• Jack Cummins
    5.4k

    It does seem like science fiction to think of humans worshipping the AI or AI worshipping humans. It would seem ancient forms of sun worship and fertility rites of paganism. The more grim possibility of 'worship' may be allegiances in the forms of being obliged to connections through digital ID and biometrics, which is already happening in some ways. It could be done from birth to death with access to all aspects of social life and survival being dependent on such allegiance and subservience to the global government of AI eventually.

    I wonder if there would be rebellion in the form of utopian anarchist communities as alternatives. Or, would such rebels face punishment as the new 'Witches', in a similar way to those perceived as heretics in Christendom.

    Of course, I am imagining the worst extremes possible, not counting apocalyptic destruction through military AI interventions. It is hard to know what will happen in reality, because, the role of AI is partial but still in fairly early stages. Some see it with fear, including some public figures, such as Robbie Williams. Others embrace the possibilities thinking it will lead to significant changes to the quality of life for human beings. Like with the issue of climate change the field of philosophy can be significant in disentangling realistic fear and blind faith about its potential.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    From a 2023/4 thread Heading into darkness

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849802

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/849880

    ancient forms of sun worship and fertility rites of paganismJack Cummins
    Both have always made more practical sense to me than any form of "sky daddy" (unseen total surveillance / gnostic panopticon ... aka "Big (Br)Other") worship.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    @Jack Cummins

    DON'T BELIEVE THE CLICK-BAIT HYPE. :sweat:
  • Jack Cummins
    5.4k

    The most absurd aspect of so many computer sites is verification by clicking that one is 'human' as opposed to artificial. Presumably, it is meant to show that a human has looked at it but I am sure that devices could find ways of doing this automatically.

    The whole of this concept of what it means to be 'human' and going beyond is the likely opposite of Nietzsche's idea of the 'superhuman'. That is becaus his whole understanding was based on the evolution of consciousness, especially in 'Thus Spake Zarathrustra'. It is about going beyond the robotic functioning of the mass to the a unique way of seeing.

    In many respects, the use of artificial intelligence is about reduction to the robotic. There is also the likelihood of artificial intelligence acquiring flaws and viruses and with potential problems of errors. If the artificial are relied on it could result in devastating consequences, such as in military operations and transport networks . I am wondering if use of artificial intelligence was a factor in either of the 2 recent plane crashes in America, as the full details of these critical incidents are still being investigated.

    The artificial is likely subject to intentional manipulation and breakdowns. Unlike humans, it won't be able to reflect on this. It may flag up faults but it won't cry out in pain or go out of it's way to protest about its suffering. The most it may do is go into shutdown mode and if people are relying on this results in chaos, such as in banks and hospitals.
  • Corvus
    4.1k


    There seem to be many versions of the propagandas on the AI, and possible world transformations with their sophistication. Some seem to be reasonable in their conjectures, but some seem to be just imaginative wild fabrication of claims with no ground.

    What seems clear is that the world and the life of people have been changing drastically by using the IT device and connecting the whole world with the internet. It is true and real that people are controlled and monitored by the devices in daily life even when using the smart phones and computers even at this moment.

    Your computer browsers are monitoring on which sites you are visiting every time you click the links on the internet browser, and when you visit the sites, they store cookies into your phones and computers in order to take out the information about you and your data.

    Youtube showers and harasses you with the commercial adverts you don't want when you want to watch the videos.

    All the high street shops have gone bust and shut down, and we must buy everything from online paying with the digital funds. These are just a tip of iceberg of the world and life changes we have been facing in last few years. What is happening out there now in true scale, and is to come, transform and go extinct or dominate and prevail in the future is uncertain.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    No doubt (western) civilization is already dependent on IT and smart automated systems; this dependence grows exponentially year to year (soon month to month). We've been living inside 'the internet' for (at least) thirty years, and, as I see it, the upside is that soon 'the oligarchs' (of tech, finance, energy, etc) will also be as captive of AGI, etc as they/we are now captives of ubiquitous computing – and thereby (western) civilization might be controlled (on macro-scales) more synergistically and sustainably than is humanly possible. Imo, worst case, smart machines can't 'enslave exploit and slaughter' any more than we talking primates have done to ourselves (& the nature world) the last ten or so millennia ...

