Harvard Professor Warns That AI Execs Are Pushing World Toward Factory Farming of Humans

A Harvard professor has cautioned that AI executives are steering humanity towards a future where humans become "factory farmed," if tech leaders have their way. In a recent podcast episode for The New York Times, historian Jill Lepore elaborated on her vision of an "artificial state" that is gradually replacing the traditional nation state and constitutional democracy.

Lepore explained that in this emerging world order, governance is conducted not by the consent of the people, but by machines making decisions, which are controlled by corporations.

Lepore emphasized that we are not yet in the artificial state, but it is being constructed around us. The elites pushing this idea are not concerned with what the people want, as they believe human autonomy should be superseded by AI. The rhetoric surrounding this artificial state is driven by a fear of modern liberal and constitutional democracy, with the elites "interested only in their power."

Lepore's concerns are explored in depth in her upcoming book, "The Rise and Fall of the Artificial State." The professor was inspired by the question of who decided that AI should be the primary means of communication in our lives, ranging from answering basic inquiries to influencing elections. The artificial state is characterized by the replacement of state functions with corporate control over digital communication infrastructure, including media like television, radio, and now social media.

The digital communication landscape has become isolating, as people increasingly rely on AI, such as ChatGPT, for political and social decisions instead of engaging with neighbors, local officials, or experts. AI-mediated political messages are also at play, and decisions across various levels are now influenced by thinking machines. Surveillance is further entrenched, processing vast amounts of data on individuals.

Critically, Lepore argues that the pro-AI rhetoric from Silicon Valley is built on a "bogus premise" of inevitability and assumes that regulation hinders innovation. She also contends that the notion that technology always advances democracy is false, as history demonstrates that similar promises were made for previous technologies like the internet, personal computer, and social media.