These few days have really sparked the discussion about AI vs. humans among all types of people, but mainly the art community.
And I have seen good arguments for both sides. And I’m not going to impose any biases here; instead, let’s look at it from a scientific standpoint.
I also will be covering The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence and some other related thought experiments that might give you some deeper insight into this topic, as well as some evolutionary perspective.
I will continue to enhance this post; right now, there are certain instances where I am unable to come up with a more easy - to - understand paragraph, therefore I will keep improving this blog as time goes on, and if you have any suggestions or corrections to give, please contact us.
The first argument that I have seen is that AI does not learn like humans; this one I have covered in greater detail in the article about the similarities between AI and human learning.
The problem is that many of the arguments seem to oversimplify how AI learns, but they use different terms to describe how humans learn.
If we used similar terminology, then we would find many things common between AI and humans.
Lets say that thing we experience is a data or information, and without it we know nothing, but when we get one we know that its exist, but still don’t know what it is, so when we get lots of data about something, then our brain starts to notice patterns, For example, let’s say that you are walking in the park and you see a cat for the first time. You know nothing about what it is, so you start collecting data about it. You observe its physical characteristics, such as its two eyes, nose, mouth, whiskers, and four legs. You also notice its behavior, such as its tendency to meow, chase toys, and groom itself. As you gather more data about this cat, you begin to notice patterns. You see that the cat has a round body, a fluffy coat, and a tail that wags when it is happy. However, you have never seen a cat before, so you are not sure what this animal is.
As you continue walking in the park, you see more and more cats. You observe their physical characteristics and behaviors and start to notice patterns between them. You see that all of the cats have similar physical characteristics, such as a round body, four legs, and a long tail. You also notice that they all exhibit similar behaviors, such as meowing and grooming themselves. Based on these patterns, you might conclude that all of these animals are cats.
Biological and evolutionary prospective
From a biological perspective, humans developed the ability to gather data and notice patterns as a way to adapt and survive in their environment. By observing the world around them and noticing patterns, humans were able to identify and understand the things they encountered, such as plants, animals, and other resources. This allowed them to make informed decisions about how to interact with their environment, such as what to eat, where to live, and how to protect themselves.
From an evolutionary perspective, this ability to gather data and notice patterns is thought to have developed over time as a way to increase the chances of survival and reproduction. Humans who were able to gather data and notice patterns were more likely to make informed decisions that would help them survive and thrive, such as finding food, avoiding predators, and selecting mates. As a result, they were more likely to pass on their genes to the next generation, leading to the evolution of this ability.
Secondary arguments come from an ethical point of view; for some, the concept of ethics may be seen as a human construct that is imposed on the world in an attempt to give it meaning and purpose.
But this is a very incoherent way to see ethics; a better and more logical way is that, as with everything in human or non-human life, ethics is a product of evolution.
From an evolutionary perspective, the development of ethics may be seen as a way for humans to increase their chances of survival and reproduction. Humans who were able to cooperate and work together were more likely to survive and thrive than those who were isolated or fought with each other. By developing moral principles and values that helped to regulate their behavior and promote cooperation, humans were able to form strong, cohesive communities that were better able to survive and thrive. In this way, ethics can be seen as a product of evolution, as it has evolved over time as a way to help humans adapt to and survive in their environment.
The second argument is one of ethics: humans will always be better than AI in something, but as I will explain, the thing we consider better in humans is also the reason why human cavillation is so unstable.
The reality is that flaws make us human and not robots, but that flaws also lead us to all the instability and problems we have, so do we stop having flaws, or do we keep having flaws but make the one that controls and maintains the civilization have none of our flaws, so that we keep our human-like flaws but also maintain a decently stable civilization?
Or another option is that we should merge with AI, where you might have fun being a human but AI will take care of all the logical, critical, and important things.
In this article, I have gone much deeper into this topic, and I highly recommend you read this: Common arguments against AI
Inherent in the argument against AI is that they do not understand AI, and if they do, they think humans do things differently because we are special creatures. But when you step on these topics, you have to include evolution and science in the discussion. because without it it will be much less meaning full then a static noise.
Because if we are the programmers of AI, then evolution is our programmers, and let me tell you something: evolution is extremally inefficient programmer, because it don’t seek the most optimal solution rather, rather what it seeks is good enough solution.
And it only works because it has millions of years on its hands to do all these things.
