questioning challenging and insightful. Her skill at weaving philosophical dialogue, scientific and technological theory, and personal anecdote is simply luminous. It made the book’s themes imminently more readable. Nevertheless, her conclusions and analysis were quite complex. At times, it was hard to follow a clear line of reasoning. But as much as we were joining with her in her search for humanity’s meaning, we were also joining with her in her search for her own. Our journeys for meaning are never linear or clear as we know. In this way, her writing may have felt uncomfortable, but it felt familiar. I found that to be a brilliant choice.
What I appreciated most about this book was the way O’Gieblyn was willing to interrogate her worldview—both prior and current. She concludes quite astutely that for all of the progress and development we’ve made, the world still remains at its most fundamental level a mystery to us. We are once again finding ourselves as a civilization re-enchanting the world—only this time with a name other than God. Yet the mystery, reverence, and awe remain. Which compels the reader to ask the question, whether she says it or not: was it worth getting rid of God in the first place?
Fascinating questions. Thoughtful stories. Esoteric (-0.5) and a bit eccentric. But worth many discussions, and many essential silent ponderings.
I found the author’s layers of questioning challenging and insightful. Her skill at weaving philosophical dialogue, scientific and technological theory, and personal anecdote is simply luminous. It made the book’s themes imminently more readable. Nevertheless, her conclusions and analysis were quite complex. At times, it was hard to follow a clear line of reasoning. But as much as we were joining with her in her search for humanity’s meaning, we were also joining with her in her search for her own. Our journeys for meaning are never linear or clear as we know. In this way, her writing may have felt uncomfortable, but it felt familiar. I found that to be a brilliant choice.
What I appreciated most about this book was the way O’Gieblyn was willing to interrogate her worldview—both prior and current. She concludes quite astutely that for all of the progress and development we’ve made, the world still remains at its most fundamental level a mystery to us. We are once again finding ourselves as a civilization re-enchanting the world—only this time with a name other than God. Yet the mystery, reverence, and awe remain. Which compels the reader to ask the question, whether she says it or not: was it worth getting rid of God in the first place?
Fascinating questions. Thoughtful stories. Esoteric (-0.5) and a bit eccentric. But worth many discussions, and many essential silent ponderings.
February 27, 2024
this covered 60% of my undergraduate degree and was only 15% as painful. pretty clear overview of theories of consciousness / philosophies of mind / philosophies of technology, woven in between personal religious and life anecdotes. definitely clarified the relationship between my interests in moral philosophy and growing up religious. kind of all over the place, even for someone w background on this stuff, but mostly in a lovely and ambitious way
November 2, 2023
God, Human, Animal, Machine, by Meghan O’Gieblyn, is the most fascinating book I’ve read all year. I picked it up because I was doing research for a conference presentation about AI and education, and a several articles I looked at mentioned this book. But what I got from the book is much more than some information for a presentation. O’Gieblyn’s primary question is, What is consciousness? Or, from another angle: What is personhood, and what (if anything) distinguishes humans from anything else in the universe? Chapter by chapter, O’Gieblyn lead us through brief overviews of major positions of philosophy in her search for answers to foundational questions. Big topics include disenchantment, transhumanism, emergentism, panpsychism, and idealism, with frequent digressions into many eras of history, religion, philosophy, psychology, and technology. The book covers a surprising amount of ground.
What brings all of these topics together is the way O’Gieblyn frames them all within her own story. She was raised in a conservative evangelical Christian family and then went to Moody Bible Institute, in Chicago. While at Moody, she began questioning some of the faith assertions she’d been raised with. The end of that part of her story is that she left the Christian faith and began seeking truth outside of religious tradition. So the questions O’Gieblyn asks throughout the book are not casual, small-talk conversation points; they’re the questions that have driven her from one theory to another, always searching for truth.
Reading O’Gieblyn’s story often made me sad. I am a Christian myself, and the questions she struggles with are not at all unfamiliar to me, though I have held on to my faith and sought the answers from within belief in Jesus. So of course I’m on the side of persisting through the times of confusion and frustration in faithful living. But what made me sad for O’Gieblyn is specifically that she is obviously a person made to believe in something grand. Leaving Christianity marked an untethering from grand belief that, at least when she wrote this book, she seemed to still be struggling with. I’ve known people who were very comfortable and happy in atheism (and some of those I’ve known have eventually become Christians after all), and for them I still hope that they’ll at least see what it is that draws people to faith in Jesus; but it’s not my job to convince them that they’re actually not as happy as they think they are. I’m just here to live my own life as authentically and genuinely as possible, for whenever people want to talk about deeper topics. But with O’Gieblyn, I don’t get any sense of contentment with where she’s at in her beliefs. And that breaks my heart, as I read and hope that she will find the anchor in her life that she’s looking for.
