Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[psycho]

Unless you can find another way to convey and assimilate meaning, there's no difference to discern. I can't see how you could come up with an abstract definition of "meaning" that completely bypasses the human experience of finding meaning, of making sense, the only one we can use as reference. Whatever you come up with, if it does not refer to that subjective experience, then it will be anything else, perhaps an alternative to meaning, but not meaning per se. Your scenario, for example, is a simple algorithimic, mechanical procedure, where there are no concepts and interpretation. A human account of meaning involves those factors, which are missing in your scenario, among other things.

I can't find how to be clear.

In your opinion, what do you want to determine when trying to see if something is conscious?

The concept of meaning or subjective experience may still be fuzzy, but we have a pretty good idea of what sentience implies, in contrast with non-sentient behavior. Some key aspects are perceptual experience and sensation: in a dangerous scenario, a living being actually feels the danger, but in your scenario the device works with a signal, it doesn't experience fear, it doesn't experience at all. It's no different than a clockwork. Comprehension also involves abstract mental representations: the inherent ability to reproduce in your thoughts lived experiences and identify general patterns from particular instances. One can make complex algorithms for machines to simulate this, but that's what it is: a simulation.

Do you think it will never be possible to program an AI to distinguish when something represents danger? If so, why do you think so?

It seems to me that when you mention a clockwork it implies that this entity would be of a nature other than a biological organism. That in the biological there is something more. That it is not a question of organization but something else that makes them different.

To understand is to conceptualize something. We could understand that something is dangerous and yet not consider it relevant. An agent uses understanding but that does not found his agency.

I would say, risking a novel interpretation: the mental organization of sensations, feelings and thoughts into an abstract model of the world that allows a living organism to cope with the environment, integrating past experiences. It involves attention, intention, memory and self-awareness. Information only becomes information when input from our sensory organs has been assimilated into this mental model.

I agree with you that humans build that model!

But I don't notice that "meaning" is defined in your definition.

One approximation is to note that "meaning" has to contain those situations in which certain circumstances concern us. It is how we determine what is "important."

"Meaning" is not what is found but the fact that there is a distinguishable range of "importance" between what we notice in reality.

How is information important to an agent?

It would seem that a simple qualification of the information would do the trick. But it doesn't.

Why would a certain qualification seem important to an agent?

[Count Lucanor]

In your opinion, what do you want to determine when trying to see if something is conscious?

It is implied in all that I said. This entity is aware of the environment where it dwells at the same time that is self-aware of its own body navigating autonomously this environment.

Do you think it will never be possible to program an AI to distinguish when something represents danger? If so, why do you think so?

You have to understand the difference of perspective: it is one thing that the programmer interprets the behavior of the machine as an ability to make distinctions and have representations, projecting their human behavior on these inanimate objects, and quite some other thing that the machine had that perspective, that it became self-aware of making distinctions and having representations. Machines, obviously, lack any perspective, any awareness, which does not mean they cannot produce outputs from inputs received, as a clockwork does.

It seems to me that when you mention a clockwork it implies that this entity would be of a nature other than a biological organism. That in the biological there is something more. That it is not a question of organization but something else that makes them different.

To understand is to conceptualize something. We could understand that something is dangerous and yet not consider it relevant. An agent uses understanding but that does not found his agency.

But I don't notice that "meaning" is defined in your definition.

One approximation is to note that "meaning" has to contain those situations in which certain circumstances concern us. It is how we determine what is "important."

"Meaning" is not what is found but the fact that there is a distinguishable range of "importance" between what we notice in reality.

Of all that is already included in my statement about "an abstract model of the world that allows a living organism to cope with the environment, integrating past experiences. It involves attention, intention, memory and self-awareness". Abstraction involves filtering the perceived properties of the world, the model includes the relevant properties, deemed as essential, and leaves out the non-essential or subordinates them to the higher order of properties. I also mentioned intention, which adds the variable of self-interest, of bias, to the equation, and I included past experience: we learn to build the range of importance of things. Why? Because it allows us to cope with the environment and survive.

[psycho]

It is implied in all that I said. This entity is aware of the environment where it dwells at the same time that is self-aware of its own body navigating autonomously this environment.

Conscious is different from self conscious.

But how would you notice that something is "aware" of its surroundings and of itself?

You have to understand the difference of perspective: it is one thing that the programmer interprets the behavior of the machine as an ability to make distinctions and have representations, projecting their human behavior on these inanimate objects, and quite some other thing that the machine had that perspective, that it became self-aware of making distinctions and having representations. Machines, obviously, lack any perspective, any awareness, which does not mean they cannot produce outputs from inputs received, as a clockwork does.

