This blog post discusses Yuval Noah Harari’s argument and explores the possibility of algorithms dominating humanity from various perspectives. Could this claim become reality?
Author Yuval Noah Harari chose a structure for his book that begins in the future, returns to the past, and then concludes back in the future. He presents the emerging problems of a new humanity at the book’s outset, then traces human history from the past. He concludes by raising new problems for the future, distinct from those of the past. Among his various predictions for the future, one is domination by algorithms. The book argues that organisms, including humans, are ultimately algorithms themselves. It suggests that future technological advancements, such as artificial intelligence, could lead to the development of algorithms surpassing humans, potentially resulting in humanity being dominated by them. So, will humanity truly be dominated by higher-level algorithms in the future? While many share the author’s perspective, this article opposes that view. This article focuses particularly on Chapter 9 of the book to explore this discussion.
First, to discuss this topic, we must begin by defining the word ‘domination’. While not attempting a subjective definition, the dictionary definition states it means ‘to rule by making a person, group, organization, or object submit to one’s will’. That is, for algorithms to dominate humanity implies that humanity submits to the algorithms’ will and follows it. The book mentions several examples hinting at such a future, and we must first examine these examples closely.
First, the claim that humans become obsolete. It suggests that humans are losing their economic and military utility, leading to a decline in human value. This argument appears largely sound. Indeed, military equipment like the unmanned drones cited in the book is reducing the need for humans. Human soldiers are gradually being replaced by automated systems. Similarly, in the economic sphere, numerous jobs are being replaced by systems, and it is anticipated that human value will decline. This argument seems plausible. Indeed, the number of soldiers and jobs is decreasing, and human occupations are being replaced by machines. But does the reduction in jobs diminish human value and lead to a future dominated by algorithms? In fact, the phenomenon of machines reducing jobs is not a recent problem. It has existed since the Industrial Revolution. Indeed, the Industrial Revolution brought about productivity innovations, and farmers lost their jobs. Factory workers were also replaced by machines. In the early 19th century, the Luddite movement even emerged, destroying spinning machines because they were seen as stealing jobs. In other words, the phenomenon of machines taking jobs and the fear surrounding it are not recent stories; they have existed for over a century. But did the Industrial Revolution diminish humanity’s value? Is humanity under the domination of machines? No, it did not. Of course, past situations and future scenarios may differ, and some actual differences will exist. Yet, at least the historical facts thus far show that new technology does not necessarily bring humanity a dark future. In fact, this book mentions job reductions, suggesting professions like lawyers or doctors might disappear. However, this carries a different meaning than diminishing human value or being dominated by algorithms.
Continuing to review the book’s content, the next points mentioned are people’s voluntary disclosure of personal information, algorithmic decision-making based on such data, and the passive human decision-making involved in this process. For example, Angelina Jolie learned through an algorithm that she had a high probability of developing breast cancer. To be precise, this is a medical technology utilizing genetic information. Based on this information, Jolie decided to undergo a preventive mastectomy. Many people attached great significance to this decision, viewing it as evidence that algorithms are beginning to influence human decision-making. The improvement in disease treatment capabilities through technological advancement is a positive development. However, whether this particular incident carries such profound significance warrants deeper consideration. This approach to using technology to inform decisions is not fundamentally different from previous methods. In some respects, it may even be an improvement over the past. For example, people are told that drinking alcohol is unhealthy and should be avoided. If someone hears this advice and cuts back on drinking, does that mean they’ve handed over their decision-making power to others and blindly followed that opinion? No. People make decisions by synthesizing various pieces of information. From this perspective, Jolie made her decision based on objective information presented by the latest technology. Personally, I don’t quite understand why this is seen as a symbolic event marking the gateway to algorithms dominating humanity.
Another example concerns marriage. Suppose someone asks Google for advice about their date. Google provides a conclusion based on existing data. If that person follows this decision, it might superficially appear they’ve handed over their decision-making power to Google. Yet this phenomenon is already commonplace. Seeking opinions on dating from friends or a matchmaking service is perfectly natural. The difference between asking one’s parents for marriage advice and asking an algorithm is merely whether the source is human or machine. From this perspective, algorithms can even offer advantages, as they provide the most accurate answers based on objective data. People rely on various external factors when making decisions. So why does this book react so sensitively only to algorithms? I believe one reason is that algorithms are treated almost like religions or superstitions of the past. It stems from the idea that people will follow algorithms just as they once believed in gods, unquestioningly obeyed them, and blindly followed what was written in the Bible. However, this is a profoundly mistaken notion. Algorithms are products of advanced science and represent decision-making systems that make judgments based on clear, scientific, and objective processes and evidence. If we must draw a comparison, algorithms are more appropriately likened to scientific formulas. For instance, constructing a building mobilizes various scientific knowledge. Scientific knowledge is applied in material selection, structural composition, and design. For instance, formulas are used to determine the required thickness of columns to prevent collapse. In such situations, can we say that using formulas to derive answers means we are dominated by them? No. Algorithms are the same. They merely derive answers through objective processes based on input data. Algorithms are not baseless superstitions but scientific and logical systems. If following an algorithm’s decision equates to being dominated by it, then we must also say we are dominated by the great scientists of the past—figures like Newton, Einstein, and Darwin. It implies we could be dismissed as people without decision-making power, blindly following equations of motion to construct mechanical formulas. The most significant problem from this book’s perspective stems from viewing algorithms as baseless superstitions rather than scientific theories.
If we carefully consider the statement “Humanity will be dominated by algorithms,” it implicitly assumes that humanity is not yet dominated. As if humanity still fully possesses its self-determination. Yet, upon reflection, this too is a mistaken notion. Humans always make decisions influenced by others. Media and education instill specific ways of thinking in people, and humans unconsciously follow these instilled beliefs. For example, the perception that students must study hard to get into college is widespread, and many people accept this, striving to attend university. This phenomenon already demonstrates that humanity makes decisions based on certain influences. Conventions and laws that shape the world govern humanity. As algorithms advance, they will take this place. There could even be positive aspects. This is because algorithms will influence decision-making based on precise evidence. For instance, in the university example above, if an algorithm revealed that pursuing a different career path would be more beneficial than attending university, that student could break free from past conventions and make a better decision thanks to the algorithm.
In fact, entrusting decision-making to algorithms might not be such a significant threat. As mentioned earlier, algorithms are not baseless superstitions but the culmination of the latest scientific knowledge. In other words, they are entities capable of making the most objective judgments. How likely is it that such an entity would make an irrational decision? If problems arise in an algorithm’s decision-making process, it is highly probable that someone maliciously injected incorrect information into the algorithm. In other words, the problem lies not with the algorithm itself, but with the forces seeking to exploit it—forces that are most likely human. Strictly speaking, an algorithm merely processes input to produce an output; the entity that selects that output and can cause harm is human. Yet this book seems to ignore this point, pushing an argument that blames all problems on algorithms. Let me emphasize again: it is humans who use algorithms.