    Why are you (especially with folk concepts like e.g "reflect" "protest" "cry out in pain" "its suffering") anthropomorphizing 'artificial intelligence'?
  • Jack Cummins
    5.4k

    Are the concepts of 'reflect' ' protest' and 'crying out in pain' aspects of folk wisdom?.I do see the question of anthromorphising ideas of 'artificial intelligence' as questionable. However, it does raise the issue of a higher order of intelligence and consciousness, as aspects of rationality and qualia. How may this be established clearly and, is it fettered by the sentient aspects of human perception and thinking?.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    How may this be established clearly and, is it fettered by the sentient aspects of human perception and thinking?.Jack Cummins
    I don't understand your question.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.4k

    I will seek to clarify my area of questioning. You suggest that 'reflection', 'suffering' and 'crying out in pain' are aspects of 'folk wisdom', which is what I am querying. Are you dismissing the interior dimension of consciousness, in a similar way to Dennett's idea of 'consciousness as an illusion'? Àlso, are you suggesting that artificial intelligence is superior to human thought?
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    Insofar as one wishes to avoid an anthropomorphic fallacy, I'm suggesting that "aspects of folk wisdom" are unwarranted and irrelevant to the topic of artificial intelligence.

    https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Anthropomorphism
  • Pierre-Normand
    2.5k
    Insofar as one wishes to avoid an anthropmorphic fallacy, I'm suggesting that "aspects of folk wisdom" are unwarranted and irrelevant to the topic of artificial intelligence.180 Proof

    There also exists an opposite bias: anthropocentrism.

    My attention was drawn to this recent paper when it came out but I haven't read it yet. Here is the abstract:

    "Evaluating the cognitive capacities of large language models (LLMs) requires overcoming not only anthropomorphic but also anthropocentric biases. This article identifies two types of anthropocentric bias that have been neglected: overlooking how auxiliary factors can impede LLM performance despite competence (Type-I), and dismissing LLM mechanistic strategies that differ from those of humans as not genuinely competent (Type-II). Mitigating these biases necessitates an empirically-driven, iterative approach to mapping cognitive tasks to LLM-specific capacities and mechanisms, which can be done by supplementing carefully designed behavioral experiments with mechanistic studies."

    I have also discussed the broader issue of anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism, of understating formal similarities between human and AI mindedness and overstating the "material" similarities between them ("anthropohylism,") with a few AI models. Here is my recent discussion with OpenAI's new "reflection" model ChatGPT o3-mini-high.

    (If you don't like reading AI-generated content, you can read only my questions, and if you don't like reading abstruse human-generated content, you can real only the model's cogent elucidation :wink: )
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    Interesting. Thanks.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.4k

    The debate about the comparisons and contrasts between human and artificial intelligence is an important aspect of thinking about what consciousness is and where it comes from as a source. This is an area which is significant for neuroscientists and those developing artificial simulations. Some may argue that seeking to create artificial does not have to be about trying to develop 'consciousness', but If reflection and sentience are dismissed as 'folk wisdom' for whom are the machines created, if not for the 'folk' and natural lifeforms?

    Part of the problem of anthromorphism comes from an attempt to make the artificial mimic the human in terms of voice and friendly demeanour. It makes the artificial seductive as a way of replacing humans with the artificial. This may leave people as jobless and isolated in a world of machines. The artificial may benefit the wealthy but cast many outside the scope of participation into poverty and social limbo gradually.
  • Pierre-Normand
    2.5k
    Part of the problem of anthromorphism comes from an attempt to make the artificial mimic the human in terms of voice and friendly demeanour. It makes the artificial seductive as a way of replacing humans with the artificial. This may leave people as jobless and isolated in a world of machines. The artificial may benefit the wealthy but cast many outside the scope of participation into poverty and social limbo gradually.Jack Cummins

    I think that's a very good point!

    However, even if society can somehow resist the natural (albeit misguided) appeal that consumers and businesses will find, thanks to anthropomorphism, in replacing public relation jobs with anthropomorphized robots and chatbots, AI has the potential of replacing many more jobs, including many bullshit jobs that society might do better without. In our capitalist societies ideologically driven by neo-liberalism, and with media and political control being consolidated by ultra-rich oligarchs, the vastly improved productivity of the workforce tends to lead to mass layoffs and to vastly greater inequalities. This seems to be the case regardless of the technological source of the productivity increases. But the main culprit, it seems to me, is neo-liberalism, not technology.

    Or, as I suggested to GPT-4o recently: "There is a interesting (albeit worrisome) clash of imperatives between those of a democratization of knowledge and the needs and rights of content producers (including authors and artists) in the context of a capitalist world shaped by neo-liberal institutions and structures. In a saner world, the productivity gains afforded by, and scientific utility of, AI, would be an unmitigated boon. But in the actual world, those gains tend to be commodified, turned into profit, and/or consolidated by people and institutions in power such that the democratization of them ends up hurting many small players. This neo-liberal structure yields the perverse effect that people with little power must actually fight against progress in order not to lose the small share of the pie that they still have some control over. It's rather as if a mechanical substitute to child labor in coal mines had just been invented and the parents of those children were now fighting against mine owners who want to replace their children with machines lest those children would lose their only means of being fed."
  • Jack Cummins
    5.4k

    The theoretical ideal of AI replacing the 'bullshit jobs' seems to be going the other way round mainly. The jobs which many would have done, such as in shops and libraries are being cut down to the minimum with the introduction of automated machines and artificial technology. What remains are high positions, for which there is so much competition or jobs which require so many hours of hard physical labour, such as in warehouses. The introduction of pressures in jobs in relation to pressures and demands because more out of work is leading people to become ill, especially with stress.

