Historian frames AI as extension of digital revolution, not new industrial age

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," defining it as a breaking point in history, and asserts 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 emphasizes that the convergence of analog telephone networks and digital computing, facilitated by figures like Claude Shannon at Bell Labs, laid the groundwork for this current era. This perspective positions AI as an incremental step in computational power rather than a new industrial age. In discussing the history of the telephone, Glick highlights that the technology was defined by its users rather than its inventors, challenging the narrative of the lone genius. He notes that Western Union dismissed the device as a "toy" because it lacked the written record required by the telegraph, yet the technology spread via bottom-up innovation, such as farmers in the American prairie using existing barbed wire to create local networks. Glick argues that the telephone's ephemerality and spontaneity, initially seen as drawbacks, became its primary value proposition, enabling new social and economic structures like the multinational corporation.

The discussion also addresses 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 Shannon were given "free reign" to follow their noses within the broader context of the company's mission, such as improving telecommunications. 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 contrast this with modern corporate structures that often lack this balance of autonomy and purposeful direction.