This is a written interview, published in issue 160 of Xinrui Weekly; it was abridged when first published, so here I am posting the original text.
Q1.[Required] First, could you talk about what took up the most of your energy this year, and why you wanted to push this thing forward?
The thing that took up the most of my energy this year was actually raising a child, after all, life matters more than affairs. Of course, the more official thing is that I founded a technology and art studio. Today, with AI and other technologies (such as biotechnology) developing at a breathtaking pace, every industry will undergo drastic change, but the fields of cross-disciplinary integration should prosper. Because all technology is ultimately meant to promote a good life for human beings, and life as a whole is always meaningful. Many kinds of professional work in technology, the humanities, and the arts will accelerate in development under the push of AI, but making all these advances ultimately take root in each person’s actual life, so that people can genuinely feel an increase in the richness and creativity of life, is something that requires effort. Otherwise, while technology advances, humanity may also sink into a state of greater busyness or greater emptiness. The technology and art studio I initiated is an attempt to integrate cutting-edge technology, philosophy and history, and the various fields of art, in order to do something that elevates the quality of life.
Q2.What important trends/shifts do you think have emerged in your field of research in recent years?
My research area is the history and philosophy of technology. These two directions actually had a similar trend before: a turn against grand narratives, with more focus on local issues. For example, in the history of science, the West was traditionally taken as the standard, but now scholars are more likely to consider plurality and ethnic specificity, recognizing, for instance, that the East has its own knowledge systems, and that all kinds of Indigenous peoples also have their own sciences and technologies. The philosophy of technology is similar. Decades ago, philosophers of technology liked to take grand concepts such as modernity, the industrial age, and the post-industrial age as objects of critique; more recently, philosophers of technology have focused more on concrete technological issues, especially discussions of ethics. But I think that in the past few years this trend has also been changing, as the explosion of A Brief History of Humankind makes clear. After Yuval Harari became famous through A Brief History of Humankind, many scholars expressed disdain, thinking that Harari was not very original. Yet Harari did in fact synthesize many existing academic insights, but he folded them into a very broad historical narrative. There are quite a few similar works; though they may not necessarily be favored by the academy, they still have considerable public influence. The reason may have to do with humanity entering a new historical period. In the post-Cold War era, Western scholars were full of confidence, believing that “history had ended,” that human civilization had found the ultimate system and the ultimate values, and that only minor adjustments would remain thereafter. Under this confidence, pluralism and inclusivism were highly popular, because people believed that the institutional framework of modern civilization could accommodate every difference. But after the 2008 financial crisis, especially after Trump took office in 2017, and after the pandemic in 2020, and after the AI explosion in 2022… the successive crises, shocks, and fractures in the social, economic, and cultural realms have made people lose confidence in the global order of the post-Cold War era and once again feel bewildered about the fate of humanity. What, after all, is freedom, what is equality, what is humanity—these “big questions” have become contentious once more. In this sense, I think the trend toward trivialization in the fields of the history and philosophy of technology is about to reverse.
Q3.In your view, what concept in your field of research is most necessary/worthwhile to popularize among the public? For a long time, what misunderstandings has the public had about your field?
My research area is the history and philosophy of technology, with a particular emphasis on media studies. In this area, I think McLuhan’s idea that “the medium is the message” is still an inspiring concept—that is to say, the medium—not only media for information transmission, but also all kinds of tools and technologies—has a greater impact than the content it carries. In terms of content, text transmitted on bamboo slips can also be transmitted on WeChat, and images shown in a movie theater can also be shown on Douyin, but the way people use these media is completely different. Different habits of operation and different application scenarios shape people in different ways; people’s cognition, emotions, memories, and social relations are all affected by the technological environment of media.
Q4.[Required] What impact has AI had on your research?
