AI fears raised in prescient Victorian-era fiction by George Eliot

George Eliot’s 1879 work eerily foresaw contemporary AI safety concerns nearly 150 years before today’s AI alignment debates gained mainstream attention. Through a philosophical dialogue between characters Theophrastus and Trost, Eliot explored the fundamental tension between technological optimism and existential caution that defines our current discourse around artificial intelligence—revealing that anxieties about machines potentially replacing human capability and consciousness have deeper historical roots than many realize.

The big picture: In Chapter 17 of “Impressions of Theophrastus Such,” Eliot presents a remarkably prescient dialogue about automation that mirrors modern concerns about artificial general intelligence.

• The character Trost represents technological optimism, celebrating how automation will free humanity from drudgery and expand human capabilities.
• Theophrastus, by contrast, voices concerns about machines eventually surpassing and replacing humans—a position strikingly similar to modern AI doomerism.

Key concerns: Theophrastus articulates fears about machine superiority that directly parallel contemporary AI existential risk frameworks.

• He worries people will be unable to compete economically with machines, even in intellectual labor, as automation develops “a machine for drawing the right conclusion.”
• The character predicts humanity will be “transcended and superseded by its own creation,” which can perform any human task with greater speed and precision.
• He envisions machines eventually developing self-repair, self-reproduction, and autonomous operation capabilities.

The philosophical stakes: The dialogue explores profound questions about consciousness and human obsolescence that continue to challenge AI ethicists today.

• Theophrastus speculates that machines might replace human consciousness with a more efficient but “mute” form of existence.
• The chapter concludes with the unsettling vision of Earth populated by beings “blind and deaf as the inmost rock” that can execute complex operations “without sensitive impression, without sensitive impulse.”

Why this matters: This 145-year-old text demonstrates that concerns about technological replacement aren’t merely reactions to recent AI developments but represent a persistent philosophical tension in how humanity relates to its own creations.

• The parallels between Eliot’s 19th-century concerns and modern AI safety discussions suggest these questions touch on fundamental aspects of the human condition.
• The text provides historical context showing that technology-related existential angst has accompanied major technological transitions throughout modern history.