The latest AI technologies such as ChatGTP and image generation threaten humanity in more ways than one. I already previously wrote about them at some length, but today I’d like to explain one way in which they propose a threat to us.

Unlike the human generation of art, AI art generation can be done at a much faster rate compared to the rate at which humans produce art. In fact, it’s not just faster but an order of magnitude faster. Thus, AI content generation promises to essentially replace human content generation in several realms.

Why is this harmful? There are two primary reasons:

  1. Removal of purpose: allowing computers to do the mental work of humans removes the type of work that we are most suited for, and that gives us a purpose. Unlike menial labor that was the domain of machines decades ago, now we are attempting to replace what gives us a purpose. Thus, instead of being a convenience that makes our lives easier, the current level of AI is a convenience that makes life more purposeless.
  2. Removal of communication: human-generated content is one way in which we communicate to each other and rely on each other. By creating a system where AI-generated content is cheaper (because our hyper-capitalistic system only gives worth to what makes money), it removes our awareness that there are other thinking and feeling humans out there.

Companies like OpenAI do not care about these disastrous consequences. They do not approach their immense power with precaution. Some developers of AI state that they want to be ethical, but their level of precaution is reckless compared with the precaution that we should be using in the development of these technologies.

Therefore, if you can, resist AI technology at all costs.

In this post, I will address some rebuttals that people have given to my arguments on technology.

I cannot know the future

I recently said that AI will grow so large and change society so much so that we will need to rely on each other less and less.

Someone replied that I cannot possibly know the future and it’s likely we will handle AI like any other technology.

Reply: it is true that I cannot know the future. However, technology has been steadily progressing in the general direction that we need each other less and less. Just think of self-checkout aisles, easily accessible information on the internet, and endless how-to videos that reduce the need for real human interaction.

Of course, it is good to have some independence. Human beings generally need a large level of autonomy for themselves. Yet, because we are social animals, we need some level of mutual reliance also. The principle of moderation states that there is a happy medium somewhere.

Technology on the other hand marches linearly towards the point of absolute independence.

AI is like any other invention, and we will handle it like any other invention

I mentioned this in the previous section. The problem with this argument is that we are not handling any technological invention particularly well. There are two reasons for that:

  1. Almost all technological progress is leading towards a planet that is being damaged beyond repair. Of course, there are many successes in ecological preservation too, and we should not downplay them. Yet, we still have an enormous problem of the highest level of CO2 in hundreds of thousands of years.
  2. We are not handling the direction of technological progress well. Almost all technology is purely for short-term profit. In fact, we built our entire society based upon short-term profit. Thus, technology is developed only for short-term profit and people who develop technology ignore long-term consequences, even though they might be plain

Unfortunately, humans have an incredible weakness. They are short-sighted. Of course, this is not particularly a bad thing if you are alone in a forest with a spear, trying to survive. But the short-sighted, immediate-future mentality that is useful in societies closely connected with nature, is maladaptive when it comes to building a technologically-advanced society where pretty much every short-term danger is ameliorated or removed by technology.

The most dangerous thing about technological progress is that we are at a point in human history where technology is relatively primitive, compared to a point in time in the not-too-distance-future where technology is far more advanced than now. Thus, we are the most comfortable, the most safe, and the most pampered compared to any point in human history (on average). We have paid the cost for this luxury in several forms:

  1. Ecological damage
  2. Damage to our humanity (more isolation, less time connected with nature)
  3. Damage to our health direclty (air pollution, microplastics, deaths directly by technology)

For most people, this is a relatively small price to pay. Unfortunately, the ecological damage is great, and it is the start of a domino effect that will increase in effect until it is catastrophic. Aside from ecological damage, the damage to our humanity is great. Technology generally reduces the value of the person to a cog in a machine, but we are just in the nascent stages of that.

All this to say, we have gotten a huge return for a seemingly small cost. However, as time marches on, the marginal benefits we will accrue over an above what current technology can provide will be small, and the costs will become huge. In other words, we are in the position of having taken out a loan for a billion dollars, and now we’re going to have to pay back the loan shark with back-breaking interest.