As a side note, I think it’s interesting that some of the people who will most understand this book are those who are still part of the faith tradition that O’Gieblyn left. Those are the readers who will know exactly what she’s talking about as she details her Christian upbringing and the questions and frustrations she experienced at Moody. I wonder if all of that is as clear to other readers.
Anyway, the author’s own story guides the content of this book in a very organic way, and I found it hard to put the book down. In the hands of another author, this kind of self-reflective prose could easily become obnoxious to read. There could be a perception of arrogance, or helplessness, or any kind of personality that wouldn’t be engaging or trustworthy. But O’Gieblyn is a fantastic writer. I love good writing, and this is exceptionally good writing.
It's hard for me to summarize what I learned from the book, though it may be enough to say that I’ve continued to thinking about it in the days since I finished it, and I find that I’m frequently bringing things from the book into conversations and teaching. It has changed the way I think about many aspects of life, consciousness, purpose, and technology. And it has shifted my concerns about the future into areas that I hadn’t been thinking of, or in that way, at least. It’s not that it has made me more worried about anything in the future, but it has helped me see what the real issues are that society is working through right now. I found it very helpful. And it has not diminished my faith in Jesus at all. If anything, reading this has given me some new language to celebrate that faith (which I know was not the author’s intention, though I don’t think she’d mind).
Reviews of mind-changing, fascinating books are always the hardest reviews to write. I hope some of this is useful in encouraging you to try God, Human, Animal, Machine and in reminding me of what I loved about the book as I continue thinking about it.
What brings all of these topics together is the way O’Gieblyn frames them all within her own story. She was raised in a conservative evangelical Christian family and then went to Moody Bible Institute, in Chicago. While at Moody, she began questioning some of the faith assertions she’d been raised with. The end of that part of her story is that she left the Christian faith and began seeking truth outside of religious tradition. So the questions O’Gieblyn asks throughout the book are not casual, small-talk conversation points; they’re the questions that have driven her from one theory to another, always searching for truth.
Reading O’Gieblyn’s story often made me sad. I am a Christian myself, and the questions she struggles with are not at all unfamiliar to me, though I have held on to my faith and sought the answers from within belief in Jesus. So of course I’m on the side of persisting through the times of confusion and frustration in faithful living. But what made me sad for O’Gieblyn is specifically that she is obviously a person made to believe in something grand. Leaving Christianity marked an untethering from grand belief that, at least when she wrote this book, she seemed to still be struggling with. I’ve known people who were very comfortable and happy in atheism (and some of those I’ve known have eventually become Christians after all), and for them I still hope that they’ll at least see what it is that draws people to faith in Jesus; but it’s not my job to convince them that they’re actually not as happy as they think they are. I’m just here to live my own life as authentically and genuinely as possible, for whenever people want to talk about deeper topics. But with O’Gieblyn, I don’t get any sense of contentment with where she’s at in her beliefs. And that breaks my heart, as I read and hope that she will find the anchor in her life that she’s looking for.
As a side note, I think it’s interesting that some of the people who will most understand this book are those who are still part of the faith tradition that O’Gieblyn left. Those are the readers who will know exactly what she’s talking about as she details her Christian upbringing and the questions and frustrations she experienced at Moody. I wonder if all of that is as clear to other readers.
Anyway, the author’s own story guides the content of this book in a very organic way, and I found it hard to put the book down. In the hands of another author, this kind of self-reflective prose could easily become obnoxious to read. There could be a perception of arrogance, or helplessness, or any kind of personality that wouldn’t be engaging or trustworthy. But O’Gieblyn is a fantastic writer. I love good writing, and this is exceptionally good writing.
It's hard for me to summarize what I learned from the book, though it may be enough to say that I’ve continued to thinking about it in the days since I finished it, and I find that I’m frequently bringing things from the book into conversations and teaching. It has changed the way I think about many aspects of life, consciousness, purpose, and technology. And it has shifted my concerns about the future into areas that I hadn’t been thinking of, or in that way, at least. It’s not that it has made me more worried about anything in the future, but it has helped me see what the real issues are that society is working through right now. I found it very helpful. And it has not diminished my faith in Jesus at all. If anything, reading this has given me some new language to celebrate that faith (which I know was not the author’s intention, though I don’t think she’d mind).
Reviews of mind-changing, fascinating books are always the hardest reviews to write. I hope some of this is useful in encouraging you to try God, Human, Animal, Machine and in reminding me of what I loved about the book as I continue thinking about it.
January 24, 2024
Who said philosophy was dead? Or at least all living philosophy was written by dead people? Me probably - that fool.
This is an astonishingly good work of thinking that I'll treasure for a long time. It has that mix of intellect, humility, humanity and conviction that is magic to me. There is as well rigorous reasoning, a gift for abstraction, and historical grounding that makes for top-tier philosophy. When you throw in strong writing in there, it becomes a must-read.
Like any good book, this one resists summarising. I'll try instead to describe some of its interests. One: it critiques aspects of science with nuance. It doesn't go the easy route of a conspiracist and reject the 'unreasonable effectiveness' of science, but instead wonders what has been lost by the paradigms that make science unreasonably effective. By way of history and philosophy it comes to the question of subjectivity. By excluding subjectivity from the realm of science, science has achieved immense explanatory power; so much so that now even subjectivity is being attempted to be explained by science. And that's fraught with problems.
If that sounds like the hard problem of consciousness, and perhaps the measurement problem of quantum physics, you would absolutely be right. These are rabbit holes I've spent too much time in, but Meghan O'Gieblyn makes the discussion fresh.
One of the ways she does this is by using the vantage point of religion. As an ex-Christian, she's almost unique qualified to do so. The parallels between transhumanism and fourth century Christianity handwringing over the mechanics of resurrection are striking. So are the parallels between the data-ism of today and the Calvinist ideas of predestination. The way I've put it - it might just sound like a glib surface comparison, but that's the difference between a review and a book. Go read it ;)
Meghan O'Gieblyn's ruminations on metaphors are stimulating. How metaphors become literal, how metaphors die and still persist, and how they change shape while still referring to the same concerns as in previous eras. In the age of spiritual machines, all our metaphors are technological, but is that really a sign of greater understanding than the religious metaphors of times past, or just different labels for the same thing? I've slowly become more aware of how much of how we see the world is shaped by metaphors, so for where I am in my journey of understanding, these musings have come at just the right time.
Towards the end, there's even a mention of ChatGPT. (ChatGPT was not out when this book was published, but the author got to play with an early release.) The thought that crystallises towards the end of this intellectual journey is a paradoxical one. If I've understood anything at all, it is that my knowledge must not stay in a sterile realm of ideas. There are urgent issues in the world that are affected by the philosophical trends today, and they must be addressed - discussed at least. For example: the increasing usage of opaque machine learning models in the justice system. Not only are we not permitted to ask why (or how) the models make the decisions they do, we simply cannot fathom how they do. If regulation insists, then a second model may be spun up that makes up a plausible narrative to satisfy humans. That strikes me as absurd state of affairs, so there's already food for thought in the political realm.
This is an astonishingly good work of thinking that I'll treasure for a long time. It has that mix of intellect, humility, humanity and conviction that is magic to me. There is as well rigorous reasoning, a gift for abstraction, and historical grounding that makes for top-tier philosophy. When you throw in strong writing in there, it becomes a must-read.
Like any good book, this one resists summarising. I'll try instead to describe some of its interests. One: it critiques aspects of science with nuance. It doesn't go the easy route of a conspiracist and reject the 'unreasonable effectiveness' of science, but instead wonders what has been lost by the paradigms that make science unreasonably effective. By way of history and philosophy it comes to the question of subjectivity. By excluding subjectivity from the realm of science, science has achieved immense explanatory power; so much so that now even subjectivity is being attempted to be explained by science. And that's fraught with problems.
If that sounds like the hard problem of consciousness, and perhaps the measurement problem of quantum physics, you would absolutely be right. These are rabbit holes I've spent too much time in, but Meghan O'Gieblyn makes the discussion fresh.
One of the ways she does this is by using the vantage point of religion. As an ex-Christian, she's almost unique qualified to do so. The parallels between transhumanism and fourth century Christianity handwringing over the mechanics of resurrection are striking. So are the parallels between the data-ism of today and the Calvinist ideas of predestination. The way I've put it - it might just sound like a glib surface comparison, but that's the difference between a review and a book. Go read it ;)
Meghan O'Gieblyn's ruminations on metaphors are stimulating. How metaphors become literal, how metaphors die and still persist, and how they change shape while still referring to the same concerns as in previous eras. In the age of spiritual machines, all our metaphors are technological, but is that really a sign of greater understanding than the religious metaphors of times past, or just different labels for the same thing? I've slowly become more aware of how much of how we see the world is shaped by metaphors, so for where I am in my journey of understanding, these musings have come at just the right time.
Towards the end, there's even a mention of ChatGPT. (ChatGPT was not out when this book was published, but the author got to play with an early release.) The thought that crystallises towards the end of this intellectual journey is a paradoxical one. If I've understood anything at all, it is that my knowledge must not stay in a sterile realm of ideas. There are urgent issues in the world that are affected by the philosophical trends today, and they must be addressed - discussed at least. For example: the increasing usage of opaque machine learning models in the justice system. Not only are we not permitted to ask why (or how) the models make the decisions they do, we simply cannot fathom how they do. If regulation insists, then a second model may be spun up that makes up a plausible narrative to satisfy humans. That strikes me as absurd state of affairs, so there's already food for thought in the political realm.
