AI and Human Responsibility

As we move further into a world in which artificial intelligence is a part of everyday life, we must consider the psychological effects this technology is having on us individually and collectively. We have to keep asking ourselves what we want this technology to be, how we want to shape it and how we are willing to be shaped by it. 

There is a fight going on currently between the United States government and Anthropic, one of the major AI tech companies. Though the debate centers on the government's ability to use Anthropics AI technology in its military operations, the outcome of this fight will have major implications for the relationship between humanity and artificial intelligence. 

There is a contingency within the government that wants to fast-track the implementation of AI into military operations. This contingency, made up of government officials and military officers, view AI as a way to more effectively deliver violence. Such thinking reveals an underlying belief in the inevitability of violence, and perhaps in their mind, the worthwhileness of violence as an objective. 

The military, like other organizations grappling with AI, must give significant thought to the potential human cost of developing AI without regard for the psychological effects this technology is having on individuals and communities. Some people think AI is dangerous, and this view may be justified as there does appear to be a dark and destructive vision of AI forming in some segments of the government. Military officials who support this vision view AI as a tool that can enhance and augment the ability to inflict mass destruction without being hampered by ideological constraints.

I’m struck by that phrasing—without ideological constraints—struck by how disingenuous they are. Ideologies are simply systems of ideas, they are a specific manner of thinking, and even the most vague and ill-defined patterns of thought can represent some form of them.

The dream of an AI that allows someone to operate without ideological constraint is a contradiction that doubles as an admission of a specific kind of ideology, one whose guiding principle is action without inhibition. If used in this way, AI will become a tool that further cements a pattern of relating amongst groups that hinges on their being a dominant and a subordinate party. This inevitably leads to more conflict and turns any notion of AI being able to usher in a new era of prosperity and flourishing into nothing more than a clever marketing ploy. 

When it comes to the debate over the use of AI in the military, two camps seem to be emerging, which I will respectively call the functionalists and the aggressionists.

Functionalists seem to advocate for AI that can reduce the cognitive load placed on military servicemen so that they can focus on tasks that are more central to their missions. Functionalists believe that human operators should still be the ones making crucial decisions. 

Aggressionists share some of the same goals as the functionalists, but they are also more bold in their ambitions. This group is more likely to view the development of AI as a new Manhattan Project. Beyond improved functionality, what they are most concerned about is winning what they believe is the new global arms race, with AI as the deciding factor. 

Thus far the aggressionist viewpoint seems to be winning out. The powers of the judiciary are currently being turned on Anthropic and used as leverage in their dispute with the government. Vague and innocuous phrases like “supply chain risk” are being used to brand Anthropic as a serious threat to national security. It is difficult to make the CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation into a sympathetic figure, but that’s the point we’ve somehow arrived at in this saga. 

The view that unfettered access to AI is crucial to military success is complicated by the fact that success is being defined as the ability to create lethal effects at scale. We should all be leery of following such logic.

AI should be developed in ways that serve the interests of humanity and produce the most positive good. Such outcomes are only possible if we advance beyond narrowly thinking about AI only in terms of military power. 

Denial & the Drain of the Everyday

There are many things in life one could rightly consider boring and inane, and all of these things, broadly speaking, can be categorized as doing the laundry. 

Exercise. Budgeting. Studying. Difficult conversations. Together they make up the minutiae of life, and people are loath to do them sometimes. Not because they are painful, but rather, because they are unpleasant, and it is upon discovering the many variations of displeasure that arise in day-to-day life, that denial steps in to serve a greater function. 

Denial is a psychological defense mechanism, the core function of which is not only to protect the mind from threats (pain), but also to preserve one’s relationship to pleasure, which if we had it our way, would be unceasing and constant. Human beings are incredibly attuned to good feelings and just as sensitive to any marker of their absence. 

The mind seems to have a way of guiding individuals away from inner turmoil and conflict. Away from the small tasks that compromise them by becoming a significant drain on their energy and time. This is what denial is really a defense against, not the simple act of folding clothes, but the greater threat it represents by encroaching on human finitude. 

What is Denial?

It is a refusal to accept facts which are as incontrovertible as they are inconvenient. It is not the surface reality that is difficult to tolerate, but the awareness of the underlying meaning of investing precious resources into things one does not really care about. 

