AI's ancient echo: Why today's tech-fears are nothing new

History echoes in our response to Artificial Intelligence, as each transformative innovation from Gutenberg's press to Nobel's dynamite has triggered the same feelings of resistance and opportunity.

What was the first communication that came to us about Generative Artificial Intelligence from many sources? Technological breakthrough? Yes. New possibilities? Of course. Processes that make our daily routine even less difficult? Once again… Yes.

Among those buzzy words that everyone wants to hear, an old behavior emerged once again to speak about a warning from the past. Once again, as before, we are trying to understand how this technology will impact our lives, our job positions, and how we should adapt to the new world. Fear of adaptation is most dangerous in my opinion because it forces us to exit our comfort zone.

And many of us would rather not do this.

And you know what? I understand this situation. From my perspective, fear and our years are collaborating within ourselves. I remember when GenAI started growing in popularity and was in every media outlet everywhere, and my first thought was… MEH. Blockchain? MEH. Electric cars? MEH. Another super-duper product that I hear from everyone that I need to have? MEH, MEH… once again MEH.

Of course, there is a significant difference between overwhelming information about a “next” must-have technology that only focuses on some specific part of our life and a generative technology that can impact many parts of our life. The limit is only with our knowledge, experience, and… courage.

Before we focus on GenAI regarding innovation in our lives, let's first do some time traveling. Because we have already been there with the same doubts and fears.

Gutenberg's Printing Revolution (1439)

I ask myself if, in the past, innovators who changed our perspective on how we live our lives ever thought about how humans could turn their innovations into “weapons” or tools that would have a negative impact on our lives. 

The printing revolution, initiated by Johannes Gutenberg, contributed to the mass production of books and typography. Never before had humans had access to the power of knowledge that could be accessed by everyone. We can imagine how books were limited during the handwriting epoch. Those books were only accessible to the high-ranking part of the community, like political leaders or heads of religious institutions.

One innovation can create numerous benefits. I mentioned the democratized access to knowledge, which collaborates with increased literacy rates that are now available. The quantity of books enabled scientific and cultural exchange possibilities that never existed before. Before it was even possible, Gutenberg's revolution contributed to new jobs in printing and publishing manufactures.

For some, innovation created great value, while for others, the impact of innovation also had drawbacks.

The traditional livelihoods of writers were disrupted. We can imagine that creating a manuscript was a very arduous task, which entailed a much higher price when sold. The vast availability of books has driven down their price, and I can only assume that the thought has entered the minds of authors about whether they are getting a sufficiently large share of the mass sales of their books.

Leaving book authorship behind, printing also created a new source of misinformation when religious and political groups saw a great opportunity to use it.

James Watt's Steam Engine Revolution (1769)

Step into the Industrial Era, a time of unprecedented transformation. Smokestacks pierce the sky as factories and manufacturing plants sprawl across cityscapes. The rhythm of machinery replaces the quieter sounds of agrarian life, and urban centers swell with workers seeking opportunity. A lot of manufacturing required additional workers to do repeatable jobs in the name of mass production. It looks like a human is necessary to maintain the production line, and nothing else can change this situation… until Watt created the steam engine.

Before we get back to the consequences of innovation, let's focus more on the positive aspects of steam engines. We can't ignore how this “simple machine” had an impact on the new nodes in the industrial era. The machinery, mining, and transport industries developed significantly. The increase in production efficiency led to lower prices of goods and increased demand, which generated new jobs. There was also a need for qualified workers to operate and maintain the machines. 

We can ask ourselves a question right now: there are plenty of benefits to this innovation, so do we really want to worry about its cost? We do because the steam engine revolution had a similar positive and negative impact, like generative artificial intelligence, on our lives.

First, in some sectors, steam engines replaced manual work, which contributed to the reduction of employment. People performing simple, repetitive tasks that could be mechanized were particularly affected. The scale was so large that it caused protests from workers (e.g., the Luddite movement) who feared losing their source of income. 

Second, working with higher temperatures in manufacturing and factories generated additional accidents because there were no adequate safeguards that could prevent injuries and protect workers from harm.

And last, but not least, machines could work longer than people, so working hours were extended. This also have impact on small craft workshops that could not compete with factories, what contributed to bankruptcy.

Alfred Nobel's Dynamite (1867)

Working in factories and manufacturing in the 18th century was challenging for safety reasons, but what about working in mines or excavations? Digging in rocks deep under the earth with insufficient oxygen seems terrible. We can imagine that working in mines is difficult, even considering all the new technological achievements we have today. However, for an 18th-century miner working with a pickaxe and minimal technology, the job was a daily nightmare that they had to endure.

In 1867, Swedish physicist, chemist, and inventor Alfred Nobel, a self-proclaimed pacifist, achieved a groundbreaking feat by successfully stabilizing the highly volatile compound nitroglycerin into dynamite. This remarkable innovation created a safe handling mechanism for explosive power, revolutionizing industries such as mining and construction. Nobel's invention effectively harnessed the immense energy of nitroglycerin while significantly reducing the risks associated with its use, marking a pivotal moment in the history of explosives and industrial progress.

