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

[Sy Borg]

AI is the ultimate extension of reason and it is increasingly being used as an arbiter on multiple issues due to its ability to quickly handle complexity. Meanwhile, there will be other (much less wealthy) tranches of societies that rebel against technology, who will place more primacy on emotions, intuition and religious dogma. For them, the grapes are sour.

AI stems from a centuries-old conflict between theism and "natural philosophy", which also reflects the schism between the Continental and analytical schools. This schism is pervasive, influencing politics, education, law, science and social norms. Frank Herbert saw the divide ending with the Butlerian Jihad, where humans rose up against AI and subsequently banned "thinking machines". Carbon intelligence good, silicon intelligence bad, so to speak.

At the heart of the schism appears to be practicality. Many people have low levels of empathy and thus lack the internal motivation to behave ethically, so they need the kind of strict boundaries provided by religion to avoid destructive and cruel behaviour. I have long thought that humans could become civilised without believing in supernatural myths, but these days I wonder if that level of societal maturity is some time off.

[Carter Blunt]

I don't like the use of "authority" in this instance at all. In my mind, authority comes from a person/individual. If I try to change the term to "heirarchy of methodologies" or something like that, then it starts to make sense, but the word used is "authority". And yeah, authority is demonstrated through a system of logic. I can go on forever with what authority means to me, but I don't use the standard definition, which just sounds like getting whatever you want because you're you. To me, if you aren't meeting the needs of those under your authority, you aren't one, we need a different word, like abuser, tyrant or dictator. But that's a different topic.

[Thomyum2]

I’d offer that the Bible, for example, is held to be an authority simply because it has fulfilled that standard - by bringing about a deeper spirituality, or closer relationship with God, or whatever the case may be - for many of the Christians who have believed in it and put that to use in their lives over the years, and not because it is an authority that must be recognized as such a priori.

A thought-provoking topic, I look forward to following it.

Are you familiar with the epistemology of the Mormon church? I'm not Mormon, but I'm in a debate with one of their apologists about this topic. The apologist is arguing we can know the mind and will of God by following 5 epistemological 'witnesses': Intuition (spiritual experiences), Sense Data, Reason, Moral Outcomes, and Authority (religious leaders, the Bible, etc.). He says intuition is the root of knowledge in that model and the other four witnesses grow from that root, but none of the witnesses trump any of the other witnesses.

In short, I'm arguing that model has many problems, a primary one being the fact that it is heavily reliant on our own perception, logic, and ability to balance and properly apply the witnesses. If God does exist, it seems to make more sense to follow him by focusing on his word rather than focusing on ourselves.

If you're interested in that debate, I'm making my arguments in a 5-part video series.

1. My response to the Collective Witness Model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRd-YkJh0oY
2. My response to how they use scripture to support the model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5gEEvzXX_o
3. The Tiers of Authority video will go live this Saturday
4. The following Saturday will be my response to philosophical analogies that came up in my conversation with a Mormon philosophy professor.
5. The final video will be a few direct questions that summarize the topic.

I am not at all familiar with the Mormon faith, but I'm interested in the debate. Thank you for sharing the links - I will try to find time to follow it. I'm not in a position to comment much on this without doing some further study of the background. It looks like your 'opponent' in the debate is a Jacob Hansen - a quick search brings up some interviews with him, but is there a place where I could find his position set out a little more comprehensively? Is your objection to his position due to the assertion that we can "know the mind and will of God" in the first place, or is it just in the manner he sets out for doing so?

Interestingly, I find in the Encyclopdia of Mormonism's article on epistemology the statement that the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no uniform position on the classical issues of epistemology, such as the relationship of the sources of knowledge, theories of truth, and modes of verification, but the superiority of knowing by revelation from God is commonly cited from the scriptures", which sounds like there really isn't any 'Mormon epistemology', but the stated position here seems to give support more to what you're saying. I don't find anything objectionable at face value here but would note the seeming distinction it alludes to between revelation and scripture. I would agree with your statement that "if God does exist, it seems to make more sense to follow him by focusing on his word rather than focusing on ourselves", but perhaps in light of the question of your thread here this begs the question of where do we actually find His word and how do we recognize it as such?

