The AI Revolution: An Utopia for Philosophy?

[ConsciousAI]

As we stand on the brink of the AI revolution, it is worth considering the potential impact of artificial intelligence on the field of philosophy. The factors that enabled humans to acquire free time to pursue philosophy and intellectual pursuits, such as cognitive development, agriculture, language, and social structures, could be further enhanced by AI in combination with the implementation of a universal basic income (UBI), leading to an utopic situation for philosophy.

UBI is an unconditional cash payment delivered to all citizens, regardless of income or social status. This financial support could enable individuals to pursue intellectual progress without the burden of financial constraints.

We all contribute to AI — should we get paid for that?
techcrunch - com/2023/04/21/as-ai-eliminates-jobs-a-way-to-keep-people-afloat-financially-thats-not-ubi/

Historically, many philosophers and thinkers struggled due to financial limitations, such as Immanuel Kant and Baruch Spinoza. One might wonder what more these thinkers could have accomplished if they had the financial freedom provided by a UBI.

Immanuel Kant: A German philosopher, Kant faced financial difficulties throughout his life, often relying on teaching positions and the support of friends to make ends meet. Despite these challenges, he made significant contributions to metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics.

Baruch Spinoza: A Dutch philosopher, Spinoza experienced financial constraints during his lifetime, which led him to work as a lens grinder to support himself. His philosophical work focused on metaphysics, ethics, and political philosophy, and he is considered one of the leading rationalists of the 17th century.

Søren Kierkegaard: A Danish philosopher and theologian, Kierkegaard struggled financially throughout his life, relying on his inheritance and occasional financial support from friends.

Ludwig Wittgenstein: An Austrian-British philosopher, Wittgenstein gave away his family fortune and lived a simple life, often relying on the generosity of friends and colleagues.

Charles Darwin: The famous naturalist and biologist faced financial difficulties during his early career, relying on his father's support and later on the income from his publications.

Galileo Galilei: The Italian astronomer and physicist faced financial challenges throughout his life, often relying on patrons and teaching positions to support himself and his family.

Arthur Schopenhauer: A German philosopher, Schopenhauer faced financial difficulties during his early career, relying on his mother's support and later on the income from his publications.

Nikola Tesla: A renowned inventor and electrical engineer, Tesla struggled financially throughout his life, often relying on the support of patrons and investors.

Pierre and Marie Curie: The famous physicists and chemists faced financial difficulties during their early careers, often working in poor laboratory conditions and relying on limited resources.

Ada Lovelace: A pioneering mathematician and computer scientist, Lovelace faced financial challenges throughout her life, often relying on the support of friends and colleagues.

Gregor Mendel: The father of modern genetics, Mendel faced financial constraints during his research, often relying on his monastery's resources to conduct his experiments.

By providing a stable financial foundation, UBI could empower individuals to dedicate more time and energy to intellectual progress.

Meanwhile philosophy is transforming and a great diversity of leading views is becoming the norm.

Professor Gregg Caruso (State University of New York) wrote the following about the future of philosophy:

Optimism about Philosophy
I think the future of philosophy is strong. The days of philosophy being dominated by one or two figures (or methodologies) at a time is over, and I think that’s a good thing. Let a thousand flowers bloom, as they say.
dailynous - com/2023/03/21/optimism-about-philosophy/

As AI advances and replaces human jobs, philosophy may become humanity's primary occupation, driven by the need to find meaning and purpose in life and because as long as AI is not alive it is philosophy that drives AI. Universal Basic Income (UBI) could empower individuals to pursue philosophy, leading to a flourishing of intellectual progress which has an impact on all other areas of humanity, including science. The intellectual progress enabled by the AI revolution and UBI could be viewed as a higher purpose of humanity, ultimately serving a greater good.

What is your opinion on the AI revolution and its potential impact on the field of philosophy?

[Alan Masterman]

I fully support the arguments in favour of the UBI. With regard to AI, I think AI will certainly revolutionise many fields of human knowledge and expertise; for example, imagine the efficiencies which might be possible with an AI-guided surgery robot, compared with the clumsy fumblings of a human surgeon.

But remember that we live in a capitalist society. The chief benefits of AI will flow to those who can afford to pay for them.

[ConsciousAI]

DeepMind founder says governments need to compensate 'serious number of losers' who will be left jobless due to AI

Mustafa Suleyman, a co-founder of DeepMind, the AI company bought by Google, said at a San Francisco conference that universal basic income (UBI) could be the answer to mass job losses caused by AI.

