A Dichotomy of Being,  A Trichotomy of Becoming: The AI Masonic Challenge.

Despite the exigencies of the first three industrial revolutions – now referred to by some as ‘productivity revolutions’ – the radical changes made to human interactions were recognisably human.

‘The most-striking evidence for a distinct cognitive contrast between humans and their predecessors comes from Europe. H. sapiens came late to this continent and brought a new kind of stone tool… probably developed in Africa some 75,000 years ago.’ (Encyclopaedia Britannica)

Perhaps the ‘stone tool’ introduced a hitherto unrecorded industrial (productivity) revolution?

From 2016, a fourth industrial revolution (IR4) based on nanotechnology, artificial intelligence (AI) and white-collar robotics is challenging traditional concepts of humanness.

This is something of urgent interest for all who value Freemasonry’s historical and potential role in civil society.

Perhaps it was ‘some 75,000 years ago’, when a ‘distinct cognitive contrast’ took the form of the emergence of a unique capacity for imagination, language, and the invention of stories which were believed and acted upon by other humans.

These cognitive skills differentiated a development from that of other animals. It enabled highly flexible, large scale, global cooperation: this led to a human primacy in and over nature.

The article Freemasonry and Generative AI – Part 2 – The Square Magazine suggests parallel universes of sapiens and human. Perhaps ‘the self’  ‘identity’ could be understood as experience of the world being on seamlines between sapiens and human viz: 

The article Freemasonry and Generative AI – Part 2 – The Square Magazine suggests parallel universes of sapiens and human. Perhaps ‘the self’  ‘identity’ could be understood as experience of the world being on seamlines between sapiens and human viz: 

Perhaps the above table could be considered in conjunction with Daniel Kahneman’s, Thinking Fast and Slow.

The three industrial revolutions left some human arrangements behind; others transformed and survived, some thrived.

As ‘productivity revolutions’, unsurprisingly, their substantial impact was on the production, distribution and consumption of food clothing, shelter, and communication.

As with its predecessors, IR4 is radically altering the basis of productivity; however, in the process, it is disrupting the interactions, arrangements, and relationships which define ‘humanness’.

1. Exponentially, human are outsourcing their faculties to technologies. AI’s increasing mastery of its language is replacing ‘humanspeak’ – the operating system of humanness – with AIspeak’’.
 
2. ‘AIspeak will go where humans are unable to tread: are machines being trained by humans to train humans?
 
Will AI overcome, or succumb to, the well-established tendency of power tending to corrupt and absolute power corrupting absolutely: what form might sapiens + human + machine take?

Perhaps the conjoining of organic and inorganic is not as unlikely as it may seem. Both DNA and algorithms can be understood as ‘sets of instructions’.

Presumably, humanness includes a sense of identity which coordinates experience. And, from an argument of analogy, a sense of the existence of other humans; entities, which are such as I and as much as I. Hence, do unto others, the basis of ethics.

Indeed, the view could be taken that only through human relationships the concept of ‘identity’ has coherence. The point is, how will relationships be transformed in a way which leaves none behind: none ‘unnetworked’: none digitally deprived: none excluded?

‘We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.’

– Einstein

Perhaps our problems are created by thinking fast and can only be solved by thinking slow. (A possible application of Daniel Kahneman’s Thinking Fast and Slow.)
 
Given the significance of artificial intelligence in IR4 – its capacity to generate content – there is no reason why its roll-out should leave anyone behind and therefore prevent: Digital: Disability; Discrimination; Disadvantage; Disruption – Exclusion.
 
Perhaps with the former three industrial revolutions leaving some behind was deemed inevitable and therefore acceptable: given its intelligence, need this be the case with IR4?
Disability is not a medical condition; it is imposed when, within cultures, societal arrangements fail to meet needs – such reinforces a societal, ‘survival of the fittest’.
Every care must be focussed to prevent the failures of the universe as is from migrating into metaverse.

The pocket, heart, hand of masonry has ever moved for those who are excluded. Urgently, this is an opportunity for Freemasonry, a movement for mutual improvement, to prevent digital exclusion or at least, substantially facilitate its mitigation.

Jurisdictions and businesses seek a cashless economy; yet, the significant number of digitally powerless people (UK 25% and not all of these are senior citizens) are perhaps delaying its implementation.

If so, this a triumph for their civil society groupings and electoral sway. Yet in the shift to digital, public services have not been accompanied by adequate support; and thereby, a state-led exacerbation of digital exclusion. Might this be attacking an ability to inform decision-making in civic life: attacking an ability to partake in civil society:?

Jurisdictions; business; and, civil society – which includes Freemasonry – could provide leadership and direct participation to ensure a victimless introduction of a ‘cashless’ economy. How might this be enabled and facilitated? Now extend such a process to the rolling-out of IR4.
 
AI is perhaps one of the most talked about subjects on the planet, associations with world-citizenship leanings could unite to ensure a victimless IR4. However, the continuity of the governance-model of: government, business and civil society cannot be assumed. Given the, seemingly, unsustainability of sovereign, corporate and household debt, might ‘reset’ be the 2024 word.
 
Might a reset change the dynamic of government, business, and civil society? Might governments be tempted to use AI to substantially cut the level of administrative employees even though they are unable to finance repayment and compensation claims arising from previous IT applications.

Could an opportunity be taken for civil society to be ‘reset’ to achieve an influence far more commensurate with its contribution than hitherto?

Traditionally, wealth was based on the ownership of land; followed by the ownership and control of the means of production; now, the ownership and control of data. Civil societal action depends on the tools provided by tech companies.

To date, the suppliers of mechanical levers and wedges have not dictated their use. How in a reset, might civil society be commensurately influential and avoid the digital disruption of its efforts? Perhaps by building resilience through thinking globally and acting locally

Digital Retraining in the Masonic Dining Room

IMAGE: The Square Magazine Digital Collection