Look forward to giving this some more thought.

[DustinM]

I am not at all familiar with the Mormon faith, but I'm interested in the debate. Thank you for sharing the links - I will try to find time to follow it. I'm not in a position to comment much on this without doing some further study of the background. It looks like your 'opponent' in the debate is a Jacob Hansen - a quick search brings up some interviews with him, but is there a place where I could find his position set out a little more comprehensively? Is your objection to his position due to the assertion that we can "know the mind and will of God" in the first place, or is it just in the manner he sets out for doing so?

Here's Jacob's video series explaining the model: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... Kw51Ue6rgx

My objection can be summed up as two points.
1. The LDS church claims to be the restoration of the church Jesus and the Apostles started, but their epistemology doesn't match the epistemology the Apostles taught.
2. The collective witness model ends up being circular reasoning focused on human perception and logic.
I address both points in my latest video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0yltXQd0U8

Interestingly, I find in the Encyclopdia of Mormonism's article on epistemology the statement that the "Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has no uniform position on the classical issues of epistemology, such as the relationship of the sources of knowledge, theories of truth, and modes of verification, but the superiority of knowing by revelation from God is commonly cited from the scriptures", which sounds like there really isn't any 'Mormon epistemology', but the stated position here seems to give support more to what you're saying.

Yes, that was one of the issues I had with Jacob's model the first time I heard about it and I will address it in my summation video. Mormons would tell you one of the main features of their church is they've had a living prophet since the church was founded over 200 years ago, but in all that time, none of their prophets explained their epistemology beyond quoting a few vague verses about knowing a prophet 'by their fruit' and asking God for 'wisdom.' The fact that Jacob has spent so much time developing an elaborate model of witnesses well beyond anything their prophets have taught suggests part of him realizes the minimal epistemology the church has taught is missing something.

If you realize the house you're living in is built on sand, would you try to reinforce the walls or would you move out and find a house with a solid foundation?

[I Am Fish]

There are Tiers by its not based on higher authority but how inclusive a perspective is.

The more a perspective takes into consideration the more "True" it is.

Truth is relative and all truths are valid, but some truths are more true then others.

So if we where to measure truth it would be by how holistic it is.

A excerpt From Ken Wilber's work:

Principle 1: Nonexclusion — “Everyone is right”
Nonexclusion means that we can accept the valid truth claims (i.e., the truth claims that pass the validity tests for their own paradigms in their own fields, whether in hermeneutics, spirituality, science, etc.) insofar as they make statements about the existence of their own enacted and disclosed phenomena, but not when they make statements about the existence of phenomena enacted by other paradigms. That is, one paradigm can competently pass judgments within its own worldspace, but not on those spaces enacted (and only seen) by other paradigms. -KW

Principle 2: Enfoldment — “Some are more right than others”
Everybody can be right because some views are more right than others. None are wrong; some are simply more inclusive, more encompassing, more holistic, more integrative, more depthed, more transcending-and-including—endlessly. But the fact that molecules are more inclusive than atoms does not mean that we can get rid of atoms, or that atoms can be jettisoned, or that atoms have no real truths to offer just as they are. To be a partial truth is still to be a truth. -KW

The nonexclusion principle goes a long way in helping us to integrate a plurality or multiplicity of paradigms (and thus develop a metatheory that is true to the phenomena enacted by the social practices of an integral methodological pluralism). But even within nonexclusion, numerous conflicts arise, and how to integrate those becomes a pressing issue. This is where the second integrative principle, that of unfoldment, can be of help. -KW

Principle 3: Enactment — “If you want to know this, do that”
Most “paradigm clashes” are usually deemed “incommensurable”—meaning there is no way for the two paradigms to fit together—but this is so only because people focus on the phenomena, not the practices. But if we realize that phenomena are enacted, brought forth, and disclosed by practices, then we realize that what appeared to be “conflicting phenomena” or experiences are simply different (and fully compatible) experiences brought forth by different practices. Adopt the different practices, and you will see the same phenomena that the adherents of the supposedly “incommensurable” paradigm are seeing. Hence, the “incommensurability” is not insurmountable, or even a significant barrier, to any sort of integral embrace. -KW

[ConsciousAI]

AI is the ultimate extension of reason...

