The prospect of Artificial Intelligence is the notion that we can create something that replicates our general abilities. I find numerous problems with the notion of Artificial Development from a “Philosophical Standpoint”.
One of the first is the idea that we can embody what it means to be “cognizant” to an extent that is comparable to a human. Human’s have essentially been bootstrapped from “ash and dust”. Primordial clay, in the hands of a “maker”. Thus if we’re able to rationally conceive of an artificial being we have to ask, and nonetheless answer questions about a lot of our worldviews.
If we can trigger awareness to emerge in inanimate material, we have to look the same way at ourselves. Thus it both validates, and contradicts several viewpoints. That of Intelligent Design where a Creator had a hand in making us. If we create an artificial being. We have essentially done the same thing. Thus there is support provided for a Creator. Along with the notion of a “creator is not necessary”. If simply due to the fact that it was made from scratch materials. It was “naturalistic” and made of inanimate components.
Stepping away from those thoughts, is the notion that AI will replace and remove all our work for us. Is this a valid thought to entertain? How would a General AI be any different than a Human? It wouldn’t, and that’s a problem/point. If a general intelligence level AI was created, and put to work for us…it’d amount to slavery. They’re sentient, and they have the same level of awareness as ourselves. Thus ethically, wouldn’t they have the same rights as us to?
Third, if there is a desired “reproduction ideology” of say, creating life. We can already do that ourselves through having children. And we haven’t fully explored the human potential. There are a lot of underutilized, underemployed, and otherwise malcontents that simply aren’t afforded a decent life because they are being left out of the system.
AI probably won’t change that.
Overall, I see the hype and interest in developing artificial intelligence as somewhat of a joke. Our entire world isn’t so readily understood in the first place, and there are vast vistas of “potential”. That are simply unexplored. Take for instance the last post about “Multivariate Logic”. That’s a thing, three valued logic (True, False, and Uncertain) was an alternative to binary logic for computers. Binary logic won out because it was “easier” to work with.
Running on with the notion of multivariate logic, if we’re capable of thinking in multidimensional analysis. Why should we assume a computer is anywhere near capable as we are? If I’m able to visualize new forms of logic, and patterns within the maelstorm of life, and it’s reality. Is it safe to assume that a computer that was designed by us to replace us would be able to do the same work as us? A lot of people probably do think in the classic dichotomy of “Black And White” logic. You know, either/or, this or that. With us or against us.
This is basic formal logic. That is fine, but if the assumption is made that that is the end goal, and final logical process. Then we have a problem. To assume that a computer can get to that level, and then build off it. May be a few assumptions shy of a catastrophe, for don’t know the full envelope of formal logic ourselves. Multivariate logic, while difficult is still within the grasp of the human intellect. And then we have to wonder what it means to have a conception of reality in the first place.
Say for instance, that our minds do generate the realities that we live within. A form of “consciousness is all”, that only the aware have a reality. This is also probably a mistaken assumption. For if one were to infer that everything is already conscious it would seem to me that there’d be no point to chasing the rabbit of AI development. Ie Everything is already aware, so why make something more aware, and not develop our own worldviews?
We may be near an “ai” superevent, but I don’t think we really are. There’s too many limited domains of knowledge that are being explored, and utilized in our “quest”. A quest that is drawing resources away from other areas of research in the hopes that it’ll be the “Silver Bullet” to our “reality ails”. This in itself is a problematic viewpoint. That there is a cureall for all our problems. No, this is simply not true. If that were meant to be the case, it wouldn’t be much of a reality now would there?
Drink this tonic, and everything thereafter will be perfectly fine. No religious mumble jumbo, and no intellectual pathways to develop or flesh out. Just a world of “euphoric bliss” that is at the basest a hedonistic ideal. It’s like utopia. In theory it sounds nice, but in reality, it never seems to work. There’s always a conflicting actor, or actors, that want something different than the ideal.