This article challenges Yuval Noah Harari’s argument, questioning the notion of algorithms dominating humanity, and comparing the role of algorithms to human autonomy.
The author, Yuval Noah Harari, chose to write his book in a structure that starts in the future, returns to the past, and ends in the future again. He begins the book by presenting the problems of the new humanity that is coming, traces the history of humanity from the past, and ends the book by posing the problems of a new future that is different from the past. The author makes several predictions about the future, one of which is domination by algorithms. The book argues that organisms, including humans, are algorithms, and that in the future, with the development of technologies such as artificial intelligence, algorithms will be developed that will surpass humans, and humans will be dominated by them. While many people agree with the author of the book, this article argues against the idea. In this article, I’ll discuss the book’s arguments, especially Chapter 9.
First of all, in order to discuss this thesis, we need to start by defining the word ‘domination’. I’m not trying to be subjective, but the dictionary definition of dominance is “to control a person, group, organization, thing, etc. by making them submit to one’s will.” In other words, algorithms dominating humanity means that humanity will submit to the will of algorithms and follow their will. The book mentions several examples that hint at this future, and we need to take a closer look at them first.
The first is the claim that humans will become obsolete. The idea is that humans are becoming economically and militarily obsolete, and that their value will decrease. There doesn’t seem to be much wrong with this argument. In fact, military equipment such as unmanned drones, which the book cites as an example, are reducing the need for humans. The idea is that human soldiers will gradually be replaced by automated systems, and in the economy, many jobs will be taken over by systems, and humans will become less valuable. This argument seems valid. Indeed, the number of soldiers and jobs is decreasing, and human jobs are being replaced by machines. But will fewer jobs devalue humans and lead to a future dominated by algorithms? In fact, the loss of jobs to machines is not a recent phenomenon. In fact, the Industrial Revolution led to productivity revolutions, farmers lost their jobs, and factory workers were replaced by machines. In the early 19th century, there was even a Luddite movement that destroyed looms because they were taking away jobs. In other words, the phenomenon of jobs being taken by machines and the fear of it is not a recent phenomenon; it’s been around for over 100 years. But did the Industrial Revolution devalue humanity, and are we being dominated by machines? Not really. Of course, the past can be different from the future, and indeed, there will be some differences. But the historical fact, at least so far, is that new technologies do not necessarily bring a dark future for humanity. True, the book mentions job losses, saying that professions like lawyers and doctors will disappear. But that’s not the same thing as being devalued and dominated by algorithms.
If you continue to review the book, the next thing that comes up is the voluntary disclosure of personal information and the algorithm’s decision-making based on that information, and the passivity of humans in the process. For example, Angelina Jolie learned through an algorithm that she had a high risk of breast cancer. To be precise, it’s a medical technique that uses genetic information. Based on this information, she decided to have a mastectomy. This decision was seen by many as a sign that algorithms are starting to influence human decision-making. It’s a good thing that advances in technology are improving our ability to treat diseases. However, it’s important to take a deeper look at this case. It’s not that different from the way we’ve always used technology to make decisions. In fact, in some ways, it’s better than the past. For example, people are told not to drink too much alcohol because it’s bad for your health. If a person heeds this advice and cuts back on alcohol, does that mean he’s handing over decision-making power to someone else and blindly following their advice? No, it doesn’t. People make decisions by synthesizing multiple pieces of information. From this perspective, Jolie made a decision based on objective information presented by modern technology. Personally, I don’t understand why this is a symbolic event as a gateway to algorithmic domination of humanity.
Another example is that of marriage. Let’s say a person asks Google for advice on who they should date. Google makes a conclusion based on historical data. If the person follows this decision, it seems at first glance that he has handed over his decision-making power to Google. But this is actually a common phenomenon today. It’s perfectly natural to ask for opinions on dating among friends or at a matrimonial agency. The difference between asking your parents for marriage advice and asking an algorithm is just a matter of whether you’re asking a human or an algorithm. From this perspective, algorithms are actually better. Algorithms can provide the most accurate answers based on objective data. People rely on many external factors when making decisions, so why is this book so sensitive about algorithms? I think one of the reasons is that it treats algorithms like religion or superstition. The idea is that people will follow algorithms the way people once believed in God and blindly followed what was written in the Bible with unconditional obedience. But this is very wrong. An algorithm is a product of advanced science, a decision-making system that makes judgments based on a clear scientific and objective process and rationale. If you want to find an analogy, it would be more appropriate to compare an algorithm to a scientific formula. For example, the construction of a building involves a lot of scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is used in the choice of materials, the organization of the structure, the design, and so on. For example, formulas are used to determine how thick a column should be to prevent it from collapsing. Does using a formula to derive an answer in such a situation mean that we are ruled by it? Not really. The same goes for algorithms. It’s just an objective process that derives an answer based on the data input. This means that algorithms are not superstitions based on nothing, but a scientific and logical system. If following the decisions of an algorithm means being controlled by it, then we would have to say that we are also being controlled by the greatest scientists of all time: Newton, Einstein, Darwin, and others. We could be seen as non-decision-makers who blindly follow the equations of motion to formulate dynamical formulas. The biggest problem, from the book’s point of view, is that algorithms are not scientific theories, but rather superstitions that have no basis in reality.
If you think about the sentence, “Humanity will be ruled by algorithms,” it implies the premise that humanity is not yet ruled. As if humanity is still in full control of its own decisions. But if you think about it, that’s not true. We are always being influenced by others and making decisions. Media and education instill a certain way of thinking in us, and we subconsciously follow these facts. For example, there is a widespread perception that students should study hard to go to college, and many people accept this and strive to go to college. This phenomenon already shows that human beings are guided by something. Things like customs and laws that make up the world govern humanity. As algorithms develop, they will take over. This can be a positive thing. Algorithms will be able to influence decisions based on accurate evidence. For example, in the university example above, if a student realized through an algorithm that it would be more beneficial for him to pursue a different career path instead of attending university, the algorithm would have allowed him to break away from past conventions and make a better decision.
In fact, leaving decision-making to algorithms may not be such a big threat. As we mentioned earlier, algorithms are not a myth, but rather the culmination of the latest scientific knowledge, which means that they are the most objective judgment-making entities. If something goes wrong in an algorithm’s decision-making process, it’s most likely because someone has maliciously injected misinformation into the algorithm. In other words, it’s not the algorithm’s fault, it’s the forces that are trying to exploit it, and those forces are most likely humans. Strictly speaking, algorithms only take inputs to a problem and come up with an answer, and humans are the ones who can choose and influence them for good or ill. However, this book ignores this point and seems to blame everything on algorithms. Once again, it is humans who use algorithms.
