Glick argues AI extends digital revolution rather than starting new era
Historian James Glick contends that artificial intelligence is an incremental evolution of the digital age, not a historical discontinuity. He draws parallels to the telephone and Bell Labs to explain how user adoption and research freedom drive technological impact.
James Glick, author of "The Telephone, A New History," argues that artificial intelligence does not represent a fourth industrial revolution or a fundamental break in human history. Instead, he views AI as a natural continuation of the digital revolution that has spanned the last 30 to 50 years. Glick rejects the concept of the singularity, asserting that he does not believe machines will become conscious or exterminate humans. He notes that computers are progressively solving harder problems, citing the evolution from chess to Go and Bridge, and argues that AI technologies are becoming useful for saving money and solving complex tasks, though they carry risks of impersonation and misuse.
Glick’s perspective is grounded in his analysis of the telephone’s development, which he describes as a technology defined by its users rather than its inventors. He highlights that Western Union initially dismissed the device as a toy because it lacked the written record required by the telegraph. The technology spread via bottom-up innovation, such as farmers in the American prairie using existing barbed wire to create local networks without central coordination. Glick emphasizes that the telephone’s ephemerality and spontaneity, features initially seen as drawbacks, became its primary value proposition, enabling new social and economic structures like the multinational corporation and the skyscraper.
The discussion also examines the success of corporate research labs like Bell Labs and Xerox PARC. Robert Hackett, a former Xerox PARC employee, identifies three key factors behind their high output: substantial funding, the co-location of smart talent, and a guiding mission that balances applied goals with freedom. Hackett notes that researchers like Claude Shannon were given free rein to follow their noses within the broader context of the company’s mission. This environment allowed for breakthroughs in pure science, such as Shannon’s information theory, which did not directly contribute to the company’s bottom line but had profound long-term value. Glick and Hackett argue that this balance of autonomy and purposeful direction is often missing in modern corporate structures.