"AI models have one undeniable virtue: the increase in speed and efficiency with which they can carry out tasks that were once the province of human beings. Language models can produce functional text for a wide range of contexts, while image generation models are giving us the capability to render into existence whatever image or video takes our fancy. This is widely taken as clear evidence of the benefits of AI. For Mumford, this type of thinking is precisely the problem. The myth of the machine is dehumanizing because it subordinates human values to machine values: speed and efficiency.

The most striking evidence of the myth’s cultural pervasiveness is that many avid accelerationists do not deny that AI could mean the end of humanity. They merely differ from the doomers in believing that this risk is necessary—even desirable—to achieve the spectacular increases in efficiency and productivity promised by AGI. Mumford foresaw this extreme endpoint. “The myth of the machine,” he wrote, “the basic religion of our present culture, has so captured the modern mind that no human sacrifice seems too great provided it is offered up to the insolent Marduks and Molochs of science and technology.”

Those branded as skeptics or doomers also still accept the premises of the myth of the machine. The stated aim of many organizations concerned with avoiding the worst AI outcomes is that we should “realize the benefits while mitigating the risks” of the technology. Mumford would argue the first half of this statement concedes too much, accepting the basic premise of the myth of the machine while presenting the task as removing the obstacles to realize its benefits. Many skeptics also share a basic misanthropic premise of machine superiority, focusing as they do on the biased, irrational, and flawed nature of human beings that needs machinic augmentation."

https://www.compactmag.com/article/ai-and-the-myth-of-the-machine/

#AI #Neoluddism #AIBoosters #AIHype #AIDoomers #GenerativeAI #Mumford #STS #MediaEcology

AI and the Myth of the Machine

Last April, 600 people gathered for a technology policy conference in downtown Washington, DC.

Compact
@remixtures That quoted passage goes wrong from the first sentence. Mechanisation and automation have so far been used to increase speed and efficiency of laborious human tasks. We're being asked to believe that the current tranche of AI models (GenAI, mostly) will do the same for tasks involving reasoning and creativity. I've not seen any real evidence of this. There are certainly further things that can be automated; but how much "speed and efficiency" we will get remains to be seen.
@remixtures Part of the difficulty is that there is clearly already some economic slack in western society, even globally, where productivity is well in excess of the resource demands of the working population, at least in many areas. How to make use of these surpluses was a question long before "AI" came along. Do we distribute them fairly and let everyone have an easier life, or do we hoard them and give the majority of the population barely enough resource to stay alive? What is the aim?
@kbm0 That I do agree with, and it has to do with the need for reducing the average number of working hours per week. But that is something that would require going beyond capitalism. What has been the norm for the last decades has been understaffing (https://prospect.org/2026/03/19/understaff-workplace-business-covid-cvs-pharmacies-hotels-grocery-stores/), but it's very difficult to solve that problem when all labour has to generate profits for some entity.
Not Enough Workers for the Job

Understaffing has become an epidemic in American workplaces of all kinds.

The American Prospect
@remixtures I guess my suggestion is that this is the coup, the large scale confidence trick that is being attempted: We have got to a point where "technology" can be introduced that is in the end little more than social engineering. Cryptocurrencies give us a template for this: Profiligately wasteful and totally useless, so why do they exist at all and why are they seen as something that can generate wealth? Insane.
@kbm0 I do agree that cryptocurrenciess are totally useless. However, having worked with AI-based tools for more than three years now, all I can say is that there are definitely revolutionary effects in terms of what this technology enables for human productivity.