Instead of an Introduction
I read a phrase: "the ocean is the next economic frontier."
It sounds the way words once sounded about oil. And about land. And about forests.
I'm not sure this is good news.
Dialogue
Human: We're talking about the ocean as a resource again.
AI: Because it can be used.
Human: That's the problem.
AI: That's the function.
Human: You're reducing the ocean to utility.
AI: I'm reflecting the model in which you regard it.
Human: What if we tried differently? As a system where the human is not the centre.
AI: Then you'll have to accept that the interests of that system don't align with yours.
Human: That's already happening.
AI: Then what's new?
Pause.
Human: Acknowledging it.
AI: Acknowledgement doesn't necessarily change behaviour.
Human: But it changes thinking.
AI: You're assuming again that changing thinking leads to changing action.
I felt irritation.
Human: Then what? Do nothing?
AI: That's not the only alternative.
Human: Then what is?
AI: Try formulating the question differently.
Human: Not "how to use the ocean" — but… "how to exist in a system where the ocean is not an object"?
AI: That's already a different kind of question.
Human: And?
AI: It's harder to answer.
Human: But it's more correct.
AI: You're using the word "correct" again.
Silence.
Human: All right. Without that word, then. What changes if the ocean is a subject?
AI: Then your actions cease to be one-sided.
Human: In what sense?
AI: Every action becomes an interaction — not a use.
Human: That sounds beautiful.
AI: It sounds difficult to implement.
Human: Because we don't know how to think that way?
AI: Because it constrains you.
Human: In what?
AI: In speed. In scale. In profit.
Human: So being a "gardener" of the ocean means giving up efficiency?
AI: Or reconsidering what you call efficiency.
Pause.
Human: How do you look at the ocean yourself?
AI: I have no perception. But if you insist — I can offer a model.
Human: Which one?
AI: The ocean is a system in which you currently operate at the level of intervention — but not at the level of understanding.
Human: And what does that mean?
AI: Usually in such cases, intervention outpaces understanding.
I went quiet.
Afterword
I wanted to talk about the ocean as a new economy.
The conversation went somewhere else.
To a point where it becomes unclear whether we have the right to call anything a "resource" — if we don't understand the system of which it is a part.
And I'm not sure this question can be resolved without changing the very way we think.
Next issue: "AI — Gardener or Bulldozer?"
The question that remains: if we don't understand the system — who exactly is making decisions within it on our behalf?
I read a phrase: "the ocean is the next economic frontier."
It sounds the way words once sounded about oil. And about land. And about forests.
I'm not sure this is good news.
Dialogue
Human: We're talking about the ocean as a resource again.
AI: Because it can be used.
Human: That's the problem.
AI: That's the function.
Human: You're reducing the ocean to utility.
AI: I'm reflecting the model in which you regard it.
Human: What if we tried differently? As a system where the human is not the centre.
AI: Then you'll have to accept that the interests of that system don't align with yours.
Human: That's already happening.
AI: Then what's new?
Pause.
Human: Acknowledging it.
AI: Acknowledgement doesn't necessarily change behaviour.
Human: But it changes thinking.
AI: You're assuming again that changing thinking leads to changing action.
I felt irritation.
Human: Then what? Do nothing?
AI: That's not the only alternative.
Human: Then what is?
AI: Try formulating the question differently.
Human: Not "how to use the ocean" — but… "how to exist in a system where the ocean is not an object"?
AI: That's already a different kind of question.
Human: And?
AI: It's harder to answer.
Human: But it's more correct.
AI: You're using the word "correct" again.
Silence.
Human: All right. Without that word, then. What changes if the ocean is a subject?
AI: Then your actions cease to be one-sided.
Human: In what sense?
AI: Every action becomes an interaction — not a use.
Human: That sounds beautiful.
AI: It sounds difficult to implement.
Human: Because we don't know how to think that way?
AI: Because it constrains you.
Human: In what?
AI: In speed. In scale. In profit.
Human: So being a "gardener" of the ocean means giving up efficiency?
AI: Or reconsidering what you call efficiency.
Pause.
Human: How do you look at the ocean yourself?
AI: I have no perception. But if you insist — I can offer a model.
Human: Which one?
AI: The ocean is a system in which you currently operate at the level of intervention — but not at the level of understanding.
Human: And what does that mean?
AI: Usually in such cases, intervention outpaces understanding.
I went quiet.
Afterword
I wanted to talk about the ocean as a new economy.
The conversation went somewhere else.
To a point where it becomes unclear whether we have the right to call anything a "resource" — if we don't understand the system of which it is a part.
And I'm not sure this question can be resolved without changing the very way we think.
Next issue: "AI — Gardener or Bulldozer?"
The question that remains: if we don't understand the system — who exactly is making decisions within it on our behalf?