One cannot ignore that the use of artificial intelligence has not only radically changed our behaviour in everyday life but has also altered the way we perceive living it.

It has become nigh impossible to live in our part of the world, perhaps any part of the world, and turn away from AI, whether it be in communication or healthcare, education or culture, administration or leisure: rapid technological advancement and its globalising influence is the hallmark of our age.

For someone who witnessed the evolution from 8-bit Spectrum computers to MacBooks with 12-core CPU and 8TB storage, or the evolution from landline analog telephony to super duper mobile phones that basically fulfil all the functions of a computer in the palm of your hand, the change has been rapid (almost too rapid to keep up with) and dramatic (if it wasn’t for the fact that perhaps that very same rapidity hasn’t yet allowed us the time to stop and think about how radically dramatic this change has been).

Yet, lately, something seems to have inspired even prominent voices from inside the tech industry to wonder whether we ought to have a short pause and do some serious thinking about where this AI revolution is taking us.

It is very difficult to assess a process still in evolution. It’s like judging an unfinished painting; but, then, a painter constantly pauses to assess his unfinished work and judge whether it’s heading in the intended direction. If not, the painter repaints and changes the course of work.

The big issue, when it comes to the tech industry, is that the hands holding the brush to this gigantic painting are many and they don’t necessarily share the same design or motivation.

In itself, this already poses the first problem: if a part of that industry agrees that a pause is due and a debate should ensue regarding strategic and ethical issues, would the rest of the industry follow?

And let’s say national states and supranational organisations equally subscribe to the urgency to have this pause for reflection, how will they ensure that it will be observed? Will this pause for reflection be equally imposed on the arms industry, for example?

With so many painters painting this picture, is it even possible to reach a consensus for a pause, let alone a negotiated way forward? What would be the risk of having the equivalent of pirates and renegades forging counter-alliances, flouting all rules and conventions that, anyway, in such a fast changing milieu like that of AI, quickly become obsolete and impractical to enforce?

So far, many predictions are being made, often betraying an underlying bias, either by the faithful, who predict that AI will positively improve not just human wellbeing but also our relationship with the natural environment, or by the nay-sayers who fear that what began as another tool for human improvement will end up taking control of our lives.

This polarisation makes it more difficult for those who want to understand, especially since the technology itself is so complex, varied and diffused that to the layman, whose knowledge is mostly functional and limited to objects within his everyday reality, is largely beyond his grasp.

This raises fears that make the public more likely to accept certain predictions, especially those that feed their fears, without questioning sources and their biases. In itself, this is already reason enough for a pause for discussion.

The danger that governments keep their citizens under continuous surveillance is no longer the story from a dystopian novel- Aleks Farrugia

Questions regarding employment, security and privacy are perhaps those that should be immediately addressed.

According to the World Economic Forum, up to 25 per cent of jobs can be directly “disrupted”, with 44 per cent of workers’ key skills expected to change in the next five years.

It is no longer just production line workers that may see their job threatened, but also professionals like lawyers, teachers and bankers.

Meanwhile, so called ‘data brokers’ still operate in an unregulated market, processing and selling data extracted from our “cookies”. In a recent edition of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver showed how this data is being processed to create individual profiles, aiming at specific groups – including the terminally ill and cancer patients – with targeted advertising.

Indeed, it can be argued that the private no longer exists.

Mobile phones and other technological devices we carry on ourselves are constantly sending signals of our whereabouts.

The danger that governments keep their citizens under continuous surveillance is no longer the storyline from a dystopian novel. The push towards the exclusive use of plastic money, for example, while possibly quite convenient for the user, is also an effective form of surveillance.

There are other questions being asked. This week, French newspaper Le Monde had a very interesting article about how AI-generated “supposedly historic images” give a distorted rendition of the past and can be dangerously manipulative for ideological purposes.

In art, the role of AI has already been the subject of discussion for quite some time and so it has been amongst the philosophers, even though, to my personal dismay, I feel that so far there hasn’t been much consolation coming from philosophy.

It seems to me that the two most pressing questions that need to be addressed are: whether it is at all possible to halt or derail a future that seems to be already inscribed, and to what extent this technological advancement is an advancement for humanity.

Often it is taken for granted that technological advancement brings human progress, as if one entails the other by necessity.

One could legitimately ask what we understand by humanity, what elements make the human or what constitutes human progress.

I believe that before we start to discuss AI, we have to begin by providing answers to these questions, because it is only when we have a clear idea of what it means to be human then we can begin to place ourselves in relation to the technology we use.