First, please read Bernie's excellent thread on AI.
-
RE: https://neopaquita.es/@berniethewordsmith/116118683542185410
First, please read Bernie's excellent thread on AI.
Because I would like to go a little step further ...
-
RE: https://neopaquita.es/@berniethewordsmith/116118683542185410
First, please read Bernie's excellent thread on AI.
Because I would like to go a little step further ...
I want to challenge the very commonly held belief that we are actually all that capable of perceiving anything in an objective manner.
It's okay - it's a delusion we absolutely require to navigate reality with any confidence at all. But, mostly, it is a delusion.
The one aspect of our existence that ever touches the real, without all the imaginary rococo embellishment that makes life liveable is our bodies. We are embodied. We are organic. We are mortal. 2/
-
I want to challenge the very commonly held belief that we are actually all that capable of perceiving anything in an objective manner.
It's okay - it's a delusion we absolutely require to navigate reality with any confidence at all. But, mostly, it is a delusion.
The one aspect of our existence that ever touches the real, without all the imaginary rococo embellishment that makes life liveable is our bodies. We are embodied. We are organic. We are mortal. 2/
And god knows, I have an indifferent relationship with my body, like many people do. And certainly I can understand why some people, who, for myriad reasons, have an even more difficult relationship with their body, might find the illusion of a digital existence very attractive.
But one undeniable reality is that even if you are not at home in your body, you still have a relationship with it. And you wouldn't be able to disdain it if it wasn't pumping blood to your brain. 3/
-
And god knows, I have an indifferent relationship with my body, like many people do. And certainly I can understand why some people, who, for myriad reasons, have an even more difficult relationship with their body, might find the illusion of a digital existence very attractive.
But one undeniable reality is that even if you are not at home in your body, you still have a relationship with it. And you wouldn't be able to disdain it if it wasn't pumping blood to your brain. 3/
There is no 'truth' without the body. Truth is predicated on this ugly, beautiful, ungainly, graceful lump of animated organic matter that is us. It doesn't 'house' the human brain that has thoughts and experiences. It IS it.
The central falacy lure of AI is that it offers the possibility of an unembodied truth. A truth beyond all the things we hate about being embodied. Most especially its inevitable end.
The thing we hate about our bodies more than anything else - their mortality. 4/
-
There is no 'truth' without the body. Truth is predicated on this ugly, beautiful, ungainly, graceful lump of animated organic matter that is us. It doesn't 'house' the human brain that has thoughts and experiences. It IS it.
The central falacy lure of AI is that it offers the possibility of an unembodied truth. A truth beyond all the things we hate about being embodied. Most especially its inevitable end.
The thing we hate about our bodies more than anything else - their mortality. 4/
So this idea that there can be an actual AI, that there can be an unembodied consciousness, is the most outrageous of all delusions.
Because there can be no real intelligence, no real consciousness, without finitude. And there can be no tiny glint of the real behind, beneath, at the edges of our magnificent imaginations, or the production of the infinitely elaborate symbolic world of language we are immersed in, without it being produced by a body that will one day stop being. 5/
-
So this idea that there can be an actual AI, that there can be an unembodied consciousness, is the most outrageous of all delusions.
Because there can be no real intelligence, no real consciousness, without finitude. And there can be no tiny glint of the real behind, beneath, at the edges of our magnificent imaginations, or the production of the infinitely elaborate symbolic world of language we are immersed in, without it being produced by a body that will one day stop being. 5/
What offends me most about the concept of AI is the bare, inhuman lie of it.
-
What offends me most about the concept of AI is the bare, inhuman lie of it.
The gross, pathological narcissism that lies behind the lie of AI is that it doesn't matter that we chose an inanimate thing over another human. And that we're encouraged to do so.
That AI girlfriend, that AI therapist, that AI copy editor, that AI music ... that doesn't require us to see the common humanity in the other who gives us something or demands something of us...
