接着作者强调了现代 AI 的优劣势，其中劣势包括巨额费用以及过度个人主义（技术并非中立，这个观点我已经说过很多次了）：
其他选择：将 AI 作为探索多样性和可能性的实验室。
重要问题是：探索技术如何实现不受问题解决或特定目标驱动的行动？以及上述所说的教育问题。
怎么做？── 将技术从市场驱动模式中解放出来，转向公共、团结和社会化的替代方案。并且：
最后，归根到底，改变从来都是世界观的问题。What's the context?
🌐 文章链接
...
today’s large language models are powered by data and statistics. Though some rules still shape them, their outputs are driven by changing data, not fixed protocols.
...
In this sense, ChatGPT isn’t the eolith itself—it’s too amorphous, too shapeless, too generic—but it functions more like the experimental workshop where the eolithic flâneur takes his discovery to see what it’s really good for. In other words, it lets us test whether the found stone is better suited as a spearhead, a toy, or an art object.
...
For all the ways tools like ChatGPT contribute to ecological reason, then, they also undermine it at a deeper level—primarily by framing our activities around the identity of isolated, possibly alienated, postmodern consumers. When we use these tools to solve problems, we’re not like Storm’s carefree flâneur, open to anything; we’re more like entrepreneurs seeking arbitrage opportunities within a predefined, profit-oriented grid. While eolithic bricolage can happen under these conditions, the whole setup constrains the full potential and play of ecological reason.
Here too, ChatGPT resembles the Coordinator, much like our own capitalist postmodernity still resembles the welfare-warfare modernity that came before it. While the Coordinator enhanced the exercise of instrumental reason by the Organization Man, ChatGPT lets today’s neoliberal subject—part consumer, part entrepreneur—glimpse and even flirt, however briefly, with ecological reason. The apparent increase in human freedom conceals a deeper unfreedom; behind both stands the Efficiency Lobby, still in control. This is why our emancipation through such powerful technologies feels so truncated.
其他选择：将 AI 作为探索多样性和可能性的实验室。
Another pivotal figure in this intellectual milieu was Oscar Varsavsky, a talented scientist-turned-activist who championed what he called “normative planning.” Unlike the proponents of modernization theory, who wielded computers to project a singular, predetermined trajectory of economic and political progress, Varsavsky and his allies envisioned technology as a means to map diverse social trajectories—through a method they called “numerical experimentation”—to chart alternative styles of socioeconomic development. Among these, Varsavsky identified a spectrum including “hippie,” “authoritarian,” “company-centric,” “creative,” and “people-centric,” the latter two being his preferred models.
Computer technology would thus empower citizens to explore the possibilities, consequences, and costs associated with each path, enabling them to select options that resonated with both their values and available resources. In this sense, information technology resembled the workshop of our eolithic flâneur: a space not for mere management or efficiency seeking, but for imagination, simulation, and experimentation.
重要问题是：探索技术如何实现不受问题解决或特定目标驱动的行动？以及上述所说的教育问题。
怎么做？── 将技术从市场驱动模式中解放出来，转向公共、团结和社会化的替代方案。并且：
While we do so, we must not forget the key insight of the Latin American experiments: technology’s emancipatory potential will only be secured through a radical political project. Without one, we are unlikely to gather the resources necessary to ensure that the agendas of the Efficiency Lobby don’t overpower those of the Humanity Lobby. The tragic failure of those experiments means this won’t be an easy ride.
最后，归根到底，改变从来都是世界观的问题。What's the context?
Boston Review
The AI We Deserve - Boston Review
Critiques of artificial intelligence abound. Where’s the utopian vision for what it could be?
