The World We Want to Live in: Compendium of Digitalisation, Digital Networks, and Artificial Intelligence

Abstract

The World We Want to Live In establish a positive coexistence with beings whose intelligence is greater than our own" (Barrat, 2013, p. 267). Barrat has had an unusual impact with his 2013 book 'The Last Invention' , which was one of the triggers for Elon Musk's decision to found Neuralink in 2016, which is expected to build human-machine interface prototypes this year (2021) after a successful trial with a macaque monkey (Musk, 2021;Kelly, 2021). According to Elon Musk, one goal of founding Neuralink is to arm humanity through a symbiotic relationship with digital technology to counter future successful attacks by hostile and powerful AI (Hamilton, 2019).But even if this is classified as science fiction, since reaching the innovation threshold of the technological singularity is highly controversial in terms of the likelihood of its occurrence (from "in a few years" to "never"), there are numerous challenges that the advanced digital developments pose for our daily life. Especially since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic most voices suggest that there is no alternative to the recent technology path.An example of the danger that has been growing for the past few years is the consideration of "The Great Reset": a digital "Singaporeisation" of western democracies, i.e. the destruction of open societies through rampant prohibition policies that pretend to be necessary to implement the UN Sustainable Development Goals or the Paris Climate Agreement (SDG 2030, Schwab / Mallert, 2020, WEF, 2020. Good intentions are suggested here (e.g. closing the digital divide, climate protection, diversity). However, the policies proposed are a nightmare smoothie of "1984" and "Brave New World" that would lead to digitally controlled autocratic regimes. These attempts are flanked by illiberal identity policies (cf. Fourest, 2020, Kastner / Susemichel, 2020, Wagenknecht, 2021), that are supposed to define "right action, right speech and right thinking" even in democratic, open societies. Compliance with these is to be digitally monitored and sanctioned in a variety of ways (e.g., higher health insurance contributions for people without smart fitness bracelets). However, such a system would mean that "transparent" people would potentially be constantly monitored in a digital panopticon to see whether they are behaving correctly and appropriately (cf. Chapter 1).On the other hand, digital technologies have become indispensable tools of everyday life for most people around the world and are extremely useful in many ways: they simplify and speed up many tasks, connect people, reduce dangers, create convenience, are fun, and save lives. This makes them an enrichment of human life, especially when they are used for the common good. Fundamental criticism is counterproductive in view of the broad enthusiasm of most people worldwide for their digital access and the vehement demands of those who do not have (sufficient) access and want it. It is us, as citizens, workers, learners, consumers, or patients, who demand barrier-free access to m...