In 1968, a singer named France Gall performed a song titled, Der Computer Nr 3 (Computer No 3). One could argue that the lyrics to the song are more relevant today than when she first ye-ye’d them on German television to a confused audience. During the same timeframe of the headiness of the ‘60s, Andy Warhol, famous for his 1967 Marilyn Monroe screen print which is still referenced today in advertising campaigns borrowing from the Pop Art movement, predicted, "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." The brave new world Gall and Warhol prophesied over half a century ago is well and truly upon us. The question arises: As the nature of AI evolves, will Human Nature follow or lead?
In an attempt to better understand the question above, and in the absence of being able to answer it just yet, a closer look at the book, The Chomsky-Foucault Debate on Human Nature (with a foreword by John Rajchman) is helpful. The book being referenced here is the paperback transcript of a 1971 televised debate between the two formidable intellectuals. This book review aims to glean lessons on Human Nature from the book format of the debate in light of the amorphous times we live in with discussions on AI capturing our collective imaginations.
John Rajchman opens his foreword with, “The initial exchange took place in Holland in November 1971. Noam Chomsky spoke in English, Michel Foucault in French, with the results broadcast on Dutch television.” The transnational world is not an invention of the 21st Century; forgetting history does not alleviate us from reliving it. This big little book stands testament to the miracles of the technology of over half a century ago. One may marvel at the progress, or lament all that has been sacrificed at the altar of technological advancement. Either way, ignoring the zeitgeist doesn’t appear to be an option.
The debate between Chomsky and Foucault was moderated by philosopher Fons Elders. He frames his first question to Noam Chomsky as follows: “So my first question is to you, Mr Chomsky, because you often employ the concept of human nature, in which connection you even use terms like ‘innate ideas’ and ‘innate structures.’ Which arguments can you derive from linguistics to give such a central position to this concept of human nature?”
In opening the floor to Chomsky, Elders sets the tone for the entire debate by way of framing it’s opening exposition in a “what” question, as opposed to the “why” question the late, great, Foucault appears to ask in his works; works still available to the curious minded of our times.
To answer the opening question, Chomsky offers insight from his field, Linguistics, “…The child must begin with the knowledge that he’s hearing English or Dutch or French or something else, but he does start with the knowledge that he’s hearing a human language of a very narrow and explicit type, that permits a very small range of variation… I would claim then that this instinctive knowledge… on the basis of very partial data, is one fundamental constituent of human nature… And I assume that in other domains of human intelligence…something of the same sort must be true…. This collection (of) innate organising principles, which guides our social and intellectual and individual behaviour, that’s what I mean to refer to by the concept of human nature.”
One may deduce that the crux of human nature in this line of reasoning is the human ability for language. This is interesting to note because the current kerfuffle around generative AI’s ability to not just mimic but even improve upon the human facility for language is what is giving sleepless nights to poets and teachers at one end of the spectrum and business heads at the other.
When the floor opens to Foucault, he asserts that he has a “mistrust” of the notion of human nature. In his own words, “I would say that the notion of life is not a scientific concept… In the history of knowledge, the notion of human nature seems to me mainly to have played the role of an epistemological indicator to designate certain types of discourse in relation to or in opposition to theology or biology or history. I would find it difficult to see in this a scientific concept.”
This reviewer’s (certainly limited) understanding of what Foucault’s answer means is that the argument for human nature is a proxy for discussing abstract concepts, while (one infers from Foucault’s life’s work) the actual scientific answers lie in dissecting structures of power like state institutions. To connect this to our current times, this book seems to speak from the past to tell us that today’s binary of AI versus Human Intelligence would be better framed as a binary between organised institutions and independent actors. If one were to link back to the AI question, the companies at the vanguard of furthering AI are no less exerting coercive power on the common employee than the state exerts on the common civic rebel with a cause. It is not difficult to predict which way the wind is blowing.
In another excerpt from the debate, Chomsky asserts, “Can we explain in biological terms, ultimately in physical terms, these properties of both acquiring knowledge in the first place and making use of it in the second? I really see no reason to believe that we can; it is an article of faith on the part of the scientists that since science has explained many other things it will also explain this.”
Connecting this to present debates around Generative AI’s eventual ability to “think,” one may find in Chomsky’s answer a hope that there is in fact an elusive human nature that distinguishes human output from, for the lack of better words, the mechanised churnings of AI cogs.
Foucault’s role in the debate is to firmly and vociferously fight his corner of an arguably more glamorous political nature, “… I have in appearance at least, a completely different attitude to Mr Chomsky apropos creativity, because for me it is a matter of effacing the dilemma of the knowing subject, while for him it is a matter of allowing the dilemma of the speaking subject, to reappear.”
To connect the quote above to the question at hand regarding whether human nature can outwit the potentially infinite power of AI, reading into Foucault may give us a perspective that is far more foreboding and gloomy than Chomsky’s optimistic outlook and belief in the specialness of human intelligence.
Towards its conclusion, the debate meanders from the question of human nature to the question of Justice. Here, there is a timeless and relevant exchange between the two opposing parties:
Foucault: “So it is in the name of a purer justice that you criticise the functioning of justice?”
Chomsky: “… to imagine and move towards the creation of a better society and also a better system of justice.”
Foucault (in response): “One makes war to win, not because it is just.”
Just as the digital landscape evolves to win, not because it is just. One is reminded of Sun Tzu’s The Art of War.
The question of whether human nature does in fact exist is for philosophers and academics to argue. The question of whether AI will outwit HI (human intelligence) is for engineers to dither over. For the common reader with everyday concerns, this book offers hope that the world being shaped is not entirely alien; that a read through history’s archives will reveal that the world has always been spinning forward on its technological axis, from the original wheel to the wheel of EVs (Electronic Vehicles).
To end, here’s an open question: when the flying cars do arrive, will the car be more stressed out about getting to the meeting on time than the human in it?
Because if so, that’s perhaps a fair exchange!
Ella Hussain studied history and politics at University of Warwick, and has worked in the fields of TV, advertising and publishing
All facts and information are the sole property of the writer