This Aeon article by Phillip Ball tempers the fatalistic, dual techno-optimist/doom narratives currently surrounding Aritfical Intelligence, by looking at the promise and history of nanotechnology: https://aeon.co/essays/no-suffering-no-death-no-limits-the-nanobots-pipe-dream?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=426d6e4486-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2025_09_04&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-19d630b572-70652573
“…magic dressed in the science of its time, by means of which almost anything is possible.”
“The oneiric technologies currently in vogue in Silicon Valley include the notion of terraforming other planets, transforming their geosphere and atmosphere to render them inhabitable; cryonic freezing of your head after death so that your consciousness can one day be rebooted; and the related idea of mind-uploading to computer circuits. These techno-fantasies are central to the utopias regularly forecast by tech billionaires.”
The similarity of these technodreams? Like the recent New Yorker article on the pursuit of immortality, they spring from their billionaire dreamers’ shared terror of death. These billionaires are all men. Some women come close to death in childbirth, get comfortable with it, realize not to fear it. Cultures rooted in community and transmission and kinship likewise know we are nodes on a continuum, that we live for those who came before and those who come after will carry us on with them.
Nanotechnology didn’t follow the magical thinking of it’s boosters. And the article author sees this again with ai. “We are accepting the fantastical prophecies of the likes of Google’s former CEO Eric Schmidt, who has forecast that ‘within three to five years we’ll have … [artificial] general intelligence, which can be defined as a system that is as smart as the smartest mathematician, physicist, artist, writer, thinker, politician’ (the ‘smartest artist’ being a concept that apparently means something within Silicon Valley).”
Is the difference that anyone with an internet connection can use chatgpt, (i love that my auto correct hasn’t “learned” that “word” yet and wants to change it to “chat get”) whereas not everyone could create/use a nanobot?
In this instance, I hope history repeats itself.

