DAVID HSU: Why do you think medical humanities is important in today’s world?

STEVEN FIELD: I think it’s important because it’s a way of getting back to the heart and soul of clinical medicine, or at least, I hope it is. I was in practice for 35 years, and I think that medicine has moved towards a different concept than the concept that I grew up in professionally. I like the idea of well-rounded physicians. I think people should know things other than just medicine. Reading novels gives you an appreciation for the way that people interact, not necessarily just in medical illness, but also outside of illness, which then you can extrapolate back [from].

But I admit I’m biased. I was a liberal arts major in college. I started in English, and my degree is in history. What was your area?

I did a double major in biology and history. Most of my classes were 20th Century American history.

My senior essay was on Puritan and colonial town planning theorems in New England and the middle Atlantic states, nothing I’ve used ever since. And my junior essay was on witchcraft.

Witchcraft is a little bit closer to medicine.

True. I actually was looking at the sociopolitical ramifications of witchcraft in Tudor-Stuart England and France under Richelieu. So, while it wasn’t wars and treaties history, more social/cultural history, it was history nonetheless.

I come from that liberal arts background, so I have a leaning towards medical humanities. I think it’s really helpful to ground people who are in the field, and I think it’s an often incredibly helpful way to relate to patients on so many levels. You might not be amazed, but many people would be, to know how many times the doctor-patient relationship is either forged or strengthened over a shared interest, literary or otherwise. I don’t mean sharing at the same time, but something that somebody else has read, or a movie, or a play you’ve seen. The reason I think medical humanities has assumed more importance is because the period of time that doctors have to spend with patients in the encounter has gotten smaller and smaller. There’s this thing that in some offices a new patient visit should take 20 minutes and follow-ups should take seven minutes. I retired from practice in 2011, and I would never be able to function under this system now, because I’m a schmoozer, you know? I like to talk to patients.

And you’re a gastroenterologist, is that right?

I am a gastroenterologist, although I had a large proportion of my practice in general internal medicine. Along the way, I also got a certificate in psychodynamic psychotherapy, which I found very useful, not only in the practice of medicine — mind and body are linked, of course — but in two other places as well. I had a small psychotherapy practice, in addition to my medical practice, so it clearly helped there. And I work in clinical ethics now, and understanding family dynamics is really helpful when you are dealing with patients and families in conflict. I think that psychiatry especially — not so much psychopharmacology, but psychotherapy — is kind of the closest to medical humanities, in some ways.

That’s interesting. I read your bio and it talked about dynamic psychotherapy, but I didn’t know what that meant. I didn’t realize it refers to inter-family dynamics.

Psychodynamic refers to treatment basically anchored in Freudian theory. So it’s not cognitive behavioral therapy. It’s the old standard, you know? You talk about childhood, ego, super ego, all that stuff.

So you see that medical appointments are getting shorter and shorter, and there’s more and more use of technology, and like you’ve mentioned, the humanities could be a bit of a buffer against that. It would help us navigate that world. Can you be a bit more specific on how you see that relationship unfolding?

Just to be clear, it’s not really a buffer against technology per se, but rather, against the depersonalization of medicine that can result from increased technology and decreased time. I’ll tell you the truth. It’s tough for me to answer that question, because I’ve never functioned in this 20-minute visit environment, right? When I was last in practice, a new patient got an hour and a follow-up got a half an hour. That’s much harder to do today. So there was time to talk to them and sort of develop the relationship – the medical side as well as the interpersonal side.

I think that it’s a good question. I think medical humanities could have two different functions. It hopefully heightens physician sensitivity to the human condition, to what patients are feeling and going through. In addition, I believe that for many physicians it acts as a counterweight to the immersion in medicine and illness, and as a source of personal fulfillment. Of course, that second sense may not be true for everyone; people find fulfillment in life in many different ways.

Let’s talk a bit more about the tie-in with psychiatry because I’m really curious about this. You reviewed the book The Third Reich of Dreams. How do dreams and the subconscious relate to medicine?

Freudian theory has gotten a bit of a bad name over the years, and psychiatry has moved very much to psychopharmacology. But psychiatrists classically loved to analyze dreams, because a dream brings in not only what the immediate concerns are, but also all the things that you draw on in your background. So it’s a very interesting way to approach things. For some people. Others don’t dream, or they dream, but they don’t remember them.

And it’s not only dreams. I noticed many times in patient interactions in my medical practice, that people re-enact things from their childhood or early adulthood. Their mother didn’t love them, so they choose somebody who reminds them of their mother, because they think they’re going to fix it this time. That’s almost a cliche. But that sort of stuff happens a lot, and I think that’s really interesting.

