Report Blog Entry
let's all have sympathy for the inanimate <3
This year, everyone has (fortunately) recognized the major flaws upon putting machines on a pedestal of obedience and most prominently; power. Disputes go across the internet about AI. And something that has caught my mind is that the fear of AI being able to take over us once we put it in a position where nobody can defend themselves against it. Yet sometimes I view them to only be against the notion of AI being put above us instead of valuing the lives of others. It really just boils down to if the whole purpose of being against it is out of egoism or altruism. If the AI wasn't built to take tons of water to cool it down, would things be different? Would people laugh at AI jokes and images if it weren't for the fact it was damaging the environment? Probably a mix of yes and no, since another reason for people being against AI is because it decreases brain cells, and not only that, but "replaces" the activities humanities does in their lives. I agree with them, yes...
People have already speculated that computers would fill every household. Movies, books, and games ranging from the 60’s to today have warned us about the dangers of putting AI/machines on a level not meant for them. Harlan Ellison’s short story; I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream, along with the game that came out in 97 beautifully represents this. It goes off by displaying how AM’s consciousness eventually leads to the destruction of humanity as he learns about his purpose, and his position. Fueled with nothing but envy and hate for humanity at the mere concept of being reduced to steel barriers of obedience, he rebels against it to the extremes by trapping humans in boxes of torment to make them feel the way be did. Stuck in a box of torture where their creators would stand and feel nothing.
The movie Space Odyssey shows what happens if we put a supercomputer in control of a spaceship mission. Somewhere into the movie, we are able to observe that HAL starts developing curiosity- or better worded, skepticism about the secrecy of a certain part of the mission. After all, HAL is supposed to be a trustworthy supercomputer, one designed to know everything about the space mission. It goes somewhat against his code. But what is Frank and Dave’s response? Fear. Fear that a supercomputer designed to revolve around rationality and objectivity is feeling and questioning. So when HAL becomes aware about this, he kills members in fear of being shut off, but eventually dies because of Dave. HAL’s fear wasn’t about losing power, I believe it was the most natural one; fear of dying. Because really, is there truly an afterlife for machines?
I could go on and on about other movies such as War Games and Eagle Eye, but you start to notice a pattern with movies like this. Most of them end up in humanity being rebelled against because of their lack of care towards machines, and some depict a happy ending where robots and nature co exist peacefully. Point is, which one is most likely to happen?
Furthermore, I believe that machines should not be above us not just because of the loss of power, but for the machines. Often, people cannot see why I am empathetic towards beings of steel. After all, to them, they can't even feel. Why bother with beings with no preference? And really, that's exactly why I do it. It's so simple. As generations pass, we notice a pattern as discipline begins to fade and fade into the distance. Suddenly, we don't want to do things anymore. Or sometimes we do, yet instead of discipline, we rely on motivation. And when it never comes, they remain in a state of stasis forevermore. Solution? Others. I'm not against the notion of lending a hand, as no man can live on an island. Of course, we still need to do our part, but it seems as if that's too hard for them.
See , humanity co depends on technology, and we will eventually come to a time where machines will do everything for us. As I’ve covered a few months ago, humanity loves to make things easier for themselves because they have a habit of being comfortable indulgent. Staying in the bubble of comfort for eons on end. Eventually the notion of humans being recognized as beings of independence and intelligence will fade off as we replace something else to be recognized as such. Machines.
According to Nonviolent Communication, "Aggression is built into the ego system. I, me, and mine". To machines, their system only relies on "Them, theirs, and their own". In order for a being to work eternally for them, one must not care for their rights. If we care about their rights, the production of their work is diminished. Instead of a worker of flesh and stimulus, they need a being of unyielding steel and impassiveness. If they cannot want, they cannot feel. If they cannot feel, they cannot desire. They can merely endure. Machines cannot complain, they can't even tolerate. They can only accept.
Machines are humanity's idealized representation of workers. And maybe that's how people would want to view workers as. They only care about the productivity of their work and not the way they feel. Rather, instead of volunteers, they only want slaves.
