It’s 1952, and Delacorte Press publishes a debut novel by a 23-year-old writer. Kurt Vonnegut Jr., a former employee of General Electric, has written a book inspired by his experience working there. His debut novel addresses the issues of replacing human labor and the resulting loss of purpose and meaning in life. He titles it “Player Piano.” Vonnegut uses the player piano, or automatic piano, to show how even an activity such as someone playing the piano at a local bar can be replaced by a machine that does it for a quarter.
At the time, many wrote the novel off as science fiction and it was not given the attention it deserved. The premise was too fantastical for the average reader. “Player Piano” takes place in a future in which machines have replaced the majority of human laborers in the United States following a devastating war. Due to this reliance on machines, engineers became the most important members of society. People were divided into three classes: the managers and engineers, soldiers and the Reconstruction and Reclamation Corps or, as they are more commonly referred to as, Reeks and Wrecks.
While the managers and engineers are at the top of the hierarchy of man, EPICAC, a highly advanced supercomputer, calls the shots. EPICAC calculates and manages various aspects of production and consumption in their society. It acts as a brain, determining how many products will be sold, how many workers are needed and what their roles should be.
The divide between college-educated engineers and everyone else is stark in the fictional Ilium, New York, where Doctor Paul Proteus lives with his wife, Anita. As manager of the Ilium Works, Paul is the most powerful man in town. An issue arises as Paul, who once believed in the value of engineering and automation, becomes skeptical of the inequality it has created in society.
In “Player Piano,” you can see the beginnings of Vonnegut’s unique writing style and satirical approach to his stories. He writes dryly, utilizing short sentences and avoiding wordy run-on sentences.
The story is filled with sentiments revolving around themes like self-worth and class divisions. Throughout the novel, Vonnegut argues that humans will lose their purpose with increasing reliance on machines. Through Paul, Vonnegut explains why dependency on machines is detrimental to humanity. He writes, “Men, by their nature, seemingly, cannot be happy unless engaged in enterprises that make them feel useful. They must, therefore, be returned to participation in such enterprises.” This quote submits for consideration the idea that people need to take pride in their accomplishments to maintain their dignity.
The world that Vonnegut constructed is presented as a utopia, a perfect world where even the people at the bottom of the social and financial ladder still have everything they could desire. Yet, one thing that they crave to the point of voracity is kept out of their reach: meaning. They float through life with no direction.
In an automated world where people have lost their dignity, humanity reaches an impasse. They must decide: Simply continue to exist, coasting from day to day, devoid of meaning or else take back your once cherished dignity by removing the machines from the jobs that should be yours.
To give an outside perspective, Vonnegut includes the character of the Shah of Bratpuhr, a foreign spiritual leader. The Shah is in the U.S. to survey the successful use of machines to create a streamlined, highly productive economy and government. One of the recurring themes in the book is the Shah’s misunderstanding of the word “citizen,” which is translated into his language as “takaru,” meaning slave. The Shah’s observations about the hierarchies in the U.S. are uncomfortable, peculiar and eerily accurate.
Artificial intelligence, or AI, has become an increasingly hot topic. Opinions on AI are varied; some see it as a powerful tool with immense potential to improve society, while others fear its potential for job displacement. To anyone who cannot see the benefits of AI, I recommend opening your eyes to the possibilities. But, to those who are so rapt by AI that they cannot see the risks, I propose that you read “Player Piano.”
There is much to be done as the world wrestles with future uses of AI and what restrictions are needed. What makes humanity special is our ability to paint artistic masterpieces, compose sonorous symphonies and write eloquent prose. But with people using generative AI to create new content, including images, music and text, we are losing our place as masters of the arts.
It is vital that our fascination with AI does not become reliance. Once AI is a necessity, there is not much to stop our civilization from becoming like the one in the book. AI is more intelligent, faster and efficient than even the best and brightest of our species. So, with the debate on AI usage at an all-time high, the most important question may be, “What should AI be used for?”
I believe it is crucial that we do not reach the point where there is no answer to this question. That would be the time when AI starts asking what the Shah of Bratpuhr wanted to know about the new U.S. society: “What are people for?”
