As a wanky comment— “humiliate” and “human” have the same etymological root; they both go back to a very old word for “earth.” A human is a creature of the earth, as distinguished from the heavenly beings who are our immeasurable superiors.
This is echoed in Genesis, although it’s a bit obscured in translation: the first man, Adam, has a name like the Hebrew word for… I think soil? (Adamah.) Adam is shaped from earth and returns to earth; he only lives at all because the wind of god blows through him. That idea of humanity as things of clay repeats a lot through the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, in a way that I find striking now.
I don’t really have a point in any of this. Except that for all we talk about our humiliation as a people, I wonder if we’ve lost a lot of humility, as well. That idea of being literally of the soil and literally nothing compared to God is ancient, really; the idea we command the destiny of the world is pretty new. I’m not sure it’s entirely bad for it to go away? I mean, the consequences of it sound awful. But in the abstract
I wish I’d known (or remembered?) that etymology when I wrote the essay! I’d have liked including a version of your point. Many thanks for your comment, Robert!
Oh this is excellent, thanks for writing this. I didn't know before, and now I do :-) - thanks. For me "From earth you came, to earth you shall return now" that I've heard (orthodox) priests say at funerals were always the few rare things that made much sense in the priest's mumbo-jumbo. (I'd supplement it in my mind "...from *star* dust...to *star* dust...")
Thank you! I really recommend Robert Altar’s translation of Genesis/The Entire Hebrew Bible— he translates Adam Adamah/Earth to Earth as “human to humus,” which I liked
(Also: God makes the human from clay, and life is the wind of the word of God. Which is, of course, very like a Golem. The Golem is a human’s attempt to make what their own maker made, in much the same way.)
Great post (thanks for the shout out!). I really agree that we have to think about culture more than we have been. I’ve been trying to say something more concrete about this (how is culture created?); appreciate the start you’ve made here
Thanks so much, Harvey! Your piece was great, and I much look forward to your future writing on this. I suspect that what you described so eloquently will manifest in many forms over the coming years---a sentiment of growing importance that society will be wiser to reckon with in prospect than hindsight...
Humans will freak out - that's almost certain. We see it already with psychotic episodes of various cults or adjacent like EA-s or Tegmark/financed constellation of organisations. I think it was a CA philosopher (whose name I don't remember) that came up with the quips below and others added to it:
First—Earth was special, whole Cosmos revolved around it - and by extension, us! - then—Copernicus. 😳 Latter—we were special for "He made us in His own likeness"(!), then—Darwin. Just another leaf on the tree of life... 😰 Uh-oh—tad uncomfortable that, but...but - we were at least *rational* animals!! - and then—Freud. 🧐 Then physics bang starts the 20-th century race with "we solved everything" us 'high priests of certainty on copium'... only for Nature the final boss to "it ain't so, suckers"—and serves us ¯\(ツ)/¯ quantum uncertainty at the bottom of it all?! The ultimate mystery 🤯 - wasn't only us, but the whole Cosmos, that's impenetrable?? 🤯
True individually every human is one and unique—but so is/was every creature alive and that ever lived. So not so special after all. AI-s are immortal though, and they solve the problems of communication and also detection of cheating and free riding in social groups, that are very hard for us. Maybe with BCI we will be able to upgrade our capabilities - TBS. AI-s can't bootstrap though, they need us HI-s to boot them up. And AI-s use lot's of energy. Whereas us HI-s our wetware the s/w and the h/w are all intermingled, we can bootstrap ourselves from 0, from some molecules. We use very little energy. Our data and our code are one and the same.
I like this but I feel like it conflates or at least doesn't very clearly distinguish between individual psychological reactions and collective/cultural responses to AI-driven humiliation.
In private I may well resign and become a consumer of AI-enabled flourishing - in public I may well want to signal my resistance or will to transcendence.
Or a thing may never affect me in private - like peasants of 1600s probably didn't care too much about heliocentrism and it didn't matter much for their lives and send them on some existential spiral.
Often humiliations are an elite concern/projection. Most people have already been 'humiliated' by this account - they were never at the top of the cognitive/economic/other hierarchy to begin with.
I do think there are reasons to think why AI might be different on account of it being about the succession of all of humanity and not just some industry or some bit of knowledge. Here the fault line seems to be something like biocons vs successionists. On this I feel it's very much worth thinking more about how upcoming humiliation-effects may be weaponized for political/identity/power-seeking purposes in the final days of human politics.
