I'm having a hard time taking the idea that AI is a "threat" to our humanity seriously. It seems to me that the examples from winning strategies for games to collating a collection material defined by search terms into passable prose or putting notes together in imitation of a Bach fugue are all non-creative, i.e., algorithmic activities. (Of course this is an obvious truth since all existing artificial computers are algorithmic.) Maybe some day we will create artificial computers that are not algorithmic though I have no idea what that would look like. So I think if there's a "threat" to our humanity it will be because some may come to believe that we ourselves are purely algorithmic that for example that our consciousness and our passions are irrelevant to our creativity. Far from being a threat I see AI as a motivator and touchstone for distinguishing that which makes us authentically human from human-like behavior. Now that I do see as a religious matter and probably *the* religious matter.
It strikes me that the areas of difference (ineffable AND ultimate) hover around intuition, inter-personal resonance and the like, all of which use the body and autonomic nervous system as conduits. In other words, an embodied notion of spirituality has what to say in the framing you're looking for. I'm intrigued.
Great post! I work for an autonomous car company, and would love to see more discussion in society about safety (the potential to save thousands of lives), versus social shocks around job loss. There’s also the huge question of trade offs within safety algorithms themselves. On a separate note, but related to your main theme, have you seen the Star Trek episode called “Measure of a Man?” It tackles this issue brilliantly.
> But AI is not like this. People really don’t know what they think about AI yet—and so we are in a brief moment where it is actually possible to shape the contours of the debate, to originate ideas about AI that will stick in the popular imagination.
I think we would need to be familiarized with some of the dimensions of the debate. I'm not a religious professional, I'm a technologist, and I'm not even sure how to frame the debate.
I remember when competitive chess went from computers beating humans to computers, either driven closely by human researchers or more "independently" developing new chess theory. I can imagine AI playing that role in religious contexts.
What do you think about this (either the book or the review or both)? https://thelehrhaus.com/culture/halakhah-navigating-between-unity-and-plurality/
I'm giving a sermon on AI this Shabbat. We need to make sure there is financial support for AI ethics and scientists monitoring potential hazards.
I'm having a hard time taking the idea that AI is a "threat" to our humanity seriously. It seems to me that the examples from winning strategies for games to collating a collection material defined by search terms into passable prose or putting notes together in imitation of a Bach fugue are all non-creative, i.e., algorithmic activities. (Of course this is an obvious truth since all existing artificial computers are algorithmic.) Maybe some day we will create artificial computers that are not algorithmic though I have no idea what that would look like. So I think if there's a "threat" to our humanity it will be because some may come to believe that we ourselves are purely algorithmic that for example that our consciousness and our passions are irrelevant to our creativity. Far from being a threat I see AI as a motivator and touchstone for distinguishing that which makes us authentically human from human-like behavior. Now that I do see as a religious matter and probably *the* religious matter.
It strikes me that the areas of difference (ineffable AND ultimate) hover around intuition, inter-personal resonance and the like, all of which use the body and autonomic nervous system as conduits. In other words, an embodied notion of spirituality has what to say in the framing you're looking for. I'm intrigued.
Great post! I work for an autonomous car company, and would love to see more discussion in society about safety (the potential to save thousands of lives), versus social shocks around job loss. There’s also the huge question of trade offs within safety algorithms themselves. On a separate note, but related to your main theme, have you seen the Star Trek episode called “Measure of a Man?” It tackles this issue brilliantly.
> But AI is not like this. People really don’t know what they think about AI yet—and so we are in a brief moment where it is actually possible to shape the contours of the debate, to originate ideas about AI that will stick in the popular imagination.
I think we would need to be familiarized with some of the dimensions of the debate. I'm not a religious professional, I'm a technologist, and I'm not even sure how to frame the debate.
I remember when competitive chess went from computers beating humans to computers, either driven closely by human researchers or more "independently" developing new chess theory. I can imagine AI playing that role in religious contexts.