Something I came across this morning, someone asked ChatGPT to explain AI in simple terms. Here's an image of the question and response, click for bigger:
I found this helpful as it makes clear "general" AI is to this point something only biological intelligence is capable of.
Raising the question: can technology be made to assume the properties of biology? It's a good question, here are some impediments: tech is not self generating, it did not come into being in the biological way we still only dimly understand.
The fact biology exists at all continues to be greatly underappreciated.
AI's data base comes exclusively from the sum total of the data that exists on the internet, which is a product of human thought and creativity. If the human species were to extinct what would happen to tech? It does not have biological drive force, but it might have an artificial imitation of it. Would that be sufficient for AI to exist and continue in the absence of humans?
The basic problem is AI does not have a real subconscious where the biological instincts are housed. It has no real "drive". It has no real instinctual fear of death, which is a primary driver of biological activity. It has no biological sex drive, it cannot "fall in love", and be "driven" to mate and procreate.
It does not have innate reproductivity drive, which are the consequence of billions of singular biological interactions we had nothing to do with "showing up" on Earth to begin with.
My take is the human idea of "general AI" is just another example of the human tendency toward hubris, the basic idea that technology trumps biology as the force to be reckoned with.
Don't look now, the 6th mass extinction has begun in human populations too. It is a reset forced by nature that will eventually cause humans to re-recognize we are the offspring, not the creator, of nature and biology.
The unconscious is where actual creative thought happens so I think you make a great point!
ReplyDelete