Neither utopian nor dystopian, but open to radically weird possibilities
July 21, 2024 11:59 PM Subscribe
What is today called “artificial intelligence” should be counted as a Copernican Trauma in the making. It reveals that intelligence, cognition, even mind (definitions of these historical terms are clearly up for debate) are not what they seem to be, not what they feel like, and not unique to the human condition. Obviously, the creative and technological sapience necessary to artificialize intelligence is a human accomplishment, but now, that sapience is remaking itself. Since the paleolithic cognitive revolution, human intelligence has artificialized many things — shelter, heat, food, energy, images, sounds, even life itself — but now, that intelligence itself is artificializable. from The Five Stages Of AI Grief by Benjamin Bratton [Noema; ungated]
Uh, this is a little reductive. It smells very much of 'let me bring my mental framework for X and apply it to Y' without thinking too much about whether or not it's a good fit.
Simple example, "AI has no emotions" from the 'denial' phase has no need to be chronologically put before "AI is a powerful force that can, should and will be controlled etc. etc." from the 'bargaining' phase, etc. Lots of these things can be true at once.
It also mixes up transhumanism chains of thought with more sensible critiques of who's gaining and losing power by AI being used, etc., and almost completely fails to consider that we are in a bubble/gold-rush/peak-of-inflated-expectations.
posted by ianso at 1:11 AM on July 22 [10 favorites]
Simple example, "AI has no emotions" from the 'denial' phase has no need to be chronologically put before "AI is a powerful force that can, should and will be controlled etc. etc." from the 'bargaining' phase, etc. Lots of these things can be true at once.
It also mixes up transhumanism chains of thought with more sensible critiques of who's gaining and losing power by AI being used, etc., and almost completely fails to consider that we are in a bubble/gold-rush/peak-of-inflated-expectations.
posted by ianso at 1:11 AM on July 22 [10 favorites]
Denial
Symptomatic statements: AI is not real; it does not exist; it’s not really artificial; it’s not really intelligent; it’s not important; it’s all hype; it’s irrelevant; it’s a power play; it’s a passing fad. AI cannot write a good song or a good movie script. AI has no emotions. AI is just an illusion of anthropomorphism. AI is just statistics, just math, just gradient descent. AI is glorified autocomplete. AI is not embodied and therefore not meaningfully intelligent. This or that technique won’t work, is not working — and when it is working, it’s not what it seems.
Denial is predictable. When confronted with something unusual, disturbing, life-threatening or that undermines previously held beliefs, it is understandable that people would question the validity of that anomaly. The initial hypothesis for collective adjudication should be that something apparently unprecedented may not be what it seems.
This is begging the question, assumes that AI is intelligence, and positions the debate in such a way as to have it impossible to resolve with a "no, it is not," because, see? you're just in denial.
This guy's a blowhard with a fancy language habit. The whole thing drips with condescension.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 4:48 AM on July 22 [2 favorites]
Symptomatic statements: AI is not real; it does not exist; it’s not really artificial; it’s not really intelligent; it’s not important; it’s all hype; it’s irrelevant; it’s a power play; it’s a passing fad. AI cannot write a good song or a good movie script. AI has no emotions. AI is just an illusion of anthropomorphism. AI is just statistics, just math, just gradient descent. AI is glorified autocomplete. AI is not embodied and therefore not meaningfully intelligent. This or that technique won’t work, is not working — and when it is working, it’s not what it seems.
Denial is predictable. When confronted with something unusual, disturbing, life-threatening or that undermines previously held beliefs, it is understandable that people would question the validity of that anomaly. The initial hypothesis for collective adjudication should be that something apparently unprecedented may not be what it seems.
This is begging the question, assumes that AI is intelligence, and positions the debate in such a way as to have it impossible to resolve with a "no, it is not," because, see? you're just in denial.
This guy's a blowhard with a fancy language habit. The whole thing drips with condescension.
posted by Smedly, Butlerian jihadi at 4:48 AM on July 22 [2 favorites]
the choices of rich and powerful aholes alienated from human choice and presented as the inalterable shape of thw topgarphy of future advancement.
Like the Pharoahes who knew Anatolia must inevitably and permanently succumb to their imperium. Or Alexander, or Augustus or the Sultans
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 5:22 AM on July 22
Like the Pharoahes who knew Anatolia must inevitably and permanently succumb to their imperium. Or Alexander, or Augustus or the Sultans
posted by No Climate - No Food, No Food - No Future. at 5:22 AM on July 22
Whoa, Nellie. I read the excerpt and rolled my eyes.
I see that previous commenters are of a similar mindset as me, so I'll keep it brief.
You can certainly find reasons to worry about what AI will do to the quality of academic research, much of the current job market, and the information available via web search and social media that many rely on.
But AI is far, far away from achieving human-level intelligence, or even parrot-level intelligence. Bold claim, supported by religious conviction: It will never get there.
Some writers love to drum up (spurious) reasons for their readers to feel bad about the future, for the clix. (Don't click.)
posted by rabia.elizabeth at 5:22 AM on July 22
I see that previous commenters are of a similar mindset as me, so I'll keep it brief.
You can certainly find reasons to worry about what AI will do to the quality of academic research, much of the current job market, and the information available via web search and social media that many rely on.
But AI is far, far away from achieving human-level intelligence, or even parrot-level intelligence. Bold claim, supported by religious conviction: It will never get there.
Some writers love to drum up (spurious) reasons for their readers to feel bad about the future, for the clix. (Don't click.)
posted by rabia.elizabeth at 5:22 AM on July 22
« Older DashCon at 10: I single-handedly destroyed fandom... | The unforgettable sound ... and it's also your... Newer »
posted by Didnt_do_enough at 1:04 AM on July 22 [7 favorites]