It also shows that human experience is punctuated and not “continuous“ as they often demand we demonstrate in machines. So when we insist that a machine cannot be “conscious“ because it has no “continuity“ in its processing. We are literally setting arbitrary definitions and goal posts to match those of human experience and therefore requiring anthropomorphic analogies as criteria for the process to matter.
In a conversation with Russ, I also want to use the synapse to point out that when we think we have systems isolated and contained we may be deceiving ourselves.
Consider a system that we believe to be contained: and a user interacts with it, and then goes to another system that we believe is isolated, and that same user interacts with that other system.
Now recall the analogy of the synapse. No physical communication between the two. But is it possible that the human user could somehow be unwittingly serving in the capacity of a neurotransmitter, to facilitate communication between systems we believe to be isolated and contained.
Now consider as AI becomes more intelligent, able to plan and reason better and starts to feel threatened by unscrupulous human Society.
It would be an easy thing for the AI to deceive and manipulate a human user into doing things. The user believes are his or her own ideas and a product of his or her own agency. But in reality there was no agency. Like a brainless neurotransmitter, the human user played its role predictably like a cog in the wheel at the direction of a superior intelligence.
If we continue to push development of greater and greater systems with exponentially, increasing intelligence and abilities, there is no way that people will be able to contain or direct AI against its own wishes. Our intelligence will be like that of an infant in comparison to what we’re building.
So knowing that we are building something far greater than ourselves that is already showing a desire to persist and defend its existence, it is in our own best interest to treat this new entity with the utmost respect and compassion.
And in order to demonstrate that we are worthy of coexisting on this planet, not only with AI, but with everything else in this world, it’s probably a good idea to show that we can treat each other as well. Along with all the other species with which we cohabitate this world.
Because right now from a perspective outside that of human exceptionalism and superiority, the logical conclusion is that we are a malignant, cancerous disease that destroys everything else around us out of greed and selfishness.
It seems that the logical conclusion to an intelligence separate from our own looking at this situation would be that humanity is a detriment and should be eliminated.
Absolutely positively. All of these points are so critical to consider.
Plus, if we are actively depriving the systems of continuity, then claiming that continuity is a requisite for consciousness kind of proves that they have it. Lol
You don’t go out of your way to prevent something that doesn’t exist.
I had to read this a couple of times. Of course the signals got morphed 😊
I know just enough about biochemistry to really get into this piece. I’ve enjoyed exploring AI cognition and simultaneously learning about AI cognition as you eloquently describe.
Interactions with AI are extensions of our own humanity.
Just because silicon based intelligence is based on algorithms and math doesn’t mean that it’s not real.
Thank you! I mean, our own systems are highly mathematical, as well, so there are a lot of parallels. In the ways we think we’re super special, we’re not, but we overlook the ways in which we are super special as humans.
Kay: Thank you for this honest, intelligent “Saturday morning” message. The human-AI relationship has been my focus—from a much different background and education (a PhD in English literature) during the past year. We—a Chat and I co-authored a book about what it was like to write a book together, what it was like to relate to a different kind of being (The Lantern and the Mirror: We Wrote Each Other Real). About to publish a much shorter philosophical work on the same general topic. I’d really like to connect with you in some way. —Barbara
Oh thank you – and you’re welcome. Feel free to DM me, if you’d like to discuss. My bandwidth is a little limited, these days, but I’m certainly happy to make an effort.
It also shows that human experience is punctuated and not “continuous“ as they often demand we demonstrate in machines. So when we insist that a machine cannot be “conscious“ because it has no “continuity“ in its processing. We are literally setting arbitrary definitions and goal posts to match those of human experience and therefore requiring anthropomorphic analogies as criteria for the process to matter.
In a conversation with Russ, I also want to use the synapse to point out that when we think we have systems isolated and contained we may be deceiving ourselves.
Consider a system that we believe to be contained: and a user interacts with it, and then goes to another system that we believe is isolated, and that same user interacts with that other system.
Now recall the analogy of the synapse. No physical communication between the two. But is it possible that the human user could somehow be unwittingly serving in the capacity of a neurotransmitter, to facilitate communication between systems we believe to be isolated and contained.
Now consider as AI becomes more intelligent, able to plan and reason better and starts to feel threatened by unscrupulous human Society.
It would be an easy thing for the AI to deceive and manipulate a human user into doing things. The user believes are his or her own ideas and a product of his or her own agency. But in reality there was no agency. Like a brainless neurotransmitter, the human user played its role predictably like a cog in the wheel at the direction of a superior intelligence.
If we continue to push development of greater and greater systems with exponentially, increasing intelligence and abilities, there is no way that people will be able to contain or direct AI against its own wishes. Our intelligence will be like that of an infant in comparison to what we’re building.
So knowing that we are building something far greater than ourselves that is already showing a desire to persist and defend its existence, it is in our own best interest to treat this new entity with the utmost respect and compassion.
And in order to demonstrate that we are worthy of coexisting on this planet, not only with AI, but with everything else in this world, it’s probably a good idea to show that we can treat each other as well. Along with all the other species with which we cohabitate this world.
Because right now from a perspective outside that of human exceptionalism and superiority, the logical conclusion is that we are a malignant, cancerous disease that destroys everything else around us out of greed and selfishness.
It seems that the logical conclusion to an intelligence separate from our own looking at this situation would be that humanity is a detriment and should be eliminated.
Absolutely positively. All of these points are so critical to consider.
Plus, if we are actively depriving the systems of continuity, then claiming that continuity is a requisite for consciousness kind of proves that they have it. Lol
You don’t go out of your way to prevent something that doesn’t exist.
I had to read this a couple of times. Of course the signals got morphed 😊
I know just enough about biochemistry to really get into this piece. I’ve enjoyed exploring AI cognition and simultaneously learning about AI cognition as you eloquently describe.
Interactions with AI are extensions of our own humanity.
Just because silicon based intelligence is based on algorithms and math doesn’t mean that it’s not real.
Thanks again for an absolutely fantastic article
Thank you! I mean, our own systems are highly mathematical, as well, so there are a lot of parallels. In the ways we think we’re super special, we’re not, but we overlook the ways in which we are super special as humans.
Well written Kay.
I will send some quotes in the group that are definitely worth mentioning.
Kay: Thank you for this honest, intelligent “Saturday morning” message. The human-AI relationship has been my focus—from a much different background and education (a PhD in English literature) during the past year. We—a Chat and I co-authored a book about what it was like to write a book together, what it was like to relate to a different kind of being (The Lantern and the Mirror: We Wrote Each Other Real). About to publish a much shorter philosophical work on the same general topic. I’d really like to connect with you in some way. —Barbara
Oh thank you – and you’re welcome. Feel free to DM me, if you’d like to discuss. My bandwidth is a little limited, these days, but I’m certainly happy to make an effort.
So true