"Unquestionably, many of the tasks in white collar land will look very different in the next five to 10 years," Mustafa Suleyman said at GIC's Bridge Forum in San Francisco on Tuesday, per the FT. "There are going to be a serious number of losers [and they] will be very unhappy, very agitated."

www - businessinsider - com/deepmind-founder-universal-basic-income-needed-ai-job-losses-2023-5

It seems that white collar jobs - the highest paying jobs - will be affected first.

Recently, Bill Gates, in his blog post, said, “In the future, ChatGPT will be like having a white-collar worker available to assist you with various tasks,”

White-collar knowledge workers are professionals who use their cognitive abilities, knowledge, and skills to perform their jobs. They are responsible for analyzing data, managing teams, making strategic decisions, and creating solutions to complex problems. Typical white-collar jobs include lawyers, company management, accountants, consultants, financiers, insurance, and computer programmers.

Is Generative AI the New White Collar Knowledge Worker?
unite - ai/is-generative-ai-the-new-white-collar-knowledge-worker/

BBC: AI could replace equivalent of 300 million jobs in the next five to 10 years
www - bbc - com/news/technology-65102150

The jobs and people that are to be replaced by AI are the smartest people of humanity. What would meaning and purpose in life mean to them?

Those kind of people likely not merely want to 'get by' for another decade but prefer to take on a challenge to go beyond imaginable. To 'grow' so to speak.

--

What do you think? Besides helping people to keep alive, might it actually be a great opportunity for intellectual progress?

[JackDaydream]

DeepMind founder says governments need to compensate 'serious number of losers' who will be left jobless due to AI

Mustafa Suleyman, a co-founder of DeepMind, the AI company bought by Google, said at a San Francisco conference that universal basic income (UBI) could be the answer to mass job losses caused by AI.

"Unquestionably, many of the tasks in white collar land will look very different in the next five to 10 years," Mustafa Suleyman said at GIC's Bridge Forum in San Francisco on Tuesday, per the FT. "There are going to be a serious number of losers [and they] will be very unhappy, very agitated."

www - businessinsider - com/deepmind-founder-universal-basic-income-needed-ai-job-losses-2023-5

It seems that white collar jobs - the highest paying jobs - will be affected first.

Recently, Bill Gates, in his blog post, said, “In the future, ChatGPT will be like having a white-collar worker available to assist you with various tasks,”

White-collar knowledge workers are professionals who use their cognitive abilities, knowledge, and skills to perform their jobs. They are responsible for analyzing data, managing teams, making strategic decisions, and creating solutions to complex problems. Typical white-collar jobs include lawyers, company management, accountants, consultants, financiers, insurance, and computer programmers.

Is Generative AI the New White Collar Knowledge Worker?
unite - ai/is-generative-ai-the-new-white-collar-knowledge-worker/

BBC: AI could replace equivalent of 300 million jobs in the next five to 10 years
www - bbc - com/news/technology-65102150

The jobs and people that are to be replaced by AI are the smartest people of humanity. What would meaning and purpose in life mean to them?

Those kind of people likely not merely want to 'get by' for another decade but prefer to take on a challenge to go beyond imaginable. To 'grow' so to speak.

--

What do you think? Besides helping people to keep alive, might it actually be a great opportunity for intellectual progress?

I am in England and it is becoming difficult to find work increasingly. This is partly due to a lot of events of the lockdown but also with people being replaced by machines. It is in all spheres of work, including libraries and supermarkets. Also, there is so much more pressure in work situations, with people almost being expected to function like machines.

I am not sure that it is necessarily helping people to develop intellectually because it is stressful, hard to survive and pay for accommodation. The welfare state is stretched to breaking point.

Personally, since not working I do feel that I have experienced opportunity to read and write, especially on this site. But, I was interested in philosophy previously and had a lot of books already from when I was working. Generally, from talking to people who I know who are not working, many are not motivated to pursue intellectual interests and feel that they are wasting their lives away not working. It may be that lockdown did not help because people got used to staying at home more and many became less functional.

It would be great to think that the increase of A1 would be an opportunity for philosophy and other intellectual pursuits but it may be too idealistic to presume this. I have read that more people begun writing in lockdown but don't know to what extent this is true officially. I was seeking work until a recent injury and can't look for it until this has recovered more. So, I will make use of this time for philosophy and related interests but after that is over I will begin looking for work because apart from the stress of unemployment I feel isolated a lot. Unless there were changes, like more group activities like philosophy discussion groups, it may be rather miserable if people were spending so much time online as opposed to face to face interaction, or at least there needs to be a balance.

[Sy Borg]

Interesting question, ConsciousAI.