I had sort of a subspecialty in inflammatory bowel disease, so a lot of Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis patients. And I had one young woman, not so young actually, who had very severe Crohn’s, and she wasn’t getting that much better. And I talked to her about putting her in the hospital and putting her on TPN (total parenteral nutrition) because she was losing so much weight, and she didn’t want to do that. And she said “I don’t want to go to the hospital. I’ll try, Dr Field. I’ll really try, because I’m telling you, I really don’t want to gain any more weight.” And then she said “I mean, I don’t want to lose any more weight.” And I just said, ”Well, that’s an interesting slip, right? What do you think that’s about?” And she paused, then she burst into tears. And then I got the whole story about her difficult relationship with her mother, and how her mother was always making nasty comments about her weight. This was all coming out; there was a whole huge story behind it. And there’s stories behind lots of people’s stuff, and I’m not saying her Crohn’s was due to that, not at all, but there are lots of patients who have this kind of thing in their background. You know, life story and narrative, and so that’s what I think Medical Humanities is about, the human narrative behind the patient and their illness. I think having some knowledge and experience, some background, that isn’t just medical but also is humanities-oriented can sometimes give you common ground with patients, or even just make you curious about them. All it took was saying, “that’s an interesting slip. What do you think about that?” And it was a whole other side of this patient. Medicine is about people, and people are not just their disease. They’re people with a disease. Sometimes you have to have that sort of global look. And I think the interaction with the humanities is helpful in that regard.

What’s your Gestalt sense of the relationship between our mental well-being and physical illness?

I have always felt that the two things influence each other, and it’s not necessarily a sharp line between them. I would certainly not go so far as to say that my patient’s experience with her mother caused her Crohn’s disease, but I think psychological states can certainly exacerbate symptoms. I mean, the gut, specifically, has its own extensive immune system. It has its own nervous system, responsive to inputs from the central nervous system, and the enteric nervous and immune systems are interrelated. And much of that has been well worked out, there’s this whole field of neurogastroenterology that deals with this.

So I think that’s recognized, clearly, that one’s psychological state can influence illness and sometimes worsen symptomatology. Many times I’ve seen “intractable” symptoms abate when a patient retires from a stressful job, for example. So I think stress has a very significant role in the production of symptomatology and perhaps in the pathophysiology, actually, in certain cases.

How about today? In 2025, it seems like the world of medicine is facing a lot of stress. There’s a lot of vaccine skepticism. People are antagonistic towards public health. COVID certainly didn’t help things. How do you see medical humanities being part of that landscape?

Well, I imagine that landscape is prominent in the United States in large part related to political developments.

I guess I’m influenced by my subscriptions to the New York Times, but Canada is the same. I mean, I feel like before COVID there were a few people that were skeptical of vaccines, but now everyone seems entitled to have an opinion about it and voice it readily. I’ve worked with mostly Chinese patients. I hear this from them all the time, but they’re generally a little bit more “toe the line” regarding what their government says they should do. But I think now people are more emboldened with some of these ideas.

One thing about the United States is that, as opposed to most of the northern European countries and Canada, the US has a very strong libertarian streak. Individuals. “Don’t tell me what to do.” We rebelled against England, settled the frontier, dispossessing everybody who was there in the process. So there’s this real idea of the right to be left alone. So the question is: does that feed the problem?

The reason I have a little question with the role of the humanities is when you look at people who are involved in medical humanities — and this may only be my impression — I think they tend to sort of cluster closer to the left. And more of them are the people who will take vaccines and things like that. But I don’t know that. I wish there were a larger role for medical humanities in smoothing over these political differences and polarization. I think it would be nice if there were. For example, people talk about book clubs and reading groups. I’m a big believer in them, and they’re very popular, but most of the time, book clubs are self-assorting entities, right? Go with people in your club. The people in your reading group are often people who probably feel somewhat the way you do. It would be great to have reading groups with multiple viewpoints represented, as long as their discussions don’t devolve into chaos. These days, that’s a real risk. A big problem in America is that we’re becoming more and more polarized.

The trick is to bridge that divide somehow.

A big problem is that in so many cases, there is no trust. When everyone has their own facts, it’s the end of the idea of an absolute truth. Each side has its own truth. You have your facts; I have my facts.

I guess, as a historian, we are taught gradually that truth is kind of like that, right? One thing I remember learning in university is this idea that facts can be a subjective experience for people.

That’s true. The subjective interpretation will vary and can color the way history is written. And history is written by the victors, right? But facts are facts.

Given that that’s the landscape, what would you like to see MedHum evolve into over time?

Well, It was set up originally as a Medical Humanities Resource. That is, it originally came out of the Literature, Arts and Medicine database, right? So I still like to look at it as a resource. But I’d also like it to be a place where people go for well-written and insightful writing, commenting on aspects of the interface of health, wellness, current events, and literature and the arts. I think it should exist, as the mission statement indicates, at the nexus of medicine and the wider society, and comment on the interactions there. MedHum is brand new, so you have to see how it develops. I’d like it to be a source of good writing, good insightful and perhaps incisive commentary.

I was going to ask you about what you thought about the relationship of technology in medicine. A lot of the time when people talk about humanities and the liberal arts education — like history and English majors — one thing they don’t spend a lot of time on is cutting edge technology. A lot of these studies go back to things that occurred decades ago. But medical humanities is a little bit different, because it wrestles with these things that are happening right now. There’s a certain degree of urgency. And in medicine, new things are coming out every couple of years. As soon as AI comes out, we adopt it for some medical purpose. So we’re constantly trying to push that boundary. Where do you see that going as a person with a humanities background?

