Published on October 9, 2024 7:32 PM GMT
This essay is my rebuttal to this post on lesswrong
In discussions about AI safety and existential risks, an often-overlooked issue is the decline of linguistic diversity. As we move towards a future dominated by artificial general intelligence (AGI), we must recognize that language extinction is not merely a cultural loss but a global catastrophic risk. Disregarding the preservation of minority languages as having "low utility" is dangerously reminiscent of colonial and racist ideologies that have plagued human history and devalue the cognitive and cultural wealth embedded within languages. One might just as easily ask, "Why should certain continents or populations exist in a post-AGI world when some regions contribute more to global innovation?" Such a statement is not only morally repugnant but deeply flawed. If AGI can surpass human intelligence, should it not also embody the full richness of human cognitive diversity? Are we willing to bear the ethical responsibility of erasing the languages—and thus, the identities—of countless communities through negligence and indifference? What unforeseen crises might emerge from a world where only a narrow set of linguistic perspectives shape the evolution of technology?
People subconsciously believe there'd be only one race and language post-AGI. It’s definitely not my race or language. This unconscious assumption reflects a dangerous oversimplification of human diversity and the complex interplay between language, culture, and identity. It also reveals a tacit acceptance of cultural homogenization as an inevitable outcome of technological progress, a notion we must actively resist.
Languages are far more than tools for communication; they are repositories of collective wisdom, cultural heritage, and cognitive diversity. How can we afford to ignore the vast cognitive resources embedded in each language when facing the complex and interconnected challenges of the future? Each language offers a distinct way of interpreting reality and solving problems. When a language disappears, we lose an entire intellectual framework—one that might hold solutions to unforeseen challenges that could arise in an AGI-driven future.
Languages are also intricately linked to identity. For speakers, language is a source of pride and belonging, an intrinsic part of their cultural expression. Language is what binds communities together and allows them to convey stories, values, and traditions. The loss of a language can lead to the fragmentation of communities, as well as an erosion of social cohesion and intergenerational connections. When children lose their heritage language, they are cut off from their history, and with it, they lose a piece of themselves. This impact is not just cultural; it is deeply psychological, affecting individuals' sense of self-worth and communal belonging.
Consider the case of Greek, which has shaped Western thought. Its influence on philosophy, science, and art has been immense. To lose Greek would sever our link to foundational ideas that have underpinned Western civilization. This is not just about safeguarding ancient texts; it is about preserving intellectual resources that continue to shape contemporary thought. Greek provides access to centuries of philosophical inquiry, concepts of governance, and scientific discourse that remain relevant to this day. Each language offers unique cognitive insights that may prove indispensable in addressing future challenges.
We acknowledge the value of biodiversity in sustaining ecosystems, referring to the variety of living species such as animals and plants; similarly, we must recognize the critical role of linguistic diversity in maintaining humanity's cognitive ecosystem. Linguistic diversity functions as a form of "cognitive insurance," ensuring humanity retains a broad spectrum of perspectives and approaches to problem-solving. Failing to preserve this diversity is tantamount to intellectual impoverishment on a global scale. Just as biodiversity provides resilience in the face of ecological crises, linguistic diversity ensures our resilience in times of social, cultural, and intellectual upheaval.
Today, approximately 7,000 languages are spoken worldwide, yet nearly 40% are endangered, and many are no longer being passed on to younger generations. Every two weeks, another language falls silent, taking with it centuries of accumulated knowledge about ecology, medicine, and human experience. This decline is not a natural progression but a crisis amplified by globalization, political oppression, and now, the unintended consequences of technological advancements. Languages encapsulate indigenous knowledge about sustainable living, local species, and medicinal practices. The loss of a language can mean the loss of critical ecological insights, many of which have taken thousands of years to develop and are irreplaceable.
With the advent of AGI, this threat becomes even more pronounced. Large language models are predominantly developed and trained using dominant languages, marginalizing those that are less widespread. This technological bias accelerates language extinction by making it increasingly difficult for speakers of minority languages to access digital services, education, and economic opportunities without abandoning their linguistic heritage. Just as we have seen the importance of archiving software for future generations through initiatives like the GitHub Archive Program, we must demonstrate similar foresight in preserving linguistic diversity. AI, rather than accelerating the extinction of languages, could be a force for revitalization—if developed with this intention. large language models can help document and teach endangered languages, providing learning tools for younger generations and facilitating the transmission of knowledge. However, this potential will only be realized if we prioritize the integration of all languages into AI training data.
There is often less resistance when global powers intervene in crises that do not directly affect their citizens. The United States, for instance, has committed substantial resources to support nations like Ukraine and Israel, citing principles of democracy and global stability. Yet, when it comes to preserving minority languages—many of which are inextricably linked to the survival of vulnerable cultures—this global altruism is absent. This selective empathy suggests that our ability to mobilize for global causes is constrained by narrow linguistic and cultural frameworks. Without a fundamental shift in perception, minority languages will continue to be seen as expendable, rather than as integral to the fabric of human experience.