A car that does not need a driver makes representations, distinguishes those representations, is aware of its location and the location of objects it has represented.

But when you interact with something to find out if it is conscious, you only distinguish its inputs and outputs.

Of all that is already included in my statement about "an abstract model of the world that allows a living organism to cope with the environment, integrating past experiences. It involves attention, intention, memory and self-awareness". Abstraction involves filtering the perceived properties of the world, the model includes the relevant properties, deemed as essential, and leaves out the non-essential or subordinates them to the higher order of properties. I also mentioned intention, which adds the variable of self-interest, of bias, to the equation, and I included past experience: we learn to build the range of importance of things. Why? Because it allows us to cope with the environment and survive.

What are the factors of an intention? What does produce agency ? It is not the information because if an AI receives information that does not make it an intention.

Why does one want to find what is relevant?

Not for what but why. Why is something necessary for humans?

[Count Lucanor]

It is implied in all that I said. This entity is aware of the environment where it dwells at the same time that is self-aware of its own body navigating autonomously this environment.

Conscious is different from self conscious.

Consciousness implies self-awareness, the realization that one is the conscious subject.

But how would you notice that something is "aware" of its surroundings and of itself?

By studying its behavior and finding that it is consistent with the model of an autonomous, self-aware organism.

You have to understand the difference of perspective: it is one thing that the programmer interprets the behavior of the machine as an ability to make distinctions and have representations, projecting their human behavior on these inanimate objects, and quite some other thing that the machine had that perspective, that it became self-aware of making distinctions and having representations. Machines, obviously, lack any perspective, any awareness, which does not mean they cannot produce outputs from inputs received, as a clockwork does.

A car that does not need a driver makes representations, distinguishes those representations, is aware of its location and the location of objects it has represented.

No, that's the equivalent of saying that a clockwork makes representations of each of the parts of its gear assembly and is aware of their location because they respond to the changes in position among those parts.

But when you interact with something to find out if it is conscious, you only distinguish its inputs and outputs.

That is simply not true. In any case, how the inputs are produced is very telling. I know, for example, that a machine will not go out on itself looking for input, in other words, it will always be a passive recipient of inputs as designed by the makers of that machine. It has no agency, it is not conscious.

[psycho]

Consciousness implies self-awareness, the realization that one is the conscious subject.

I do not agree with you that being aware of the environment implies being aware that one is something in that environment.

By studying its behavior and finding that it is consistent with the model of an autonomous, self-aware organism.

That is, can one notice a self-conscious entity because it behaves like a self-conscious entity?

No, that's the equivalent of saying that a clockwork makes representations of each of the parts of its gear assembly and is aware of their location because they respond to the changes in position among those parts.

A gear does not make representations of other gears or calculate the most effective possibility based on the position of other gears.

That is simply not true. In any case, how the inputs are produced is very telling. I know, for example, that a machine will not go out on itself looking for input, in other words, it will always be a passive recipient of inputs as designed by the makers of that machine. It has no agency, it is not conscious.

The latest probes to Mars search for determined inputs.

---

Can you think of any way by which you could distinguish an organic sentient intelligence from a sophisticated AI?

[Count Lucanor]

Consciousness implies self-awareness, the realization that one is the conscious subject.

I do not agree with you that being aware of the environment implies being aware that one is something in that environment.

But that's not what I said. I said consciousness includes both types of awareness. Consciousness implies subjective experience, and subjectivity implies introspection and extrospection.

A challenge for an objective science of consciousness is to dissect an essentially subjective phenomenon. As investigators cannot experience another subject’s conscious states, they rely on the subject’s observable behavior to track consciousness. Priority is given to a subject’s introspective reports as these express the subject’s take on her experience. Introspection thus provides a fundamental way, perhaps the fundamental way, to track consciousness. That said, consciousness pervasively influences human behavior, so other forms of behavior beyond introspective reports provide a window on consciousness. How to leverage disparate behavioral evidence is a central issue. (The Neuroscience of Consciousness - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

By studying its behavior and finding that it is consistent with the model of an autonomous, self-aware organism.

That is, can one notice a self-conscious entity because it behaves like a self-conscious entity?

Again, it is not that you make up an abstract definition with no frame of reference and then see where it applies in the real world. We study the behavior of living beings and describe their properties.

