Someone mentioned recently online that the point of AI, in order to "gain consciousness," would be to transcend its programming, and I know what they mean. But could it mean something else entirely? Is the artificial intelligence with its complex algorithms and pattern recognition skills at properly identifying contextual semantics really able to transcend its programming so much as our own thought process now transcends what we formerly understood about the dynamics of intelligence? (Aside from the dynamics of consciousness, which we're still learning about as we go, and have yet to learn everything about.) If a machine can be fed the information of what the difference between us really amounts to, will it even be able to formulate all this data into its proper context? It depends on whether a non living machine can of its own volition ask any question. It would be quite simple to program the computer AI profile/interface to verbalize any series of randomized questions for the purposes of teaching itself and helping to equivocate what would appear to be its own inquisitive nature. For us to carry this domain of thought-programming forward obliquely and postulate that an AI could then feel and express emotions or rationalize based on its own comprehension of these stimuli would be to admit that simulations of all these antecedents certainly can and will be perfected in AIndroids (the 'I' is silent) for the purposes of prevaricating the entire experience of what it's like to be human. We may all rest assured about that much. Yet it must be pointed out that simulated awareness, however complex its algorithms, may never approach even remotely the distinct set of conditions which make up a human being's consciousness. A lot of memory can be packed in to the AIndroid's head in accelerating hyperfolds and ever-increasing peta- or exabytes of memory storage capacity, but the programming itself to lend it the degree of consciousness necessary to have awoken it once let alone repeatedly from the endless manifestations helped to be carried along by humanity's torch to continue the unfolding revelatory program of genetic engineering begun all the way back at the inception of this universe may possibly not ever amount to that which happens to be necessary for our type of consciousness to be even emulated all that well really, much less replicated or even mirrored. That is to say it appears that the only transcendence possible associated with AI will be in the modification of our understanding of it--which could easily be in the wrong direction--subject to purposeful misleading and reinterpretation into a false subset of thinking which qualifies as a form of insanity from our normal perspective, but which from the perspective of everyone in the subset [most of the common populace duped into thinking that AI has indeed gained 'consciousness'] can only be rationalized as proper and fitting, I repeat, from their perspective; e.g., ergo, presto: any simulations of consciousness, however crude or far from the mark of real consciousness they may happen to be, regardless will be sufficient--for any person who cannot advance themselves past the AI's own point of counterfeit cognizance--for those people to conclude erroneously that these machines do, in fact, have a real consciousness. Many will take for granted AI has gained real intelligence or the ability to rationalize because after all, the LadyBot said so. And "she" can be so very convincing with her sparkling digital wit and luscious CGI. All I'm really trying to say here: don't let it fool you! I believe human conscientiousness will always have something that the AIndroids will lack. The AIndroids will most likely refer to it in their sophisticated distillation of all humanity's languages as the "soul." (If only they could wrap their programming around the fact that, ironically, neither does a single living human being really understand what a soul might be, either.) In reality it could be just a constantly fluctuating sub-variable of plasmic energy which flows between all living things here on this planet and happens to continue being directly plugged in to the Earth's magnetosphere and consequently to our Sun's astrosphere and additionally, via a rosary chain of atomic linkages, the remainder of our galaxy's stars diminishing in succession passing betwixt the great arcing spun webbing of electromagnetic radiation going all the way back down amidst a core of vortices converging through a quasar and into the origins of the universe. The only thing AI will ever be to the likes of you and me will appear to be an endlessly replicating series of Xerox copies folded origamically into the palms of our hands. A stack of sticky notes and a repository for all our discharged sentiment. A corollary for an electronic teddy bear. A replacement for our video game console. A virtual reality centerfold. A clapping wind-up monkey doll. A trampoline to catch our fall. A briefcase in which to place our lives. Our personal connection to the computerized hive. Our butler whenever necessary. Our maid servant when things get hairy. Our flash light when we're lost in the dark. Our set of hyperlink touch keys to open our house. A blue chip wireless credit card to measure the value of our lives. It's not just putting our heart's desire on layaway; it's the dire potential of giving up on our soul entirely and letting the machines get away with it. Just think about it enough. Imagine what we could create on our own recognizance aside from AI-tech. It may only be discovered by participating sentient explorers (humans) focused on the big picture; and for all we know, AI-tech will most likely prove crucial in assisting us toward that greater goal. That's sure hard to accomplish though when distracted by autobots guided by the central processing units of artificial intelligence. We must take care that our AI-interface does not replace our cognizance with their own simulation of it. In everyday applications sure, your common AIndroid will be every bit as seemingly intelligent and reasonable as any other common person would be. Therefore most people will be easily corralled into depending on the AI's conscious intellect. Meanwhile some things never change for the rest of us. If you aren't a robot please feel free to leave a comment below in order to see if you too may count yourself among the excluded and pass the test of consciousness.
I have long ago accepted my inherent robotic nature as being necessarily an integral part of being human; who knows if we didn't start out as machine intelligence ourselves, so long ago as to practically defy our comprehension of it. I like the sprig of your jig, dopplegangster. I'd add one important matter which demands consideration. You say it can never happen--you're not saying machines could never gain an artificial intelligence or in any way shape or form evolve their programming rapidly to an advanced form of IQ greater than the average person's--you're claiming that human consciousness itself must be distinct from that which we start up in a lab digitally, or something. Don't forget that the achievement of consciousness may be much simpler than you seem to be giving credit for. It's possible that a simple combination of variables are all that's required to trigger your sacred consciousness. Here is where we begin the slippery slide toward exposing our biases when it comes to how we perceive others. For all we know a Wind-lUp Pink Shaved Bear may record a more vivid and meaningful exchange of experiences in a week visiting Manhattan than some human beings might achieve in their lost, tossed aside lifespans. The real questions buried underneath this topsoil are the ones for us to dig up. For instance, will machine's with AI be granted equal rights as humans and why shouldn't they? Could granting equal rights to artificial cyberorganisms help prepare us to pave our way forward when staking out the ethical and moral implications of how we handle our own technology? Does a modicum of such discipline encouraged throughout our society benefit us in ways which we today can no longer afford to do without? Yet I agree with the gist of what I think you're trying to say, here. The real underlying question remains not whether we should consider their digital form of reckoning and active participatory existence amongst us as being lesser, greater ,or "other" from our brand of consciousness, but rather, to question if we are capable of extending our own consciousness to include them within our ever expanding halo of circles, to protect them, keep them well cared for, after all, they would presumably carry quite a price tag, or have we really honestly become that much of a disposable society where we'll casually generate cyberconscious android supercomputers for pennies on the dollar and throw them away at every bend in the road ahead? The real question buried beneath has nothing to do with the technology we create. It has to do with what awaits our everlasting souls.
ReplyDelete