Nobel's invention helped with easier construction of tunnels and canals. With controlled demolition, it was much easier to dig deeper into the earth or create tunnels through mountains. It also had an impact on new jobs in mining and construction. Using dynamite was easy, but using it responsibly was much more important. Before humans fully understood the risks, there were many mining accidents and instances of misuse that, of course, had an impact on people's health and their lives.

And when it comes to health and people's lives, we shouldn't be surprised that we found a way to create a weapon from something that should help. The potential of using dynamite in military applications was terrifying. For humans, it would have been better if this invention had never been discovered, but this is only a dream. In due time, someone else would have discovered dynamite… or something worse.

And someone did that. The atomic bomb was detonated on July 16, 1945. J. Robert Oppenheimer led the development of a weapon that, in many aspects of pop culture, was portrayed as the main cause of humanity's potential destruction. But thanks to Oppenheimer, we have atomic electric power that gave us a virtually infinite source of energy. We can go on like this forever…

Every invention comes with its reward and a fitting price to pay. 

Large Language Models (2022)

We need to make some assumptions here. The year 2022 is not the starting point in this situation. The first GPT-1 was released by OpenAI in June 2018. If we want to delve deeper, we should mention that the first natural language processing (NLP) model called ELIZA was released more than half a century ago, in 1966. 

The revolution of Generative Artificial Intelligence accelerated in 2022 when a fine-tuned variant of GPT-3, termed GPT-3.5, was made available to the public through a web interface. 

Let my try to describe the benefits and potential risks of this innovation.

The benefits of LLMs are already reshaping our world in profound ways. Just as the printing press democratized knowledge, LLMs are democratizing access to information processing and creation. These models can analyze vast amounts of text, generate human-like responses, assist with coding, and even help create content in multiple languages. In education, they serve as patient tutors, adapting to individual learning styles and providing instant feedback. In healthcare, they assist doctors by summarizing medical literature and helping draft patient communications. For businesses, they streamline operations by automating routine tasks, from email responses to report generation.

The technology has also created new job opportunities. Prompt engineers, AI Developers, and AI ethics specialists, AI Solution Architects, are roles that didn't exist just a few years ago. Companies are hiring specialists to integrate these tools into their workflows, creating positions that blend technical expertise with domain knowledge. Much like how Gutenberg's press created jobs in printing and publishing, LLMs are generating their ecosystem of specialized professionals.

However, like the steam engine's impact on manual laborers or dynamite's dual-use potential, LLMs come with their set of challenges and risks. The most immediate concern echoes the fears of those handwriting monks during Gutenberg's time – job displacement. Content creators, writers, and even programmers worry about their roles becoming obsolete. While history suggests that new technologies tend to create more jobs than they eliminate, the transition period can be painful for those affected.

There's also the question of information quality and authenticity. Just as the printing press could spread misinformation, LLMs can generate convincing but incorrect content at an unprecedented scale. They can be used to create sophisticated phishing attempts, generate misleading news articles, or produce convincing deepfake text that's difficult to distinguish from human-written content.

Privacy concerns loom large as well. The models are trained on vast amounts of data, raising questions about consent and data ownership. Like the steam engine's impact on working conditions, we're still grappling with the ethical implications of how these models should be developed and deployed.

Perhaps most concerning is the potential for misuse. Just as Nobel's dynamite found military applications he never intended, LLMs could be weaponized for cyberattacks, social engineering, or mass manipulation. The technology's ability to generate human-like text in any style or voice makes it a powerful tool for both beneficial and harmful purposes.

But here's where we find ourselves at a familiar crossroads. Like those who came before us during previous technological revolutions, we face a choice. We can let fear paralyze us, crying "MEH" and turning away from change, or we can engage with this technology thoughtfully and deliberately.

The key difference between LLMs and previous innovations might be our awareness of the dual-edged nature of technological progress. We've learned from history that every major breakthrough carries both promise and peril. This time, we're having important discussions about ethics, safety, and regulation from the very beginning, rather than waiting for problems to emerge.

As we stand at this technological frontier, perhaps the most valuable lesson from our historical journey is this: the impact of any innovation depends not on the technology itself, but on how we choose to use it. The printing press, steam engine, and dynamite were all tools – neither inherently good nor evil. Their effects on society were determined by human choices and values.

The same will be true for Generative AI. We can decide to use them responsibly, to augment rather than replace human capabilities, to create rather than destroy, to connect rather than divide. The technology will continue to evolve, but the fundamental question remains unchanged: How will we shape this tool to serve our highest aspirations rather than our basest instincts?

The answer, as always, lies not in the technology itself, but in us – in our wisdom, our foresight, and our courage to embrace change while staying true to our values. 

The future is not something that happens to us, it's something we create, one choice at a time.