A Case for Humanities in the Age of AI

America has a love affair with STEM. Not a day goes by that we don't see a news article about either the importance of STEM education or the shortage of STEM workers. While it is important to recognize that science and technology have dramatically improved lives and changed the landscape of modern workforce, I wonder whether our singleminded focus on automation and AI will lead us down a path where we're less creative, empathetic, and human as a society. After all what is it that makes humans human and machines machine? 

Recent advancements in STEM applications have been pretty incredible. Satellite imagery helps us improve modern farming, weather predictions are saving lives from natural disasters, DNA sequencing helps us understand diseases, and driverless cars will hopefully reduce traffic congestion and improve road safety. 

But how far can it go? More than a few of us have fantasized about the day when computers take over the world. What would it actually look like? I suspect it's not Skynet, but would like to imagine that there will always be things that are out of reach for computers.

I wager we're still eons away from computers being able to create the likes of Harry Potter, Shakespearean classics or the Odyssey. We're still ages away from computers being able to paint like Picasso, or da Vinci ... well maybe da Vinci since his drawings of the human body are more formulaic. A computer might be able to mimic Logic's style in music after listening to it, but it won't be the creator of that style, and it will most definitely have a hard time understanding Eminem's lyrics, lest to say coming up with them.

But there's more. Being human means we're always debating with ourselves and trying to navigate the grey areas between right and wrong. It's the sort of problem where ML training data is hard to come by, because as humans, sometimes we're not even sure of the right or wrong answer, such as the interpretation of a law, or where do we draw the line when limiting personal freedom for the good of society. That's why human societies are so colorful and varied. Without our humanistic instincts we wouldn't know that a resume sourcing model is biased against women, but as humans we can course correct. 

Computers might be able to mix flavors of your liking if they could get to the data of what tickles your tastebuds, but rest easy, New York Times and New Yorker writers, your jobs are safe. While computers can spins stories that read like a bored high school student's attempt to jam more words into his paper, it won't easily come up with creative thoughts and linguistic nuances that tickle your soul. Well, if and when it does, we're all toast.

My point is that it's a not that easy for computers to replace us. On our race to automate more of our lives, let's not lose sight of what makes us human. We need more New Yorker writers, Eminems, ethicists, philosophers and human beings that are not just trained on the ways of the machine, but also staying in touch with the things that can’t be easily replicated, things that are original, things that are neither right nor wrong, and for the most part things that are often found in the liberal arts curriculums of our college campuses, so that we can course correct and maintain a creative, compassionate, and just society. 

Knock on wood.

I work on Amazon Alexa as a software development manager working on cross-cutting experiences that will make Alexa a better and smarter personal assistant. If you're interested learning more about my team, feel free to send me an In Mail. I'm hiring experienced SDEs and a rockstar Sr. TPM.