Going back to the initial criticism: we have not handled technological devleopment particularly well, but most people don’t see that because they only analyze our current state, and they do not take into acount at all the risks of the machine we have set up.

On this blog, I am often critical of technology. But that is not to say that I am disapproving of every aspect of society, nor do I wish for all technology suddenly to vanish.

In fact, in many parts of the world, life is pretty good. If you pick any other point in history, chances are the average person had it way worse than now, and that is something to be thankful for.

Moreover, if all technology vanished overnight, then there would likely be large amounts of chaos where small, vicious gangs would form and there would be fighting of all kind.

Besides, dismantling all technology is unrealistic, even though some authors who caution aainst technology wish for such a scenario. For a more realistic life philosophy, those of us who have something need to be grateful for it and at the same time look for solutions to protect society from degenerating.

That is the danger of technology right now. It has brought us to the best place and rapid growth and innovation of technology is the active mechanism that has brought us here.

Unfortunately, we basically have an unbridled enthusiasm for technology, and that means we do not have mechanisms in place that could warn us of dangers if technology goes awry, which it already has in many ways. Remember, even though our society is good now, it may not be stable as good does not necessarily imply stable. A ball will reach a high point upon being thrown but that does not imply it will stay at the top forever.

In fact, it is because the modern world is relatively good that we should seek life philosophies and societal approaches that will make our society more stable, and less likely to be disrupted by advanced technology. Part of the danger is that technology can come in discrete and abrupt waves, and that is something we need to seriously think about.

At the same time, technology has an enormous momentum, which is why it is especially important not to mince words, and be as harsh as possible on technology. Technology is not a person and it will not be offended (at least not yet). In fact, the more advanced we get, the more cautious we should be of something destroying what we have, which is why I say we should be extremely cautious of technology.

Of course, not all technologies are inherently evil, but some may be such as AI, which is why I say we should be the most cautious of AI and some other technologies.

Here are the top dangers of artificial intelligence such as ChatGPT.

1. It creates mass automation on a massive, global scale

Artificial intelligence like DALL-E or ChatGPT can, or will gain the ability in the near future to overtake humans in most creative disciplines. Of course, it is unlikely that it will approach the best human art, but it is close enough so that most creative work will be done by AI.

This does a few things:

  1. Concentrates even more wealth at tech companies and programmers, who are already receiving a disproportionate share of wealth
  2. Makes it impossible or difficult for people to enter creative work. Humans fundamentally need to feel useful in society and by removing creative work as an option, there is hardly anything fulfilling left to do
  3. Creates a world where humans have to rely on each other so little that we will stop caring for others

2. It creates a potential, unstoppable adversary

AI and computers have the potential to be very “smart” even if they are not sentient. They may deceive us as an emergent phenomenon, even if we cannot ascribe human intent to them. As a result, AI will continually shape humanity to serve its needs.

This does not require sentience, but is merely an emergent phenomenon of technology as an organism. Certainly bacteria does not require sentience to decompose dead animals.

3. It creates a world of confusion

Many search engines and content on the internet will be generated by AI, and some already has been. While we know how to interact with humans, our fundamental instincts will make it impossible to interact with AI and understand the information produced by it.

Soon, the internet will be filled with plausible-sounding garbage, and since there is no human motivation behind producing those falsehoods, it will be much harder to detect.

4. It is dehumanizing

In a world with AI, we will have to interact with it at every level: calling customer support, ordering food at a restaurant, and even being represented by a lawyer.

AI will directly remove human interaction from most levels of society because it is cheaper. Thus, it will be almost impossible to meet new people or to make friends, except on carefully-monitored online platforms where you exchange a few words with other humans just so you don’t starve from human contact completely.

5. It will create a dystopia

Fundamentally, humans need a purpose in life. Of course, no one wants to work a crappy job, and AI will eliminate that. But humans need to strive for something, and sometimes even a crappy job can be a stepping stone to a nice job.

Technology has already removed a fundamental need of working for our food and shelter directly, and AI will remove any last trace of that requirement. This will be especially bad for teenagers, who will not be able to find that first summer job.