Essentially, at is core, this produces not only a disdain for the other, but a disdain for our own singular humanity.
-
The gross, pathological narcissism that lies behind the lie of AI is that it doesn't matter that we chose an inanimate thing over another human. And that we're encouraged to do so.
That AI girlfriend, that AI therapist, that AI copy editor, that AI music ... that doesn't require us to see the common humanity in the other who gives us something or demands something of us...
Essentially, at is core, this produces not only a disdain for the other, but a disdain for our own singular humanity.
@Remittancegirl thank you for this thread - an illuminating way of considering AI
-
So this idea that there can be an actual AI, that there can be an unembodied consciousness, is the most outrageous of all delusions.
Because there can be no real intelligence, no real consciousness, without finitude. And there can be no tiny glint of the real behind, beneath, at the edges of our magnificent imaginations, or the production of the infinitely elaborate symbolic world of language we are immersed in, without it being produced by a body that will one day stop being. 5/
Wasn't the OP about generative AI rather than AGI (artificial general intelligence; disembodied consciousness etc)?
Tech bros collapse the difference but it's a gulf, linked only by the letters being A and I.
-
Wasn't the OP about generative AI rather than AGI (artificial general intelligence; disembodied consciousness etc)?
Tech bros collapse the difference but it's a gulf, linked only by the letters being A and I.
OTH, Turing's original test assumed a disembodied humanity so the distinction I have made doesn't matter for your general point
-
So this idea that there can be an actual AI, that there can be an unembodied consciousness, is the most outrageous of all delusions.
Because there can be no real intelligence, no real consciousness, without finitude. And there can be no tiny glint of the real behind, beneath, at the edges of our magnificent imaginations, or the production of the infinitely elaborate symbolic world of language we are immersed in, without it being produced by a body that will one day stop being. 5/
@Remittancegirl well, you’re making a pile of assumptions there but I’d guess that we’d have real trouble relating to an intelligence that wasn’t embodied similarly to us. I don’t know what references we’d have in common.
You’re correct that the “mind piloting a meat robot” view is nonsensical dualism.
But all this is all orthogonal to the current conversation about LLMs, which aren’t intelligent or sentient at all.
-
OTH, Turing's original test assumed a disembodied humanity so the distinction I have made doesn't matter for your general point
While I have a tremendous affection for Turing, I've never accepted his 'test' as being proof of anything beyond our own desire to discern bunnies in cloud formations.
-
While I have a tremendous affection for Turing, I've never accepted his 'test' as being proof of anything beyond our own desire to discern bunnies in cloud formations.
Yes. The longer I have thought about it the more I see it as a test that presumes its own answer. Remove all evidence of what makes us human except symbolic interaction (language) then ask if we can be fooled under only that condition. Answer: of course.
-
@Remittancegirl thank you for this thread - an illuminating way of considering AI
@alstonvicar You are most welcome. It's something I think about a lot.
-
Yes. The longer I have thought about it the more I see it as a test that presumes its own answer. Remove all evidence of what makes us human except symbolic interaction (language) then ask if we can be fooled under only that condition. Answer: of course.
The better test: will a snail avoid discomfort? yes. Will an AI Turing test machine even be sentient? No.
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
-
The gross, pathological narcissism that lies behind the lie of AI is that it doesn't matter that we chose an inanimate thing over another human. And that we're encouraged to do so.
That AI girlfriend, that AI therapist, that AI copy editor, that AI music ... that doesn't require us to see the common humanity in the other who gives us something or demands something of us...
Essentially, at is core, this produces not only a disdain for the other, but a disdain for our own singular humanity.
@Remittancegirl This bit. I've been arguing this since someone of my acquaintance suggested they wouldn't need partners because dating games were getting pretty good (early aughts.) The "point" of having a partner was instrumentalist, not reciprocal.
It's TESCREAL in a nutshell. They're terrified of death, so they deny life.