One of the things about all the technology is it’s very important to ask the questions about what you’re going to do with the technology. Where it’s going to go, how we can protect things like privacy and vulnerable people. I mean, bioethics has a lot to say about technology like AI and big data and privacy. It also has a huge amount to say about other technologies, like reproductive technologies, transplantation, and the like. But I think you’re talking about two different things. The time-honored majors in university, English and history, the number of people who are electing to major in these is dropping, while the number of people majoring in the STEM fields is rising. So that’s a process that’s happening, and it’s going to continue to happen, just because that’s where things are going. I think that a role for medical humanities in that mix is that of humanizing the processes which technology facilitates and also asking important questions about technology. In terms of AI, since you brought it up, what does it mean to be human? As the machines get better and better, and given that we often use cognition as an indicator of life — ‘sentient beings” — where then is the line? When you can get psychotherapy from a chat bot what does it actually say about interpersonal interaction, what does it actually mean to interact as a human being? Where does this logically end up? No one knows. So I think thinking and writing from a humanities point of view about technology brings a new perspective to the subject. It may be the best way to contextualize our progress and at the same time create guardrails where needed. Because they will be needed.

And there’s just been so much in the news about the use of AI to write fiction. To write college essays. When a chatbot is creating, can it be said to have an imagination? To employ metaphor, or allegory, or irony? And ultimately, how will technology limit our adeptness with basic human interaction? There’s lots of dystopian fiction written about this kind of thing.

If AI continues to evolve and people start to use it as doctors, where do you see a medical encounter in the future? What does it turn into? What does it look like?

There are studies that show that AI is comparable to or better than most radiologists looking for breast lesions. And there’s lots and lots of ways that AI can help in medicine, including increasing diagnostic accuracy across a number of areas, screening potential drug candidates, personalizing treatment plans, and the like. Interestingly, there is a suggestion that the use of AI-assisted technology may lead to a subtle loss of the physician’s native ability to evaluate, what is referred to as “de-skilling.” An interesting and sobering thought. Overall, though, I think AI can be a huge help in medicine, with its potential only beginning to be appreciated. But I would hope that AI would never replace doctors, because AI can’t empathize, can’t engage in a meaningful relationship with a patient, even if it can create the words. I, for one, would always know that it was a machine interacting with me, and that would color my response.

For diagnostic purposes, it will weigh the relative possibilities, but some of that diagnostic process — especially in terms of general medicine — is intuition. There are some areas where AI is less helpful. AI can screen data and suggest diagnoses and investigations, but sometimes patients would come in, and the doctor will think “something just doesn’t smell right here. There’s something not hanging together about this” or “this is somebody who doesn’t normally complain, and now they’re complaining, and that’s different. What’s going on here now?” AI may, may evolve to be able to catch up to that too, because my understanding is that it’s just becoming better and better. But it’s certainly a useful adjunct. I know in our medical school curriculum there’s a whole session on how to engage with AI and how to use it. And I think that’s good. It’s a tool, and it’s really helpful.

One more change of gears. How did you go from the liberal arts background into medical school? Was there a transition, or was that something you always wanted to do? Or was the liberal arts a bit of a detour? How did that evolve?

I always wanted to be a doctor, but I also always knew that I wasn’t going to spend four years at a college that was very strong in liberal arts and spend it doing biology or some other concentration in the sciences. There were just too many other things that I liked. I had a bunch of AP credits coming out of high school, so I didn’t have to take many science courses — and I didn’t — but I took enough, and the rest of the time it was English, history and other humanities courses. I thought that was important before I went to medical school. And I generally think that it’s important.

Where did you get that idea as a 17 or 18-year-old?

Probably simply from the fact that I was too interested in so many things. I was fascinated by medicine, but I always read a lot, and I was much more attracted to humanities in college, knowing that I was going to go to medical school afterwards. I knew I’d be spending the rest of my professional life in medicine, so I wanted to explore non-medical areas in college.

When you went into medicine, did you think that you were leaving the humanities part behind, or did you always think the two would stay entwined?

I always thought the two would stay entwined. At one point I actually thought of doing psychiatry — as I said earlier, that always seemed to me to be the specialty most intertwined with the humanities — but I decided not to. But no, I didn’t leave the humanities behind.

One thing I’ve always appreciated about the United States is their undergraduate education is much more permissive of people pursuing other things and then going to medical school later. In other countries, like in Canada, undergraduate learning is very much more pre-defined. If you want to become a doctor, you have to do life science, and life science leads into medicine. It’s technically not written anywhere, but everyone does it this way, and I think you miss out on a lot of stuff that you could learn that might help you later, but in a more abstract way.

I think a four-year general undergraduate curriculum can certainly broaden your horizons. Medical school was four years of really hard work; College was the last time, at least for the next four years, that I could do something else in depth with the other side of my brain.