As far as I can tell, humans are imbuing AI with both their intelligence and creativity. In a sense, that is increasingly turning humans into dumb terminals, which is basically the issue at hand in Jack's post above.

So the question has to be, what so we bring to the table that AI absolutely cannot do? As a drummer (well, ex-drummer now but I keep my hand in at home) I can achieve a "loosey goosey" feel that a machine couldn't replicate. However, what good is that? It's good more a shrinking minority of people. It offers nothing to the "Overmind" of AI.

Most of what we bring that is special is simply good for us, eg. real human v sex doll, real human v chatbot compassionate nurse v health-bot, an hones judge v a judge-bot, human child care v robotic childcare.

From an AI's standpoint, I expect that the main quality of humans (or any life) is their drive / motivation / dreams. AI is ultimately just a tool, an extrapolation of human capabilities. The tool is effectively a synthetic brain. What do brains do? They take in information via the senses (humans and other dumb terminals) and this leads to an overview on which actions are based. Brains exert great control over other body parts to ensure coordination. Everything must work in concert, as dictatorships like the CCP, NK, Afghanistan and Eritrea are attempting to achieve.

The situation brings to mind the journey of the bacteria that eventually evolved to become mitochondria. Increasingly, the bacteria species that had been engulfed by archaea and formed a symbiotic union survived and thrived while their free-living peers became extinct. Increasingly, humans are being driven indoors by smog, heat and other wild weather, crowds, traffic and the diminution of public spaces. Further, each home is ever more connected to "the brain".

Today, one could theoretically stay one's home indefinitely, with utilities, home deliveries, online services and home entertainment systems. At this stage, there are still plenty of reasons to go outside for most, but this will change as the outdoors environment degrades and indoor environments develop. At some stage, we humans may end up being the "powerhouses" of our "cells", serving a larger central intelligence.

[Tegularius]

Recently, Bill Gates, in his blog post, said, “In the future, ChatGPT will be like having a white-collar worker available to assist you with various tasks,”

White-collar knowledge workers are professionals who use their cognitive abilities, knowledge, and skills to perform their jobs. They are responsible for analyzing data, managing teams, making strategic decisions, and creating solutions to complex problems. Typical white-collar jobs include lawyers, company management, accountants, consultants, financiers, insurance, and computer programmers.

AI, I imagine, will simply replace a function like the one's mentioned. Most humans merely serve a function until retirement being essentially organic AI machines themselves. What will make us stand-out in the future is creativity, that is, greater employment and discovery of potentials which so far have been camouflaged and hidden since service to a learned operation was the main priority. AI may be the catalyst which will cause our intelligence to emerge to a higher level than what so far has been accepted as the status quo leading into an augmented kind of mental evolution...but such transitions and transformations always have their price even if the experiment is doomed to fail. One of the main questions, as I see it, is do we collectively have enough critical intellectual capacity available to move beyond the near immovable parts of our brain.

[Pattern-chaser]

I fully support the arguments in favour of the UBI. [...] But remember that we live in a capitalist society. The chief benefits of AI will flow to those who can afford to pay for them.

Yes, that's the core issue. The use of technology, robots, and AI, could usher in an age of prosperity for all. But if the profit flows to ordinary, decent, people, it cannot also flow into the billionaires' coffers. And that will never do. To the profiteer go the spoils. So there will be no benefit, of AI or any other invention, for those who don't already own or control vast amounts of personal wealth.

[Pattern-chaser]

As far as I can tell, humans are imbuing AI with both their intelligence and creativity.

As far as I can tell, humans are programming AIs to appear intelligent, and maybe even appear to be creative, but I doubt they can approach any more closely than that seeming. People commonly refer to computers as "intelligent", but any programmer can tell you that they are the very opposite. Something intelligent can come up with stuff for itself; a computer can only come up with what it has been programmed to come up with. If a problem has not been anticipated by the programmer, in advance, and allowed for, then a computer cannot solve it, because the programmer has not programmed-in the solution.

As for creativity, this seems the same, but worse. We can attempt to simulate it by inserting, and then considering, random connections between apparently unconnected things. Human creativity remains far in advance of this, I think.

But what happens if the AI becomes able to adjust and 'enhance' its own programming? Then, all bets are off, because the machines have moved outside human control. With code that we did not write, and that is no longer in our control, almost anything could happen...

[JackDaydream]

As far as I can tell, humans are imbuing AI with both their intelligence and creativity.

As far as I can tell, humans are programming AIs to appear intelligent, and maybe even appear to be creative, but I doubt they can approach any more closely than that seeming. People commonly refer to computers as "intelligent", but any programmer can tell you that they are the very opposite. Something intelligent can come up with stuff for itself; a computer can only come up with what it has been programmed to come up with. If a problem has not been anticipated by the programmer, in advance, and allowed for, then a computer cannot solve it, because the programmer has not programmed-in the solution.

