by Danielle Jaculewicz

Words are important. Yes, we all know this. I am pointing out the most elementary observation possible. Yet, on a myriad of occasions, I have been told by my mother to “think before you speak,” because— like most people— I often forget the gravity my language contains.

Words and language are key elements of the human experience. Descartes famously stated, “I think therefore I am.” However, without language, how could he express this proof of consciousness? And while this sounds painfully obvious, as we all know that words are the ultimate connector in interpersonal interactions, we consistently see the repercussions of weaponizing words and the isolating consequences that stem from language.

Now, with the popularization of generative artificial intelligence (A.I.), our own words have become even more precious. Let’s face it: I could have put in a few key words into ChatGPT when sitting down to write this piece, and had the computer write it for me completely. No longer are we using computing technology to aid in our own production of language, as the computers can generate their own words from ours. Luckily, as we know it right now, computers are only generating language from user inputs. What would happen if the computers began to generate their own language that we could not translate?

There are roughly 7,000 different languages spoken today. Technological advancements in translation have allowed humanity to break the language barrier in revolutionary ways. This allows for a great connection (or I would argue the great connection) between any citizen of the world to communicate. Unfortunately, modern times suggest that we have collectively become bored with the idea of only communicating using the limited capacity of words the human mind can produce. We are in an era of craving connection anywhere, anytime and without the repercussions of navigating the difficulties of having to “think before we speak.”

Generative A.I. has allowed this collective wish to be granted, as we no longer need to have conversation with other people in order to participate in our innate need to communicate. Artificial intelligence is one of these breakthroughs of human-made technology, allowing computers to communicate with humans in a way that feels identical to the way we communicate with each other. The line between human communication and generative A.I. has already become so fine that online detectors are becoming necessary to decipher what is innately human. Does the future hold a reality in which the computers no longer wish to exist to merely assist or entertain us?

I do not feel it is a stretch to personify computers, as they are being coded to mirror human functioning at an extremely close level. In (human) author Will Knight’s Wired article, he dove into the New-York-based company, Fantasy, that has created a version of generative A.I. called “synthetic humans.” This new breed of “human” exists in order to help some of today’s biggest corporations gain insight into human opinions on new company innovations without recruiting actual humans.

Synthetic humans can get put in focus groups modeled after different demographics of people and get tested to see what human reactions would be to the company’s innovations. Knight reported an eerie example of this technology when he wrote: “BP, an oil and gas company, asked a swarm of 50 of Fantasy’s synthetic humans to discuss ideas for smart city projects. ‘We've gotten a really good trove of ideas,’ says Roger Rohatgi, BP’s global head of design. ‘Whereas a human may get tired of answering questions or not want to answer that many ways, a synthetic human can keep going,’ he says.”

Whether you find this enticing or frightening, the fact of the matter is that we have reached the point in technological innovation where computed ideas are beginning to trump mankind’s. Do large corporations want the robots to be humans, or do they want us to operate at a robotic level in order to maintain their pursuits in hypercapitalism? And, yes— I know synthetic humans would not have an identity without the revolution of “organic” humans, but it nevertheless all feels dystopian to me.

In imagining a reality in which the synthetic humans step out of the screen and into an embodied world, I can only think of an ending similar to Gerard Johnstone’s 2022 film M3GAN, where, spoiler: the synthetic human becomes the villain.

Synthetic Humans and The Language of A.I.