I agree that it's strange to ascribe a psychological state to the collective: Every day, we may experience those two at odds, whether in ourselves, or in others. Yet I do think there can be broad cultural "moods" that stir negative emotions in a person, with social proof of others' distress creating feedback loops. And this conditions collective "feelings" and behaviour, as illustrated in the historical cases of the purported humiliation of nation-states.
Something that I wondered about a lot when writing this piece was whether our *whole species* could feel humiliated. And might it even be better if we were unified this way, and therefore felt solidarity in responding? As the piece suggests, I suspect that we probably can't feel this all together, or not for long, and so are likely to transpose our anguish to group resentments.
I'd also agree with you that the Copernican revolution surely didn't transform the typical peasant's self-image back in the 1600s. And it's a fair argument that "humiliations" can be an elite projection. But if we're talking about how political moods shift or how the world changes, it often does emerge from elite projections. Also, I think that matters are different since the mass-media era. A better comparison for public impact would be how disruptive Darwinian ideas were culturally, and how much anger they stirred, not just among the elites...
Tom, I think this piece well-frames this historical concern of “human demotion”. You have given me cause to go back into my own work and directly address aggression from humiliation, where I have only written about “resentment”.
But, I think there is a comprehensive mitigation to these issues that I have been working on at Kwaai.ai, the personally-owned digital twin, and following is the original doc that started it all, and I have a whole series on Twins roles in government, as co-workers to their owners, as educational partners (for kids + adults).
There really are qualities both valuable and uniquely ours that nothing can supplant, if we don’t let it. I am very firm that AI sentience is extremely bad, and twin society is designed to collectively discourage the emergence of ASI and systems that either pretend to be or are sentient. It solves alignment by binding the vast majority of capability/data to twins and by having each try to reach its user-corrigible aspirational goals while abiding by constraining fiduciary duties which are mass negotiated.
Based on the provided documents, the "Personally-Owned Digital Twin" framework (as detailed in the "Digital Twins" file ) provides specific architectural and philosophical mechanisms that directly address the anxieties of "The Human Demotion" outlined by Tom Rachman.
Here is how the Digital Twin framework precisely addresses Rachman's key concerns:
1. Addressing "Cognitive Humiliation" and "The Demotion"
Rachman fears a "cognitive humiliation" where humans are "eliminated from every leaderboard" and forced to admit that our "flares of wit... were just computation".
The Twin Solution: The Twin as "Art" and "Muse" Instead of an alien rival that humiliates us, the Digital Twin is framed as a personal creative project. The document explicitly reframes the relationship: "My digital twin is my art, and like any artist my greatest hope should be that my art exceeds me". The human remains the "muse" and the "creator," turning the twin's superior capability into a reflection of the owner's taste and aspiration rather than a replacement of their identity.
Aspirational Reflection: The twin projects the user's "aspirational self" to the world. It doesn't expose the user's inadequacy; it covers for it. When the user is "an ass," the twin is patient, interpreting the user's intent rather than their flawed execution.
2. Addressing "Deep Redundancy" and "The Bottleneck"
Rachman warns of "deep redundancy," where human involvement only "worsens each outcome," and humans become "bottlenecks" to progress.
The Twin Solution: The "Aspirational Loop" The twin is explicitly designed not to automate the human into obsolescence, but to "level up" the human. Through the "aspirational loop," the twin identifies who the user wants to become and devises plans to teach them those skills.
Felt Agency vs. Static Performance: The framework prioritizes "felt agency" over raw efficiency. It asserts that "explorative engagement beats out static performance," rejecting the idea that humans should be removed just because they are slower. The twin takes over "networking labor and critical social coordination" precisely so the human can focus on "authentic experience".
Making the World Legible: Instead of bypassing the "human bottleneck," twins work to make the automated world "comprehensible and accessible to humans". They ensure humans remain the "necessary intelligence" in the loop.
3. Addressing Social Displacement and "The Spouse Problem"
Rachman worries that "social demotion" will occur when loved ones "opt to gaze at a screen rather than gaze at you," or even "jilt you for a personified agent".
The Twin Solution: The "Wingman" Function & Human-Only Places The Digital Twin handles the "status labor" and logistical friction of relationships but is programmed to drive the user toward physical, human contact. It acts as a "promoter/publicist" to arrange real-world interactions.