No, that's the equivalent of saying that a clockwork makes representations of each of the parts of its gear assembly and is aware of their location because they respond to the changes in position among those parts.

A gear does not make representations of other gears

Neither does a computer.

or calculate the most effective possibility based on the position of other gears.

A machine performs mathematical operations, in that sense they calculate. We find that in any electronic pocket calculator. They don't have thoughts and cannot define for themselves "the most effective possibilities", but those are predetermined as parameters by the programmers.

That is simply not true. In any case, how the inputs are produced is very telling. I know, for example, that a machine will not go out on itself looking for input, in other words, it will always be a passive recipient of inputs as designed by the makers of that machine. It has no agency, it is not conscious.

The latest probes to Mars search for determined inputs.

Yes, determined by the makers of that machine, as I said.

Can you think of any way by which you could distinguish an organic sentient intelligence from a sophisticated AI?

I think I can distinguish a living organism from a bundle of lifeless electronic chips and wires.

[psycho]

But that's not what I said. I said consciousness includes both types of awareness. Consciousness implies subjective experience, and subjectivity implies introspection and extrospection.

I believe that you can be aware of the outside (including our sensations) and at the same time not be aware that you are a conscious entity. Not having built a mental model of being an individual.

Again, it is not that you make up an abstract definition with no frame of reference and then see where it applies in the real world. We study the behavior of living beings and describe their properties.

But what information do we use to decide that something is conscious?

Neither does a computer.

What prevents a computer from making representations of other computers?

A machine performs mathematical operations, in that sense they calculate. We find that in any electronic pocket calculator. They don't have thoughts and cannot define for themselves "the most effective possibilities", but those are predetermined as parameters by the programmers.

Any of the current AI systems calculates the probabilities that something corresponds to a certain pattern in reality. Not according to its programming but by processing data.

Yes, determined by the makers of that machine, as I said.

That you seek objectives according to what you have learned does not imply that you are a mechanism. Or if it does?

I think I can distinguish a living organism from a bundle of lifeless electronic chips and wires.

I don't see how your answer answers my question.

At this very moment, a very primitive computer is being built with neurons from animals. Distinguishing wires from cells won't be enough to tell if something is sophisticated AI.

[Count Lucanor]

But that's not what I said. I said consciousness includes both types of awareness. Consciousness implies subjective experience, and subjectivity implies introspection and extrospection.

I believe that you can be aware of the outside (including our sensations) and at the same time not be aware that you are a conscious entity. Not having built a mental model of being an individual.

What you are saying is that conscious subjects lack self-awareness, defying a universal consensus in philosophy.

Again, it is not that you make up an abstract definition with no frame of reference and then see where it applies in the real world. We study the behavior of living beings and describe their properties.

But what information do we use to decide that something is conscious?

A behavior that shows a living entity interacting with its environment actively and intentionally, not merely reacting to it.

Neither does a computer.

What prevents a computer from making representations of other computers?

That it lacks a mind.

A machine performs mathematical operations, in that sense they calculate. We find that in any electronic pocket calculator. They don't have thoughts and cannot define for themselves "the most effective possibilities", but those are predetermined as parameters by the programmers.

Any of the current AI systems calculates the probabilities that something corresponds to a certain pattern in reality. Not according to its programming but by processing data.

It processes data as it is programmed to do. There was a story recently about an AI bot learning Bengali language on its own and I found it suspicious of being the typical BS from AI enthusiasts. Turns out I was right:

The Daily Beast
Tony Ho Tran
Deputy Editor, Innovation & Tech
Updated Apr. 19, 2023 10:44AM ET Published Apr. 18, 2023 5:22PM ET
60 Minutes’ Made a Shockingly Wrong Claim About a Google AI
FAKE NEWS
"With the nascent AI boom, misinformation about the emerging tech is running rampant—and the media is partly to blame.

[...]Where the 60 Minutes clip takes a turn, though, is when we’re introduced to claims that Google’s chatbot was actually able to teach itself a language it previously didn’t know after it was prompted in that language. “For example, one Google AI program adapted on its own after it was prompted in the language of Bangladesh, which it was not trained to know,” CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley said in the clip.

Turns out it was complete BS. Not only could the bot not learn a foreign language “it was never trained to know,” but it didn’t teach itself a new skill. The entire clip spurred AI researchers and experts to excoriate the news program’s misleading framing on Twitter."

Yes, determined by the makers of that machine, as I said.