September 16, 2023
At its core, 'God, Human, Animal, Machine' is an ornate love letter penned by a scorned, former believer, broken and distraught as to why faith was removed from her. If one were to try to understand the underlying hopelessness that drove Iblīs (may Allah curse him) to the breaking point of despair, and to contextualize this feeling of anguish through the technological framework of our day and age, one would have to look no further than this book.
Through a series of personal anecdotes, woven together with historical insights on the way technology has impacted theological discussion, as well as research in machine learning and artificial intelligence, journalist Meghan O'Gieblyn draws up a refutation of religion built around the premise that existential meaning – in all of its forms – is illusory. In the same way that humans superimpose sentience to animals and machines (i.e. Siri and Alexa), O'Gieblyn writes, so has humanity crafted a multigenerational mythology of meaning, purpose and Divinely-sourced origin onto a material and mechanical world devoid of rhyme or reason. It is not just so that we anthropomorphize everything around us, O'Gieblyn quotes one philosopher as arguing, rather it is humanity itself that has become overly-anthropomorphized.
And yet, even when the discussion of consciousness is raised, O'Gieblyn appeals to a notion of ambiguity - suggesting that because the hard problem of consciousness exists (why humans feel anything in the first place), all subjective matters of the mind are fundamentally unexplainable, unknowable, and therefore, inconsequential. O'Gieblyn instead becomes so fascinated with the Cartesian notion that material form can exist wholly separate and independent of extra-material intellect, that she fails to see how her framing of the human intellect has inadvertently defined her perspective on the purpose of man. Clearly built around the vestiges of a Christian premise positioning God as human being, O'Gieblyn, time and time again, describes the intellect as "Godlike," and reinforces humanity's ultimate purpose as being the mantle-bearers of Lordship over our own dominion. With a world-view predicated on the all-powerful nature of man, it is only logical that atheism follow as the natural conclusion – a delusion worse than Iblīs' haughtiness, who at least acknowledged the existence of his Lord, rather than confused himself as them being one in the same.
Through a series of personal anecdotes, woven together with historical insights on the way technology has impacted theological discussion, as well as research in machine learning and artificial intelligence, journalist Meghan O'Gieblyn draws up a refutation of religion built around the premise that existential meaning – in all of its forms – is illusory. In the same way that humans superimpose sentience to animals and machines (i.e. Siri and Alexa), O'Gieblyn writes, so has humanity crafted a multigenerational mythology of meaning, purpose and Divinely-sourced origin onto a material and mechanical world devoid of rhyme or reason. It is not just so that we anthropomorphize everything around us, O'Gieblyn quotes one philosopher as arguing, rather it is humanity itself that has become overly-anthropomorphized.
And yet, even when the discussion of consciousness is raised, O'Gieblyn appeals to a notion of ambiguity - suggesting that because the hard problem of consciousness exists (why humans feel anything in the first place), all subjective matters of the mind are fundamentally unexplainable, unknowable, and therefore, inconsequential. O'Gieblyn instead becomes so fascinated with the Cartesian notion that material form can exist wholly separate and independent of extra-material intellect, that she fails to see how her framing of the human intellect has inadvertently defined her perspective on the purpose of man. Clearly built around the vestiges of a Christian premise positioning God as human being, O'Gieblyn, time and time again, describes the intellect as "Godlike," and reinforces humanity's ultimate purpose as being the mantle-bearers of Lordship over our own dominion. With a world-view predicated on the all-powerful nature of man, it is only logical that atheism follow as the natural conclusion – a delusion worse than Iblīs' haughtiness, who at least acknowledged the existence of his Lord, rather than confused himself as them being one in the same.
December 19, 2023
The most interesting book I read this year
November 28, 2023
Gonna reread
December 14, 2023
This book is a delightful oddity. It's concerned with matters of epistemology, metaphysics, and philosophical anthropology, but it's not academic. It's highly erudite but has no footnotes or endnotes, just a juicy bibliography. It's cynical about structures of human meaning, but contains glimmers of optimism. It's ostensibly about technology and the theoretical limits of knowledge, but it's a highly personal philosophical memoir about searching for meaning after losing faith.