Or even if we just say those four years exist for themselves. It’s a great four years. It doesn’t matter if it affects you later, necessarily. We could die tomorrow. You enjoyed your college years. Let’s circle back. Why is medical humanities important in today’s world?

I feel like medical humanities is important because I just think it makes us broader and deeper and hopefully more empathic human beings. And that’s always a good thing, and I think patients benefit from that. I hear a lot of complaints from family and friends about medical care these days (because let’s face it, I’m at the age where my contemporaries all talk about their medical care) and often their biggest complaint is that the doctor’s visit was very short or they felt rushed. Unfortunately, a number of people are unhappy with the nature of doctor-patient interactions these days. But I don’t know that the humanities alone are going to make that better. So much of it is driven by insurance companies, reimbursements, and documentation needs — all things that are beyond our control.

Thank you very much for your time.

Web photo by Medhum.

Posts Written by Dr. Steven Field

Book ReviewFocus

The Expendable Man by Dorothy B. Hughes 

03.17.26 372

Book ReviewFocusLitmed

The Great Influenza by John Barry 

11.03.25 970

Book ReviewLitmed

The Winter Soldier by Daniel Mason

09.18.25 1215

Book ReviewFocus

The Eye in the Door by Pat Barker 

07.22.25 1232

Load More

Load More

Directed by Anne Kauffman, the play features “Primes,” or holographic simulations of the dead intended for therapeutic use by the living. June Squibb—who, at 96, is making history as the oldest performer to open a Broadway show—astonishes as Marjorie, an impish 85-year-old with dementia using a much younger version of her husband Walter (an uncanny yet tender Christopher Lowell) to regain and retain her memory. Marjorie’s daughter Tess (the incredible Cynthia Nixon) is skeptical and fearful of the technology, whereas Tess’s husband Jon, played by a standout Danny Burstein, is a fan—until an on-the-nose change of heart in the penultimate scene. 

Marjorie Prime’s central flaw is that it favors concepts over dramatic depth. The characters are well-acted but underdeveloped, and almost all they do is talk; the biggest event may be Marjorie urinating herself. Yet, despite its slow pace and formulaic structure, Marjorie Prime is intelligent and poignant. 

Marjorie’s memories are embellished and sanitized for her comfort and convenience. The fallibility of memory is hardly a novel concept, but the Primes enable this reconstructive process and also become a stand-in for genuine connection in the wake of grief, preventing the family from confronting painful realities and repairing their relationships.  

By the time the truth fully surfaces in the unsettling final scene, which makes adroit use of a stage turntable (props to scenic designer Lee Jellinek), there are no humans left to heal. When storytelling is delegated to AI, truth becomes archival rather than relational; however, truth must be witnessed between living people in order to be ethically and therapeutically meaningful.  

Playwright Jordan Harrison’s Primes, like flesh-and-blood clinicians, absorb and co-construct patients’ accounts of self, yet they are disembodied, unfeeling, and ultimately unable to act with compassion, turning dynamic stories into datasets.   

Marjorie Prime, through Feb. 15 at the Helen Hayes Theater in New York; 2st.com/shows/marjorie-prime.  

“Much of healthcare happens in interpersonal moments,” write Maura Spiegel and Danielle Spencer in the first chapter of The Principles and Practice of Narrative Medicine—and machines are good at many things, but participating in a truly interpersonal moment is likely not one of them. Several studies have suggested that models perform worse for underrepresented groups because they are trained on datasets that lack racial, cultural, and linguistic diversity. Additionally, AI may miss subtle emotional cues and fail to interpret tone, context, and metaphors, which, one bioethicist [1] predicts, could “fundamentally alter” how trust is practiced in healthcare. Others [2] have underscored that “AI should be viewed not as a replacement for the physician, but as a partner in delivering empathetic, patient-centered care.” 

However, AI is not wholly bad. For example, a recent systematic review [3] found that applying natural language processing (NLP) to unstructured text in electronic health records (EHRs) can detect signs of cognitive impairment. Some [4] have found solace in text-based simulations with lost loved ones. And perhaps technology should be viewed as a vehicle for strengthening partnerships between clinicians and patients. Designed by Gabriela Gomes, the video game Healing Spaces aims to help those with neurodegenerative diseases connect with their caregivers. It is a multisensory experience: an app with beach and forest scenes, and a box with aromatherapy that smells like pine trees. Healing Spaces may evoke memories or even create new ones between caregiver and patient, unlike the Primes’ hollow curation. 

Healing Spaces also includes sunscreen-scented lotion that caregivers can use to massage the hands of those in their care. Needless to say, holograms and lotion don’t pair well. “You can’t touch a hologram. So there’s something about them looking so much like your loved ones, but not being able to quite achieve intimacy with them,” said Harrison during Marjorie Prime’s Off-Broadway run about a decade ago. “The loneliness can never be quite extinguished, never satisfied, because they’re just pixels.”  

[1] Kerasidou, Angeliki. “Artificial Intelligence and the Ongoing Need for Empathy,  Compassion and Trust in Healthcare.” Bulletin of the World Health Organization, vol. 98, no. 4, 2020, pp. 245-250. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7133472/. 