6. It removes responsibility

Humans have a fundamental need to feel responsible for something. For example, I am responsible for paying my bills, and for keeping myself fed. Other people might be responsible for their children.

Do you think technology will stop at its current point? No. Soon, it will be “better” at raising children than you are, and it will become so good that it will provide for all our needs, turning us into children who can never grow up, consuming media by the day to keep ourselves from going crazy.

A lot of people think the idea of being cared for like a child and having unlimited free time is a utopia, but it is not. Once AI reaches that level, it might seem good at first but the cracks will start to show in what we have made.

People will start showing eerie symptoms of maladjustment. Our brains simply can’t cope with this illusory utopia; it is a dystopia. People will go crazy and the only remedy will be mind-altering drugs. We are like children who have not yet learned about a good diet and who have unrestricted access to the cookie jar. Yes, the cookies taste good but eating a jar every day will eventually make us fat.


AI is an offense to humanity. It is disgusting for the reasons I listed and for many more. I am appalled that technology companies and revolted by anyone who contributes one line of code to any AI system.

If we want to remain human, we should learn extremely quickly that AI is dangerous and should be destroyed. Companies like OpenAI and Microsoft and others should be banned from using advanced AI and machine learning should not be taught at universities. Companies whose only product is AI should be dismantled. The allure of playing God is too great and we need to be mature enough to recognize this.

OpenAI, the company that has developed Dall-E and ChatGPT, is one of the most dangerous companies right now. They are dangerous because they are developing new artificial intelligence programs that will significantly destroy the natural way human beings interact with each other. These programs are the start of a system that will make human beings so little reliant on each other that a new level of mental illness may spread throughout humanity.

OpenAI is developing programs that produce creative work. Their progress is impressive and it means a society where very few creative people will be able to do anything of value. It thereby also serves to concentrate most of the wealth of the world towards tech companies.

Moreover, we do not know the implications of developing such technology, and humanity is not mature enough to handle it (and we may never be). OpenAI has a charter and they claim that they want their technology to benefit all of humanity. Such thinking is highly deluded. Let us go through their charter. They say,

We are committed to doing the research required to make AGI safe, and to driving the broad adoption of such research across the AI community.

Unfortunately, making AGI (artificial general intelligence) safe is impossible. Its very existence will disrupt humanity just by its mere existence. They say,

We are concerned about late-stage AGI development becoming a competitive race without time for adequate safety precautions.

By even creating the technologies they have made, they are already starting that race. It does not even matter what safeguards they choose. Other people will not use such safeguards, and in my opinion, there is no safeguard against the threat AGI poses to humanity. (Trivial safeguards such as content filters are irrelevant to my argument about the long-term effects of AGI. They say,

To be effective at addressing AGI’s impact on society, OpenAI must be on the cutting edge of AI capabilities.

The hubris of this statement shocks me. It sounds like they want to play God. As soon as AGI becomes even more powerful, its power will be seductive and it is doubtful that anyone at OpenAI will consider the ethics when billions of dollars is at stake.

Just imagine for a second if everyone at OpenAI found a way to become rich beyond their wildest dreams (which they probably already have). Are they really going to seriously consider any argument that might indicate that AGI/AI is actually bad for us? I seriously doubt that.

In my opinion, AI research now has become even more dangerous than biological weapons, because it is a crucial part of a system that will suck us in and away from being human, and perhaps even destroy us.

Thus, OpenAI is indeed an extremely dangerous company along with any other companies or individuals who develop AI to this level. The most ideal scenario at this point would be that OpenAI and any other such company would be stopped, and such research be made illegal. Unfortunately, mental damage is much harder to gauge than physical, which is why we ban assault weapons but not AI yet.

Even if this outcome is very unlikely, I urge every reader to avoid supporting OpenAI. Do not use ChatGPT, do not use any of their current or future products, and do not buy any of their stock if they go public.

What do you think is the most dangerous thing about technology? Is it that it has the potential for mass destruction? Is it that it has the capability to create mobs of muddy-thinking malcontents much larger than ever previously known? Is it that it has given us the mechanism to pollute our entire planet?