What we humans think about ourselves is often not reality. For example, take the example of how we use the words “good” and “evil.” In evolutionary terms, “good and evil” is a delusion given to us by evolution to increase our potential for survival and reproduction, but the way we think of it, it’s a logical and factual truth.
Here is a bigger thought process: We humans create problems then pretend to solve them; we pretend because it is inherently trying to maximize the positive social point we get in the hierarchies; if we truly wanted to solve a problem, then we would have focused on science rather than human emotion.
I have also covered this in greater detail in an article on sci-fi logic, so check it out.
Here is a small excerpt from my article on sci-fi logic: In humans, the way we are raised and our environment influence our behavior and decisions, which makes it harder to come up with an objective solution.
Instead, we label things as good and evil, and from here our emotions of self-interest take over, and we want that so-called evil thing to not exist or change according to some human’s way, which that human or anyone else has no proof that their “way” will be a better option or not, and our human nature actually prevents us from doing anything objective, because understand this: every simple creature had an instinct to survive and reproduce, so at the genetic level we have self-interest.
And here is a self-aware, science-based perspective on the ethics.
From this perspective, life and evolution can be seen as the simple shapes that matter has taken and nothing more. In this view, evolution is a trial-and-error system that is based on randomness, with different genetic combinations being tested and either succeeding or failing based on how well they adapt to and survive in their environment.
From this perspective, ethics may be seen as a human construct that is imposed on the world in an attempt to give it meaning and purpose.
However, if the universe is truly meaningless, then these moral principles and values may be seen as arbitrary and meaningless, as they are based on a belief in something that does not exist, namely, inherent meaning and purpose in the universe.
In this way, ethics can be seen as a product of human evolution but not as an inherent reality in the universe.
This is also the fact that once we are self-aware about our origins and understand our own biology, it can be seen as evolution’s way of making evolution faster and more efficient.
Logic is simple. Once we understand the underlying mechanics of the human mind and evolution, what is the reason to keep our evolution and system in the hands of the slow and inefficient processes of natural selection and instinct, like emotions and other related processes that drive our current human civilization?
Humans are special beings!
This statement is not directly made in their argument; rather, their argument suggests that humans are special beings.
The ethics argument is somewhat directed at this position, and this position is quite related to religion or spirituality.
And as a sucker for evolution, I will also add another logical argument from an evolutionary perspective.
From an evolutionary perspective, we are lucky, not special. From an evolutionary perspective, creatures may be seen as lucky rather than special because their success or failure is largely determined by random factors. Evolution is a process of trial and error, with different genetic combinations being tested and either succeeding or failing based on how well they adapt to and survive in their environment. This process is largely random, and many factors can affect an individual’s chances of survival and reproduction, such as their physical characteristics, behaviors, and the environment they live in.
For example, a creature may be born with certain physical characteristics that make it more likely to survive and reproduce, such as strong legs, sharp teeth, or good camouflage.
These physical characteristics may give the creature an advantage over other creatures, making it more likely to succeed and thrive. However, these characteristics are not necessarily special, as they are simply the result of random genetic mutations that happened to be beneficial in a particular environment. In this way, creatures may be seen as lucky rather than special, as their success or failure is largely determined by random factors.
Weird Human Stuff
Throughout the history of humans, we have always tried to create things that are better than us because better things help us solve problems that a single human cannot. This drive to improve and create has led to numerous technological and scientific advancements.
It is true that humans have created a wide range of things that are better than them in various ways, including in the areas of technology, medicine, and engineering. These creations have allowed us to solve problems and meet needs in a wide range of fields and sectors.
However, there are certain areas where humans have not been able to create things that are better than them. One such area is in the realm of thinking and decision-making. While humans have developed tools and technologies to assist with these tasks, such as computers and algorithms, they are still limited by their own cognitive abilities and biases.
This is one reason why humans are developing artificial intelligence (AI): to solve thinking and decision-making issues that humans inherently have. AI systems are designed to perform tasks that require high levels of analysis, problem-solving, and decision-making, and they can do so faster and more accurately than humans. In many cases, AI systems can outperform humans in tasks that require a high level of cognitive ability, such as data analysis, image and speech recognition, and language translation.
I covered this in greater detail about how inefficient humans are: Why being ruled by an AI is actually beneficial
It is likely that artificial intelligence (AI) will continue to improve and become better than humans in more and more ways as time goes on. This is because AI systems are designed to learn and adapt, and they can perform tasks faster and more accurately than humans can. This means that AI has the potential to outperform humans in a wide range of tasks, not just those that require specific skills or expertise.
