As an arts writer, new media practices sit at the core of my interests. This fascinating space is filled with vanguards of cutting-edge digital technology, many of whom activate artificial intelligence (AI), augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR) and extended reality (XR) within their practices. However, despite being no stranger to tech’s more buzzed-about facets, I found myself overwhelmed when I attended the recently held Synapse Conclave in Gurugram, Haryana on February 24-25, 2024. Synapse is India’s foremost conference exploring the intersection of technology, science and society, and brought together 40 leaders from across fields that are currently grappling with the implications of tech’s staggering rate of advancement. The conclave is organised by the international science and technology platform Lucid Lines, with the Shiv Nadar Foundation as the Title Sponsor. Lucid Lines’ Founder Shoma Chaudhury played the role of chief moderator during the talks at Synapse, while STIR came on board as the event's Amplification Partner.

The conclave took off on a high note, with three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning political commentator Thomas Friedman highlighting the entanglement between environmental destruction and technological acceleration. Friedman offered a striking analogy between the destruction of mangrove forests to support the housing and hospitality industries, and the evident erosion of our social filters, which will likely stay with many of Synapse’s attendees for some time. He argued that just as the roots of mangrove forests prevent marine environmental collapse by sheltering young fish, similarly social filtres safeguard our societal fabric by encouraging conscientious behaviour among citizens. However, as he pointed out, the sensationalistic nature of major media houses today has incentivised poor behaviour, which has snowballed into increasingly erratic individuals holding the reins of geopolitical and environmental policymaking. Friedman made this analogy to demonstrate how technological acceleration in the digital world exacerbates issues such as geopolitical tensions and climate change, through the seemingly limitless reach it has bestowed upon irresponsible media houses. While already alarming, this tense state of affairs is further galvanised by the incomprehensible potential for harm that modern military technology entails. To use Friedman’s words of caution: “Do unto others as you wish them to do unto you, because more people can do unto others farther, faster, deeper and cheaper than ever before.”

The speaker after Friedman was Eric Daimler, CEO, Conexus AI and former AI advisor to the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama. Daimler helped make sense of the promises and perils of rapid AI progress, paying particular attention to the mass layoffs that are happening across sectors globally. He suggested that there are three paths before us: first, one may establish oneself within a field such as classical art or music, which by its very nature resists being catalysed by technology, at least within the production process. Such a path is likely to retain job security; however, as many traditional artists and musicians will attest to, these trajectories require a great degree of skill. The second option is to embrace AI, engage with the technology and utilise it to one’s advantage professionally. The final choice is to remain “oblivious”, as Daimler put it, to the dangers that it poses, which he believes assures eventual job loss. He added that resistance is simply not an option.

Later in the day, audiences were confronted with two exciting, if controversial snapshots of future tech. These were delivered by David Putrino, Director of Rehabilitation Innovation, Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai and Elizabeth (Liz) Parrish, Founder and CEO, BioViva USA Inc. Putrino activates cutting-edge biotechnology to develop accessible healthcare solutions for patients suffering from a range of ailments or even amputations, and to optimise athletic performance. Parrish is a “biohacker”, who believes ageing is a disease and is developing a gene therapy programme to cure it. While the work of both is compelling, they raise disconcerting questions surrounding political and social hierarchies: How would Putrino’s methods bolster, say, American military might and what would this mean for nations in the MENASA (Middle East, North Africa and South Asia) region? Furthermore, who but the global elite would have immediate access to Parrish’s gene therapy, and how might this affect geopolitical hegemonies?