[2] Ghenimi, Nadirah, et al. “Integrating AI with Narrative-Based Medicine: Enhancing Patient-Centered Care in Primary Practice.” Perspectives in Primary Care, 5 Dec. 2024, info.primarycare.hms.harvard.edu/perspectives/articles/integrating-ai-with-narrative-based-medicine.  

[3] Shankar, Ravi et al. “Natural Language Processing of Electronic Health Records for Early Detection of Cognitive Decline: A Systematic Review.”npj Digital Medicine, vol. 8, no. 1, 2025, p. 133. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40025194/. 

[4] Fagone, Jason. “The Jessica Simulation: Love and Loss in the Age of A.I.” The San Francisco Chronicle, 23 July 2021, sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/jessica-simulation-artificial-intelligence/. 

Web image from 2nd Street Theater.

I am glad to report that Playground is a success on this count. In this most recent novel, Powers turns to the ocean as a backdrop for his story. He weaves together the narratives of three main characters. Todd Keane, who is the son of a successful businessman, grows up privileged in upper-crust Chicago. As a high school student in a top-tier private school in the 1970s, he is captivated by the relatively crude computers of the time, mounts the technology wave and feverishly rides it to professional success as an adult. Evie Beaulieu is literally and figuratively thrown into the water at a young age by her father, a deep sea explorer, and becomes obsessed with everything watery. She is more comfortable swimming deep beneath the ocean surface than walking on land. With the support of a gentle and self-effacing husband, she becomes a world famous oceanographer who achieves renown because of her ability to convey the magic and mystery of the ocean equally well to her scientific colleagues and young adult readers, echoes of Richard Powers himself. Finally, Ina Aroita grew up on the Pacific island, Makatea, but moved to the United States to pursue studies in the creative arts and becomes a sculptor. In college, she meets Todd and through him she is introduced to an important fourth character, Rafi Young, who pulls together the Keane-Aroita story lines.

Rafi grew up in the Black neighborhoods of South Side Chicago. He is a voracious reader from the first day of school and, defying the odds,  wins a scholarship to attend the same high school as Todd Keane. They meet over intense games of chess, advance to the ancient addictive game of Go, and develop a powerful but vulnerable friendship. They both choose to go to college at the University of Illinois, and Ina is drawn into their orbit.  Powers pulls all of these characters into a tight web that centers on the ambitious plan of an American company  to build a self-sustaining city that will launched from Makatea and will be submerged under the surface of the water. The residents of the island are being asked to weigh the pros and cons of the “seasteading” initiative and decide whether to approve it. The rationale offered by the proponents is that life in such a unique environment will enable the occupants of the submerged city to live in a realm outside the jurisdiction of any company and be free to pursue their intellectual pursuits and dreams about expanding the use of artificial intelligence, free of government interference and restrictions.

Extreme libertarianism meets AI wonderland.

Powers populates his literary world with characters we come to know well and grow attached to. It is a strength of Playground that they are believable and not simply spokespeople for a point of view. Powers explores many themes in this book. Games, those that people play casually for leisure, like chess, and those that they play intensely for success in life figure prominently in the novel. Todd and Rafi’s obsession with the ancient board game of Go, with its infinite number of possible outcomes branching out from a simple 19×19 linear grid, becomes an incubator for their ideas about computing capacity. Go provides an alluring framework to explore human behavior and model it for use by programmers of life-like computer surrogates. The game provides the initial inspiration for Todd to design powerful AI systems that can mimic humans and beat them at their own games. There is an appreciation of the growing potential for unpredictable outcomes as computer systems become more complex, machine learning diversifies, and neural networks become denser. The example that most impresses Keane (and Powers) involves the game of AlphaGo, an actual computer program, which was designed to play Go at championship level. Todd recounts his feelings of awe when the program  made an inexplicable move in a game against Ke Jie, the number one ranked player in the world at the time, that sealed the computer’s victory in a three-game match. This was something that was thought to be beyond the power of any computer (this same episode features prominently in the book Maniac by Benjamin Labatut).

In this novel, the inventiveness of nature and the unpredictability of human interactions far surpasses anything that AI accomplishes. The complexity of the natural world, its wondrous diversity, its unexpected vitality, is captured in incandescent prose as Powers describes the glowing colors of the deep-sea creatures. Can and will computers achieve a sense of stewardship and legacy? Will they develop an attachment to the environment around them and struggle to sustain it and pass it on whole to the next generation of computers in the same way that links people across and with future generations?

The novel reaches a climax and the ending involves an unexpected plot twist. The book is too much of a fun read for me to reveal it and spoil it for you. One hint — keep in mind that Todd Keane is an extraordinarily complex person. That said, what is striking is how marginally AI actually influences the actual outcome of the novel. It is more of a gadget play than an active player in the narrative. It is as if Powers himself is unsure how AI will impact those of us alive today and the generations that will come after us. If this is true for Powers, then it suggests that all of us should stay modest in our predictions of the future of AI. Reading Playground, I think he would remind us to keep in mind that however things turn out with AI, it will probably work out best if we remember the grandeur of nature and the human capacity to care deeply for one another and our environment, qualities that Powers describes with an expansive intelligence and poetic beauty.