While some people may argue that human emotions are an advantage, the fact is that emotions are a disadvantage when it comes to achieving a stable and functional society. Emotions can lead to irrational and biased decision-making, which can have negative consequences. In contrast, AI systems do not experience emotions and can make decisions based on logic and data, which can lead to a more stable civilization.
If we were to restrict the development of technologies like cars and airplanes because they might replace people’s jobs, we would be missing out on the many benefits that these technologies bring.
Similarly, if we were to restrict the development of AI because it might replace some jobs, we would be missing out on the many ways in which AI can improve our lives and help us solve problems.
Ultimately, the development of new technologies is an inherent part of human progress and should be encouraged rather than discouraged, as it has the potential to bring numerous benefits to society.
Restricting AI technology
This belief is also based on human bias and emotion rather than logic and science, and as I established, human emotion is a cesspool of contradictions, inefficient decisions, and unstable long-term consequences.
Ai brings something that we humans genetically lack, and that is objectivity. No matter what we claim or like to think, we are never objective no matter what, and the argument that we should restrict AI technology is very similar in that it is based on feelings and individual self-interest rather than objective logic. Science gives us insight into the underlying reason behind everything, but we don’t include it in our daily thought process.
And if you think that AI is as objective as its training data, then it’s better for you to think much deeper about this, because right now we are not really training AI to be objective but rather to make them as natural to humans as possible.
So we are basically creating AI to imitate humans, but when we truly focus on making AI truly objective, then we might see the true potential of AI.
Current AI systems are not truly super-intelligent because they are not constantly fed the most up-to-date scientific data, but rather what humans think and feel and what we do when we feel, and AI tries to mimic all of that.
When a normal politically and socially charged human (which is the majority of the human population) comes up with solutions, they always come up with something very non-scientific, but it is emotion-based and not really designed to stabilize things.
The longer truth is that AI will increase our scientific understanding much more than we could ever hope to achieve, and based on these greater understandings of science, we will achieve things that were thought to be impossible or impractical. So do we continue to exist in a civilization that creates its own problems and pretends to solve them, or do we let future AI take over things that we humans are bad at, like thinking scientifically and objectively?
Let’s think about it like this: AI taking jobs may be seen as morally wrong, but what happens when AI makes a better civilization and works toward the betterment of everyone, and that results in everyone losing jobs? Is it still morally wrong?
Ok, let’s think about why everyone needs to work or have a job.
Of course, to have a stable life, to survive, and for many to reproduce in stable environments
And why do we want to survive and reproduce? Because that is what life has been doing through its evolutionary programming.
But that is one answer, a key biological answer, but another answer is that the environment we live in has limited resources, so we must compete with ourselves as well as other species to achieve the goal of survival and reproduction. Another point is that the earth does have limited resources, but they are not little resources; rather, they are managed so inefficiently that we may assume that our resources are nonexistent, so where does the AI fit in?
We are inefficient creatures for making stable civilizations because we have emotions that lead to things like conflict between species, which often leads to resource wastage, resulting in resource shortages or increasing the value of available resources, which will certainly motivate many individuals to do things like theft or crime.
So now that you know how one thing leads to another, it just becomes a tree of inefficiencies and destabilization. So if a super-intelligent AGI fills in the gap where resource management happens in global civilization, it constantly calculates and analyzes the situation and needs and makes decisions just according to the situation while also making plans to increase the available resources for all of the global population and while also thanking and making plans for the worst-case scenarios.
Also remember that AI has no emotions, so they will likely have no human-like conflict, resulting in more efficient and stable resource management and creating much more stable conditions for civilization.
But to avoid conflict scenarios, many of the humans will be replaced by AI so as to increase the efficiency and stability of resources.
And if I consider every major thing, then that will result in a much lower rate of crime because, think about it, if more people are happy, then they will have a much lower chance of harboring reasons for committing crime.
This answer or consideration considers two things: first, whether AI taking jobs is morally wrong, and second, whether, if AI becomes this near-perfect superintelligence system, you will still advocate for restricting its integration into the core of civilization.
If you still advocate for the restriction of AI, then here again, as mentioned in the previous section, your emotions and self-interest are at work, which have been shaped by your environment and the situation of your environment when you were born and raised. The same goes for anyone, including myself.