For Mandarin Version: See here
This is the first chapter of the series: Design for Plurality
GM Everyone!
This is Tofus, a 19-year-old who loves design. I’ve been part of g0v for 2 years, and I’m currently working as a designer at National Taiwan University. I’m also studying Economics at National Taipei University. This article is all about sharing my journey. I want to help fellow designers who might be unsure about their future, and sharing my thoughts about plurality.
Introduction
Honestly, I haven’t really updated about what’s been going on with me for quite a while. But then I suddenly realized that I’ve been hanging around in the g0v community for another year.
It’s been a wild ride, from diving into blockchain stuff, being part of the creation of the da0 community, witnessing g0v’s 10th anniversary, landing my first paid design gig, and even getting involved as a contributor for the design infrastructure of National Taiwan University.
On one hand, I feel crazy lucky because this has truly been one heck of an adventure. On the other hand, I’m starting to see clearer and clearer what I really want to do in the future.
UX design, civic tech, blockchain, and economics — these seemingly unrelated words are slowly getting closer and closer. They’ve even fused together already, sort of pointing out the direction I might just be heading next.
I believe I can encapsulate this direction into an unresolved design challenge, which is:
“How Might We Design for Human Experience in Plurality“
What I want to do in the next ten years will most likely be inseparable from this problem statement.
I know this sounds unclear. After all, the word “plurality” has been controversial before (see the plurality section of the Ministry of Digital Affairs in Taiwan), and how did User Experience become Human Experience here? Hold on, let me explain slowly in this series of articles.
“Plurality” is a concept proposed by Audury Tang and economist Glen Weyl. They are currently co-authoring a book on plurality (it can be seen how new this concept is, and there is no book discussing this matter until now). Before we talk about plurality, let’s talk about the opposite concept, which is the singularity.
Engineers and Singularity
Audury Tang, Glen Weyl and the people who studied plurality took the existing AI industry as an example, and believed that the singularity of AI will come in 2040, and its coming is likely to be due to various AI giants (including OpenAI , Meta, DeepMind) are racing to develop so-called “artificial general intelligence (AGI)” and “human-level AI.”
They hope that the masterpieces they create can help humans solve all problems and do all the work, and humans will no longer need to work in the future. Just eat, drink, have fun, and enjoy the economic benefits AI creates for them. You can see this video for more detail.
It sounds ideal, but if we try to disassemble the meaning behind this argument, your opinion may be different.
As a designer, let me first try to illustrate a persona of the kind of people who might utter these kinds of words:
First, he might be an AI engineer
And an AI engineer with influence and no need to worry about survival
There is a high probability that they are people living in developed countries such as Europe countries and the United States, and their mother tongue may still be English
Observing the CEOs of the three giants, let’s infer that they are all mainstream ethnic groups in that area
Their goal is: “I hope that the masterpieces I created can help humans solve all problems and do all the work. Humans will no longer need to work in the future. They only need to eat, drink, and enjoy the economic benefits created for them by AI.”
Now we can probably grasp what they’re thinking.
Of course, their perspective might seem problem-free from their end, because human cognition has its limits. We can’t possibly know all the information on Earth and make sure our considerations cover every angle, meeting the needs of every single person.
But imagine this: suppose there are only three general artificial intelligences (AGIs) on Earth, and these AGIs are created by a similar group of people. That would be quite a frightening scenario. Just try to picture the following situation:
English serves as the native language for these general intelligence models, and information in all other languages is first translated into English before executing commands.
People from third-world countries rarely get the chance to provide feedback to developers. Besides geographical barriers, language also poses a major problem. Their opinions hardly find a way to reach the ears of those developers. It’s like they’re silenced by numerous constraints, leaving them unable to resist or advocate for their rights.
Even if the viewpoints of a minority group manage to reach the development side, there’s no guarantee that their needs will be addressed. Because the developers aren’t obligated to do so, as their responsibility mainly lies with the interests of shareholders. They would only consider it if it directly affects their interests, say, if it impacts their reputation. Otherwise, maximizing shareholder profits remains their primary duty.
The term “singularity” refers to an event that makes it impossible for humans to continue predicting subsequent causes and effects.