While she remains consumed by the questions of cosmic purposiveness that her faith addressed, O'Gieblyn is deeply suspicious of her own mind's search for patterns in the world. She seems resistant to the postmodern world's substitutes like transhumanism, woo-woo New Age synchronicity, or panpsychism, while also maintaining a healthy skepticism of full-scale New Atheist militant materialism. In her quest for answers about the deepest questions of meaning in the world and our minds, O'Gieblyn speed-runs through many of the thorniest debates in philosophy and modern science. You get impressively compressed accounts of all sorts of stuff like Descartes, the Enlightenment, cybernetics, quantum physics, Weber and theories of disenchantment, Jewish golem stories, eliminativist and panpsychist accounts of the mind, simulation theory, computation as metaphor, etc. I'm not sure she offers much in the way of conclusions on these topics, but I loved her exploration of them. Her accounts are clear, non-technical, and merciless.
Her laying out of the horns of the modern dilemma is one of the clearest I've encountered. She borrows heavily from Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition, but wraps in meaty analyses of current neuroscience and physics to bolster the epistemological difficulties flowing from Descartes' cleaving of res extensa and res cogitans. How do we understand what it means to be human in an era of disenchantment, and how do we understand our role as moral agent when the very idea of a unitive conscious subject is seemingly out the window?
O'Gieblyn makes her reader experience the existential anguish of these questions. These aren't dusty scholarly abstractions to some of us; they strike at the foundation of how to live. O'Gieblyn uncovers the yawning void below our modern certainties, and in the process deals a glancing but fatal blow to the prospects of techno-utopians who pin their hopes on science to get us out of the metaphysical soup. Modern science can take apart the mechanisms down to the last particle, but it can't breathe fire into the qualia of consciousness nor explain the underlying intelligibility of reality. O'Gieblyn reckons with some scientists' retreat into panpsychism or Platonic realism to answer this challenge, although she seems unwilling personally to sign on to any totalizing project.
Being part of nature and subject to the limitations of our finite viewpoint within it undercuts any effort to take in the "view from nowhere," and O'Gieblyn is too honest to give herself over to a comforting delusion of metaphysical certainty. This was the noblest and perhaps most heartbreaking element of the book: her search continues indefinitely, as it must for all lovers of truth. While the book ends on a facially optimistic note, it's freighted heavily with irony: a meliorist chatbot chirpily assures her that the world is getting better every day. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.
There are better books out there on all of the subjects O'Gieblyn addresses, but few combine all of these elements in such a thoughtful and touching package. I didn't miss the technical detail or the citations backing it up because they were superfluous to this highly personal project. A wonderful book for anyone consumed by the fear that we're standing on shifting sand, and no amount of technological progress can harden it.
While she remains consumed by the questions of cosmic purposiveness that her faith addressed, O'Gieblyn is deeply suspicious of her own mind's search for patterns in the world. She seems resistant to the postmodern world's substitutes like transhumanism, woo-woo New Age synchronicity, or panpsychism, while also maintaining a healthy skepticism of full-scale New Atheist militant materialism. In her quest for answers about the deepest questions of meaning in the world and our minds, O'Gieblyn speed-runs through many of the thorniest debates in philosophy and modern science. You get impressively compressed accounts of all sorts of stuff like Descartes, the Enlightenment, cybernetics, quantum physics, Weber and theories of disenchantment, Jewish golem stories, eliminativist and panpsychist accounts of the mind, simulation theory, computation as metaphor, etc. I'm not sure she offers much in the way of conclusions on these topics, but I loved her exploration of them. Her accounts are clear, non-technical, and merciless.
Her laying out of the horns of the modern dilemma is one of the clearest I've encountered. She borrows heavily from Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition, but wraps in meaty analyses of current neuroscience and physics to bolster the epistemological difficulties flowing from Descartes' cleaving of res extensa and res cogitans. How do we understand what it means to be human in an era of disenchantment, and how do we understand our role as moral agent when the very idea of a unitive conscious subject is seemingly out the window?
O'Gieblyn makes her reader experience the existential anguish of these questions. These aren't dusty scholarly abstractions to some of us; they strike at the foundation of how to live. O'Gieblyn uncovers the yawning void below our modern certainties, and in the process deals a glancing but fatal blow to the prospects of techno-utopians who pin their hopes on science to get us out of the metaphysical soup. Modern science can take apart the mechanisms down to the last particle, but it can't breathe fire into the qualia of consciousness nor explain the underlying intelligibility of reality. O'Gieblyn reckons with some scientists' retreat into panpsychism or Platonic realism to answer this challenge, although she seems unwilling personally to sign on to any totalizing project.
Being part of nature and subject to the limitations of our finite viewpoint within it undercuts any effort to take in the "view from nowhere," and O'Gieblyn is too honest to give herself over to a comforting delusion of metaphysical certainty. This was the noblest and perhaps most heartbreaking element of the book: her search continues indefinitely, as it must for all lovers of truth. While the book ends on a facially optimistic note, it's freighted heavily with irony: a meliorist chatbot chirpily assures her that the world is getting better every day. Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.
