Is AI the Better Administrator?
Perhaps instead of focusing so much on AI versus HI, we should be looking for the best way to collaborate
AI has the potential to be smarter
My father used to say, "To fight, it takes two." What does this have to do with AI? Quite simply, we humans tend to overcomplicate things, including the issue of artificial intelligence. As I’ve written before, the reason we fear AI is that it might act as we do, and this will mean fighting. When humans have the opportunity, we fight, enslave, and destroy anything that isn’t as powerful as us. History has made this all too clear. And because AI has the potential to be smarter than we are, this is where the problem lies.
Where is human intelligence?
So, let’s set our emotions aside and take a clear look at the state of the world. We often speak of "AI versus human intelligence (HI)," but honestly, where exactly is the "human intelligence"? Sure, we are capable of incredible feats, but what are they truly worth if, at the same time, we are destroying the planet and are constantly at war with ourselves and with nature? Where is the intelligence when it comes to how we organize life?
Personal interest problem
One might say, wherever we go, we create a mess. Why? Because we’re the ones in charge—it's as simple as that. Perhaps letting AI take the reins of worldly affairs wouldn’t be such a bad idea. It’s not that we aren’t capable of creating the perfect organizational structures; the problem is that we ignore our own good intentions whenever they conflict with our personal interests.
Article 2(4), bureaucracy, climate change
Let’s examine this argument more closely. Take, for instance, the idea of international law to prevent war. After World War II, humanity established the United Nations to enshrine the highest forms of international law. All UN member states are legally bound by the UN Charter—a perfect framework, in theory, to prevent wars. But what’s the reality?
Article 2(4) of the UN Charter "obliges" all member nations to refrain from threatening or using force in international relations, except in cases of self-defense or with UN Security Council approval. Yet, practically every U.S. president could be considered a war criminal under this law. And it’s not just the U.S.; nearly every country has violated it. The U.S. simply stands out for repeatedly breaching this article. Now imagine an AI was in charge, guided by the UN Charter and equipped with the tools to enforce Article 2(4). This AI has no emotions, cannot be blackmailed, isn’t susceptible to corruption, and has no interest in power or money games. It would simply stop all wars—or, even better, prevent them from starting.
Or take bureaucracy. Most countries are corrupt, and even those that only experience corruption at the highest levels struggle to function well for the people. Imagine a bureaucracy free of corruption, programmed with its highest directive to serve the people.
Climate change? Instead of panicking over mathematical computer models, an AI system would stick to the facts and act accordingly.
Focus on collaboration
The problem with human decision-making is personal interest. We are all conditioned (programmed) to prioritize our families, tribes, and nations first, making global decision-making practically impossible. This is perfectly illustrated by the current political management of global crises.
I’m not saying AI is the ultimate solution. But maybe we should accept that we aren’t as intelligent as we think, and given the state of world affairs, it should be clear that the trend is actually heading toward "human stupidity."
Perhaps instead of focusing so much on AI versus HI, we should be looking for the best way to collaborate—and just leave the "Terminator" scenarios out of the equation.
If you’ve found value in this post and would like to support my work, consider making a donation. Your contribution helps me continue creating and sharing content like this. Thank you for your generosity!