Denial is mostly an unconscious process that people are not aware of, especially not in the moment it is employed. Freud called it the “ostrich policy” invoking the image of the animal sticking its head in the ground to avoid what threatens it. Which is what denial is tantamount to, sticking one’s head in the ground to avoid distressing reality. Doing so can be necessary and protective at times, but it can also hinder growth and development. 

How Denial Works 

Imagine a person who is at risk of losing someone close to them, such as an aging parent. They love this person and cannot imagine living in a world without them. The thought of it is simply too severe, and rather than allow oneself to be overwhelmed, the psyche kicks in and activates the defense of denial. 

Thoughts of one’s parent miraculously recovering or being saved by some miracle treatment occur, and if not that then by the sheer force of their will to survive, and if not that, then finally by some sort of divine intervention.  

In such scenarios these outcomes are unlikely if not impossible, but the psyche produces them in order to provide relief and protection from feelings of fear and authenticity. This response can be adaptive or maladaptive depending on the context. 

Common Types

Denial can manifest in different ways and should be judged accordingly based on how it is categorized. 

Simple denial is the most straightforward type, which is characterized by direct denial of reality. It is a simple refusal to believe what has happened, has really happened. 

A close companion of this simple denial is minimization, which involves a partial admission of the truth but stops short of full recognition by downplaying the significance of what has occurred. This partial admission of the truth makes minimization the most difficult type of denial to identify because it easily passes for honesty. 

The next type is not always thought of as a form of denial but it is one. It is projection, which occurs when you attribute unacceptable feelings or impulses to others. When one is criticized or held at fault for something they’ve done, rather than be accountable, they may accuse someone else of doing the exact thing they are guilty of. 

And of course there is avoidance, the type of denial that most people are familiar with. It involves the subtle unconscious choice to avoid all together anything and everything that could leave you feeling exposed. Avoidance stands in direct opposition to reality and truth. 

Denial in Everyday Life 

Despite occasionally producing a positive outcome, on the whole denial has a negative effect on multiple areas of life. People suffer personally, socially, physically, and spiritually when they live in denial. They turn a blind eye to the warning signs that trouble is on the horizon and do nothing to stop it. They miss out on some of the most meaningful and rewarding aspects of life. In this regard, denial ceases to be a form of protection and becomes a barricade between who someone is and who they could become. 

Working Through 

The question of how to work through denial is really the question of how one tolerates and eventually works through pain. 

Practicing self-compassion is necessary in order to do this. When someone makes a mistake or doesn’t live up to their standards, the temptation is to avoid the painful uncomfortable feelings that come with this reality. Self-compassion is an antidote to such avoidance. 

Writing is a practical way of employing it. Reflecting on what was done and getting all of one’s thoughts and feelings, whether good or bad, out on the page, can help to tolerate them. It allows for working through them. 

If the issue is that someone denies their feelings by unnecessarily courting conflict, the solution is to slow down and direct their skepticism towards the sudden urge they have to fight or argue. 

To push themselves to have open conversations instead, and in doing so, acknowledge how difficult it is to admit one’s wrongs, not only to others but also to themselves. Dealing with the difficult is how one becomes more courageous than they imagine they are. 

Final Thoughts 

Though ineffective, denial is not a flaw. It is a necessary defense at times. It is a natural part of psychic life. Not one that should be employed without discretion–there are times when the use of denial as a defense mechanism is what must in fact be denied.

It is important to be aware and take stock of where denial shows up in one’s life, and what thoughts and feelings lie just beyond it, which is how a person can locate, find, and face whatever it is that denial is protecting them from.

Is Mental Health a Matter of Alignment?

A mentor taught me a simple definition of mental health. They taught me that mental health is when your head, heart, and mouth are in a straight line. The work that we all must do in life, the work that the existential therapist is particularly concerned with, is trying to help people create this kind of alignment in their lives. 

Many of our problems stem from being out of alignment. Our heads (thoughts) reflect one reality while our hearts (emotions) or our mouths (words and actions) reflect another. This misalignment creates internal turmoil and confusion. It makes it difficult to consistently show up as one’s best self and to act with integrity. And integrity is a necessary part of mental health–it is both a product of good mental health as well as a contributor to it. 

We use our values to measure whether or not we are living with integrity and to guide us towards alignment, but it is difficult to stay there because of our tendency to focus on things that do not matter and things that we have no control over. The frequency with which these two categories are synonymous with one another is not a coincidence. 

When mental health begins to worsen, one of the first things to do is examine if somewhere, somehow our lives have gotten out of alignment.