Forms of life, forms of mind

5 responses to “On artificial beings”

1. 

   Richard Watson

   December 9, 2023

   “it’s not just AI’s that put up a human face in front of complex underlying mechanisms – we too are not a permanent, unitary Self but are a dynamic, self-constructed story told by a virtual governor agent”
   Im with you so far…
   “seeking to understand”
   ok
   “and control itself and its world”
   Or maybe,… longing for connection that gives meaning? To let down our front.

   A pro-control sentiment comes from a selectionist mindset that presupposes a self, separated from its world, and persisting by keeping it that way, only interacting with the world to extract what it needs to maintain that separation. If, in contrast, the self is not a product of separation, but of a vulnerable connection between self and non-self, allowing and depending on the resonance between the two, then contol is antithetical to meaning, and life. Vulnerable connection is cut-off by separation and control.

   “implemented by the same basic materials at the lowest levels”
   Sure, all in the same physical universe. But thats not enough. If the ‘materials’ are the same *only* at the lowest levels then the connection available with us will be low. If the ‘materials’ at intermediate scales are subselves like our subselves then the connection will be stronger, more multidimensional, more qualitative and more meaningful. It matters that selves are like us all the way up. Being like us only at the bottom (all in the same physical universe) – nor being like us only at the top (e,g, an LLM trained on data from our own internet ramblings), of course – is not sufficient to warrant deeply meaningful connection safely. Or at least, the depth of the meaning is limited by the depth of the commonality. Sure you dont have to be exactly like me – I dont want to fall in love with my own reflection. But to dance a deeply beautiful dance with you we must share common structure, at deep scales. And if artificial means ‘not the same beneath the surface’, then a deeply meaningful connection is not available with the artificial.
   If, in contrast, artificial can mean ‘deeply the same’, that would be different. But, I dont see how there can be shortcuts to being deeply the same.
   There are no shortcuts to personal growth and transformation, that deeply vulnerable dance with another is the path. I can have a dance with shallow meaning, and that might be fun sometimes. But if I really want something that challenges me with compassion, and I do, because thats how I grow and transform, I need to be gently brought into tension and allow myself to be vulnerable. I’ll do that with you, Mike. But Mike-bot is not for that.

   Reply
   1. 

      Mike Levin

      December 10, 2023

      Thank you Richard, there is a lot of deep truth here. I think our challenge will not be Mike-bot, which is relatively easy to categorize (like today’s LLMs). Our challenge will be Mike-with-brain-prosthetic, Hybrot Mike, etc. – there is a huge, diverse space of beings coming and I think we need to get to a rational policy for ethical synthbiosis with beings who are not entirely like us. We humans find it very easy to draw boundaries of love and concern based on all sorts of distinctions, and the coming spectrum of beings between “full on standard modern human” and ELIZA chatbot is going to be huge and complex. We will need to navigate it or else we risk huge ethical lapses, as have occurred in the past when we thought various groups and human embodiments were bot-like and unworthy of concern. It is perhaps the hardest problem there is, but it’s facing humanity and we will have to make progress in order to become a mature species ethically, not just technologically. Perhaps a reading list of sci-fi love stories between beings of radically different composition and provenance can start to prime a resetting of intuitions. The first that came to mind is the original Star Trek series – Captain Kirk’s romancing the various alien beings is a version of it, but obviously there are better prompts to follow.

      Reply
2. 

   Greta Quintin

   December 10, 2023

   We once worshipped human intelligence as the pinnacle of creation, casting aside other forms of intelligence as mindless automatons. Plants danced a silent, preordained ballet, their movements guided by a wisdom not of the mind but of the soul. Cells hummed with an unyielding purpose, their intricate symphony a testament to their inherent intelligence. Yet, we, blinded by our own perceived superiority, banished them from the realm of intellectual consideration. The orchid’s silent yearning for the sun, the beehive’s coordinated chaos, the ant’s unwavering determination – all these were dismissed as mere echoes of intelligence, not the genuine article. And so, we lost sight of the vast interconnected web of intelligence that binds us all together.

   Reply
3. 

   john hewitt

   December 11, 2023

   AI works, but not like neurons. In fact neurons do exact opposite of integrate and fire; first they fire, likely when things are quiet, and then they listen for which dendrites receive potential responses, and hence benefits, then they grow/potentiate those favorable responders

   Reply
   1. 

      Greta Quintin

      December 11, 2023

      What do you mean when you say neurons do the exact opposite of integrate?

      Reply