Topics / Artificial intelligence
Would a world where AI outperforms humans at most things be good for people?
If AI systems came to outperform humans at most tasks, would that world be good for people? The positions differ on whether human worth and purpose depend on being needed and capable, and on which conditions, such as human control and the sharing of benefits, would decide the answer.
Positions
- Yes, human worth never depended on being the best: Human worth never depended on being the best: people still play chess, run marathons and make art although machines can outdo them. A world where AI does most things better could free people to spend their lives on what matters most to them.
- No, it would take away purpose and dignity: People find meaning in being needed and in mastering hard things. A world where humans are outclassed at almost everything that counts would take away much of that purpose and dignity, even if it brought comfort and plenty.
- Only if humans stay in charge and share the gains: Being outperformed is not the danger in itself. Such a world would be good for people only if humans keep meaningful control over important decisions and the benefits reach everyone rather than a few.