There are better books out there on all of the subjects O'Gieblyn addresses, but few combine all of these elements in such a thoughtful and touching package. I didn't miss the technical detail or the citations backing it up because they were superfluous to this highly personal project. A wonderful book for anyone consumed by the fear that we're standing on shifting sand, and no amount of technological progress can harden it.
December 23, 2023
I don’t think I can properly convey my feelings on this book. Even though I don’t know much about quantum mechanics, AI, or theology…I found myself in awe of how the science intertwined with the storytelling.
The search for meaning and what does it mean to be human are two of my favorite themes in any kind of storytelling. This book is kind of like the science behind all my favorite concepts in games like Nier;Automata or Stray. There were so many passages that gave me chills. As a girl who refused to get confirmed in church and struggled with the idea of God and the world- I deeply related to many of the authors questions of faith. I feel like this is a book that if I read it again in 5 years I will up my stars to 5/5, it strikes me as something that will age like wine.
The search for meaning and what does it mean to be human are two of my favorite themes in any kind of storytelling. This book is kind of like the science behind all my favorite concepts in games like Nier;Automata or Stray. There were so many passages that gave me chills. As a girl who refused to get confirmed in church and struggled with the idea of God and the world- I deeply related to many of the authors questions of faith. I feel like this is a book that if I read it again in 5 years I will up my stars to 5/5, it strikes me as something that will age like wine.
June 27, 2023
“Even the suspicion that the world is ordered, or designed, speaks to this larger impulse to see human intention and human purpose in every last quirk of ‘creation’.”
Maybe the questions we’ve been asking as a species haven’t changed. We just seek for the answers differently now. Mind upload instead of heaven. Collections of our personal data instead of souls. Artificial intelligence made in humanity’s image rather than humanity made in God’s image.
I found this book to be eerie, trippy, and really well-argued. Say a prayer or post a tweet that we humans have a chance at handling these age-old questions better now than in the past!
Maybe the questions we’ve been asking as a species haven’t changed. We just seek for the answers differently now. Mind upload instead of heaven. Collections of our personal data instead of souls. Artificial intelligence made in humanity’s image rather than humanity made in God’s image.
I found this book to be eerie, trippy, and really well-argued. Say a prayer or post a tweet that we humans have a chance at handling these age-old questions better now than in the past!
January 10, 2024
This is one of the most fantastic books on religion, language, technology, life, and consciousness I’ve come across. It is fiercely critical of many ideas of God that I received and was taught throughout my life. She’s an incredible writer, a compelling anecdote teller, a precise rhetorician, and marvelous thinker. A jarring but necessary book to read and think about in a post-secular age that encompasses the technology AI, the reemergence of symbolic mysticisms, predictive surveillance, and apocalyptic prophecies.
February 12, 2022
Meghan is asking the same questions in the book that I ask to myself, "Where is soul? Is there meaning to this life? God? Who?" Despite the book being short, it manage to bring in almost all the philosophies that I have read about and draws analogies from the books that I adore. I think this book is must read for the arm-chair philosophers like me. I think this is one of the best books I have read after "How to change your mind".
August 2, 2023
Başlıkta adı geçen kavramlar üzerine güzel bir derleme. Son zamanlarda bu konularda (tanrı ve din hariç) çok fazla içerik tükettiğimden (kitap, podcast, video vs.) yeni öğrendiğim çok fazla şey olmadı ama yazar tüm bu konuları çok güzel bir şekilde toparlamış ve sunmuş. Dolayısıyla tüm bunları derli toplu şekilde geçmişte dindar şimdilerde agnostik bir yazarın yorumlarıyla yeniden okumak (dinlemek) hoşuma gitti.
March 9, 2022
One of two most interesting books I've read this year. With Quantum Mechanics we've moved to a place where religion has grounds to question modern science, as science has reached some theories impossible now to test. We've reached a point where the idea that we are simulations in a game is a lesser-crazy theory. We've reached a point where our data load is so overwhelming, that we no longer require testable theories but only algorithmic predictions. AI has evolved to point that a human can't decipher the "black box," forcing us to accept their proclamations without question. And if we attempt to explain how the black box may have derived its conclusions, we're only obfuscating. "They are composed of many hidden layers of neural networks, and there's no way to ascertain what kind of model they are building from their experience....it would amount to billions of arithmetic operations - an 'explanation' would be impossible to understand." As neuro-scientist Kelly Clancy argues, "we will be forced to accept the decisions of our algorithms blindly, like Job accepting his punishment." Interesting too if you contemplate why Job was forced to experience the punishments, because his God took a bet with Satan. "To obtain the superior knowledge the machines possess, we must give up our desire to know "why" and accept their outputs as pure revelation."