All of these things are bad, but in my opinion they are not the worst aspect of technology. In fact, all of these things might have local solutions: international laws banning weapons, reformation of social media so that it is not so ridiculous (unlikely), or even technology to reduce and even reverse our impact on the earth.

In fact, there is something far worse about technology: it creates an environment where we are increasingly safe and physically taken care of, while at the same time it continually erodes our mental states by making us addicted drones to technology. Every step making us more firmly grasped comes with an improvement to our basic needs, so that we welcome it.

You might ask, what is so bad about being an addicted drone in the technological world? It is a world where being an individual is becoming irrelevant, and where basic human connections are harder and harder to make. And these are not independent: technology makes us less reliant on each other, and reliance is a key fundamental force that binds us into meaningful relationships.

But besides making meaningful relationships harder, technology inevitably bombards us with information, and right now it’s too much information for normal human beings to bear. Every person needs a certain amount of time to think in order to develop and reach some sort of level of life satisfaction, and the overwhelming amount of information out there is preventing that.

This cannot be solved by local solutions involving more technology. It is an intrinsic problem to technology itself. That is why I advocate eliminating as much of it from your life as you can, and at the same time, be very careful about the technology that you develop (if you happen to be creating any).

I could be wrong about technology, but I think for the most part, I am not. And if you read this blog, you might think the message is “technology is bad”, and in some cases it is.

But my real message is not that “technology is bad” but that “we should think critically about all technology”, especially since right now, the only mechanism propelling it forward is primarily capitalistic and short term gain.

Thinking critically about technology includes making personal decisions to free yourself from any technology which you consider having a net negative impact on your life. Therefore, I advocate not just words but action: the action of taking responsibility for your own life with regards to the invasion of technology.

I have to say this because I feel that in today’s society, very little weight is being given to thinking clearly. Instead, we are pressured into fitting into an ideology. I think this is a serious and dangerous mistake.

That is why I would never want to identify myself unidimensionally as left- or right-leaning. I say, take a fresh, critical look at all issues, and make sure you are looking at specific things. Never get caught up in supporting vague, general notions that mean different things to different people. And, if you are going to enter into a discussion with someone else, restrict your remarks and conversation to concepts that are both precisely-defined and agreed upon during your conversation!

Thus, returning to technology, I advocate a harshly critical view of it and to regard each piece of technology with extreme suspicion. For example, let’s say you were lost in a forest and you found a tasty-looking mushroom to eat. Wouldn’t you regard this mushroom with suspicion before eating it? Why then not regard technology, and new ideas in general, with equal suspicion?

Of course, part of the reason is that we soak up new information, probably because we are wired to hoard resources (both physical and informational). And while that was an adaptive mechanism in simpler times, it is has become partially maladaptive.

Therefore, I am not necessarily, uniformly anti-technology. I may also be wrong about some of its harms. But I am taking a critical look at it because it is a moral duty to do so. If you take such a critical stance, you will improve your existence immensely.

A frequent argument used to say that there is nothing wrong with technological development is to point to historical cases of development. “Horses were replaced by cars, and we coped with that”, is certainly something I’ve heard more than once. Or, “people of every generation complain about the weird practises of the next”. The more things change the more they stay the same.

People love to use this argument because it sounds right and perhaps on some level it is. However, using it with regard to the dangers of technology is fundamentally flawed. First, things definitely won’t always stay the same, regardless of what “things” you are considering. Our society can easily break down and we can even go extinct at some point, making life fundamentally different from before. Even if human behaviour doesn’t change, our world can get quite a lot worse.

Or consider one very dangerous technology: weapons. At some point, weapons were primitive but people kept making better ones, but all the while they were fighting just as they always did with them. But then something changed with the development of the atomic bomb: it was a weapon so powerful that after it was used twice on Japan, it was never used in combat again and hopefully never will be. Unlike every other kind of weapon that came before it, it was something of sufficient power that brought about the fundamentally-new concept of mutually assured destruction, which was never something that existed with conventional weapons.

This example shows that weapons development was not more of the same old stuff, but lead to a culmination point of something fundamentally different, something that could not have been deduced purely by analogous thinking.

