Newsletter 7 min read

Will the Humanities survive AI? ⊗ What we talk about when we talk about AI ⊗ Stiegler’s pharmacological & Butler’s discernment

No.355 — BBC, foresight, an AI-mediated future ⊗ Lyonne, Marling, Lanier, AI ⊗ Sponge produces water from thin air ⊗ Extraordinary forgotten books

Will the Humanities survive AI? ⊗ What we talk about when we talk about AI ⊗ Stiegler’s pharmacological & Butler’s discernment
Catherine Breslin / Silicon on Black 1

Will the Humanities survive Artificial Intelligence?

This one isn’t only very well written, it’s also fascinating. D. Graham Burnett, who teaches the history of science at Princeton, discusses the transformative impact of AI on the humanities, highlighting a significant shift in how we engage with knowledge and ourselves. The author reflects on the profound interactions his students had with AI, revealing that these exchanges can deepen self-awareness and understanding, prompting questions about the nature of attention and human connection.

In places, before correcting nicely later in the essay, he uses phrases like “a new kind of creature being born,” or “the stirrings of conscience in a neural network humming across a billion dollars’ worth of Nvidia chips.” It’s not a conscience. But it’s something. Again and again, I think the best angle is Herndon’s Collective Intelligence. The LLM is not thinking, but there is something there that emerges, out of billions upon billions of words taken from our culture.

The synthesis of it, at a scale our brains can’t quite comprehend, even if you see it as a stochastic parrot, produces something that we are not quite grasping yet. Elsewhere he talks about an “alien familiar.” That’s closer to the truth than the loaded “intelligence” or “conscience.” To wit, this answer by ChatGPT itself, in the course of one student’s discussion with it:

Even though I can generate text that sounds like understanding, my process doesn’t involve the internal experience of meaning. Humans comprehend because they synthesize information into a unified, lived experience—they feel, they interpret, they reflect. I don’t. I process, predict, and structure, but there is no subjective experience underlying my words.

There is religion and there is spirituality, there is education and there is learning. Beyond the system built around it, there is still a core. What Burnett is saying, is that AI lets us remove what students were told they had to do. What remains is what they want to do. This might be one of the results of AI—for those who can chose, lots of employees wont have that choice—keeping what we want to do and removing what we had to, giving it to our alien familiars. If AIs were built for humans, if Universities weren’t reduced to profit, or at least survival through numbers (of students), we might happily rearrange learning. As it is, I’m not holding my breath.

On a Discord server this week I said “the same technologies [but created and led by] carers/care vs profiteers/profits would lead to completely different products and services. It’s maddening to observe.” Reading a hopeful piece like Burnett’s I’m thinking about this again. So much potential, likely to be squandered by the broligarchy. A humanist commons extracted to the bone. Like so much else.

Now I can hold a sustained, tailored conversation on any of the topics I care about, from agnotology to zoosemiotics, with a system that has effectively achieved Ph.D.-level competence across all of them. I can construct the “book” I want in real time—responsive to my questions, customized to my focus, tuned to the spirit of my inquiry. […]

It was also a chance to confront the attention economy’s “killer app”: totally algorithmic pseudo-persons who are sensitive, competent, and infinitely patient; know everything about everyone; and will, of course, be turned to the business of extracting money from us. These systems promise a new mode of attention capture—what some are calling the “intimacy economy” (“human fracking” comes closer to the truth). […]

Kant’s idea of the sublime, how it comes in two parts: first, you’re dwarfed by something vast and incomprehensible, and then you realize your mind can grasp that vastness. That your consciousness, your inner life, is infinite—and that makes you greater than what overwhelms you.” […]

This remains to us. The machines can only ever approach it secondhand. But secondhand is precisely what being here isn’t. The work of being here—of living, sensing, choosing—still awaits us. And there is plenty of it.

What we talk about when we talk about AI

Rachel Coldicutt explores the complexities and misconceptions surrounding artificial intelligence (AI), emphasising that AI is not a myth but a real technology reliant on physical infrastructure, which has significant social and environmental implications. She argues that understanding AI requires not only technical knowledge but also an awareness of its societal impacts, including power dynamics and economic inequalities. Coldicutt highlights how the term “artificial intelligence” was coined somewhat accidentally and has since evolved to encompass a wide range of concepts, often presented in a magical, unrealistic light in policy discussions and media. She stresses the importance of AI literacy that goes beyond algorithms to also include critical thinking about the power, myths, and economic contexts that shape our understanding of AI.

