A transdisciplinary approach to the human-technology interface

A new research network investigates how generative AI could change our perceptions of what it means to be human.

By Edward Grierson

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) could revolutionise communication, education, and science. But in the process, it might affect our understanding of humanity. This is the argument made by a new project run from the Faculty of Education. 

‘A transdisciplinary approach to the human-technology interface’ is led by Dr Steve Watson, an Associate Professor in Transdisciplinary Studies. Watson started this project in response to the release of ChatGPT in 2022. He describes the project as studying “the technology of technology”, utilising transdisciplinary research into the impact of generative AI and the ways it can be used constructively.  

A change of perception

Watson believes that the breakthrough in AI will have a profoundly different effect on society to previous technological breakthroughs. 

“In many previous technological innovations,” he says, “we almost seamlessly integrated with the technology while also seeing the difference between the two [the human and the technology].”

The printing press is a notable historical example. This technology changed communication, by allowing the mass production of books and widespread distribution of knowledge. In turn, it changed how we understand and conceptualise the world around us, and how we communicate this to others. Watson also argues it influenced our modern understanding of the individual. At the same time, society still understood the differences between human individuals, the printed text, and the mechanism producing the text. The ‘human-technology interface’- the boundary between what people and the technology contribute - was clearly defined.

But with generative AI, the boundaries of the human-technology interface are less clear. Generative AI systems are trained on man-made text but require prompts when asked to write text of their own. As a result, the difference between a human contribution and machine-generated text is unclear in both the input and output stages. Watson sums up this dilemma with one question: “who did that? Was it the AI or you?” 

While this question may seem innocuous, Watson believes it has ramifications for our notion of the human individual. He argues that our understanding of the human individual is a product of European modernity. As a concept, it was developed in the Renaissance and accelerated by the printing press. It then became widely accepted in the nineteenth century, through the Romantic movement and the rise of liberalism. With it came the dual notions of subjectivity and human rationality. Understanding AI, and our influence in it, requires us to rethink where we set the boundaries of human.

Our place in nature

AI might also affect the perception of our uniqueness as a species. Marine biologists are now using generative AI to understand language in cetaceans. Many species of whales and dolphins display complex vocalisation systems, with patterns in their calls. Not only are there recurring sound sequences, but variations on these sequences where specific sounds are placed differently. This suggests different meanings for the same sound.

This is reflected in human languages, where words have different meanings depending on their placement in a sentence and the words surrounding them. A bank can refer to the side of a river or a financial institution. Since AI systems can now recognise this, they may be able to decipher these reference points in cetaceans.

At the same time, Watson also emphasises that languages and the reference points they use are heavily informed by their environment.  A cetacean’s environment is completely different from ours. But by bearing this in mind while studying cetacean language, he believes that scientists and generative AI can find new insights into how language is constructed. 

This research into cetacean language is part of a wider movement in biology, which is finding that traits once thought to be unique to humans are found throughout the animal kingdom. Cephalopods, for example, possess a high degree of sentience, which functions around its nervous system.  Watson argues that generative AI fits into this broader context of human exceptionalism being challenged.

He also references epigenetics, which studies how the expression of genetic traits is influenced by our environment. This can include physical influences, such as the increasing amounts of time spent by humans in chairs. It can also include mental influences. A nurturing environment during early childhood can lead to different genes being expressed than under a stressful or abusive one. Generative AI may prove to be another one of these environmental influences. 

“It's a new kind of environmental influence,” says Watson, “And it affects us physically, because we use the keyboard and speech to text, but also in how we make meaning of it.” 

Engaging with AI

The idea that a new technology could affect our physical characteristics, and even our personalities, presents new challenges to the debate of nature vs nurture. Once again however, generative AI is one small part of a broader concept that challenges the idea of individual uniqueness.  

This complexity is why Watson is adamant about involving a variety of disciplines to discuss the subject. Since it will have implications for all areas of research, understanding it will also require input from every area. 

“The first option is to say ‘well, we can’t use it’,” he explains, “But how does that solve the problem? It defers the solution of the problem, when it’s probably more useful in a higher education institution that people are using and discussing it. Especially in a university, which is supposed to be leading in knowledge.

“It’s understanding that technology, what that means in terms of knowledge and meaning, sociality, communications, and cognition. But no single discipline can look at that.”

He remains optimistic that transdisciplinary research can successfully negotiate the boundary of the human-technology interface. As he points out, every new technology has altered us. When our ancestors began using stones as tools, they became more effective at hunting and at preparing food. This in turn increased our brain capacity. Ever since, our abilities as humans have changed, alongside our relationship with the world around us. 

This technology may have big consequences in understanding our place in the world. However, previous technology, such as the printing press, was just as influential.

“It's all change, but it has always been all change,” says Watson. “We like to think we're subject to more crisis than ever, but I can't remember a year where there wasn't a crisis. We just tried to think that we human beings were in control, but we're not, and we have to kind of accept that. But that doesn't mean we can't use our intelligence to research, engineer, and communicate, to try and make things better.”

About Professor Steve Watson

Professor Steve Watson is an Associate Professor in Transdisciplinary Studies at the Faculty of Education. He is also a co-founder of the Cambridge Global Knowledge Nexus, and a Fellow at Wolfson College. His research focuses on transdisciplinarity, which aims to broaden the scope of academic research by integrating knowledge and methods from across different subjects.