The disregard for linguistic diversity is not just a cultural oversight; it constitutes a violation of fundamental human rights. The Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights affirms that all linguistic communities have the right to exist and to preserve and develop their language and culture. When languages are allowed to die, we become complicit in erasing identities and undermining the rights of entire communities. The right to speak one's language is linked to the right to maintain one's culture, identity, and dignity. By allowing languages to die out, we are endorsing a worldview where cultural homogeneity is valued over the richness of human diversity, a direct affront to the principles of equity and justice.
Language suppression has long been used as a deliberate tool of oppression and colonization by dominant powers to control populations and eradicate cultures. Language policies have disenfranchised communities, severing their connections to history and making them more susceptible to control. Today, we risk repeating this injustice on a global scale through negligence and indifference, cloaked in technological progress. In a post-AGI world, these dynamics could continue unchecked, allowing Large Language Models—whether intentionally or not—to become instruments of colonization, pushing marginalized languages towards extinction by prioritizing dominant languages. We must prevent AI from replicating these colonial patterns on a massive scale.
The question of who decides which languages are "worth" preserving is ethically problematic. Too often, these decisions favor languages with larger speaker populations or economic clout, thereby continuing cycles of marginalization. Every language, regardless of its number of speakers, embodies invaluable knowledge and distinct ways of thinking. The very act of determining which languages hold value is itself a form of cultural violence, perpetuating oppressive power structures that have historically silenced marginalized communities. Instead, we must adopt an inclusive approach that recognizes all languages as integral to the human experience, valuing them for the unique cognitive and cultural wealth they represent.
The push for linguistic homogenization, frequently masked as a pursuit of efficiency or progress, echoes colonial practices that sought to eradicate minority languages to consolidate control. Should we accept the homogenization of thought as the price of technological advancement, even when it might lead us to overlook critical perspectives that could help solve humanity's most pressing problems? Advocating for a universal language to facilitate global communication, while dismissing linguistic diversity as an obstacle, is a flawed and shortsighted view. History reveals that imposed languages eventually fracture and evolve into new dialects and creoles, as evidenced by the development of Haitian Creole from French and Jamaican Patois from English. This natural evolution highlights the futility—and danger—of pursuing linguistic homogeneity. A world with fewer languages is not necessarily a more unified one; it is a world deprived of depth, nuance, and the numerous ways that humans can express themselves and understand their place in the world.
The integration of AI into everyday life presents a genuine threat to linguistic diversity. While AGI offers unprecedented opportunities, it also brings significant risks if it is not ethically guided. large language models must be developed with inclusivity at their core, ensuring that they incorporate and support all languages. This challenge is not merely technical; it is a moral imperative. We must ensure that AI acts as a tool for empowerment rather than a catalyst for cultural and linguistic erosion. Developers, linguists, policymakers, and communities must collaborate to ensure that the benefits of AGI are equitably distributed, without inadvertently marginalizing those whose languages are less dominant.
Training AI models primarily on dominant languages risks accelerating the extinction of minority languages. The pressure on individuals to adopt widely spoken languages—those that Language Models can more easily process—will be immense. This dynamic could lead to a homogenized linguistic landscape, impoverishing human thought and limiting our collective capacity to solve complex global challenges. If these trends continue unchecked, we will see a rapid and irreversible decline in the number of languages spoken worldwide, leading to a diminished collective intellectual toolkit. To counteract this, intentional and sustained efforts are needed to ensure that AI technologies are designed to include and promote linguistic diversity, rather than diminish it.
The argument for preserving languages is not about resisting progress or nostalgically clinging to the past. Rather, it is about ensuring that we retain the full range of human cognitive abilities as we navigate an uncertain future. Each language is a repository of unique insights and conceptual frameworks that may prove crucial for addressing the multifaceted challenges of a post-AGI world. Allowing these languages to die would be akin to discarding potential solutions to future crises. In an AGI-dominated world, the capacity to draw on diverse intellectual traditions and ways of thinking may be the deciding factor between failure and resilience.
Preserving linguistic diversity aligns with broader principles of human rights and cultural self-determination. Just as we uphold the rights of indigenous peoples to maintain their traditions and ways of life, we must also defend the rights of all linguistic communities to preserve their languages. To do otherwise would be to endorse a world where cultural imperialism is not only tolerated but embedded in the very algorithms that shape our lives. Such an endorsement would represent a significant regression in our collective ethical standards, undoing decades of progress in human rights and cultural preservation.
The question, "How many languages should exist?" is fundamentally flawed. It presumes that linguistic diversity is expendable—a luxury that can be sacrificed in the name of progress. In truth, linguistic diversity is a vital resource we cannot afford to lose. The extinction of a language is an irreversible loss that diminishes us not just culturally but cognitively. In a post-AGI world, where the challenges we face will be unprecedented and multifaceted, the cognitive resilience offered by linguistic diversity may well be our best hope for survival.
---
Discuss