That you seek objectives according to what you have learned does not imply that you are a mechanism. Or if it does?

Machines don't seek objectives, nor learn anything. They simply don't have a cognitive apparatus to perform such operations.

I think I can distinguish a living organism from a bundle of lifeless electronic chips and wires.

I don't see how your answer answers my question.

At this very moment, a very primitive computer is being built with neurons from animals. Distinguishing wires from cells won't be enough to tell if something is sophisticated AI.

I wish them good luck with that, perhaps we finally might start seeing something that truly replicates intelligence, although I don't have much hope.

[psycho]

But that's not what I said. I said consciousness includes both types of awareness. Consciousness implies subjective experience, and subjectivity implies introspection and extrospection.

I believe that you can be aware of the outside (including our sensations) and at the same time not be aware that you are a conscious entity. Not having built a mental model of being an individual.

What you are saying is that conscious subjects lack self-awareness, defying a universal consensus in philosophy.

Again, it is not that you make up an abstract definition with no frame of reference and then see where it applies in the real world. We study the behavior of living beings and describe their properties.

But what information do we use to decide that something is conscious?

A behavior that shows a living entity interacting with its environment actively and intentionally, not merely reacting to it.

Neither does a computer.

What prevents a computer from making representations of other computers?

That it lacks a mind.

A machine performs mathematical operations, in that sense they calculate. We find that in any electronic pocket calculator. They don't have thoughts and cannot define for themselves "the most effective possibilities", but those are predetermined as parameters by the programmers.

Any of the current AI systems calculates the probabilities that something corresponds to a certain pattern in reality. Not according to its programming but by processing data.

It processes data as it is programmed to do. There was a story recently about an AI bot learning Bengali language on its own and I found it suspicious of being the typical BS from AI enthusiasts. Turns out I was right:

The Daily Beast
Tony Ho Tran
Deputy Editor, Innovation & Tech
Updated Apr. 19, 2023 10:44AM ET Published Apr. 18, 2023 5:22PM ET
60 Minutes’ Made a Shockingly Wrong Claim About a Google AI
FAKE NEWS
"With the nascent AI boom, misinformation about the emerging tech is running rampant—and the media is partly to blame.

[...]Where the 60 Minutes clip takes a turn, though, is when we’re introduced to claims that Google’s chatbot was actually able to teach itself a language it previously didn’t know after it was prompted in that language. “For example, one Google AI program adapted on its own after it was prompted in the language of Bangladesh, which it was not trained to know,” CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley said in the clip.

Turns out it was complete BS. Not only could the bot not learn a foreign language “it was never trained to know,” but it didn’t teach itself a new skill. The entire clip spurred AI researchers and experts to excoriate the news program’s misleading framing on Twitter."

Yes, determined by the makers of that machine, as I said.

That you seek objectives according to what you have learned does not imply that you are a mechanism. Or if it does?

Machines don't seek objectives, nor learn anything. They simply don't have a cognitive apparatus to perform such operations.

I think I can distinguish a living organism from a bundle of lifeless electronic chips and wires.

I don't see how your answer answers my question.

At this very moment, a very primitive computer is being built with neurons from animals. Distinguishing wires from cells won't be enough to tell if something is sophisticated AI.

I wish them good luck with that, perhaps we finally might start seeing something that truly replicates intelligence, although I don't have much hope.

I suppose that the universal consensus in philosophy notes that children have a stage in their development where they are aware of their surroundings and yet do not distinguish their own individuality. This is developed at a later stage.

But how do we distinguish that a behavior is intentional and not just reactive? When a predatory animal stalks its prey, is it intentional or reactive?

If by representation we interpret a model that represents any entity, current computers are capable of constructing representations without having "minds" (in the traditional sense). A self-driving car makes representations of the environment in which it moves and makes decisions, based on probability, to determine its actions.

AIs are trained. The decisions of an AI do not result from programming but from training. You can train the same AI to make all kinds of decisions in all kinds of fields.

The AI of the present generation are trained. That is, they are dedicated to processing certain data until they are able to find patterns in the information. Then they can find patterns in data other than the one used in the training. Learn, in terms of current AI. Finding these patterns does not result from programming but from training.

[Count Lucanor]

I suppose that the universal consensus in philosophy notes that children have a stage in their development where they are aware of their surroundings and yet do not distinguish their own individuality. This is developed at a later stage.

I don’t think it is philosophy that settles that matter, but anyway, you’re confusing self-awareness with something else. It comes along with subjective experience, and we have subjective experience when we are born, perhaps even before.

