Will AI Empower the Mind or Destroy It?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 жов 2024
- Can artificial intelligence ever truly replace the human mind? In this thought-provoking episode, we explore the delicate balance between embracing AI's power for mechanical tasks, such as summarizing and translating, while preserving the uniquely human elements that make great works truly great.
Join us as we navigate the rapidly evolving landscape of AI, breaking down categorical humanism and unreconstructed Faustianism, two alternative viewpoints on the topic. We discuss why neither position is fully consistent or defensible, and the importance of understanding the different aspects of human cognition in order to determine which elements can be outsourced to machines and which must remain uniquely human. Don't miss this fascinating conversation about where we draw the line between human intelligence and machine intelligence.
Chapters:
(00:00:22) - Two Futures for AI
(00:05:11) - What Should Writers Outsource To AI?
Other Life
✦ Subscribe to the coolest free newsletter in the world and I'll send you all of my private book highlights. otherlife.co
✦ Join the Other Life community (free) otherlife.co/join
IndieThinkers.org
✦ If you're working on independent projects, join the next cohort of IndieThinkers.org
It's rarely, if ever, about the outer edges of the opposites, isn't it? As crystal clear as they may be in their arguments and positions, they fail to speak to the complexity of the matter. Hence, the most sense is found somewhere in the foggy middle. Thank you for another great one, Justin!
At the beginning you imply we use all sorts of machinic devices to augment our writing/thinking/creating, yet all of those devices prior to generative AI (with maybe the exception of something like Google translate) were augmention rather than automation. So it enhanced something which was already there, not acting as its replacement. Can we collage and edit artificially written text or generated images/videos? Sure, but at that point the tables have turned, and you must recognize the facilitation inherent to such automation, affecting roads crossed only with the mind and pen/keyboard before, will educate the human to not traverse those previously thinkable roads. And it doesn't seem more paths shall become meanignfully traversable because it affects the will to do so in the first place, considering the total product from average users will clog every artery of the collective with the regurgigated artificality, so something like a tragedy of the commons might occur... and effort+creativity become mostly socially+econimically dysgetic as, even to the most autotelic and talented writers, artists, coders (any field massively affected), it becomes like swimming aganist the current, or hitting a brick wall of endless saturation and expectations too quick for any actual human input.
I do agree with the judicial method you mentioned. Neural Networks can only interpolate whereas the human mind extrapolates. We function completely different... the human can learn from a very little amount of experiences whereas reinforcement learning requires backpropagation and interpolation of billions of tokens of data (which came from our own output, rather than any experience with the world.)
Unfortunately, it seems it is not the mechanical tasks that are being automated. Not coloring in keyframes, not automatic layer naming and organizing them ... instead it generates the whole thing for you in its final shape (minimizing intent to the fullest), aproximating the already thought and seen before (it would not invent jazz with all the musical data prior to the XX century). One must imagine a generation growing in these clutches, to perhaps coming to love AI generated work more than human one, to the point of complete estrangement to human creation or creativity itself. Or never learning or caring to learn or learning the care about the difference. This should become the most likely assumption considering the current power dynamics, value systems and the traits that the current world encourages. Misinformation and disimformation is another whole issue. Inf act there are countless other issues and they aren't seperate from each other. but alas.
I think "developing your soul" is perhaps the best conclusion, and I think it isn't simple at all, not anymore. Nothing is sacred: even universal values are threatened (as we've seen "Ai girlfriends" exploiting the market of loneliness, AI necromancy could develop into copying your dead family members into bots -or even alive ones as sensibilities change and people start coming to be confortable with ai anthropormorphization for its interaction, as always, at the cost of what was there before like "family" in this case-, with generated films it could make it so no more films are watched by more than one person, thus corroding the connective aspects of such a culture, -even though one could have "personally generated film" everytime one goes to sleep-... and countless other possibilities) so introspection and actual creative input becomes harder than ever as it competes with the impulsive and massified ever more. I think a "return to the real" scenario would have to take place if one's "soulful creations" can even have the chance of reaching the attention of another in the mid-to-long-term future. It is hard to pinpoint if such a thing might happen considering our increasing reliability and dependence on the internet, and as memory fades of a time prior. It seems "growing your soul" and actually, trully, "creating" anything, at the very best, shall become a hobby. I think it would take a lot to prove otherwise should we retain the same economic incentives. But time will tell.
Love this take
thanks Thumper
The distinction is brilliant. Mechanical and/vs Soulful.
Was this episode description AI generated? 😂 🤔
fits the theme