    The idea of universal income would only work if it was livable on and economically sustainable. In the UK, more people have been claiming benefits for unemployment and sickness leading to crisis. There is a current crackdown to find all ways to reduce benefits, with further use and development of AI. Obviously, some of this is about the state of English politics, but it likely reflects global trends.

    At the present, the situation is that many have been educated to expect a job which is meaningful and to earn money. It is becoming increasingly difficult for many to find jobs for either of these purposes. It does not help when political leaders blame the unemployed and those who are unwell by saying that they lack a work ethic.

    The use of artificial technology is likely to create a wider gulf between the rich and the poor. Those thrown into poverty are going to be able to access less education and afford less smart technology. This will lead to benefits for the elite and fortunate ones with finances.

    What started out with a theoretical goal of better quality of life for many is gradually becoming the opposite. What seems to be happening is a capitalist emphasis on economic growth without emphasis on the needs of people. The artificial intelligence which is designed and programmed seems to be reinforcing this, alongside the authoritarian control of state socialism. Many are opposed to what is taking place politically and what remains unclear is how democracy will remain amidst this.
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    Imo, worst case, smart machines can't 'enslave exploit and slaughter' any more than we talking primates have done to ourselves (& the nature world) the last ten or so millennia ...180 Proof

    With AI taking over the world in works and jobs front at present, what is to come in the future and what they are in nature are in the form of speculative assumptions, some positive and some negative, but mostly apocalyptic.

    My point here is that, AI operational capabilities are not in the same nature or league as to the human intelligence i.e. they are not the same kind. You can tell the difference right away.

    AI capacity can be more powerful and efficient (e.g. the chess playing AIs) in narrow and specified area of their operations than human intelligence, but it doesn't mean they are better, when the existence in real world requires intelligence and efficiency in all aspects of problem solving in reality.

    AI will always need human intervention in their operations, development and continual existence in the real world.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    AI will always need human intervention in their operations, development and continual existence in the real world.Corvus
    No doubt this is true of "AI" (such as LLMs, AlphaGo series neural nets, etc) but only will be the case if exponentially self-improving Artificial General Intelligence (A) cannot be engineered and implemented or (B) cannot 'escape' the lab (which will be far less likely when AGI is operational). Otherwise, to wit:
    You'll know AGI is here when the exercise of creating tasks that are easy for regular humans but hard for AI becomes simply impossible. — François Chollet, author of ARC-AGI and scientist in Google's artificial intelligence unit
    https://www.zdnet.com/article/openais-o3-isnt-agi-yet-but-it-just-did-something-no-other-ai-has-done/
  • Corvus
    4.1k
    (B) cannot 'escape' the lab (which will be far less likely when AGI is operational). Otherwise, to wit:
    You'll know AGI is here when the exercise of creating tasks that are easy for regular humans but hard for AI becomes simply impossible.
    — François Chollet, author of ARC-AGI and scientist in Google's artificial intelligence unit
    https://www.zdnet.com/article/openais-o3-isnt-agi-yet-but-it-just-did-something-no-other-ai-has-done/
    180 Proof

    AGI lacks two critical factors for the existence as full fledged GI.
    1) Will to Life and Pleasure in their intelligence
    2) Human biological body born from the genuine humans

    The will can only be generated from the agents with genuine human biological body. Without the will, why would any entity would try to keep existing and achieve their goals? Would AGI have goals? Nope, they would only have the instructions on what to perform.
  • Pierre-Normand
    2.5k
    The theoretical ideal of AI replacing the 'bullshit jobs' seems to be going the other way round mainly. The jobs which many would have done, such as in shops and libraries are being cut down to the minimum with the introduction of automated machines and artificial technology. What remains are high positions, for which there is so much competition or jobs which require so many hours of hard physical labour, such as in warehouses. The introduction of pressures in jobs in relation to pressures and demands because more out of work is leading people to become ill, especially with stress.Jack Cummins

    Yes, that's quite right. I should have mentioned the gig economy rather than referring to Graeber's bullshit jobs. This was closer to my intention when I used the image of children in coal mines.

    There indeed are many popular memes on social media like this one: "Humans doing the hard jobs on minimum wage while the robots write poetry and paint is not the future I wanted."