Day two of Synapse introduced Swami Sarvapriyananda, Head Monk, Ramakrishna Mission, New York, and with him a fascinating spiritual voice to the conclave’s discourse. The Swami is a master of Vedanta, one of the six schools of Indian philosophy, and in his conversation with Chaudhury, attempted to locate consciousness within the age of AI. He was quick to admit that he had no concrete answer to the age-old question of what consciousness is but provided great insight nonetheless. The Swami defined consciousness as “not this”, explaining that if we can label anything at all within our lived experience, then it is not consciousness, but, an “object to consciousness”. He meant that any physical article, emotion or even a memory is an entity that is being interpreted by consciousness. He then formed a distinction between perception and consciousness, saying that consciousness was not outside our ability to perceive, but rather behind it. Later in his conversation with Chaudhury, Swami expressed that AI itself was proof of the uniqueness of our consciousness. He explained that current-generation AI can replicate the highest functions of the human mind, evidenced by its capacity for creativity. However, he believes that AI experts from Silicon Valley will admit to AI’s lack of consciousness and that they do not even know how to begin incorporating it into this facet of technology.

Right after Swami Sarvapriyananda’s discussion was an online conversation with Jaron Lanier, who is regarded as the “Father of VR”. Lanier began with a call back to the previous talk, introducing VR as proof of the immutability of human consciousness. He explained that technology allows us to limitlessly alter the projection of our bodies and yet, cannot affect our awareness of ourselves. He believes that this inalterable sense of awareness is consciousness.

Pointing to those who believe consciousness is an illusion and that AI will eventually be able to simulate a human being in totality, Lanier would go on to say “If you don’t think consciousness is real, how can virtual reality even be a thing? In a way, it’s so obvious that it’s easy to miss. The only audience that’s there has to be consciousness.” He challenged this notion, saying that it raises an urgent economic and political problem. In Lanier’s words, “If the reason we need technology is to benefit people, but people aren’t special (conscious), is there any way to even have technology defined in any sensible way, or have we lost ourselves in total absurdity?” His argument here is that the concept of consciousness is critical in differentiating technology from its beneficiaries.

If the reason we need technology is to benefit people, but people aren’t special (conscious), is there any way to even have technology defined in any sensible way, or have we lost ourselves in total absurdity? – Jaron Lanier, American computer scientist, visual artist, music composer, and technologist.

This discussion was a segue to his remarks on the prevalent “corporate tsarism” (to use Chaudhury’s phrasing) in Silicon Valley. Lanier remarked that around the turn of the century, there arose an ideological issue within the space: Many of the original technologists that established Silicon Valley, did so ardently wishing to serve humanity as best as they could. However, certain members of their ranks had now developed a desire to maximise material and financial gains from the work they were doing. “So”, as Lanier said, “How do you have socialism and capitalism at the same time? To do it, you lie.” He explained that Silicon Valley leaders turned to communication technology, presenting it as free to use, but at the same time, closely monitored discourse and traffic to lay the groundwork of the “attention economy”. The real customers, as Lanier put it, are the various corporations that harness this economy to sell their products, and the power brokers are the tech specialists who write the algorithms that shape purchasing habits.

These were a handful of the many compelling voices at Synapse Conclave, and several others, who were interviewed by STIR, can be seen in the video that leads this article. To circle back to my opening statements, I found myself overwhelmed at the conference, neither due to the potential, nor the perils of cutting-edge technology that were highlighted. Rather, it was due to the sheer immediacy of pinpointing the artist’s position in our current moment in history, which dawned on me gradually over the course of Synapse. AI, more than any other facet of tech, presents an immediate threat to the livelihoods of artists using digital tools. In line with the first of three options that Daimler presented, practices could soon find themselves confined to classical techniques to remain relevant and profitable. However, this is unlikely as artists like Yousuke Fuyama or Miao Ying activate artificial intelligence in thoughtful ways that speak to Daimler’s second option. The former recently highlighted a distinction between human and artificial intelligence through Land-Venus "La Faille de Signe" Self-Reconstruction, while the latter blurred their boundaries in Shadows stretch in spectral lines, in desolation’s embrace, time resigns. This second option, defined by collaboration, is most likely one that we will see artists picking in the coming years, as Daimler’s third option is no option at all.

Synapse Conclave ran at Le Meridien, Gurugram from February 24-25 2024.

Synapse Conclave 2024 focuses on science, technology and society, exploring the exciting and troubling implications of age reversal, gene editing and big data. STIR as an amplification partner brings you a series of conversations from the lineup that warrant further reflection.