The matter is settled. There is absolutely no connection between the ancient Arab poet Di'bil al-Khuza'i, on the one hand, and Elon Musk and Sam Altman, on the other. That is what logic says, and the numbers confirm it.
Di'bil was an Arab poet who lived during the Abbasid era in Iraq between 765 and 835 AD, while Musk is South African-Canadian-American and Altman is American. They live with us in our own age. But perhaps, given their enormous financial fortunes and advanced technology companies, they will live on for many ages and centuries to come! Poor Di'bil once said:
When I open my eyes, as I open them,
I see many, but I see no one.
Musk, meanwhile, believes that "the fundamental flaw of Western civilization is... empathy."
Yes, believe it or not, "empathy," or kindness toward others. As for his colleague Altman, he was recently quoted, while speaking about extraordinary scientific and technological achievements, as saying that "there is no longer any need for humans(!)," because every task performed by humans has now fallen within the capabilities of artificial intelligence and robots, which will soon surpass them.
Talk of dispensing with humans has, in fact, become commonplace. Those who see no need for human beings unless they are consumers are no longer embarrassed to say so. Otherwise, why should they have to share the air, water, and earth with them?
What need is there for millions and billions of hungry mouths? And is it permissible to "put up with" shanties packed with their humble inhabitants, and the filthy poor neighborhoods of the impoverished Third World cities, which pollute the air of the green countryside and pampered suburbs of the affluent world benefiting from Musk and Altman's innovations?
Some may say that those innovations will not be the preserve of the wealthy. That may well be true. Indeed, I hope it is true. Especially since Musk told us yesterday that the first vision devices will be implanted in human bodies within 12 months, enabling the blind to see. Musk, may God grant him health and well-being, explained that his company Neuralink, which specializes in developing innovations related to the regeneration of nerve cells, including visual cells, will implant vision devices that will enable people who have been completely blind since birth to see. He went on to say that, in the long term, vision will become extraordinarily clear. Indeed, humans will acquire genuine "superhuman visual capabilities," allowing them to see both infrared and ultraviolet radiation, which the normal human eye cannot perceive.
More than that, several reports over the past months have indicated that numerous diseases and disabilities affecting the nervous system, some of them hereditary, may be on the way to being eliminated through research by Neuralink and others, consigning them to the past.
In fact, I am personally very optimistic about this aspect. Many robotic and sensing technologies, along with practical applications of artificial intelligence, are now available in many parts of the world and across a wide range of fields, from the emergence of driverless cars to surgery without surgeons and journalism without journalists! Yet the problem, for someone like me, is not simply the capacity to develop and innovate, but their ultimate practical outcome. There is no doubt that scientific progress is a necessity for life, as long as there are living beings whose fundamental human right is to "live their humanity."
Human beings do not live merely to avoid the alternative, which is death. They live to be safe and organized beings in societies governed by values, principles, ethics, and positive emotions. These are the distinctions we have read about and benefited from understanding throughout the stages of human history since the Stone Age.
What we have learned is that the concept of the "right to live" evolved into an affirmation of the "right to a dignified life." The concept of "shared living" developed into a "conviction in accepting differences" and tolerating them, and was subsequently codified in "laws and constitutions." The concept of "well-being" rested on "learning, knowledge, and skills training," followed by the "refinement of knowledge" through the arts, taste, and the enjoyment of pleasures that rise above the mere necessities of survival.
Today, even in the most advanced societies, we unfortunately find, in parallel, applied scientific progress, or advanced technology, alongside a frightening decline in values, principles, ethics, and positive emotions.
Rampant racism is now rearing its head in some of the world's most advanced and most "democratic" societies. Contempt for the law and the authority of the judiciary has become an accepted practice, justified by personal or partisan interests.
Even questioning the norms and international institutions that regulate relations between states has become an ordinary and acceptable matter, after education has fallen short in fulfilling its formative role, and the media has failed to perform the watchdog function that earned it the title of "the fourth estate," which is supposed to have a duty to safeguard democracy in free countries.
In conclusion, scientific and technological progress is more than necessary for human development. But without humanity, there is no value in the human being.