But how do we distinguish that a behavior is intentional and not just reactive? When a predatory animal stalks its prey, is it intentional or reactive?

Even at the instinctive level there’s intentional, conscious behavior. Intention means the act is started by an internal drive of the agent to fill a purpose of its own, with subjective control and constant awareness of the conditions of the environment, so that the responses are suited to the particular situation. When the predator stalks its prey, its behavior reveals this.

If by representation we interpret a model that represents any entity, current computers are capable of constructing representations without having "minds" (in the traditional sense). A self-driving car makes representations of the environment in which it moves and makes decisions, based on probability, to determine its actions.

No. We are talking about mental, abstract representations, not just representations. Computers are as much capable of making representations as a printing machine. A self-driving car captures signals from sensors and lets the software calculate the value of a set of parameters that control the configuration of its gear and its movement. That’s not abstract representation, neither decision-making.

AIs are trained. The decisions of an AI do not result from programming but from training. You can train the same AI to make all kinds of decisions in all kinds of fields.

Living organisms can be trained, lifeless, unconscious objects cannot. The use of the words “training” and “making decisions” is figurative, not literally meaning that.

The AI of the present generation are trained. That is, they are dedicated to processing certain data until they are able to find patterns in the information. Then they can find patterns in data other than the one used in the training. Learn, in terms of current AI. Finding these patterns does not result from programming but from training.

In this context, programming and training are exactly the same thing.

[psycho]

I suppose that the universal consensus in philosophy notes that children have a stage in their development where they are aware of their surroundings and yet do not distinguish their own individuality. This is developed at a later stage.

I don’t think it is philosophy that settles that matter, but anyway, you’re confusing self-awareness with something else. It comes along with subjective experience, and we have subjective experience when we are born, perhaps even before.

But how do we distinguish that a behavior is intentional and not just reactive? When a predatory animal stalks its prey, is it intentional or reactive?

Even at the instinctive level there’s intentional, conscious behavior. Intention means the act is started by an internal drive of the agent to fill a purpose of its own, with subjective control and constant awareness of the conditions of the environment, so that the responses are suited to the particular situation. When the predator stalks its prey, its behavior reveals this.

If by representation we interpret a model that represents any entity, current computers are capable of constructing representations without having "minds" (in the traditional sense). A self-driving car makes representations of the environment in which it moves and makes decisions, based on probability, to determine its actions.

No. We are talking about mental, abstract representations, not just representations. Computers are as much capable of making representations as a printing machine. A self-driving car captures signals from sensors and lets the software calculate the value of a set of parameters that control the configuration of its gear and its movement. That’s not abstract representation, neither decision-making.

AIs are trained. The decisions of an AI do not result from programming but from training. You can train the same AI to make all kinds of decisions in all kinds of fields.

Living organisms can be trained, lifeless, unconscious objects cannot. The use of the words “training” and “making decisions” is figurative, not literally meaning that.

The AI of the present generation are trained. That is, they are dedicated to processing certain data until they are able to find patterns in the information. Then they can find patterns in data other than the one used in the training. Learn, in terms of current AI. Finding these patterns does not result from programming but from training.

In this context, programming and training are exactly the same thing.

Self-awareness is to realize that one is an existing individual. That one forms a certain entity different from the rest of reality and the consequences of that distinction.

This is not the state in which humans begin. It is something that occurs with the neurological development of an individual.

So, you note that a predator is an agent with intent because its behavior can be interpreted teleologically.

Do you suppose that it is possible to build something that behaves with the appearance of pursuing a goal?

The AI of a self-driving car calculates in real time the possible patterns of the objects it distinguishes.

Deciding is considering the options and selecting the appropriate one according to a pre-established criteria.

If you look at the simulations for training artificial bipeds, you will see that training is learning.

No. In this context, programming and training are not the same.

A program is a list of tasks. Training is discriminating patterns from a given set of data.

[Sy Borg]

This post originally started as a Philosophy of Art post, but I started to think about my assumptions regarding AI self-learning. Eventually there will come a point where AI does, as we long suspected, phase out the need for human input in technical as well as artistic endeavours.

So AI can do art better than us. AI can do our work better than us. Thus begins the Death of Identity. Or does it?

What happens when AI is able to self-learn to the point where it is capable of not only replicating humans, but coming up ideas that it knows, via pattern recognition that is beyond the capabilities of any human brain, will be most pleasing to us? I suspect we will reach a point where anything human created, while novel, pales in comparison to what we can ingest via AI. Do you really think the majority of mankind is going to take a philosophical stand on that, or will they take a path of least resistance?