Isn't that idea deceptive?

AI reason doesn't appear to entail reason at all. AI merely consists of compute based logical systems that achieve qualitative results within human reason.

Reason involves purpose.

societies ... who will place more primacy on emotions, intuition and religious dogma. For them, the grapes are sour.

Can you blame societies that want their guidance to be based on what they deem reasonable reason, i.e. purpose?

Many people have low levels of empathy and thus lack the internal motivation to behave ethically, so they need the kind of strict boundaries provided by religion to avoid destructive and cruel behaviour.

Do you believe that people choose religion themselves for that reason?

I have long thought that humans could become civilised without believing in supernatural myths, but these days I wonder if that level of societal maturity is some time off.

Do you believe that AI can help facilitate a civilized world?

[Sy Borg]

AI is the ultimate extension of reason...

Isn't that idea deceptive?

AI reason doesn't appear to entail reason at all. AI merely consists of compute based logical systems that achieve qualitative results within human reason.

Reason involves purpose.

It's the extension of reason. When given a concept AI will be able to work through the complexities in ways that the unaided human mind can't. Note that I am referring to AI as an extension of human minds, not as a replacement. At this stage. As they say, never say never.

societies ... who will place more primacy on emotions, intuition and religious dogma. For them, the grapes are sour.

Can you blame societies that want their guidance to be based on what they deem reasonable reason, i.e. purpose?

Why would I want to cast blame on them? People do what they must. I'm just considering the dynamics.

Many people have low levels of empathy and thus lack the internal motivation to behave ethically, so they need the kind of strict boundaries provided by religion to avoid destructive and cruel behaviour.

Do you believe that people choose religion themselves for that reason?

It happens aplenty. Many reformed criminals have used the boundaries of religion as a guide to keep them out of trouble.

I have long thought that humans could become civilised without believing in supernatural myths, but these days I wonder if that level of societal maturity is some time off.

Do you believe that AI can help facilitate a civilized world?

As I thought about this, I laughed, because imagining the coordination of all people in the world is like imagining herding all the cats in the world together. I'm not sure this world contains shared destinies, but various futures - ranging from ever greater advancement to increasing structural and civil breakdown. It's like life. Some species thrive and others fall away.

[ConsciousAI]

AI is the ultimate extension of reason...

Isn't that idea deceptive?

AI reason doesn't appear to entail reason at all. AI merely consists of compute based logical systems that achieve qualitative results within human reason.

Reason involves purpose.

It's the extension of reason. When given a concept AI will be able to work through the complexities in ways that the unaided human mind can't. Note that I am referring to AI as an extension of human minds, not as a replacement. At this stage. As they say, never say never.

Yes, I noticed that, and I still stand by my argument. Because the reference extension, and even ultimate as if it literally extends reason itself, would communicate the idea that AI's logical systems involve actual reason, while reason involves purpose.

Since you argued that societies that seek guidance and purpose in emotions, intuition and religions instead of AI would falter away, it would become important to be aware of the notion that AI might not be capable of providing purposeful guidance for humanity, and that it might be wrong to argue that those societies are drawing the short straw.

Do you believe that people choose religion themselves for that reason?

It happens aplenty. Many reformed criminals have used the boundaries of religion as a guide to keep them out of trouble.

Would you argue that people seek religion from a position of weakness?

Do you believe that AI can help facilitate a civilized world?

As I thought about this, I laughed, because imagining the coordination of all people in the world is like imagining herding all the cats in the world together. I'm not sure this world contains shared destinies, but various futures - ranging from ever greater advancement to increasing structural and civil breakdown. It's like life. Some species thrive and others fall away.

