The Question of Human Existence in the Age of AI｜オカベヤスユキ〈CDA｜国家資格キャリアコンサルタント〉

“There isn’t a day that goes by without using AI.”

It has been several years since people started saying that.

It has now blended into our lives to the point where it supports our daily routines so thoroughly that it would be difficult to spend a day without using it at all.

The evolution of generative AI, in particular, has been remarkable.

Its use is spreading not only in writing and information gathering but also in learning and professional settings.

In a survey conducted by CyberAgent this year, it was reported that approximately 70% of junior high school students and 80% of high school students use generative AI.

Generative AI is no longer a special technology used only by a select few.

It is entering our lives, our learning, and our work, becoming a standard presence.

This trend will likely never reverse.

I believe we are moving into an era where we no longer debate whether we should use AI, but rather consider how we should utilize it.

The same is true in the world of education.

Ways of learning that assume the presence of AI are being explored, and we are shifting from “learning about AI” to “learning by leveraging AI.”

Given this, the judgment of “what to leave to AI and what humans should take on” will become increasingly important in the coming era.

Of course, caution is required when handling personal and confidential information.

It is also essential to check whether the input content will be used for training.

Furthermore, issues such as hallucinations where AI generates incorrect information, transparency problems where the basis for decisions is difficult to understand, and issues of bias and fairness have also been pointed out.

Beyond that, what I want to consider anew is the question,
“Not whether the AI is correct, but why we believed that answer.”

It may be us, not the AI, that is being questioned.

Accuracy, transparency, and fairness are cited as challenges for generative AI.
These are certainly important points of discussion.

However, as I have been thinking about these issues, I have begun to feel that there might be a slightly different perspective.

For example, suppose an AI provides an incorrect answer. Of course, that error is a problem. But who was it that used that answer without verifying it?

Suppose an AI presents biased information. But who was it that believed only that information?

When an AI returns a plausible-sounding answer, who is it that accepts it without question?

Thinking about it this way, it seems that the challenges AI faces actually reflect our own attitudes.

AI might be a mirror that reflects humanity

It is said that AI has biases. However, it is human society that created the training data for it.

It can be said that it is not that AI is imperfect, but that it reflects the fact that human society itself is not perfect.

What is even more interesting is that it is not just society that AI reflects. We ourselves, as users, are also reflected there.

Even when using the same AI, there are those who verify the truth of the information.
There are those who try to seek out different perspectives.

On the other hand, there are those who adopt only the answers that are convenient for them.
There are also those who take things at face value.

What appears there is not a difference in AI performance.
It is the values of what that person holds dear.

Sincerity, humility, a sense of responsibility, consideration for fairness, a critical thinking attitude…

I feel that such a human way of being is reflected in how we engage with AI.

That is precisely why
rather than ‘what the AI answered,’ ‘why did I believe that answer’
might be what is important.

Even though I thought I was chasing the cutting edge

When thinking about generative AI,
accuracy, transparency, fairness, accountability, sincerity, honesty…
I encounter these words one after another.

At first, I thought they were technical issues.
However, the more I think about it, the more I realize that these are words that question the human way of being.

What to believe.
How to judge.
Who to be responsible to.
How to engage with society.

In fact, these questions did not suddenly appear with the arrival of the AI era.

Ancient Greek philosophers also continued to ask, “How should one live?” and “What is considered good?”

Times have changed, and technology has advanced significantly.
However, the questions that are truly important to humanity may remain the same as they have always been.

Coming full circle to ethics

AI will continue to evolve. I believe it will support our work and learning, and change society in profound ways.

However, no matter how much AI advances, it is humans who make the final decisions.
It is humans who choose to believe in information.
It is humans who bear the responsibility.

As technology advances, we will likely find ourselves facing not the technology itself, but ourselves as the ones who use it.

I thought I was thinking about AI. I thought I was thinking about accuracy, transparency, and fairness.

But after coming full circle, I arrived at ethics.

And I feel that what supports that ethics is not AI. It is the integrity, the judgment, and the way of being as a human of each one of us.

AI provides many answers. However, it does not decide how we should accept those answers.

That is why what will truly be questioned in the coming era may not be the performance of AI, but us ourselves as we face it.

Why did you believe that answer?
What was the basis for that judgment?
And can you take responsibility for that choice?

“While it seems we are looking at AI, we are actually looking at ourselves.”

We may be standing at the threshold of such an era.

Originally Appeared Here