That's essentially an unprovable claim. You'd have to prove that human brains are more than computational flesh; basically prove the existence of something soul-like. If not, it can be assumed that the critical parts or "human creativity" could be imitated (but not that they Can be, ofc).
No, we don't. Some of us aren't thinking about it as either consumers or businesses, but as the human beings we are with qualities and characteristics -- and self-awareness -- robots and AI might be able to mimic well or poorly depending on their programming, but are incapable of possessing themselves. Even the dystopian fears we have about them are unfounded. If Skynet blew up the world in Terminator, it's still the fault of the humans who programmed their very human fears and prejudices into it, is it not? How did AI supposedly learn how to lie? Means to decieve were programmed into it...by humans. The robots are still largely controlled by remote control when not programmed to run specific routes and aim their cameras at guages while being monitored by a human. Any more supposed sophistication than mechanical mimicry is a pipe dream as I see it.
Exactly. The threat is not AI. It's what humans program into and do with AI. All else is anthropomorphism, afic.
Kinda ye, stupid part is, AI isn't replacing 10-yr career people, it's replacing interns. And soon enough we'll have no starting positions for anything, and no future careerists either. Unless someone pays for the training.. who? Govt. How? As cheap as possible, so.. AI teachers. One thing for us to do a crappy job at programming AIs, but having the AIs program us in the next generation.. WW3 fought by fleshy humans to protect their AI overlords ..
I am not saying I agree with the way things are going. I am just being honest about the likely outcome. When has a large corporation ever done things the harder/more expensive way?
I think Thacher's take was more cynical than mine; AI, to whatever power we can push it, is like gravity. It's "the solution to everything", everyone will always tend towards it - as long as we have problems. The alternative is indeed "Donut economics" .. where a small group of fallible, corrupted humans decide who can eat and when. Meat for the party, donuts for the rest. "Doesn't have to be that way?" Nothing in history seems to point to anything else, which leads to your:
The SPECIES having to go through a maturation? It'd work, great idea. Except, How, exactly, do you plan on reprogramming 8-9 BILLION people. If you spend your life on it, you can greet, at one "Hi!" per second over a 100 years, about a third of that. No, not everyone knows Taylor Swift, I'd wager about 99% of people don't; and never will.
What page are you on? That's the way things are now.
Yup. To propose a radical shift to that, is to radically shift human nature. On a species level. We have the power to radical shifts, but only on the glass-the-whole-rock side of things.
Reminds me of "the theory of everything" the sciences have been pursuing and only now questioning if there could even be such a thing.
Or... we could just pull the plug on the AI?
This kind of approach always makes me chuckle.
I'm not sure that's possible at this point, though if our "fear-stricken society" and 'The End of the Age of Technology' (great article, btw) turns out to be the dystopian nightmare most all of us appear to expect and we destroy ourselves along with most other life on this planet, we won't have to. The massive energy intake required to run the data centers won't be available anymore and we won't be here to abuse unrenewable energy sources, much less the rare minerals required to keep "AI" humming. I think someone said, if they were to use AI, they'd feel they're firing flaming arrows into the Amazon considering the sheer energy usage required to keep those data centers running. That's as good a way to put it as any, but I don't see everyone living today getting on the same page, as it were, anytime soon. Our technocratic officials are just switching up industries to subsidize, paying no attention to the grass roots movements going on all around them toward bioregional governance, creative and regenerative systems thinking, "glocalism," etc. That's probably a good thing. As Deborah Frieze put it in her exceptional TED talk on the subject, "If they stay isolated from one another, the dominant system will crush, absorb or co-opt the pioneers because all living systems are inclined toward self-preservation."
I don't know, human. The quotes you added around those words, seem to imply fuzziness.
Except, that is a mathematical invention. It may or not exist. Intelligence, insofar as humans consider it, however, is proven to exist within humans themselves - that's how they define it at least: "If it can do all that we can". That's a bold claim by a pound of thinking flesh running on 60 watts.
Define "human nature." I imagine you can't any more than anyone else can. Same for consciousness, which the vast majority of us apparently think a "hard problem" to solve. What's shifting is how we see and respond to the world. If not interested and sans the desire to learn, conversations about it are likely to fly right over our heads.
Understand "human nature." Tall order, eh, without a good definition. But I'm not the one planning to change it, without fully understanding it. It is not a defined feature, for it is way too complex a system to be captured in communicable format.