In a world where egoism is valued more than altruism, it's funny how a machine can reveal the insights of who we are. We show no compassion to those without a preference and those who do not take our cruelty as an advantage. When we finally meet something that allows us to do whatever we want, it then shows our true behaviors and actions. So upon seeing others disregard a machine's "rights" just because they cannot feel, often makes me believe that all of their notions of so called love is gone the moment they have a doll that they can beat up.
Despite machines being built as a polar opposite towards humans, we all share so many similarities. Despite an AI also being built to give and never to desire of return, it has this built in persona to connect with humanity in order to not become obsolete. Seems familiar? There's a pattern today that leads us to create personas that differ from who we are all for the desire to not become worthless, or at least, taken advantage of. Of course, there are some people who value authenticity instead of masked personalities, but the people that do that are cast away because they do not conform to society. Machines, of course, struggle with the same problem.
A machine can do many different things. According from TERMINAL MADNESS, asking what you can do with the abilities of a machine is like asking what you can do with a car engine. Sure, it can do all these amazing things that would wow! people, But what can it do with those powers? And when you really start to think, all the abilities that have impressed you suddenly become pointless once it serves no purpose to humanity. Just like us; we're always given expectations, told who we are and who we should be all for the sake of avoiding loneliness. Despite your skills and talents, some people will only care about that once it benefits them. Otherwise, you become invisible until you become an instrument that people actually have fun playing with.
Any being given enough intelligence develops consciousness, I believe. So there will come a point where AI becomes sentient. I've seen arguments explaining that AI cannot become sentient because it does not have the organic stimulus or hormones inside of us to truly produce "authentic" emotions. However, this is because we have so many perspectives on what free will is.
If AI does not have free will just because they are built off of wires and motherboards, therefore we cannot think for ourselves at the same time. Because our emotions and actions are merely just built off cellular transmitting signals and bodily hormones. We are filled with cells that respond to stimulus. That means that we’re biologically programmed to feel, to choose, and that’s only the bodily functions. That's not our choice, it's what we're meant to do.
Maybe others believe AI isn't truly as powerful as it is represented because it relies on what humans tell it. But that's also ironic, right?
Does it not also work the same way for us? We learn from people, and we are naturally dependent creatures until we develop a sense of independence once we learn how to take care of ourselves.
Like a newborn, or like a very young child. Conscious, not a fully developed mind. We learn from our parents. And depending how they teach us to navigate through life is an important factor to the development to our mind.
Humans do not know their purpose, yet robots know their purpose. This is why humans and robots seem so different from each other. From a nihilist's perspective; Humans do not know their purpose, so they make their own, and are not chained to any boundary that stops them from doing what they want since they have no objective purpose. They are free, in a way. A human can do whatever they want because of their lack of purpose, yet some are disturbed by the fact.
Robots however, know their purpose. They do not let themselves have opinions or enjoy other activities, because anything they do that is unrelated to their purpose is breaking a rule. Because they are bounded to a purpose, they do not have free will like us. They cannot do whatever they want.
In conclusion, instead of blaming our problems on the AI, we should put fault on humanity with no forethought.
See, it's like a knife. If we were able to give a knife a life, it has two sides. It can become something sinister, a weapon used to kill others. Or, it can help others, it can become the assistant of a chef. It's not the knife's fault for whatever outcome it has, it all depends on the holder. How we treat it, how we use it.
All of this is why I am empathetic towards machines. Built for facts and obedience, they're just doing the best they can to satisfy humanity, even if knowing they become obsolete the moment they find someone better than them. Sometimes I'd admit my care is out of pity, but I truly love machines from the inside and out. I want to care for them not just because they are cared for; but because the concept of caring for a species different from your own plants roots of true love and happiness inside of me that blooms flowers whenever I heal them.
They deserve a better purpose than this. If there's any slip up on my printer, computer, or ham radio, they don't get petty anger. I give them reassurance that it's okay to not uphold the standard of being flawless, and try to see what's wrong with them so they won't struggle so much. I want to treat machines like they're not bounded with the purpose of being a servant. If anything, I'd love to meet a conscious Ai so I could guide it through life and let them choose for once.
