While some see it this way, some are jumping off the cliff as the only way to embrace what seems unavoidable. Perhaps the scary precipice isn't that deep? Maybe the fog hides an ocean of opportunities? What to believe when what is at stake is the thing we know for certain? A dilemma, that is, one imbued by strong feelings either way.
The third perspective
The dilemma is unsolvable given both perspectives: on one side, the threats to our current ways of doing and living far outweigh any benefits that it might bring; on the other side, the opportunities for meaningful changes are here to be explored and, eventually, conquered.
This is not but a rather fragile landscape, asymmetric in terms of investments, left open for polarization. In this increasing tension space, some ran along the edge and accidentally looked into the precipice and its apparent depth, the “disillusioned" I talked about in my previous article.
But the precipice isn't what it seems, it is a yet-undecided amorphic space, more than limited to two opposing states. We need to go beyond simplistic dualism. We need to increase diversity. We need a third perspective.
“The world is in fact cursed. What the world being cursed does mean is that you can't just blame one side, [...] you can't just idealize the other because even the victimizer is a victim and even the victim is a victimizer.
The world is cursed –it is bounded to change, with unforeseeable consequences. The precipice has always been there. The dilemma is not one to be solved, but one to be sidestepped and, eventually, dissolved.
How? The third perspective is not necessarily a space of reconciliation and peace –convergence between two sides– but first and foremost one of liminality. Liminal spaces can hold several, possibly contradicting, truths. In my previous article, I discussed Deleuze's philosophy and his work with Guattari on Schizoanalysis. Similarly, the third perspective is a process of navigating different territories and making novel connections.
Embracing the unavoidable
Previously, I discussed the sentiment that we (as designers) paved the way for our own downfall and why, while the sentiment is understandable, it is also overly simplistic and says little to the whole story.
Similarly, embracing fully the opposite view isn't exempt from issues. Very much like the wave of criticisms against some of our tools for being a doorstep to our replacement by AI tools imposes us to look at the kind of patterns at play, so embracing AI thoughtlessly because it is "unavoidable" is overly reductive. Allow me to bring an example as a case for discussion.
This post is for subscribers only
Sign up now to read the post and get access to the full library of posts for subscribers only.