This is a powerful and thoughtful writing — one that speaks not only to artists, but to anyone who still believes that creativity is one of the most essential parts of being human.
As I reached the end, a question quietly came to mind:
👉 In a world where AI can do almost everything —
what is the one thing humans most need to hold on to?
Allow me share another perspective that to me, answers many questions well other than the 4 perspectives.
The Bitcoin perspective / Critical Mass of Developers perspective.
OK. This is actually two perspectives.
But the second follows from the first.
1. The Bitcoin Perspective --> If people own their money, they can defund AI if they feel devalued by it.
This is a new choice humanity needs to have in its hands.
To me, the fact that governments own our money so they can print a bunch of it, give it to AI companies who will run ahead of socially approved litigation, isn't a good idea.
We're not children whose needs (like AI) and money has to be planned for by big daddy / mommy.
2. The Critical Mass of Developers.
Imagine a global society that has probably run on Bitcoin for decades.
How many top level Developers (say like Illya Sutskever or Sam Altman) will it have?
1000?
I'm thinking 1 million plus great AI Developers.
Why?
They'll be able to have this skill coz the money - Bitcoin - is a developer's protocol. Everybody will be some sort of Developer.
This is where we are going eventually and when we reach here, AI will be as threatening to our society as much as we fear PCs.
Why?
We shall be able to switch it on or off in 1000 different ways. To dull it, Amp up, tweak it, as society see fit.
Society decides.
With the only money that can work as well as a vote for the future - Bitcoin.
(All other coins and monies can be printed free of charge).
Conclusion: we're broke rn. AI is going to make us poorer if we don't switch lanes. We and the AI are doomed to collapse unless something changes.
It's going to be a painful lesson for humanity, but it must be learnt.
Thanks for your perspective. I actually talked about the possibility of AI being decentralized with my friends a couple of days ago. And I agree with many things you say.
I think your framing of Bitcoin as a vote is really compelling. Most conversations around AI governance assume that oversight has to come from governments or regulatory bodies—but that’s assuming the same actors who are bankrolling the AI arms race can also slow it down.
Your article has quite a few awesome points. I really like the Kantian perspective and the Ouroboros one. They make sense and offer interesting views on the problem.
I think AI is a wonderful invention of this century, but it has come with a big cost, and the reason is still human. I think most people who criticize AI are viewing it as an independent entity, but who we should aim our gun at is the companies who build AI in a inevitable detrimental way.
This article might speak into the air about the scary future. It's inevitable for this future problem and many countless other problems on Earth (e.g., climate change, poverty, etc.) to gradually be normalized, since that's what most humans do. We're inclined **towards** short-term benefits, as much as everybody is.
Fighting over AI companies is a repeated history of the climate pollution problem and so many other problems. It's difficult due to human nature, society factors, etc. It's heartbreaking for me to see climate change as not as critical as before, even though it's still happening drastically. That day will come for AI, I firmly believe.
If the root problem isn't addressed—humanity—AI and so many problems will continue to add up to the destruction of this society.
The internet is a free space for everyone. That's what it was created for. How great our lives have become thanks to it.
Artists post artwork to the internet and enforce their ownership by temporary measures like watermarks, etc., since they're not tech people and have to rely on self-created methods. Illegally retrieved movies are everywhere (e.g., torrent, phimmoi, etc.). People lacked the means to protect themselves and their work back then, and AI makes it more visible and worse. People even try to exploit the legal system to be able to access free resources, not just AI companies. As we can see, the problem has always been there, and it's not unfamiliar at all. It's not AI companies' responsibility to protect artists while they are posting artwork without any protection (which is weak or not efficient).
In a world where fairness is not universally practiced, it is often not the initial choice for individuals or organizations to act contrary to the norm, as this can put them at a disadvantage, especially during the early stages of development. Well-established companies are more likely to have the resources to address long-term sustainability issues (if it is not too late) once their market position is secure.
As individuals, we should seek ways to address this problem through our own initiatives (e.g., developing methods to protect copyright for creative work that individual artists can implement), in addition to protesting or influencing larger entities (drawing from the experiences of other global issues). The advancement of AI is necessary, and I believe it holds the potential for positive societal impact. As experienced human beings, we will hopefully find ways to create harmony rather than discord.
This is a powerful and thoughtful writing — one that speaks not only to artists, but to anyone who still believes that creativity is one of the most essential parts of being human.
As I reached the end, a question quietly came to mind:
👉 In a world where AI can do almost everything —
what is the one thing humans most need to hold on to?
