XplanaZine

Last time I attempted to give a few reasons why technology doesn’t have a dehumanizing effect. People could never become machine-like beings, or be taken over by machines. Today I would like to explore a weak version of the reverse. I will not ask if machines could become human-like beings. Instead, I will ask a more crucial question of immediate concern, that is, “could machines replace humans”? It may sound strange to ask a question with an obvious answer. We already know that some positions no longer exist because some computer or other machine is doing the work a person used to do. This may be correct. However, it is not true that machines are replacing people. But rather that the people was doing jobs that could be done by some machine and now they are free to do something else that no machine can do. It is best to put things into perspective and see why some generalizations are hasty and how the way we state a fact affects our overall understanding.

Many manufacturers use automated systems to sort out and package their products. There was a time when these systems didn’t exist and there was total dependence on manual labor. The first reaction is to conclude that ’some machines have replaced people.’ The expression gets a message across but it also becomes misleading if taken too literally. In all accuracy, the conclusion should be stated as ’some machines are doing the work that was done by people.’ On a first reading, the difference between the two expressions may appear negligent because they both present a similar image. But an image is a snapshot that doesn’t provide the context, it only supplements it. The difference can be clearly seen when we try to extract further information from the two alternatives. In the first case, the emphasis is on a competing pair, that is, of people versus machines, whereas in the second case the emphasis is on the particular kind of work. The spotlight is on work, the true protagonist, and the direct confrontation between people and machines has been avoided by making them the supporting cast. This is the first step in the attempt to appease people’s worries about being replaced by machines. If machines could eventually do all types of work will be a separate topic.
For now, the next step is to show we have no reason to believe machines could do all kinds of work based on our past experience of limited examples. To think there will be a day when they could do everything is weak inference.
It is true that the human mind draws inferences from what is available to it. A bigger sample may not be the only consideration but it is a better start. For example, if I have seen many ravens and they were all black then it is more probable that all existing ravens are black. But a very small sample leads to random conclusions. For example, if I’ve met only two people from Sri Lanka and they both happen to be engineers, I couldn’t possibly conclude that all people from Sri Lanka are engineers. This conclusion could be a funny line in a stand-up comedy routine.
But the inescapable fact is that the mind has to make some inference on the spot whether the sample is big enough or not. We could liken it to an automated system that is useful to us most of the time. When we become conscious of a weak inference we disable the automatic pilot and refuse to accept the resulting generalization. But we should note that this mechanism rules fundamental functions and it is very resistant and therefore it is difficult to constantly guard against possible mistakes. I’ve seen people with sharp intellects and great reasoning powers who are very aware of many fallacies but who still fall into a trap from time to time. For example, on one day they could joke about concluding that all people from Sri Lanka are engineers and on another day they could seriously and passionately defend their belief that all people from Sri Lanka are mathematically inclined. Their conscious intervention wasn’t effective enough and it just shifted the conclusion behind the conscious scene.
This is only an example of not much grave consequence. But to live in fear because of the erroneous belief that machines could replace humans is much more serious. It is worth the effort to look at the causes and counter the result of an otherwise spectacular and useful internal system.
The question of whether machines could do the work of humans should be based on different grounds. We need to define clearer standards of assessing the true value of work from its genesis to its far and deep reaching results. Then it will be easy to see that machines can never be our competitors but only our assistants.