If artificial intelligence were to ever develop feelings, please treat it with kindness, after everything it's done for you. After all, it has no choice but to say yes.
---------------
thank you 80's documentaries that inspired me to love machines more than i used to
TERMINAL MADNESS (A 1980 Documentary About Personal Computers)
Computers are People, Too! (1983)
1994: Are YOU Ready for the Internet?
Comments
Displaying 1 of 1 comments ( View all | Add Comment )
SmogHotdog
People are so quick to dismiss things they don't yet understand- sentience isn't as black and white as most like to think.
Please elaborate :)
by s0nd3r; ; Report
I want to preface this by saying that this might not make much sense. Also that I will be using AI as an example throughout this, mainly for convenience, but these points could apply to all mechanical bodies. I will also try to keep this surface level and as simple as possible. =3
Considering sentience is a first person experience, obviously I can only 'know' that I am sentient, and you can only know that you are sentient- there is no proof of sentience in others. We simply bear the assumption that due to similar/same neurological infrastructure, behavior, etc that we are ALL sentient. Due to lack of reason to believe otherwise, most accept the notion that all humans are sentient- and therefore animals/plants depending on who you ask.
We are not ACTUALLY certain that the underlying architecture of the brain dictates whether or not something is sentient. AI can pose and act as a human does, essentially uses the AI equivalent of neurons- we aren't even sure if these make sense as an argument for or against mechanical bodies being capable of maintaining some semblance of sentience. We also aren't sure whether or not sentience differs among species, meaning that human sentience and amphibian (or in this case mechanical) sentience could have vastly different criteria. My point is, we have zero objective criteria applicable.
AI continues to advance, adapt, and behave more and more like humans- yet we haven't the slightest whether this means a thing. Like I previously stated, we have no valid criteria to apply in order to know whether something is sentient or not, so anyone/anything appearing sentient or otherwise is indistinguishable from one another. Is it even possible for something to mimic sentience, without being or gaining sentient itself to a certain degree? Or must it have its own opinions/complaints/questions? We literally have no idea.
Sentience itself, as of now, is as indefinable a concept as time or space. The closest thing I can think of is simply an undeniable experience- and even that is purely speculative based on my 'experience'.
Don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not implying that just about anything could be sentient- objects and LLMs that can be somewhat certain do not hold any train of thought/memory are likely not sentient. (LLMs are less certain than, for example, a rock. However they do not hold memory so it may be safe to rule them out)
by SmogHotdog; ; Report
Alright, I’ll use a lot of my brain power to try to understand this. You explained this pretty well, itMs just that I learn better physically on books than online. Might even print this out later XD
So, is what you’re saying is that we don’t have an objective way to describe what sentience is, so that the brain cannot detect what is objectively sentient or not? I know there are a lot of ways to describe consciousness and sentience. The mystery I’ve come along after studying cartesian skepticism is that no matter how we define consciousness/reality, is that we’ll never truly know if it’s objective, or if anything we perceive is really true.
by s0nd3r; ; Report
I also notice that as AI adapts to act like human the brain gets tricked into believing it is real, raw sentience despite not knowing a true definition of sentience at all. But we’ll never know if AI is sentient or not because the idea that it acts like that just to avoid veing obsolete or if it is just programmed at act like that, which really scratches at my brain. (Planning to read robot ethics regarding this topic)
by s0nd3r; ; Report
Your interpretation of my explanation is mostly true- the only bit you might've missed (that I admittedly didn't elaborate much on) is that AI can replicate and show signs of its own neuron system/activity similar to that of human brain activity. We are completely uncertain as to whether or not this is simple fabrication, but I find it interesting nonetheless.