Not to defeat AI.
But simply…
to remain BEING A HUMAN.
This is a great article Duy Le.
Allow me share another perspective that to me, answers many questions well other than the 4 perspectives.
The Bitcoin perspective / Critical Mass of Developers perspective.
OK. This is actually two perspectives.
But the second follows from the first.
1. The Bitcoin Perspective --> If people own their money, they can defund AI if they feel devalued by it.
This is a new choice humanity needs to have in its hands.
To me, the fact that governments own our money so they can print a bunch of it, give it to AI companies who will run ahead of socially approved litigation, isn't a good idea.
We're not children whose needs (like AI) and money has to be planned for by big daddy / mommy.
2. The Critical Mass of Developers.
Imagine a global society that has probably run on Bitcoin for decades.
How many top level Developers (say like Illya Sutskever or Sam Altman) will it have?
1000?
I'm thinking 1 million plus great AI Developers.
Why?
They'll be able to have this skill coz the money - Bitcoin - is a developer's protocol. Everybody will be some sort of Developer.
This is where we are going eventually and when we reach here, AI will be as threatening to our society as much as we fear PCs.
Why?
We shall be able to switch it on or off in 1000 different ways. To dull it, Amp up, tweak it, as society see fit.
Society decides.
With the only money that can work as well as a vote for the future - Bitcoin.
(All other coins and monies can be printed free of charge).
Conclusion: we're broke rn. AI is going to make us poorer if we don't switch lanes. We and the AI are doomed to collapse unless something changes.
It's going to be a painful lesson for humanity, but it must be learnt.
Thanks for your perspective. I actually talked about the possibility of AI being decentralized with my friends a couple of days ago. And I agree with many things you say.
I think your framing of Bitcoin as a vote is really compelling. Most conversations around AI governance assume that oversight has to come from governments or regulatory bodies—but that’s assuming the same actors who are bankrolling the AI arms race can also slow it down.
Which, let’s be honest, is naïve at best.
Thank you for sharing this! Explains a lot about our own doomed reality.
means a lot, thank you!
Thank you so much for this amazingly deep piece of writing. It helped me establish a philosophical ground for my stance.
glad you enjoyed it, i kinda struggled a bit thinking about this problem too so I think I might share what I'm thinking with you guys
Hi Duy Le,
Your article has quite a few awesome points. I really like the Kantian perspective and the Ouroboros one. They make sense and offer interesting views on the problem.
I think AI is a wonderful invention of this century, but it has come with a big cost, and the reason is still human. I think most people who criticize AI are viewing it as an independent entity, but who we should aim our gun at is the companies who build AI in a inevitable detrimental way.
This article might speak into the air about the scary future. It's inevitable for this future problem and many countless other problems on Earth (e.g., climate change, poverty, etc.) to gradually be normalized, since that's what most humans do. We're inclined **towards** short-term benefits, as much as everybody is.
Fighting over AI companies is a repeated history of the climate pollution problem and so many other problems. It's difficult due to human nature, society factors, etc. It's heartbreaking for me to see climate change as not as critical as before, even though it's still happening drastically. That day will come for AI, I firmly believe.
If the root problem isn't addressed—humanity—AI and so many problems will continue to add up to the destruction of this society.
The internet is a free space for everyone. That's what it was created for. How great our lives have become thanks to it.
Artists post artwork to the internet and enforce their ownership by temporary measures like watermarks, etc., since they're not tech people and have to rely on self-created methods. Illegally retrieved movies are everywhere (e.g., torrent, phimmoi, etc.). People lacked the means to protect themselves and their work back then, and AI makes it more visible and worse. People even try to exploit the legal system to be able to access free resources, not just AI companies. As we can see, the problem has always been there, and it's not unfamiliar at all. It's not AI companies' responsibility to protect artists while they are posting artwork without any protection (which is weak or not efficient).
In a world where fairness is not universally practiced, it is often not the initial choice for individuals or organizations to act contrary to the norm, as this can put them at a disadvantage, especially during the early stages of development. Well-established companies are more likely to have the resources to address long-term sustainability issues (if it is not too late) once their market position is secure.
As individuals, we should seek ways to address this problem through our own initiatives (e.g., developing methods to protect copyright for creative work that individual artists can implement), in addition to protesting or influencing larger entities (drawing from the experiences of other global issues). The advancement of AI is necessary, and I believe it holds the potential for positive societal impact. As experienced human beings, we will hopefully find ways to create harmony rather than discord.
Thank you again for such an awesome post.