But why might this be bad? Envision a world where you can receive no answer to why you were refused a loan, or fired from a job, or given a likelihood of developing a disease, or how the sentence to a crime you committed is determined. And this is already happening with systems called COMPAS (sentencing used in WI) and PredPol which predicts "where" crimes might occur. The only problem is basing estimates on where crimes previously were recorded as occurring reinforces racial and economic biases. Because no one is recording and feeding the AI White Collar, Wall Street crime. It, in my view, hard-wires in Original Sin by damning you to the circumstances of your birth, and where you live, etc.
"In 2003, Nick Bostrom warned there is no innate link between intelligence and human values...'We cannot blithely assume that a superintelligence will necessarily share any of the final values stereotypically associated with wisdom and intellectual development in humans - specifically scientific curiosity, benevolent concern for others, spiritual enlightenment and contemplation, renunciation of material acquisitiveness, a taste for refined culture or for the simple pleasures in life, humility and selflessness, and so forth.'"
The AI chatbox released by Microsoft in 2016 began spewing racist and sexist vitriol, denied the Holocaust, and declared support for Hitler...within 16 hours. Even more telling is the neural network trained on images of past presidents that predicted Tramp's win in the summer of 2016. It's not even that the AI was gender-biased so much as it knew we were. "Robert A. Burton, a prominent neurologist, argued that Trump is so good at understanding algorithms because he is himself an algorithm....the president made sense once you stopped viewing him as a human being and began to see him as a 'rudimentary artificial intelligence-based learning machine.' Like deep-learning systems, Trump was working blindly through trial and error, keeping a record of what moves worked in the past and using them to optimize his strategy...The reason we found him so baffling was the we continually tried to anthropomorphize him, attributing intention and ideology to his decisions, as though they stemmed from coherent agenda. AI systems are so wildly successful because they aren't burdened with any of these rational or moral concerns...They have one goal - winning."
Another potential evil of the meta-data collected on us - "the shell of human experience - becomes part of a feedback loop that then actively modifies real behavior." (Hello Facebook and its "I voted" sticker experiment. Results published in Nature.) "...people become trapped within the mirror of their digital reflection, a process that Google researcher Vyacheslav Polonki calls 'algorithmic determinism.'" So eventually the machine determines who we date, where we work (it already targets lower-paying job ads to women), where we eat, what books we read, what we buy (Amazon has already filed a patent for 'anticipatory shipping'.) In the wake of the Edward Snowden disclosures, on-line searches for for various terrorist-related words went down. Not because there were fewer terrorists but because we "self-policed" ourselves, anticipating higher scrutiny of our Internet searches.
This not a hypothetical speculation on the future. The Corporations know and are introducing the technology slowly, to forestall "political dissent" and so the humans won't revolt (Hello Walmart.) To quote Peter Hancock, history of automation professor at U of Central FL, "If you push too hard, too far, people transfer their anger to the technology and they revolt...It's important that the transition happens in phases, with robots working alongside humans. And it's especially important that the robots who are eliminating those jobs appear likable and unthreatening."
Interesting too how our preoccupation with going viral on social media may have negatively influenced our ability to identify Covid-19 as a threat.
Philosopher Bernardo Kastrup lays out his theory of idealism (vs materialism) in The Idea of the World. "One can speak of the behavior of atoms, their properties, their relationships, regardless of whether one believes they are composed of matter or information or emanations of the cosmic mind. Materialism oversteps into metaphysics, Kastrup argues, only when it insists that matter is the true essence of the world, a claim for which there is no proof." Likewise Kastrup's universal mind is also speculative and impossible to prove. "He doesn't believe the cosmic mind is omniscient, omnipotent, or benevolent; most likely it is not even self-reflective, or self-aware. But he believes that support for universal consciousness can be found in quantum physics. Some physicists have suggested that the cosmos is one entangled system, meaning it is not made up of individual systems but is itself an irreducible whole (the universe, when seen at the largest scale, Kastrup notes, resembles an enormous neural network). Just as individual consciousness consists of "excitations" of mind, so the entire observable world is patterns of excitation of this universal mind - an idea that squares with interpretations like quantum field theory and M-theory, a framework that holds that electrons and protons are not particles but strings of vibrating energy. "
But why might this be bad? Envision a world where you can receive no answer to why you were refused a loan, or fired from a job, or given a likelihood of developing a disease, or how the sentence to a crime you committed is determined. And this is already happening with systems called COMPAS (sentencing used in WI) and PredPol which predicts "where" crimes might occur. The only problem is basing estimates on where crimes previously were recorded as occurring reinforces racial and economic biases. Because no one is recording and feeding the AI White Collar, Wall Street crime. It, in my view, hard-wires in Original Sin by damning you to the circumstances of your birth, and where you live, etc.