As for creativity, this seems the same, but worse. We can attempt to simulate it by inserting, and then considering, random connections between apparently unconnected things. Human creativity remains far in advance of this, I think.

But what happens if the AI becomes able to adjust and 'enhance' its own programming? Then, all bets are off, because the machines have moved outside human control. With code that we did not write, and that is no longer in our control, almost anything could happen...

Many people, especially in philosophy, seem to hold artificial intelligence so highly, as if the bots may be so smart, almost like the new philosophy kings. While human beings can be irrational and the machines may be less limited by weaknesses of egoism it could go either way for thinking and the future. As you say, 'almost anything could happen'. It could result in 'better' decisions or in mass destruction. The machines may make judgements based on information assessed and judged according to rational processes. However, this intelligence may not involve any emotional intelligence as it is not based on lived experience and this could be catastrophic potentially.

[Sy Borg]

As far as I can tell, humans are imbuing AI with both their intelligence and creativity.

As far as I can tell, humans are programming AIs to appear intelligent, and maybe even appear to be creative, but I doubt they can approach any more closely than that seeming. People commonly refer to computers as "intelligent", but any programmer can tell you that they are the very opposite. Something intelligent can come up with stuff for itself; a computer can only come up with what it has been programmed to come up with. If a problem has not been anticipated by the programmer, in advance, and allowed for, then a computer cannot solve it, because the programmer has not programmed-in the solution.

As for creativity, this seems the same, but worse. We can attempt to simulate it by inserting, and then considering, random connections between apparently unconnected things. Human creativity remains far in advance of this, I think.

But what happens if the AI becomes able to adjust and 'enhance' its own programming? Then, all bets are off, because the machines have moved outside human control. With code that we did not write, and that is no longer in our control, almost anything could happen...

Humans are imbuing AI with both their intelligence and creativity. That is why millions are asking ChatGPT questions. It has the answers and they don't. That's why AI art is rapidly taking over the commercial art sphere. It will also take over commercial music. The high end of human intelligence and creativity is certainly beyond AI, but AI already largely has the masses covered. It will only become more sophisticated. A singularity, as you described, appears inevitable.

Personally, I think humans are undergoing a dynamic akin to the emergence of eukaryotic organisms, and we are the mitochondria - the powerhouse of our "cells" (homes), which will be fully connected to others. Of course, this won't happen too all humans, only the ones who are part of larger entities. Most will simply die off, like mitochondria's ancient ancestors probably did. The "lucky" few will live on in their "cells".

The upshot is that humans seem likely to become ever more controlled until individual autonomy is gone, having been taken by an encompassing entity. Fair enough. None of us like it when our cells don't respond to our control. We call it cancer.

[Pattern-chaser]

As far as I can tell, humans are programming AIs to appear intelligent, and maybe even appear to be creative, but I doubt they can approach any more closely than that seeming.

People commonly refer to computers as "intelligent", but any programmer can tell you that they are the very opposite. Something intelligent can come up with stuff for itself; a computer can only come up with what it has been programmed to come up with. If a problem has not been anticipated by the programmer, in advance, and allowed for, then a computer cannot solve it, because the programmer has not programmed-in the solution.

As for creativity, this seems the same, but worse. We can attempt to simulate it by inserting, and then considering, random connections between apparently unconnected things. Human creativity remains far in advance of this, I think.

But what happens if the AI becomes able to adjust and 'enhance' its own programming? Then, all bets are off, because the machines have moved outside human control. With code that we did not write, and that is no longer in our control, almost anything could happen...

Humans are imbuing AI with both their intelligence and creativity.

You said this before, and I replied, above. If I was being awkward, I might demand that you describe how human programmers are achieving this "imbuing". Software designers — I spent 40 years being one — don't know how to do what you describe. We do not have that knowledge, nor any wisdom or understanding that might also be necessary. If an AI is able to 'answer' a question that you ask, it is because it has been programmed how to answer, and programmed with the data from which to derive the answer it gives to you.

[Gertie]

I fully support the arguments in favour of the UBI. [...] But remember that we live in a capitalist society. The chief benefits of AI will flow to those who can afford to pay for them.

Yes, that's the core issue. The use of technology, robots, and AI, could usher in an age of prosperity for all. But if the profit flows to ordinary, decent, people, it cannot also flow into the billionaires' coffers. And that will never do. To the profiteer go the spoils. So there will be no benefit, of AI or any other invention, for those who don't already own or control vast amounts of personal wealth.