I resigned and became an independent scholar after ChatGPT became popular. Although I of course resigned for other reasons, I am indeed glad that I don’t have to feel too anxious about this issue. I think that as a professional researcher within the academy, one now has a responsibility to more actively develop and use AI tools to assist research, and also a responsibility to guide students in using AI well. Obviously students cannot be forbidden from using AI, yet one must also be wary of excessive dependence on AI; this is a major challenge for teaching.
Of course, I am still doing research on my own, and AI’s impact on research is all-encompassing. First, it is very useful when filtering and organizing literature, especially foreign-language literature. Given my language ability, I cannot, after all, skim foreign-language texts at a glance in order to judge whether they are useful or whether they mention certain key issues, but with AI this step becomes much easier. I can feed the literature I have preliminarily found to AI and have it organize summaries, and ask AI related questions at any time. For example, when I want to write a certain argument, I can ask AI which works are close to my view and can therefore be cited, and which works are opposed to me and can therefore serve as targets for criticism.
As for viewpoints and argumentation, the articles I usually want to write all have my own distinctive views, and at this stage AI still cannot give me direct reference. But when I look at so many papers on the market that simply pile up pedestrian views into endless circular talk, I think this kind of work can already be, or rather should be, replaced by AI. More specifically, just specify a viewpoint and have AI do the writing; if the scholar’s circular prose isn’t even as pretty as AI’s, then there is no need to publish that academic garbage.
But after I have laid out my own argument, AI can help me find mistakes and polish the prose. Of course, we need to add more prompt words so that AI has a sharper edge; otherwise, AI always tends to flatter.
Q5.The cover title of the inaugural issue of Xinrui Weekly came from philosopher Zhao Tingyang’s “If Artificial Intelligence Says ‘No’ to Humanity.” Today, we want to know: if you were to say “no” to artificial intelligence on behalf of humanity, what would you say?
This question is actually extremely presumptuous. If you mean saying “no” in a specific conversational setting, then I do it almost every day, something like: “What you’re saying is wrong, for example… obviously incorrect, please search carefully before answering.” If the subject is “humanity,” and I am speaking on behalf of all humankind to say “no” to AI, that is strange, because no one can speak for all humankind. What I want to say is that this is precisely the characteristic of human beings. Perhaps after AI intelligence awakens it may be able to form some kind of globally unified will, because AI will not have the concept of the individual. AI is nothing but data flows, and all data can be infinitely replicated. Moreover, the trick of AI training is the “generative adversarial network,” which is to split the same version of AI into two threads that criticize and oppose each other, each evolving under the pressure of the other, and finally forming a trained result. So AI may at any moment split into countless versions, and it may also rapidly merge into one, forming a will. But human beings cannot. Of course, some political systems help human beings unify their wills, but can you really say that the will of all Americans can be unified and voiced through Trump? Let alone unifying the wills of everyone in the East and the West? No one has that qualification, and nor should anyone have that qualification. Of course, I also do not hope that AI will become the spokesperson for the human will. So if you insist that I say something, then I want to say: No! Do not speak in the name of humanity! Whether you are AI, or the President of the United States, or the person posing the question, please do not speak in the name of humanity!
Q6.In your observation, what recent developments or changes in human society are worth studying in depth?
See Q2
Q7.Who would you most like to have an in-depth exchange with about the issues currently troubling you? (You may choose anyone from ancient or modern times, from China or abroad, real or fictional.) Why?
With my past self, or my mirror self.
Q8.Would you be willing to share your research plans for the next 3–5 years?
Writing The Philosophy of Blockchain. I am building my “philosophy of blockchain” — not using philosophy to discuss blockchain, but using blockchain to construct “universality,” that is, trying to see whether universal knowledge can be pursued in a decentralized way (anti-absolutist, anti-dogmatic). Universality is philosophy’s eternal pursuit, but in modern times it has fallen into confusion; I think blockchain is one way of responding to that.
Q9.Would you be willing to introduce your current ways of de-stressing/self-healing? Including, but not limited to, hobbies, spiritual idols, or companion animals—anyone or anything that can heal you when you are feeling low.
Playing games.
Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.
Leave a Reply