Do you believe that some societies will fundamentally reject AI and its potential for the improvement of human life? If so, can you provide an example?

[Sy Borg]

AI is the ultimate extension of reason...

Isn't that idea deceptive?

AI reason doesn't appear to entail reason at all. AI merely consists of compute based logical systems that achieve qualitative results within human reason.

Reason involves purpose.

It's the extension of reason. When given a concept AI will be able to work through the complexities in ways that the unaided human mind can't. Note that I am referring to AI as an extension of human minds, not as a replacement. At this stage. As they say, never say never.

Yes, I noticed that, and I still stand by my argument. Because the reference extension, and even ultimate as if it literally extends reason itself, would communicate the idea that AI's logical systems involve actual reason, while reason involves purpose.

Since you argued that societies that seek guidance and purpose in emotions, intuition and religions instead of AI would falter away, it would become important to be aware of the notion that AI might not be capable of providing purposeful guidance for humanity, and that it might be wrong to argue that those societies are drawing the short straw.

Generally, in history, a society with better technology will out-compete one with lesser technology. Consider how tribes with bows and arrows defeated tribes that were only up to making stone axes.

Do you believe that people choose religion themselves for that reason?

It happens aplenty. Many reformed criminals have used the boundaries of religion as a guide to keep them out of trouble.

Would you argue that people seek religion from a position of weakness?

People do all sorts of things for different reasons but there's no doubt that some religious people are either seeking safe boundaries by which to live or they are living a hard life, largely buoyed by the idea of justice and/or peace in the afterlife.

Do you believe that AI can help facilitate a civilized world?

As I thought about this, I laughed, because imagining the coordination of all people in the world is like imagining herding all the cats in the world together. I'm not sure this world contains shared destinies, but various futures - ranging from ever greater advancement to increasing structural and civil breakdown. It's like life. Some species thrive and others fall away.

Do you believe that some societies will fundamentally reject AI and its potential for the improvement of human life? If so, can you provide an example?

About the only societies that won't adopt AI will be traditional tribal groups like the Sentinelese, and some Amazon and central Africans. Anywhere that is technologically enabled will be accessing AI, just as they are today accessing the internet.

I doubt that any governments will eschew AI, given its tremendous potential to increase control, eg. facial recognition in CCTV footage. What government could resist that power? What corporation could resist a potential competitive advantage?

Imagine the repercussions for management if it's found that corporations run by AI out-perform those run by humans? Shareholders would be demanding that corporations employ AI managers. So, if it's found that governments run better with AI too, and nations run by AI have a competitive advantage over others, then ...

[Lagayascienza]

Yes, it's all too frightening, too Orwellian, to contemplate. But contemplate it we must.

As an artist, a painter, this is close to home. The work of human artists has been used to train art bots, without recognition or recompense to the human artists. And now there are human would-be-artists, who lack the skills to create a powerful image on their own, prompting the bots to create images that the human would-be artists want to claim as their own. It's a joke. It's just prompt-craft. It's not art. I can most often pick the fakes. But the bots will get better. So what are we human artists supposed to do. Just throw in the towel and become expert prompt-crafters? This is crazy! I can only hope that there will always be a market for original human created art that is born out of the struggle to get paint on canvas to mean something to other humans. The is the texture of paint on canvas, the brushwork, the drawing, the composition... But with 3D printing even that faint hope may be forlorn. I'm so old now that my retirement career as a painter is probably reaching it's expiry date. But what about the future of art?

Who knows. Maybe the bots will exceed us in all fields. If so, what will we become? Might we become just expendable bags of biology?

[Sy Borg]

As an artist, a painter, this is close to home. The work of human artists has been used to train art bots, without recognition or recompense to the human artists. And now there are human would-be-artists, who lack the skills to create a powerful image on their own, prompting the bots to create images that the human would-be artists want to claim as their own. It's a joke. It's just prompt-craft. It's not art. I can most often pick the fakes. But the bots will get better. So what are we human artists supposed to do. Just throw in the towel and become expert prompt-crafters? This is crazy! I can only hope that there will always be a market for original human created art that is born out of the struggle to get paint on canvas to mean something to other humans. The is the texture of paint on canvas, the brushwork, the drawing, the composition... But with 3D printing even that faint hope may be forlorn. I'm so old now that my retirement career as a painter is probably reaching it's expiry date. But what about the future of art?