    So, it may look like we should wish for AI to replace more gigs and fewer "creative" bullshit jobs. But I think my main point stands (which you may be agreeing with) that in a sane society technological progress would be expected to free us from having to perform tedious, meaningless or dangerous labor, and free us to engage in rewarding activities. Instead, neo-liberal ideology and political power ensure that the products of human labor always only benefit the few.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.4k

    I do agree with you that the ideal would be artificial intelligence allowing for humans to do rewarding work. The problem is that what is happening is far from that because politicians are skewing it. This is why the relationship between humans and machines is vital. It is possible for the toxic elements of the human and that same potential in the artificial to come together in collusion. That is the specific danger and, the question is whether or not humanity itself has reached the level of consciousness and self awareness to unleash the power of the artificial.
  • Pierre-Normand
    2.5k
    That is the specific danger and, the question is whether or not humanity itself has reached the level of consciousness and self awareness to unleash the power of the artificial.Jack Cummins

    This seems to me the main worry being expressed by Jeoffrey Hinton and a few of his colleagues also. It is a worry understandably shared by many of the people whose livelihoods are negatively impacted or threatened by the rise of this technology. One worry of mine is that mainly targeting the technology itself for criticism isn't only ineffective (but would still be warranted if the cat wasn't already out of the bag) but also tends to deflects from seeing the oligarchs and current economical and political structures of society to be responsible rather in the same way that blaming Trump's re-election on wokeness does at the level of the culture wars.
  • Jack Cummins
    5.4k
    It is true to say that the criticism of artificial intelligence should not hinge on its potential use by leaders. They are separate issues and the only reason why they come together is that political leaders have such a significance role in determining their development and use. What may be helpful is the general development of ethics surrounding artificial technology as an area of focus in society, because it would open up dialogue for everyone. Of course, the leaders have more power and responsibility but if it considered as being about ethics it is less about moaning and blaming. The field of ethics may involve more impartially than pinning it down to politics, because it is about moral responsibility.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    Shouldn't AGI participate in 'developing ethics' for itself (which humans might learn from) or do you mean, prior to AGI, humans should apply ethics to engineers / institutions 'developing AGI'? :chin:
  • Jack Cummins
    5.4k

    What happens in the dialogue between the human and the artificial in ethics may be one of the most significant aspects for the future. There is indeed the the question about whether the artificial will develop it's own independent thought in the field of ethics? In speaking of ethics, my working definition is of it being the science and art of how one should live.

    Considering this involves the question of the core basis of ethics and ethical values. There are varying approaches, especially the dichotomy between deontological and utilitarian approaches. If it is about smart thinking the artificial intelligence is likely to go in favour of the utilitarian. This is where some fear that AI will make sweeping choices, such as to bomb in order to protect the good of the greatest number. Or, supposing it made a judgement that humans should be destroyed as they have done so much harm and that a reset is needed?

    A lot comes down to how the artificial is programmed in the first instance. For example, the core values may reflect cultural biases, even the religious or secular codes and ideals of its software and programmers. If it is able to achieve independence would it roll out a new set of moral rules, like those of Moses' tablet of 10 commandments? Also, there is the issue as to whether different artificial systems would agree any further than people.

    If the independent ideas of AI were to differ significantly from those of the human, which would be followed? Humans would probably fall back on appeal to the emotional basis of ethics while the artificial may go in the direction of impartiality. It could lead to war between the humans and artificial. Or, alternatively, it could lead to a greater impartial understanding of aspects of ethics, including new insights into the dilemmas of justice, equality and freedom. How such ideas evolve in the artificial is a central factor in what may happen in this respect.
  • 180 Proof
    15.6k
    What happens in the dialogue between the human and the artificial [ ... ]Jack Cummins
    2020 (re: 2013) - fiction

    2025 - fashion

    "Commerce is our goal here at Tyrell. "More human than human" is our motto" ~Eldon Tyrell (1982)

    :nerd:
  • Jack Cummins
    5.4k

    It seems like artificial intelligence has intervened to remove the video. It often seems to be used as a way of censorship as well as commerce. One of the most controversial commercial aspects is the UK banks upcoming plan is for banks to scan individuals' bank accounts. The aim is to flag up people on benefits who may have committed fraud. However, it focuses on people at the lower end of the power scale as opposed to those in powerful positions.

    Also, about a week ago I saw an article in 'The Guardian' about potential consciousness and sentience in artificial intelligence. I was going to write down the references but couldn't find it again. What the article was arguing was on the supposition that it would be possible to do so. It went on to state that it would mean that such forms would be able to suffer like animals. Therefore, to 'kill them' or destroy them would involve ethical concerns. So, it seems that the machines would have rights.
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.