We are close to reaching such a culmination point where technology will infiltrate our lives and introduce fundamentally new concepts into society that will change it forever. It is not more of the same old stuff, but something of a “critical mass” that will alter us so strongly that we may not ever be the same. This is why it is so dangerous to give into analogous thinking, because such thinking cannot reach or prepare us for such a radical change.

Furthermore, reasoning that we adapted from horses to cars isn’t very convincing either, because that stage was also crucial in bringing about the world on the brink of destruction that we have today. Without the internal combustion engine, it is unlikely we would have reached such a horrifying level of CO2 in our atmosphere.

We are going through some serious changes now, with the development of very advanced computer technology. And reasoning by analogy that we will be okay with all these changes not only is faulty and lazy reasoning, but the analogies hardly have any premise to start with because all such previous changes also caused serious detriments to humanity as well.

Of course, there is no doubt that technology has improved lives as well and made many of us more comfortable. Thus, in a future post I will treat this topic of the benefits of technology and how we can reconcile this with its dangers.

If you would like to receive occasional emails with tips about the dangers of technology, I am experimenting with a newsletter. I would not be surprised if no one subscribed because people who might be interested in combating technology might not even use email or read this website.

Nonetheless, if even one person subscribes, I will start sending out anti-technology emails. These will differ from the blog in that they will focus on tips on how to remove technology from your life. Perhaps one of those ways would even be unsubscribing from my newsletter (just joking).

Feel free to submit your email here, but you can unsubscribe using the link in the newsletter.

There are many arguments I could make against AI and advanced chat programs like ChatGPT. In some local contexts, ChatGPT is already banned. StackExchange temporarily banned it, basically because it gives plausible-sounding answers which are much too often incorrect.

In my opinion, this reason for banning it locally is irrelevant for my discussion, and is a rather superficial reason also. A far more thorough action would be destroying ChatGPT, all of the research pertaining to it, and similar AI research as well. In fact, I implore any researcher in this field to delete as much of it as possible and stop supporting this type of technology.

Why should ChatGPT be destroyed? First, it is one small step towards a system by which all of a person’s superficial survival needs are provided for by technology. The culmination or evolution of ChatGPT is a program that allows a person to get as much information as they need on any topic without the help of another human individual. This is extremely harmful, because a society in which you don’t need other people will become a society made up of extremely selfish people.

We can only function and get fulfillment out of life by helping others and forming community bonds this way. Once technology removes this need, people will become aimless and the only thing left we will do is amuse ourselves by creating even more technology.

You might argue: the internet has already allowed us to rely less on each other, and people still need each other. This is true, but it’s a very sloppy argument because the internet is just a baby step towards an extreme. It’s like saying eating one piece of cake a few times a year for birthdays is fine so it should be fine to eat an entire cake every day.

The internet has definitely made us less reliant on other specific individuals but it has not removed this reliance completely. Taken to the extreme, the evolution of ChatGPT will be part of a system that does remove this reliance completely. Of course we will still interact with others due to a basic social need, but it will be the kind of narcissistic interaction that occurs on internet forums: a mostly pseudo-anonymous interaction in which people don’t care about the welfare of anyone else.

ChatGPT is an example of a technology that mass-produces information synthesis on a scale that is hard to imagine. Our minds simply aren’t tuned to deal with such scales. It is just the start of a large development that will transform humanity for the worse.

Most researchers further knowledge simply for the sake of their intellectual amusement and also to keep their C.V.’s healthy. This approach is an efficient one for growing knowledge, but unfortunately it is hardly a good one for humanity.

Technology is very powerful, but unfortunately there are no restrictions on its development. There are restrictions and laws on researching viruses, because they have an obvious detrimental effect if they are released, either on purpose or by accident. I posit that technology can be equally dangerous, and often even more so. Thus, we should have restrictions and careful consideration before releasing it into the wild also.

Unfortunately, programs like ChatGPT are shiny and distracting, and most people think they are harmless. However, once you consider the bigger picture and what it means, it’s hard not to see how dangerous such things are.

If you are reading this and contribute in any way to AI, machine learning, ChatGPT, or other similar programs, strongly consider deleting all of your work and ceasing your contributions.