It’s similar to how in the function f(x) = 1/x, when x approaches 0, f(x) becomes undefined.
Almost nobody knows what 1/0 equals, and by examining the graph of the function, you can see that it becomes increasingly uncontrollable as it gets closer to 0, reaching a point of no return.
General artificial intelligence could also potentially be one of the singularities in human history.
From the perspective of those engineers, such AI does indeed hold value in their perspective. It has the potential to free people from the need to work and allow everyone to enjoy a better life.
But is it really that simple for everybody else?
Is “not needing to work” truly a positive thing for them? Is a universal basic income something that sustains their livelihood and enables ongoing creativity, or does it feel more like a prison ration, given that AI has stripped away their job opportunities?
The answer is nobody knows, as each individual’s circumstances and context are unique.
Assuming there are individuals who are continuously exploring the unknown as developers (often with a certain cultural foundation and at least have some English proficiency and self-learning ability), a universal basic income might serve as a means to ensure a comfortable life for them. This could allow them to focus on more creative endeavors.
This particular group of people is roughly estimated to make up about 20% of the total population (approximately the combined population of developed nations, including a portion of China, India, and other developing countries’ middle-class populations).
However, for the remaining 80%, things might not be as lucky.
Not only might they lack smooth communication channels with the global community, but they might also don’t know what’s happening. Their jobs could suddenly disappear without warning, replaced by AI and machines. Universal basic income? What’s that? Can we eat it?
In more severe scenarios, countries where people have been deprived of jobs might begin to wage war against developed nations.
They could attribute their poverty and lack of opportunities to the actions of these developed countries. Alternatively, they might resort to sporadic acts of terrorism. While these are extreme possibilities, it’s important to note that scarcity of domestic resources and the oppression of specific groups are potential triggers for conflict. Therefore, dismissing the possibility of such events entirely would be irrational.
Moreover, there’s evidence suggesting that excessive influx of external resources can disrupt local economic patterns.
For instance, the donation of second-hand clothing from developed nations hasn’t significantly aided African countries in overcoming economic difficulties. Instead, it has harmed local garment industries, depriving some people of opportunities for economic resource exchange and consequently, employment.
Basic economics also reminds us that simply providing money to foreign populations without contributing to local productivity might have little long-term impact (refer to monetary theory). In the short term, it could even expose the region to risks of inflation.
So, from my current perspective, I believe it’s more crucial to be concerned about the singularity of AI exacerbating the unequal distribution of global economic resources within our existing societal framework, rather than worrying about AI conquering and controlling humanity.
(Of course, this is just my take, and there might be factors I haven’t considered yet. Welcome to share your thoughts in comments below.)
Given these concerns, how can we address this issue? Let’s try to outline the problems that AGI might bring about:
- Overcentralization of Technology: AGI might lead to excessive centralization of technology.
- Bias and Communication Gap: AGI could exhibit bias and may struggle to consider the diverse needs of all humans. Additionally, not everyone might have a means to communicate effectively with AGI.
- Unequal Economic Outcomes: The economic benefits generated by AGI might not be accessible to all of humanity, and could even further marginalize already disadvantaged countries.
- Instability and Uncertainty: AGI’s instability raises concerns about the unknown impact it might have on human society.
Some people might find the concept of AGI hard to grasp, but if we replace the notion of AGI with government, it might become much more relatable. For example, a government in dictatorship bears certain similarities to this scenario, and the homogenization of values could be considered a form of singularity, linguistically. Let’s try to rephrase those ideas slightly:
Dictatorship creates excessive concentration of power
The dictatorship itself is biased, it is difficult to consider the needs of all people, and not everyone has a channel of communication with him
The economic achievements created by the dictatorship may not be enjoyed by the people of the whole country, and may even make the already marginal areas even more marginal
A dictatorship is unstable and no one knows what effect it will have on a country’s society.
Obviously, the singularity of AGI (that is, the centralization of digital) is to some extent one of the opportunities for the emergence of digital authority.
So how do we avoid this kind of situation from happening? There are many solutions, and one of them is to promote “digital democratization”, that is, “Digital Plurality”
(To be continued…)