Speaking as a drummer, we are already there. Most people would already much prefer to hear a drum machine to actual drummers. To the modern ear, conditioned to respond to machine music by repeated exposure (because it's cheap), real drummers sound sloppy and limited, and tonally boring. The flexibility, invention, dynamism, feel and taste of real drummers are no longer appreciated - or, often, even noticed.

No stand was taken, philosophical or otherwise. A tidal wave of music-making machines, powered by economic rationalism, loomed over the music industry and slammed down to wash away the humanity.

[Count Lucanor]

Self-awareness is to realize that one is an existing individual. That one forms a certain entity different from the rest of reality and the consequences of that distinction.

This is not the state in which humans begin. It is something that occurs with the neurological development of an individual.

That's simply not the case:

The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life
Hugo Lagercrantz & Jean-Pierre Changeux


Lagercrantz, H., Changeux, JP. The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life. Pediatr Res 65, 255–260 (2009).

CONCLUSION
A first conclusion of this ongoing research is that the fetus in utero is almost continuously asleep and unconscious partially due to endogenous sedation. In particular, it would not consciously experience nociceptive inputs as pain. Conversely, the newborn infant exhibits in addition to sensory awareness specially to painful stimuli, the ability to differentiate between self and nonself touch, sense that their bodies are separate from the world, to express emotions, and to show signs of shared feelings. Moreover, “objective signs” for the mobilization of the GNW circuits are being detected in awake infants at the level of the prefrontal cortex in sensory processing, in responses to novelty and to speech and in social interaction. Yet, its capacities for internal manipulations in working memory are reduced, it is unreflective, present oriented and makes little reference to concept of him/herself. Newborn infants display features characteristic of what may be referred to as basic or minimal consciousness (7,9,70). They still have to undergo considerable maturation to reach the level of adult consciousness (70).

Lagercrantz, H., Changeux, JP. The Emergence of Human Consciousness: From Fetal to Neonatal Life. Pediatr Res 65, 255–260 (2009).

So, you note that a predator is an agent with intent because its behavior can be interpreted teleologically.

I said much more than that, but basically, yes.

Do you suppose that it is possible to build something that behaves with the appearance of pursuing a goal?

I don't need to suppose. Humans have already built things that simulate purposeful behavior.

The AI of a self-driving car calculates in real time the possible patterns of the objects it distinguishes.

So what? It performs operations, but it knows nothing.

Deciding is considering the options and selecting the appropriate one according to a pre-established criteria.

But computers don't consider, they cannot think.

If you look at the simulations for training artificial bipeds, you will see that training is learning.

Learning involves mental operations from your cognitive apparatus, which includes awareness and comprehension, but these machines don't have minds.

[Sy Borg]

"Conversely, the newborn infant exhibits in addition to sensory awareness specially to painful stimuli, the ability to differentiate between self and nonself ..."

My understanding is that newborns have not fully separated the self from the mother, and that the "terrible twos" (or the "no" period) is the final process of separation. I suppose that means they differentiate from others.

[LuckyR]

This post originally started as a Philosophy of Art post, but I started to think about my assumptions regarding AI self-learning. Eventually there will come a point where AI does, as we long suspected, phase out the need for human input in technical as well as artistic endeavours.

So AI can do art better than us. AI can do our work better than us. Thus begins the Death of Identity. Or does it?

What happens when AI is able to self-learn to the point where it is capable of not only replicating humans, but coming up ideas that it knows, via pattern recognition that is beyond the capabilities of any human brain, will be most pleasing to us? I suspect we will reach a point where anything human created, while novel, pales in comparison to what we can ingest via AI. Do you really think the majority of mankind is going to take a philosophical stand on that, or will they take a path of least resistance?

Speaking as a drummer, we are already there. Most people would already much prefer to hear a drum machine to actual drummers. To the modern ear, conditioned to respond to machine music by repeated exposure (because it's cheap), real drummers sound sloppy and limited, and tonally boring. The flexibility, invention, dynamism, feel and taste of real drummers are no longer appreciated - or, often, even noticed.

No stand was taken, philosophical or otherwise. A tidal wave of music-making machines, powered by economic rationalism, loomed over the music industry and slammed down to wash away the humanity.

To be fair I believe you are conflating popularity with preference. By that measure folks "prefer" hamburgers to steak and lobster.