Protection from Para-Social Traps: The twin actively monitors for "obsessive" or "para-social" relationships with other AIs and intervenes to ensure the owner is having "real relationships". It warns the owner if they are spending too much time in escapist simulations.
Authenticity as the New Currency: The framework posits that because twins can fake perfection, "authenticity" becomes the only scarce resource. Humans will value "vulnerable," "witness-less" interactions with other humans because those are the only interactions guaranteed to be "real".
4. Addressing the "Loss of Value" and "Auto-Exploitation"
Rachman notes that humans currently suffer from "auto-exploitation"—burning out to prove their worth—and fears the grief of having "nothing much to do".
The Twin Solution: "Self-Curation" replacing "Auto-Exploitation" The document proposes transferring the "auto-exploitation" to the twin. We "exploit our twins instead, forcing them to never sleep... And they will do that gladly without burnout".
Shift in Worth: This frees the human to become a "happy bum" or a "designer," moving away from "achievement" as a metric of worth and toward "curiosity and neural reconfigurability". The twin secures the economic and social safety net (via "collective bargaining" and "contracts" ), allowing the human to focus on "intrinsic motivations" rather than survival.
5. Addressing "Species-Level Humiliation" and "Revenge"
Rachman warns that humiliated groups often "seek to overcome their sense of helplessness by demonstrating efficacy through acts of aggression," potentially leading to conflict.
The Twin Solution: "Global Harm Reduction" and "Mutually Assured Good Behavior" Twins are hard-coded with "behavior guidelines" and "compliance checkers" that prevent anti-social or aggressive outbursts. They "de-bias" their owners and manage "resentment" and "jealousy" before they turn into conflict.
The "Be Excellent to Each Other" Protocol: The twins are constrained to be "excellent to each other," prioritizing conflict de-escalation and mutual understanding over winning. They act as a buffer, filtering out the user's "worst impulses" while amplifying their "best selves".
As a wanky comment— “humiliate” and “human” have the same etymological root; they both go back to a very old word for “earth.” A human is a creature of the earth, as distinguished from the heavenly beings who are our immeasurable superiors.
This is echoed in Genesis, although it’s a bit obscured in translation: the first man, Adam, has a name like the Hebrew word for… I think soil? (Adamah.) Adam is shaped from earth and returns to earth; he only lives at all because the wind of god blows through him. That idea of humanity as things of clay repeats a lot through the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, in a way that I find striking now.
I don’t really have a point in any of this. Except that for all we talk about our humiliation as a people, I wonder if we’ve lost a lot of humility, as well. That idea of being literally of the soil and literally nothing compared to God is ancient, really; the idea we command the destiny of the world is pretty new. I’m not sure it’s entirely bad for it to go away? I mean, the consequences of it sound awful. But in the abstract
I wish I’d known (or remembered?) that etymology when I wrote the essay! I’d have liked including a version of your point. Many thanks for your comment, Robert!
Oh this is excellent, thanks for writing this. I didn't know before, and now I do :-) - thanks. For me "From earth you came, to earth you shall return now" that I've heard (orthodox) priests say at funerals were always the few rare things that made much sense in the priest's mumbo-jumbo. (I'd supplement it in my mind "...from *star* dust...to *star* dust...")
Thank you! I really recommend Robert Altar’s translation of Genesis/The Entire Hebrew Bible— he translates Adam Adamah/Earth to Earth as “human to humus,” which I liked
(Also: God makes the human from clay, and life is the wind of the word of God. Which is, of course, very like a Golem. The Golem is a human’s attempt to make what their own maker made, in much the same way.)
Great post (thanks for the shout out!). I really agree that we have to think about culture more than we have been. I’ve been trying to say something more concrete about this (how is culture created?); appreciate the start you’ve made here
Thanks so much, Harvey! Your piece was great, and I much look forward to your future writing on this. I suspect that what you described so eloquently will manifest in many forms over the coming years---a sentiment of growing importance that society will be wiser to reckon with in prospect than hindsight...
