Accelerationism, Decels & The Future

AI discourse is in tension between optimism and apprehension. Let’s look at the two contrasting movements: e/acc and decels.

How much acceleration is too much? [Image by author / Ideogram]

AI can (and will) catalyze human progress. The question is only how fast.

And this is how we ended up with two groups of people:

• The “accelerationists” and
• The “decels” (decelerationists)

These two terms are just a fancy way of saying proponents vs. skeptics.

If accelerationists were to decide the technological future, we’d focus on rapid development and deployment of AI.

To decels, who are the counter-movement, AI progress should be slowed down (or even halted, in some cases).

Let’s compare these two positions in more detail.

By the way, did you know that you can follow me on Twitter:

What Is Accelerationism?

According to accelerationism we should all embrace the development of AI.

Accelerationists argue that AI will ultimately lead to a positive future, and that any attempt to slow down its progress is futile and even counterproductive.

“The only way to deal with a bad future is to build a better one.” — Elon Musk

This perspective is heavily influenced by the philosophical concept of technological determinism, which suggests that tech advancements are inevitable and shape human society.

Key arguments of accelerationism:

• Technological inevitability: The belief that AI development is an unstoppable force driven by technological progress.
• Positive outcomes: The expectation that AI will ultimately lead to beneficial outcomes, such as increased efficiency, improved healthcare, and enhanced problem-solving capabilities.
• Risk acceptance: The willingness to accept potential risks associated with AI development, arguing that the potential rewards outweigh the dangers.

Of course not everyone likes risks and an uncertain future, so accelerationism has faced significant criticism.

Some argue, for example, that it ignores the potential negative consequences of AI, such as job displacement, algorithmic bias, and even risks to human life.

Critics have also been questioning the assumption that AI will necessarily lead to positive outcomes, pointing to the possibility of unintended consequences or malicious use.

Accelerationist Scenario Of A Bright Future

Whether accelerationists are wearing rose-colored glasses or not is debatable, but there is a possible positive scenario that could happen.

When combined with responsible governance and ethical considerations, accelerationism could lead to a future characterized by unprecedented progress and prosperity.

Here’s what could happen:

• Technological breakthroughs: Fast AI development could drive innovations in fields such as medicine, energy, and transportation, leading to breakthroughs that address pressing global challenges like climate change, disease,and poverty.
• Enhanced productivity: AI-powered automation could streamline processes and increase efficiency across various industries, leading to economic growth and improved standards of living.
• Personalized solutions: AI could enable highly personalized solutions tailored to individual needs, from healthcare treatments to educational experiences.
• Global cooperation: The shared benefits of AI development could foster international cooperation and collaboration, leading to a more interconnected and peaceful world.

[Image by author / Ideogram]

Decel = A Cautious Approach

Decel, as a countermovement to accelerationism, sees a need for a more cautious and deliberate approach to AI development.

Proponents of decel argue that the potential risks of AI are significant and should not be underestimated.

They advocate for a slower pace of development, allowing for careful consideration of ethical implications and the development of safeguards to mitigate risks.

Key arguments of decel are:

• Risk assessment: The importance of carefully assessing the potential risks associated with AI development.
• Ethical considerations: The need to prioritize ethical principles in AI design and deployment.
• Safeguards: The development of safeguards to prevent harmful or unintended consequences of AI.

Decel often draws inspiration from the precautionary principle, which suggests that when there is uncertainty about the potential consequences of an action, it is prudent to err on the side of caution.

Meanwhile critics of decel argue that it may hinder technological progress and limit the potential benefits of AI.

Decel Scenario: Dystopian Nightmare

Without adequate safeguards, regulation and ethical considerations, blind accelerationis mcould also lead to a dystopian future.

“The future is already here — it’s just not evenly distributed.” — William Gibson

We might end up with substantial inequality, surveillance, and even existential threats.

Here’s a scenario that decels view as a real risk:

• Job displacement: Rapid automation could lead to widespread job displacement, exacerbating existing economic inequalities and social unrest.
• Algorithmic bias: AI systems trained on biased data could perpetuate discrimination and reinforce harmful stereotypes.
• Surveillance state: Increased surveillance capabilities enabled by AI could erode privacy and civil liberties.
• Autonomous weapons: The development of autonomous weapons systems could pose a significant threat to global security and stability.
• Existential risk: In the worst-case scenario, uncontrolled AI development could lead to a loss of control and pose an existential threat to humanity.

The ultimate consequences of accelerationism will depend on the choices we make today.

“We should be wary of technologies that could lead to the loss of control or the concentration of power in the hands of a few.” — Stephen Hawking

In order to mitigate potential risks and benefits, we will need to consciously work towards a world in which AI is used responsibly.

We could do this by implementing appropriate safeguards and ethical frameworks.

[Image by author / Ideogram]

Philosophical Considerations

Will the future be a nightmare or a utopia? This question will remain relevant for the foreseeable future.

The debate between accelerationism vs. decel raises important philosophical questions about the nature of technology, as well as the relationship between humans and machines, and the ethical implications of technological advancement.

Some key philosophical considerations include:

• Technological determinism: The extent to which technological progress is inevitable and shapes human society.
• Human agency: The role of human agency in shaping the development and use of AI.
• Ethical frameworks: The development of ethical frameworks to guide AI research and development.
• Existential risk: The potential for AI to pose an existential threat to humanity.

So, who will win in the end? What kind of future can we expect?

In my opinion, it will likely be a balance between acc and decel. Well, hopefully it will be a balance, and not an ongoing conflict.

One thing is for sure:

As AI continues to evolve, ongoing philosophical and ethical debates will be essential for shaping its future.

I want to end this article on a positive note, with a song I made about AI and people who fear it: