Don’t worry, this isn’t another dark fantasy about “humans as batteries” or people subjected to soulless AI experiments. Instead, the authors from the Pitch Avatar team are exploring how psychology and ethics may change when AI becomes an inseparable part of every element of our civilization.
As far back as the mid-20th century, Norbert Wiener, in his seminal work Cybernetics: Or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, warned of the fundamental changes that would come with the widespread adoption of “smart machines.” Here’s a relevant quote:
“…we are already in a position to construct artificial machines of almost any degree of elaborateness of performance. Long before Nagasaki and the public awareness of the atomic bomb, it had occurred to me that we were here in the presence of another social potentiality of unheard of importance for good and for evil. The automatic factory and the assembly line without human agents are only so far ahead of us as is limited by our willingness to put such a degree of effort into their engineering as was spent, for example, in the development of the technique of radar in the Second World War.
I have said that this new development has unbounded possibilities for good and for evil… It gives the human race a new and most effective collection of mechanical slaves to perform its labor. Such mechanical labor has most of the economic properties of slave labor, although, unlike slave labor, it does not involve the direct demoralizing effects of human cruelty. However, any labor that accepts the conditions of competition with slave labor accepts the conditions of slave labor, and is essentially slave labor. The key word of this statement is competition. It may very well be a good thing for humanity to have the machine remove from it the need of menial and disagreeable tasks, or it may not. I do not know.”
As you can see, the problem was clearly identified. The development and integration of AI could turn the majority of people on Earth into a kind of “techno-slaveholder” (quotation marks here are essential to convey the conceptual nature of this term in context). With the caveat that the “slaves” in question will be intelligent programs and AI-powered machines.
Wiener, who believed that this scenario would lack “the demoralizing effects of human cruelty,” was primarily concerned with the socio-economic shifts it would bring. But with all due respect to his authority, we believe he either avoided or underestimated the inevitable psychological transformations in people who would find themselves in the role of “techno-slaveholders.”
While working on various Pitch Avatar projects, we’ve already begun noticing early signs of these changes – what you might call red flags.
Let’s be clear, we’re not talking about hypothetical “robot rights.” That’s a topic for another discussion. What interests us here are very real human issues. And while there’s not enough room in a single article to explore everything, let’s focus on just three core concerns.
“Rational communication,” or just rudeness?
“Why be polite to artificial intelligence? You don’t bow to a vacuum cleaner, do you?” This opinion, shared during a recent debate, perfectly captures the mindset of those advocating for “rational” interactions with AI. After all, if the machine understands your request either way, why bother with politeness? Why say “please”? Why not have fun giving the AI funny nicknames or even blow off steam by yelling at it? A human would take offense, but AI isn’t human, right?
At first glance, it may seem harmless to be rude or drop expressions of gratitude when talking to machines. But let’s consider this: frequent interactions with AI will form habits – habits that may extend into human communication. Today’s adults might not carry over AI-directed rudeness into real-life conversation. But children might. They may normalize “rational communication” not just with machines, but with people. Especially if they grow up perceiving this style as standard. We may even see subcultures emerge where “robot-style” communication becomes trendy.
And even with adults, nothing is guaranteed. Just look at what internet culture has done to speech norms – sarcasm, mockery, and blatant rudeness are now commonplace in online dialogue. And let’s be honest, it has bled into real-world communication too, including in elite circles like politics and the arts.
There’s another pressing issue: we are nearing the creation of a strong, general-purpose AI – one capable of autonomous learning, including learning from human interaction. Do we really want it to absorb our rudeness and mirror that back?
If we wish to preserve a high standard of speech culture, we must learn to treat intelligent machines with the same level of politeness we reserve for people. A great first step would be the creation of AI communication training courses, hosted on AI product websites and introduced into school curricula. Such courses could also help parents who care about what their kids are doing on computers and smartphones.
“Creative editing,” or just laziness?
Don’t get us wrong, we’re all for AI-assisted intellectual work. In fact, the Pitch Avatar team is committed to helping content creators offload routine tasks and focus on true creativity. But we’ve noticed a troubling trend: many content creators are growing comfortable acting as mere “editors” of AI-generated material. They believe that issuing a prompt and tweaking a few words or phrases qualifies as authorship.
This trend has been dubbed “creative editing” – a term we recently encountered in a discussion about this growing issue.
Don’t see the problem? Let’s break it down. If you’re generating dozens of product descriptions or standard email templates, AI is an excellent tool. No question. But it’s a whole different story when people outsource deeply human tasks to AI, like writing a school paper, crafting a wedding toast, or composing a greeting card. Let’s be honest: turning to AI for these things is often just a sign of laziness.
Now zoom out. What happens when professional writers start passing off mostly AI-generated work as their own? That content ends up online, and then new AI models train on it, creating more AI content. It becomes a cycle. And while human content still dominates online today, what about fifty years from now?
The real concern: will we lose our ability to create independently? Especially after building general AI?
Maybe it’s time to introduce programs that teach creativity without AI. Imagine “Natural Intelligence Days” in schools – no AI, no computers, no smartphones. Just pens, pencils, paintbrushes, musical instruments, and theater stages.
“Freedom to live,” or just idleness?
“Humans weren’t made for work.” It’s a popular opinion, often backed by references to anthropological research. Indeed, for most of human history, people lived as hunters and gatherers — a lifestyle known as a “foraging economy.” In that world, the concept of daily, routine labor simply didn’t exist. Nor do our closest relatives, the great apes, have any idea what “daily work” means. Need food? Go hunting, fishing, or forage for berries and edible plants. Need materials? Look for suitable stones or branches. The rest of the time, you talk, rest, play, and, essentially, just live.
This rather idealized view of early human life has inspired a modern-day dream: to recreate that freedom, but with a technological twist. Let intelligent machines and software handle the work, while humans live freely and happily, supported by a universal basic income. In other words, everything necessary for life is guaranteed, without the need to labor for it. We’ll leave the deeper economic and social implications of this idea for future articles. Here, let’s focus on a different question: If your well-being no longer depends on the results of your work, what will motivate you to grow, improve, and push your limits? Even early humans had clear feedback mechanisms for learning and survival. If you threw a spear weakly or missed your shot, you went hungry – so you trained. If you ate the wrong berry or mushroom, you got sick – so you learned from the elders how to distinguish the safe from the dangerous. The urge to improve was tied directly to survival.
What will motivate future generations? Why should they develop their minds and bodies? Why bother acquiring new skills and knowledge? Of course, there will always be people passionate about sports or games. But it’s unlikely that all of humanity will become athletes or gamers. Some will be driven to push science forward, but those people have always been a minority. The same goes for artists. And yes, we’ll still have adventurers and explorers, but they’ve always been even fewer in number than scientists.
So what will most people do? As a species? We’re not seriously going to create pills that stimulate self-improvement… or social pills that help us communicate better with one another? Because, let’s face it, there’s a real risk that many people will become humanophobes over time. It might simply be more pleasant to interact with intelligent machines that are always polite, friendly, and eager to please.
Still, humanity has faced and survived countless challenges throughout history. We’ll likely overcome this one too. The only question is: How?
