The "AI dependence" argument is 163 years old, and the original version predictbut acquiescence (not domination)
The debate surrounding AI dependence, often perceived as a modern concern, actually dates back 163 years. In 1863, Samuel Butler published 'Darwin Among the Machines,' presenting an argument similar to contemporary discussions on AI risk. This historical perspective raises the question of whether "acquiescence through indispensability" is a distinct risk category or merely a rephrasing of dependence anxiety that emerges with every significant technological advancement.
Why this oneThis report uniquely highlights that the "AI dependence" argument, often seen as modern, was first articulated 163 years ago by Samuel Butler, unlike most contemporary discussions that treat it as a new concern.
Time & source
- Published
- 09/09, 01:43 UTC+0
- Ingested
- 09/09, 18:00 UTC+0
- Source type
- Dev community
- Tier
- Community
- Source status
- Healthy
Tier is a per-source editorial setting, not a per-item score.
Discussion trend
The percentage is based on collected discussion signal, not new comments or independent people. The curve only compares the same topic across time.
The idea of whether machines will dominate us is generally treated as a new one in current discussions on AI risk, since in 1863 Samuel Butler published a letter titled 'Darwin Among the Machines' which made an argument closely resembling the one in today's debate.
He stated that the real danger was not that machines would gain control of power, but that people would find machines so useful that it would become practically impossible to get rid of them, so that by that stage the question of who was actually in charge would have already been answered — no matter who seemed to be in control. He said that a society which, in principle, could not destroy its machines had already "created a race of beings towards whom it is beyond our power to destroy" and had thus become "acquiescent in our bondage."
This is a quite different claim from the one that says 'superintelligence takes over'; it's similar to the sorts of arguments currently being made regarding algorithmic dependence, attention economy lock-in, and infrastructure that is too deeply embedded to be undone — arguments that can be applied to any technology that is sufficiently indispensable, not just to intelligent machines.
The full letter, together with the historical background (it is also the immediate source of the "Butlerian Jihad" in Dune, a fact that most people are unaware of), can be found here: https://romaricjannel.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-mechanical-life
I'm wondering if people here consider "acquiescence through indispensability" to be a real and separate risk category or whether it's just a rewording of dependence anxiety that appears each time a major technology is introduced.