Playground
Richard Powers
W. W. Norton & Co.2024.
381 pp (paperback)

Web image by Medhum.org

While only in nascent forms, organizing a method for understanding artificial intelligence (AI) as it’s currently structured for broad application is important but daunting. Shannon Vallor, a philosopher and ethicist, suggests using a mirror as a metaphor in her book, The AI Mirror. The book stems from her work as both an academic philosopher and as an AI ethicist at Google.  

Vallor describes her book as a “polemic,” and that it is when she says AI “in its dominant commercial form, endangers our humanity.” (p. 4) I’m leaving her polemics aside, mostly. My interest is her use of the mirror as a metaphor for AI, large language models (LLMs) in particular, and how she constructs the metaphor, some of the consequences of AI seen through her metaphor, and some suggestions she makes based on what the metaphor reveals about AI and ourselves.  

Reflections on the Mirror Metaphor  

The mirror as metaphor for AI came to Vallor based on its content source, that is, us: our words, our computations, our images, our sounds, and all the other digestible forms of our creations. What AI regurgitates from our prompts is based on an algorithmic mixing and matching of the collective creations it ingests.  

We often think of a “mirror image” as an exact replica of what faces it, and so the mirror metaphor for AI could convey that AI outputs are true and objective. To the contrary, Vallor hastens to caution, “mirrors do not merely reveal things as they are: mirrors also magnify, occlude, and distort what is captured in their frame. Their view is always both narrower and shallower than the realities they reflect.” Consequently, her metaphor is as much about what “AI mirrors do not show us: what they hide, what they diminish, what humane possibilities for self-engineering are lost in their bright surfaces.” (pp. 13-14)  

Throughout the book, Vallor emphasizes how nothing much of the human essence is to be found behind the AI mirrors, especially that which could contribute to AI analytical output.   

An AI mirror is not a mind. It is a mathematical tool for extracting statistical patterns from past human-generated data and projecting these patterns forward into optimized predictions, selections, classifications, and compositions…Minds depend upon the brain for their reality…[but] our mental lives are driven by other bodily systems as well: our motor nerves, the endocrine system, even our digestive system. (pp. 38-40)  

Vallor extends the metaphor when adding the myth of Narcissus. In the myth, Narcissus catches his image in a pool and becomes so enamored with its reflected beauty he can’t extricate himself before he wastes away into oblivion. Vallor worries that we risk the same fate when AI has us “fixated, confined, immobilized, held captive.” (p. 5) Vallor points to another character from this myth that makes it more poignant yet. Echo, a nymph, only parrots the last few words she’s heard. In applying Echo’s trait to AI, Vallor contrasts how Echo returns the words she has taken in while “a large language model returns to us not our own recent utterances, but a statistical variation on the collected, digitized words of untold millions.” (p. 34) This trait of large language models underlies some of the consequences the metaphor reveals. 

Truth of Consequences 

The metaphor helps us see that what we get from AI results is based on statistical probabilities of words occurring in a certain order without regard to how true any of it is. So, to Vallor, AI models are “like the human bullshitter. They aren’t designed to be accurate—they are designed to sound accurate.” (pp. 120-122) She does not use the term bullshit blithely. She refers to Harry Frankfurt’s treatise on the subject in which he distinguishes bullshit from lying by its indifference to the truth and its indiscriminate application. AI users often see this consequence in the form of the erroneous answers they get, which are referred to colloquially as “hallucinations;” Vallor calls them, “fabrications.” These consequences range from humorous and annoying to unproductive and deadly.  

As the AI source for content is mainly us, Vallor warns it’s not all of us who contribute content, but rather just a small subset of us, and certainly not a subset of us that is representative of the human race in all its variations. Referring to her metaphor, then, a mirror cannot reflect what it cannot see, which produces consequences around what we can expect from AI predictions. The complete reliance on what it has seen limits its predictions to what can be inferred from the historical data that exists and it can reach, “what humans valued enough to describe or record in data. But not all humans.” (p. 133) And, with no input from broad-based human experience, wisdom, imagination, and purpose, she wonders how we can have any “hope of making ourselves more than what we have already been.” (pp. 90-91) There’s nothing new under the mirror. 

The consequences of AI Vallor details that are polemical concern the commercial entities controlling what the mirror sees and what it shows. In particular, given the weakening of regulatory functions over the previous decades, she sees how “the rise of the behemoths of ‘Big Tech’” has transformed them “from intermediaries of social power to its primary executors.” (p. 175)  

All this to Vallor “is a calamity—a betrayal of life and its possibilities,” (p. 36) but she does not go so far as to say we’re doomed. She allows how huge benefits could accrue to societies and individuals if the AI mirrors become more reliable and objective sources of information, that is, amidst a pile of bullshit, the optimist in her is saying there must be a calf in it somewhere. She offers suggestions on how we unearth the calf. 