"In 2003, Nick Bostrom warned there is no innate link between intelligence and human values...'We cannot blithely assume that a superintelligence will necessarily share any of the final values stereotypically associated with wisdom and intellectual development in humans - specifically scientific curiosity, benevolent concern for others, spiritual enlightenment and contemplation, renunciation of material acquisitiveness, a taste for refined culture or for the simple pleasures in life, humility and selflessness, and so forth.'"
The AI chatbox released by Microsoft in 2016 began spewing racist and sexist vitriol, denied the Holocaust, and declared support for Hitler...within 16 hours. Even more telling is the neural network trained on images of past presidents that predicted Tramp's win in the summer of 2016. It's not even that the AI was gender-biased so much as it knew we were. "Robert A. Burton, a prominent neurologist, argued that Trump is so good at understanding algorithms because he is himself an algorithm....the president made sense once you stopped viewing him as a human being and began to see him as a 'rudimentary artificial intelligence-based learning machine.' Like deep-learning systems, Trump was working blindly through trial and error, keeping a record of what moves worked in the past and using them to optimize his strategy...The reason we found him so baffling was the we continually tried to anthropomorphize him, attributing intention and ideology to his decisions, as though they stemmed from coherent agenda. AI systems are so wildly successful because they aren't burdened with any of these rational or moral concerns...They have one goal - winning."
Another potential evil of the meta-data collected on us - "the shell of human experience - becomes part of a feedback loop that then actively modifies real behavior." (Hello Facebook and its "I voted" sticker experiment. Results published in Nature.) "...people become trapped within the mirror of their digital reflection, a process that Google researcher Vyacheslav Polonki calls 'algorithmic determinism.'" So eventually the machine determines who we date, where we work (it already targets lower-paying job ads to women), where we eat, what books we read, what we buy (Amazon has already filed a patent for 'anticipatory shipping'.) In the wake of the Edward Snowden disclosures, on-line searches for for various terrorist-related words went down. Not because there were fewer terrorists but because we "self-policed" ourselves, anticipating higher scrutiny of our Internet searches.
This not a hypothetical speculation on the future. The Corporations know and are introducing the technology slowly, to forestall "political dissent" and so the humans won't revolt (Hello Walmart.) To quote Peter Hancock, history of automation professor at U of Central FL, "If you push too hard, too far, people transfer their anger to the technology and they revolt...It's important that the transition happens in phases, with robots working alongside humans. And it's especially important that the robots who are eliminating those jobs appear likable and unthreatening."
Interesting too how our preoccupation with going viral on social media may have negatively influenced our ability to identify Covid-19 as a threat.
Philosopher Bernardo Kastrup lays out his theory of idealism (vs materialism) in The Idea of the World. "One can speak of the behavior of atoms, their properties, their relationships, regardless of whether one believes they are composed of matter or information or emanations of the cosmic mind. Materialism oversteps into metaphysics, Kastrup argues, only when it insists that matter is the true essence of the world, a claim for which there is no proof." Likewise Kastrup's universal mind is also speculative and impossible to prove. "He doesn't believe the cosmic mind is omniscient, omnipotent, or benevolent; most likely it is not even self-reflective, or self-aware. But he believes that support for universal consciousness can be found in quantum physics. Some physicists have suggested that the cosmos is one entangled system, meaning it is not made up of individual systems but is itself an irreducible whole (the universe, when seen at the largest scale, Kastrup notes, resembles an enormous neural network). Just as individual consciousness consists of "excitations" of mind, so the entire observable world is patterns of excitation of this universal mind - an idea that squares with interpretations like quantum field theory and M-theory, a framework that holds that electrons and protons are not particles but strings of vibrating energy. "
May 12, 2023
When Ezra Klein recommends a book by a Moody student who dropped out and worked in hospitality in downtown Chicago while deconstructing, re-enchanting, and fervently kept up with the latest in tech, I make sure I read that book.
It wasn’t for everyone but it was definitely for me. It’s given me a lot of new questions to think about and better language to express questions I‘ve always had.
It wasn’t for everyone but it was definitely for me. It’s given me a lot of new questions to think about and better language to express questions I‘ve always had.
May 5, 2023
Interesting book. Among other things, O’Gieblyn draws some fascinating correlations between Calvinism’s conception of God and our contemporary conceptions of algorithms and Big Data.
Shelved as 'did-not-finish'
September 17, 2021DNF @ 15%. A lot of words, but I haven't found a point yet.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 340 reviews