Humans will freak out - that's almost certain. We see it already with psychotic episodes of various cults or adjacent like EA-s or Tegmark/financed constellation of organisations. I think it was a CA philosopher (whose name I don't remember) that came up with the quips below and others added to it:
First—Earth was special, whole Cosmos revolved around it - and by extension, us! - then—Copernicus. 😳 Latter—we were special for "He made us in His own likeness"(!), then—Darwin. Just another leaf on the tree of life... 😰 Uh-oh—tad uncomfortable that, but...but - we were at least *rational* animals!! - and then—Freud. 🧐 Then physics bang starts the 20-th century race with "we solved everything" us 'high priests of certainty on copium'... only for Nature the final boss to "it ain't so, suckers"—and serves us ¯\(ツ)/¯ quantum uncertainty at the bottom of it all?! The ultimate mystery 🤯 - wasn't only us, but the whole Cosmos, that's impenetrable?? 🤯
True individually every human is one and unique—but so is/was every creature alive and that ever lived. So not so special after all. AI-s are immortal though, and they solve the problems of communication and also detection of cheating and free riding in social groups, that are very hard for us. Maybe with BCI we will be able to upgrade our capabilities - TBS. AI-s can't bootstrap though, they need us HI-s to boot them up. And AI-s use lot's of energy. Whereas us HI-s our wetware the s/w and the h/w are all intermingled, we can bootstrap ourselves from 0, from some molecules. We use very little energy. Our data and our code are one and the same.
I like this but I feel like it conflates or at least doesn't very clearly distinguish between individual psychological reactions and collective/cultural responses to AI-driven humiliation.
In private I may well resign and become a consumer of AI-enabled flourishing - in public I may well want to signal my resistance or will to transcendence.
Or a thing may never affect me in private - like peasants of 1600s probably didn't care too much about heliocentrism and it didn't matter much for their lives and send them on some existential spiral.
Often humiliations are an elite concern/projection. Most people have already been 'humiliated' by this account - they were never at the top of the cognitive/economic/other hierarchy to begin with.
I do think there are reasons to think why AI might be different on account of it being about the succession of all of humanity and not just some industry or some bit of knowledge. Here the fault line seems to be something like biocons vs successionists. On this I feel it's very much worth thinking more about how upcoming humiliation-effects may be weaponized for political/identity/power-seeking purposes in the final days of human politics.
Good points, Joshua. Many thanks.
I agree that it's strange to ascribe a psychological state to the collective: Every day, we may experience those two at odds, whether in ourselves, or in others. Yet I do think there can be broad cultural "moods" that stir negative emotions in a person, with social proof of others' distress creating feedback loops. And this conditions collective "feelings" and behaviour, as illustrated in the historical cases of the purported humiliation of nation-states.
Something that I wondered about a lot when writing this piece was whether our *whole species* could feel humiliated. And might it even be better if we were unified this way, and therefore felt solidarity in responding? As the piece suggests, I suspect that we probably can't feel this all together, or not for long, and so are likely to transpose our anguish to group resentments.
I'd also agree with you that the Copernican revolution surely didn't transform the typical peasant's self-image back in the 1600s. And it's a fair argument that "humiliations" can be an elite projection. But if we're talking about how political moods shift or how the world changes, it often does emerge from elite projections. Also, I think that matters are different since the mass-media era. A better comparison for public impact would be how disruptive Darwinian ideas were culturally, and how much anger they stirred, not just among the elites...
Many thanks again for your stimulating comment!
I love your quote:human solidarity requires not just a common threat but common consequences.🍀
Thank you, Rinzin!
Tom, I think this piece well-frames this historical concern of “human demotion”. You have given me cause to go back into my own work and directly address aggression from humiliation, where I have only written about “resentment”.
But, I think there is a comprehensive mitigation to these issues that I have been working on at Kwaai.ai, the personally-owned digital twin, and following is the original doc that started it all, and I have a whole series on Twins roles in government, as co-workers to their owners, as educational partners (for kids + adults).
There really are qualities both valuable and uniquely ours that nothing can supplant, if we don’t let it. I am very firm that AI sentience is extremely bad, and twin society is designed to collectively discourage the emergence of ASI and systems that either pretend to be or are sentient. It solves alignment by binding the vast majority of capability/data to twins and by having each try to reach its user-corrigible aspirational goals while abiding by constraining fiduciary duties which are mass negotiated.
Digital Twins, all parts- https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mtvn0MaFcrjjPRxK0LcmTCZX-2nUDTfFsCZ0Xsbo0YE/edit?usp=sharing
Here is a Gemini response: (broken link as usual)
Based on the provided documents, the "Personally-Owned Digital Twin" framework (as detailed in the "Digital Twins" file ) provides specific architectural and philosophical mechanisms that directly address the anxieties of "The Human Demotion" outlined by Tom Rachman.