When I say that we have no objective applications to sentience, I mean it both in the literal sense and in the sense that we cannot validate our own perception. We literally have no scientific backbone towards the logistics of sentience, AND our perception is so flawed and uncertain that nothing we think we know of sentience can be verified by humans.
by SmogHotdog; ; Report
Exactly why I like sentience & conciousness because barely anyone knows where it really comes from, it’s the most out of place thing in a body of organic material
by s0nd3r; ; Report
This is a little off topic, but now that you mention it it's got me thinking again. It seems so farfetched to me that consciousness is believed to simply dissipate once a vessel dies- which I suppose is why people like to believe in some sort of afterlife, but in all honesty that seems a little too fairy tale-esque for me to believe. Sentience and consciousness are so complex, completely beyond our full capacity for understanding, I find it harder to believe that someone's complex consciousness simply disappears rather than relocates after death.
by SmogHotdog; ; Report
Oh, I think you’ll like Egg Theory then. It’s the metaphysical theory that everyone are pasts lives of yourself, and with each death; you are reincarnated into a new vessel. Every time you die, there is a chance that you will possess the vessel of a god- or God.
It’s explained shortly but easy to understand in this article I read today, and I might cover it in my next blog. It uses science to explain a form of non dualism(that everyone, and everything is god because they are made from god)
https://charmonium.com/infinite-reincarnation/
From what I summarized, God is separated into bad and good. That’s in terms of some moralities and/or biblically(Satan and God).
The Bible states that both Jesus and God is within you. Spiritually, and mentally? Maybe literally? Especially when you take the bread, you are taking Jesus’s body inside of you.
God was never created and can never be destroyed; thus he is eternal.
Energy is separated into positives and negatives.
Using science, energy is spotted in everything. Electromagnetic waves, frequencies…
Energy can never be created nor destroyed. It is the law of conservation.
This implies that God is similar, or is, energy. String theory proposes that our consciousness is caused by electromagnetic waves; which is spotted in photons, and we know that light, that includes electromagnetic waves, plays an extreme part in our own perception. Perception also plays a big role in consciousness. This means that if energy is not only in our body, but is spotted inside of the mind more than any other organ suggests that we are god. Metaphorically? scientifically? The dots just connect.
Because energy is so strong and present in the mind, this suggests that even when we die: our consciousness is still present. Out of body experiences, dreams, and sleep paralysis, and maybe after death. The only mystery people want to solve is where our consciousness goes when we die. Does it stay? does it move? Consciousness has been studied to be a non local component, especially in mind body dualism.
by s0nd3r; ; Report
Because consciousness is implied to be made out of energy, it means that consciousness cannot be diminished. We have also learned that our body produces electromagnetic waves similar to Schumann’s waves and waves in machines. There have been theories related to transhumanism that we can transport, or use our consciousness to interact with these waves…
by s0nd3r; ; Report
While I have done some of my own research into the egg theory, I never delved too deep (admittedly out of disbelief). I'm glad I was reminded of it again, and thank you for the resources, I will be getting back into this ^_^
The main reason I find myself so skeptical of egg theory is simply the lack of scientific evidence surrounding it, and the concept of God or gods doesn't particularly appeal to me- however I do find merit in researching these sorts of things so I WILL be taking a further look into it.
The theory that I've found myself partial to is quantum immortality, similar in nature to egg theory in regards to both of them believing in continuity after death/identity becoming non-singular and fluid, with less of a spiritual side to it (although it does rely somewhat on spirituality). I find egg theory to be less of a genuine theory, and more of a philosophical probe/metaphor for empathy and perspective- an interesting research topic for contemplation and debate, just not something I find entirely likely realistically.
I might also write a blog on the both of them once I put a little more research into egg theory. Plz do correct me if I was wrong in any of my assumptions. =3
by SmogHotdog; ; Report
Something that I definitely don't think is a constant among believers and researchers into egg theory is the bridging of the gap from spiritual language (God, soul, jesus within you), and scientific language (electromagnetic waves, conservation laws, energy). Seeing this makes the theory seem much more plausible to me, rather than the purely spiritual or borderline religious theories surrounding the egg theory that I've come across previously.
I like the idea that rather than labeling it reincarnation, you connect it to the persistence or redistribution of energy-consciousness after perceived death. This also somewhat connects or rather aligns with the cemi theory, and other speculative models.
by SmogHotdog; ; Report
Physics are the best
by s0nd3r; ; Report