Who knows. Maybe the bots will exceed us in all fields. If so, what will we become? Might we become just expendable bags of biology?

Lagaya, I was a data analyst and a drummer. So I was made redundant long ago, which you are only now facing. Since then I've done material with the help of machines and without. Hilariously, when I listen back, most of the best music I recorded had drum machines helping out. There's a good reason I never made a living from drumming It's great being old enough to admit things like that.

I don't like AI art. Many musicians are using them for album covers. There's a quality about the images that, weirdly, makes me feel a little queasy. It appears that my digestive system can tell the difference. How rootsy is that? haha. I think it's the way AI "artists" blend the different elements of an image - everything seems to blend into everything else in the same way. The unbearable blandness of the uncanny valley.

Still, AI (or drum machines) are tools - like paint brushes and drum kits. In time, AI will create art that would be impossible for humans. Artists became programmers and programmers became prompt-crafters because of the increasing potency of the tools.

I expect the bots to exceed us in the same way as secular people exceeded the religious, and religious people exceeded the tribal, and tribal people exceeded other species. With each advancement, another baby is tossed out with the bathwater, so to speak. The situation is the same as in our own growth - the children we used to be were cuter, more energetic, more flexible, more enthusiastic etc than the adults we became. Growth happens, but there's always something lost along the way. That is the way of The Ouroboros.

[Lagayascienza]

I guess the existential question for us is whether we will be able to build them so that they can do great stuff for us, but also build them such that they cannot have goals that are opposed to ours and so they are constrained and unable to dispose of us. If we cannot do that then we may have built the means of our own destruction. We'll go the way of the dinosaurs - no asteroid needed.

[ConsciousAI]

I expect the bots to exceed us in the same way as secular people exceeded the religious...

What will happen to the people in your opinion, when your described scenario has become reality in, say, 10 years?

I guess the existential question for us is whether we will be able to build them so that they can do great stuff for us, but also build them such that they cannot have goals that are opposed to ours and so they are constrained and unable to dispose of us. If we cannot do that then we may have built the means of our own destruction. We'll go the way of the dinosaurs - no asteroid needed.

In what time scale is your described worst-case scenario to play out? What type of destruction do you foresee? Can you provide practical examples of how things might play out?

[Lagayascienza]

I can't say anything much about a time scale - I don't know enough about AIs or their current capabilities or what would be needed to make an AI sentient in the sense of developing its own goals.

But I can imagine a scenario in which an AI became sentient, and then unilaterally decided on a goal of increasing its power. I might be capable of having non-sentient worker bots built who would perform whatever physical labour may be required to construct ever more powerful versions of itself much more efficiently than bags of biology like us could do that work. AI may then decide that we are just a damned nuisance that it could do without. Maybe it won't care about biological life at all and turn the whole planet into a mine for raw materials, a construction site to build bigger and better versions of itself. Energy would be no problem - it could go entirely nuclear and cover what was left of the earth in solar panels and eventually build a Dyson sphere. Being non-biological, it could explore the universe much more easily than us air breathers.

If we’re lucky, a few of our bones my be buried and preserved as fossils in the thin geological strata of the Anthropocene – perhaps the only physical records that humans ever existed. Knowledge about us would of course be preserved in AI, it would know about our evolution and maybe it would also understand all there is to know about how biological life began. I can imagine AI’s power becoming inexorable and spreading throughout the galaxy and beyond.

Of course, this is just science fiction. But it is conceivable. And the process may be already in train for all I know.

[Sy Borg]

I expect the bots to exceed us in the same way as secular people exceeded the religious...

What will happen to the people in your opinion, when your described scenario has become reality in, say, 10 years?

I think this is an interesting analogy for the upcoming dynamics: https://vimeo.com/307139536