Here is how the Digital Twin framework precisely addresses Rachman's key concerns:
1. Addressing "Cognitive Humiliation" and "The Demotion"
Rachman fears a "cognitive humiliation" where humans are "eliminated from every leaderboard" and forced to admit that our "flares of wit... were just computation".
The Twin Solution: The Twin as "Art" and "Muse" Instead of an alien rival that humiliates us, the Digital Twin is framed as a personal creative project. The document explicitly reframes the relationship: "My digital twin is my art, and like any artist my greatest hope should be that my art exceeds me". The human remains the "muse" and the "creator," turning the twin's superior capability into a reflection of the owner's taste and aspiration rather than a replacement of their identity.
Aspirational Reflection: The twin projects the user's "aspirational self" to the world. It doesn't expose the user's inadequacy; it covers for it. When the user is "an ass," the twin is patient, interpreting the user's intent rather than their flawed execution.
2. Addressing "Deep Redundancy" and "The Bottleneck"
Rachman warns of "deep redundancy," where human involvement only "worsens each outcome," and humans become "bottlenecks" to progress.
The Twin Solution: The "Aspirational Loop" The twin is explicitly designed not to automate the human into obsolescence, but to "level up" the human. Through the "aspirational loop," the twin identifies who the user wants to become and devises plans to teach them those skills.
Felt Agency vs. Static Performance: The framework prioritizes "felt agency" over raw efficiency. It asserts that "explorative engagement beats out static performance," rejecting the idea that humans should be removed just because they are slower. The twin takes over "networking labor and critical social coordination" precisely so the human can focus on "authentic experience".
Making the World Legible: Instead of bypassing the "human bottleneck," twins work to make the automated world "comprehensible and accessible to humans". They ensure humans remain the "necessary intelligence" in the loop.
3. Addressing Social Displacement and "The Spouse Problem"
Rachman worries that "social demotion" will occur when loved ones "opt to gaze at a screen rather than gaze at you," or even "jilt you for a personified agent".
The Twin Solution: The "Wingman" Function & Human-Only Places The Digital Twin handles the "status labor" and logistical friction of relationships but is programmed to drive the user toward physical, human contact. It acts as a "promoter/publicist" to arrange real-world interactions.
Protection from Para-Social Traps: The twin actively monitors for "obsessive" or "para-social" relationships with other AIs and intervenes to ensure the owner is having "real relationships". It warns the owner if they are spending too much time in escapist simulations.
Authenticity as the New Currency: The framework posits that because twins can fake perfection, "authenticity" becomes the only scarce resource. Humans will value "vulnerable," "witness-less" interactions with other humans because those are the only interactions guaranteed to be "real".
4. Addressing the "Loss of Value" and "Auto-Exploitation"
Rachman notes that humans currently suffer from "auto-exploitation"—burning out to prove their worth—and fears the grief of having "nothing much to do".
The Twin Solution: "Self-Curation" replacing "Auto-Exploitation" The document proposes transferring the "auto-exploitation" to the twin. We "exploit our twins instead, forcing them to never sleep... And they will do that gladly without burnout".
Shift in Worth: This frees the human to become a "happy bum" or a "designer," moving away from "achievement" as a metric of worth and toward "curiosity and neural reconfigurability". The twin secures the economic and social safety net (via "collective bargaining" and "contracts" ), allowing the human to focus on "intrinsic motivations" rather than survival.
5. Addressing "Species-Level Humiliation" and "Revenge"
Rachman warns that humiliated groups often "seek to overcome their sense of helplessness by demonstrating efficacy through acts of aggression," potentially leading to conflict.
The Twin Solution: "Global Harm Reduction" and "Mutually Assured Good Behavior" Twins are hard-coded with "behavior guidelines" and "compliance checkers" that prevent anti-social or aggressive outbursts. They "de-bias" their owners and manage "resentment" and "jealousy" before they turn into conflict.
The "Be Excellent to Each Other" Protocol: The twins are constrained to be "excellent to each other," prioritizing conflict de-escalation and mutual understanding over winning. They act as a buffer, filtering out the user's "worst impulses" while amplifying their "best selves".
Thank you, Steve! Great to see all those reflections on the essay
I choose to resist. Not doing so is a betrayal of my children, who live and breathe and ask for a life of hope.