In policy announcements and at product launches, AI often takes on a more magical, mercurial form that draws on shared folk memories of science fiction rather than specific technical details. […]

The glamour of The Matrix, the sexiness of Samantha in Her, the calm wisdom of HAL9000 in 2001: A Space Odyssey are all invoked by these breathless descriptions which draw on the unbridled potential of our imaginations rather than on the practical, every day details of how databases operate and rule-based decisions work. […]

AI relies on physical infrastructure – including data centres and computing power – to function. This physical infrastructure is powered by energy, cooled with water, uses rare minerals often mined in conflict zones in its construction, and can be extremely resource intensive.

Stiegler’s pharmacological & Butler’s discernment

This month’s frame in Stripe’s newsletter, looks at how Bernard Stiegler’s pharmacological framework views technology as both poison and cure—tools that either short-circuit our ability to think deeply or create “long circuits” fostering genuine attention. The short circuits of digital technology capture our attention through algorithmic design that prioritizes engagement over value, while the “cure” emerges when technology expands our capacity for reflection.

Their analysis considers alternative apps as solutions to short-circuit problems—essentially proposing different digital tools as answers to digital problems—long instead of short, I get it. One could instead build on Stiegler’s insights with Butler’s more fundamental approach to technological discernment: elimination (removing technology from certain contexts), curation (selecting technology with intention), and optimization (configuring tools to serve rather than subvert well-being). While Stiegler helps us understand the problem, Butler suggests the solution may not lie in better apps but in a more intentional relationship with technology itself—preserving our capacity for deep attention by sometimes choosing to engage less, not just differently.

According to Stiegler, humans have always relied on technology to evolve; not just biologically, but culturally and psychologically. Tools, language, writing, music are all examples of “technics” that allow us to store language, share experiences and reflect on who we are. They make individuation possible because they help us step back, reflect and grow. […]

These experiences tap into what Stiegler calls our "pre-individual” drives—our basic impulses and reactive desires that don’t require reflection or effort. The more we engage with short circuits, the less space there is for longer-term, meaningful engagement. […]

[Butler] What we ultimately seek isn’t escape from technology itself, but recovery of certain human experiences that technology tends to overwhelm: sustained attention, silence, direct observation, unstructured thought, and the sense of being fully present rather than partially elsewhere.

Sentiers is made possible by the generous support of its Members and
the modern family office of Pardon.

Futures, Fictions & Fabulations

  • How the BBC uses foresight to prepare for an AI-mediated future. “CIFS led a foresight initiative exploring the future impacts of Generative AI on the media industry and its implications for public service media.”
  • Resources for designing futures. “Bring[s] together in one place all the new education, books, conferences, communities and organizations that are taking place around the world to design our future and a bright 22nd century!”
  • Future Generations Report 2025. “The Future Generations Report is designed to support politicians and public body leaders in making life better for people and planet now and in the future. This report is based on extensive evidence, research and analysis and engagement with hundreds of representatives from organisations and communities across Wales.”

Algorithms, Automations & Augmentations

Built, Biosphere & Breakthroughs

  • Sponge made from food scraps produces water from thin air. “Each kilogram of the hydrogel generated 14.19 liters of clean water daily. That is much more than other more expensive sorbents have been able to produce. Previously made sorbents also require higher temperatures to release the water they soak up.”
  • Robeauté raises €27.2 million to transform neurosurgery with microrobots. “Robeauté’s microrobots, the size of a grain of rice, are designed to overcome these limitations. Capable of navigating curved routes through the brain’s extracellular matrix, these microrobots can safely access multiple sites, delivering targeted treatments, collecting samples, or implanting sensors with precision.” (Via Fix The new 294.)
  • Building wealth together. “Place-Based Capital (PBC) is an approach that shifts financial dependency to empowerment. Harnessing the unique assets and potential of a specific place – whether it be a city, town, or rural region – enables communities to solve their own unique challenges, whether its rising living costs, job creation, sustainable energy, or affordable housing.”

Asides

Your Futures Thinking Observatory