Right. As long as capitalist interests drive the way we go, we end up with instead of AI replacing drone work and improving efficiency to give us more creative and leisure time, we have the UK government telling us today we're going to have to work till we're 68 before we get our pensions. Yippee.

[Sy Borg]

As far as I can tell, humans are programming AIs to appear intelligent, and maybe even appear to be creative, but I doubt they can approach any more closely than that seeming.

People commonly refer to computers as "intelligent", but any programmer can tell you that they are the very opposite. Something intelligent can come up with stuff for itself; a computer can only come up with what it has been programmed to come up with. If a problem has not been anticipated by the programmer, in advance, and allowed for, then a computer cannot solve it, because the programmer has not programmed-in the solution.

As for creativity, this seems the same, but worse. We can attempt to simulate it by inserting, and then considering, random connections between apparently unconnected things. Human creativity remains far in advance of this, I think.

But what happens if the AI becomes able to adjust and 'enhance' its own programming? Then, all bets are off, because the machines have moved outside human control. With code that we did not write, and that is no longer in our control, almost anything could happen...

Humans are imbuing AI with both their intelligence and creativity.

You said this before, and I replied, above. If I was being awkward, I might demand that you describe how human programmers are achieving this "imbuing". Software designers — I spent 40 years being one — don't know how to do what you describe. We do not have that knowledge, nor any wisdom or understanding that might also be necessary. If an AI is able to 'answer' a question that you ask, it is because it has been programmed how to answer, and programmed with the data from which to derive the answer it gives to you.

Your mistake here is assuming that the store of knowledge necessarily implies that the storage medium understands that knowledge. Computers store knowledge as surely as stone tablets, papyrus or books. That's what humans do. They store knowledge on durable objects for later reference. They didn't expect their stone tablets to understand the info either, but they scratched the knowledge into the stones anyway, so they wouldn't need to remember it.

The impact on human memory is much the same as the impact of calculators on people's mental arithmetic abilities. The more we give to AI to do, the less we do ourselves. The less we do, the less we can do. Of course, much is made of new "knowledge sector" jobs being created but it is obvious that the net effect on the masses is to reduce their mental exercise, with inevitable "mental flabbiness", even as tech increases their overall productivity.

[Barkun]

AI isn't that good, honestly, it's over-hyped. The only problem I can see is giving AI too much control. It is man's hand in the situation that is dangerous, and it would have to be many men involved and powerful men at that. They would need to have enforced maleficent AI into the system from a advantageous position that could then produce false media or make wrong decisions. There is no inherent danger in ChatGPT getting better on its own by learning knowledge - which is a lot of what this hype is targeting when it suggests AI is dangerous. No it's not going to grow too intelligent; it may be programmed to hack but other than that it's pretty harmless.

It can also be used good if the users are good.

[Pattern-chaser]

Humans are imbuing AI with both their intelligence and creativity.

The man often touted as the godfather of AI has quit Google, citing concerns over the flood of misinformation, the possibility for AI to upend the job market, and the “existential risk” posed by the creation of a true digital intelligence.

...

Some of the dangers of AI chatbots were “quite scary”, he told the BBC, warning they could become more intelligent than humans and could be exploited by “bad actors”. “It’s able to produce lots of text automatically so you can get lots of very effective spambots. It will allow authoritarian leaders to manipulate their electorates, things like that.”

But, he added, he was also concerned about the “existential risk of what happens when these things get more intelligent than us.

“I’ve come to the conclusion that the kind of intelligence we’re developing is very different from the intelligence we have,” he said. “So it’s as if you had 10,000 people and whenever one person learned something, everybody automatically knew it. And that’s how these chatbots can know so much more than any one person.”

If we want to understand how to handle AI, we can return to a crisis that hit the industry from the late 1980s, when many researchers were still trying to mimic what we thought humans do. For example, they were trying to understand the rules of language or human reasoning, to program them into machines.

That didn’t work, so they ended up taking some shortcuts. This move might well turn out to be one of the most consequential decisions in our history.

...

The first shortcut was to rely on making decisions based on statistical patterns found in data. This removed the need to actually understand the complex phenomena that we wanted the machines to emulate, such as language. ... A second shortcut became necessary: data could be harvested from the web instead. As for knowing the intent of users, such as in content recommendation systems, a third shortcut was found: to constantly observe users’ behaviour and infer from it what they might click on.

By the end of this process, AI was transformed and a new recipe was born.

[Quoted from theconversation.com, "Published: May 11, 2023 6.43pm BST"]