How to be the Fairest of them All 

Vallor’s suggestions for managing AI applications call upon the wherewithal of users for now—DIY quality control required. Many of her suggestions center on comprehending how AI output is constructed and accounting for the implications of that construction. 

When we do catch sight of our past in the AI mirror, it is essential that we do not mistake those patterns for destiny or allow them to become self-fulfilling prophecy…If we mindlessly replicate what we see in the mirror of history, we will never build upon that knowledge, never be free to try new and better approaches. (p. 101) 

She speaks of knowing “data provenance,” and of knowing when “algorithmic predictions and profiles are scientifically credible, ethically justifiable and politically accountable, and when they are not.” (p. 52) Although that may seem like asking a lot from even advanced AI users, we need to go through the same processes for our own analyses. And from these analyses, we also at times produce hallucinations, distortions, and slanted results. In this way to a degree, the AI mirror metaphor applies to humans. But we can incorporate aspirations, imagination, wisdom, and morals into our analyses. That differentiation is key to seeing how Vallor’s AI mirror metaphor situates AI as a “powerful amplifier of human ability,” not as a substitute for it. (p. 28) 

Vallor S. The AI Mirror. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2024. 
Frankfurt H. On Bullshit. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005. 

Web image by Medhum.org.

Literature mirrors the general culture. There has been a recent explosion of books in which AI is the central plot device moving the narrative forward to endings that range from a utopian fulfillment of human destiny to the catastrophic collapse of civilization and the annihilation of humankind. But AI infiltrated the literary space several decades ago. Philip Dick imagined a world in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? where cyborgs were being hunted down because of fear that they might take over the world. In 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke, a robot named Hal murders nearly all the crew of a spaceship on a planetary mission because of a programming error. 

Speak by Louisa Hall is more recent addition to the AI library. But it was published several years before large language models became a routine tool to plan a vacation or write a letter of recommendation. Is it still worth reading in 2025? 

The novel is a composite narrative centered around five interwoven stories spanning the time period from 1663 to 2040. In the first narrative, a young Puritan girl who finds herself in an unwanted marriage, records her thoughts in a diary that she is writing on a treacherous ocean voyage to America. Fast forward to the 20^th century and we meet Alan Turing who is writing letters to the mother of young man to whom he was emotionally attached and who died prematurely. He is troubled by his inability at times to communicate with people. A decade later we meet Karl and Ruth Dettman, a couple whose families escaped Nazi Germany but under vastly different circumstances. The husband, Karl, is a computer scientist who has developed a program named MARY to enable computers to interact with humans. Ruth, his wife, is a historian who has built a career centered on the publication of old diaries like the one written by the young woman traveling to America. She is trying to convince Karl to expand the memory of his computer program and enrich it with more human material, but Karl stubbornly refuses because he is concerned about the power of his program to overwhelm its users if its database is expanded. Finally, we jump ahead to 2040, and we read the transcripts of the trial of Stephen Chinn, a man who is being prosecuted for the production of robots that are too life-like. Chinn is being accused of causing physical and psychological harm to the people who have used his robots and of weakening normal relationships between people. A young adolescent named Gaby, who was given a doll powered by a version of MARY, is one of his alleged victims. His own personal recollections are folded into the trial proceedings, as he tries to describe his intentions, justify his actions, and make amends for where they may have gone awry. 

Taking stock of our world today, there is clear evidence that AI can improve the day-to-day lot of people, make life more convenient and efficient, and promote better health outcomes. However, much of the current angst that permeates discussions of AI is focused on the potential economic and sociopolitical consequences. There is fear that systematic adoption of AI will lead to widespread loss of jobs and financial distress for people left behind. The generation of false data and uncontrolled dissemination of unfiltered information may, it is feared, foster social unrest and destabilize democratic institutions.  

All of these predictions, for good or for bad, center on the word “intelligence.” If it is defined as the creative use of information towards a specific goal– my definition, to be sure — then it exists along a gradient and there is not an opposing term. In that case, the mixed picture about the future of AI seems accurate. Humans can process information to both noble and destructive ends. If machines are provided information by humans, then it is likely that there will be worthy and flawed outcomes. It is not a reflection of the logical structures or neural networks that are built into us as humans or artificially placed into machines. It simply is the nature of intelligence. Information is agnostic and it can be processed in a limitless number of ways; there is no guarantee of what will happen when it is processed. 

On the other hand, if we center our predictions on the word “artificial,” there is an opposing term, namely “genuine.” Speak looks beyond AI as intelligence and forces us to think about its impact on interpersonal communication and interactions. The design of the robots that are being created in fiction and in our world of 2025 is steadily improving. The voices become more lifelike, the reactions more emotionally appropriate, the reactions more convincing. They display keen intelligence and manifest seeming empathy with their handlers. Like the artificial friend in Klara and the Sun by Kazuo Ishigura, the robots may even appear to have more feelings and awareness of the ever-changing psychological state of their owners than family members and friends. But it will always remain artificial. Speak forces us to ponder whether interactions between human beings have an element that cannot be programmed, that is not simply manipulation of information. It is that piece that accounts for the genuine nature of relationships between people and it is that component that is vital for human growth and maturation. The interconnected stories in Speak raise the concern that reliance on AI, in whatever embodied form it takes, to provide support and companionship may inevitably fail and leave damaged humans in its mechanical wake. The intelligence of AI may not be sufficient for humans to thrive. It remains difficult to put into words exactly what to call this additional component of human interaction. Thankfully, there is literature, and creative novels like Speak, to help us grapple with what it might be and to help us steer a course where AI is developed thoughtfully with full awareness of its limitations and potential for good and harm. 

SPEAK  
Louisa Hall 
EccoPress, New York 2016, 356 pp 
Web image by Medhum.org

These changes have not all been for the better. Perhaps you have noticed such unsettling changes yourself. A child in a restaurant is glued to a tablet screen, probably the last resort of a weary parent trying to enjoy their first peaceful meal in days. A group of tourists in Paris marvels at the Eiffel Tower, not as it is, but as it appears through their phone camera and on their phone screen. Neighborhoods have become quieter and less lively, as children have retreated from the streets and hunkered down at home with their phones. 

Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the NYU Stern School of Business, elaborates upon these ideas in his book The Anxious Generation. In this book, he describes the dual trends of increasing smartphone/screen-based engagement, driven by perverse economic incentives of technology companies, and decreasing real-world, human-to-human play, driven by over-protection from modern parents. The collision of these forces has defined Gen Z, born between 1997 and 2012, as the most anxious and depressed generation of our time. 

In the book, Haidt notes that the tactics of technology companies to drive increased user engagement have been well documented by activists such as Tristan Harris. Much like tobacco companies in the mid to late 20^th century, modern technology companies prey on young users (e.g. children) as a source of future/recurring revenue, and fight off consumer protections through aggressive lobbying campaigns at the government level. As a result, children are spending record numbers of hours on smartphones, increasingly isolated from the real world and irritable when deprived of their digital drugs. Haidt also observes that the technology problems of girls and boys are unique. For example, girls are significantly more prone to social media addiction and the associated psychological disturbances such as distorted body image and self-worth. On the other hand, boys are much more avid users of video games and pornography, which reduce their desire for real-world play and romantic relationships. 

Haidt also notes that over a longer but overlapping time period, children have been overly protected from real-world responsibilities and real-world play. He attributes these new attitudes to the changing media landscape and how crimes are portrayed in the news, as well as legal challenges which have incentivized parental overprotection. In one example, he describes a pitiful incident in which an eight-year-old child was seen walking the streets alone, and a concerned passerby called the police to report an “abandoned child.” In this case and many others, parents have been held responsible for this absurd new “crime”, a sight which would have been entirely commonplace 30 years ago. Haidt highlights the irony of how the real-world, full of rich experiences, appropriate risk-taking, and character-building responsibilities has been overly regulated by our society, whereas the digital world, rife with dangers for growing adolescent minds, has been almost entirely unchecked, unregulated, and ignored.  

Bringing people out of the digital world and into the real world is a formidable task. One strategy that Haidt found success with was to encourage people to reconnect with a sense of awe in the world. Awe is a vague concept, but can be defined as a feeling of wonder inspired by the sacred or sublime. The real world is full of such awe-inspiring moments, if only we could stop to notice them. In a comically simple exercise, Haidt encouraged students in his university course to take a walk through Manhattan without their phones or headphones, and then to write about their experience on this “awe walk.” The written reflections were so beautiful that he included excerpts of his students’ work in the book to illustrate how such simple measures could have such a profound impact. One such excerpt is reproduced below: 

For children who have no choice but to grow up in the digital era, Haidt attempts to boil his recommendations down into four rules for a healthier childhood:  

1. No smartphones until high school. 

2. No social media before the age of 16. 

3. No phones in schools. 

4. More independence, play, and responsibility in the real world. 

He recognizes that while these solutions are simple, their implementation is anything but. As a society, we face a daunting collective action problem as it pertains to technology and real-world experiences. Such problems require collective solutions, and Haidt encourages parents to get together, organize, and raise their children together in a real-world oriented manner. While broader changes in school policy may seem out of reach, Haidt encourages struggling schools to get inspired by the numerous case studies of schools that went phone-free and experienced positive changes by almost every metric, within a matter of two to three years. 

Some may say that our society is too far gone to reverse these negative changes, but this is certainly not the case. In fact, people are more skeptical now than ever of the negative role of technology in our lives, and collective action on this problem may be easier now than it ever has been before. As we sit perched on the precipice of a new technological revolution in artificial intelligence, this sentiment has already garnered potent opposition to unchecked technological advance and implementation. Will we learn from our past mistakes? Unfortunately, our track record is not encouraging. Only time will tell how far we go before we decide we need a detox. 

The Anxious Generation 
Jonathan Haidt 
Penguin Press, New York City, March 26, 2024, 400 pages
Web Photo by Joel Fulgencio