The AI Revolution: An Utopia for Philosophy?

[Pattern-chaser]

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.

On the contrary, my position depends on it, among other things. It's not the storage that is important, it's what is done with the stored information. Real thinking involves understanding the information, its structure and interconnections, and its relevance to the outside world, to human cultural affairs, and so on. It's the so-called artificial intelligence that I'm writing about. While the storage is present, and much more reliable than human memories, the *thinking*, the *intelligence*, is lacking. What we have is an appearance of intelligence, which is a very different thing. Very capable, frighteningly capable, in some ways, but quite different from human intelligence.

[Sy Borg]

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.

On the contrary, my position depends on it, among other things. It's not the storage that is important, it's what is done with the stored information. Real thinking involves understanding the information, its structure and interconnections, and its relevance to the outside world, to human cultural affairs, and so on. It's the so-called artificial intelligence that I'm writing about. While the storage is present, and much more reliable than human memories, the *thinking*, the *intelligence*, is lacking. What we have is an appearance of intelligence, which is a very different thing. Very capable, frighteningly capable, in some ways, but quite different from human intelligence.

Why on Earth would you expect machines to understand the data they hold? It's like expecting a car to know where you want to go without a GPS.

You continue to misunderstand my point. It's very simple. If you don't use it, you lose it. If you give work to machines, then you lose the ability to do that work. Is our generation better at mental arithmetic than Millennials? Was the average man in 1923 fitter and stronger than the average man in 2023?

A claim that humans are not losing our powers to machines is a claim that practice has nothing to do with skill formation, retention and refinement. There could come a time when the only thing some humans are capable of doing is understanding; sessile blobs of biology that rely on machines for everything, whose only ability is to understand situations and control the machines.

[Count Lucanor]

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.

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?

A revolution in information technology would have an impact in society, including the labor market, but it's a bit naive to think that all material needs will be solved and people will have nothing else to do but dedicate all their time to pure philosophical speculation. There will be still a lot of physical jobs in agriculture, mining, construction, energy and water infrastructure, transportation, etc. Computers don't run on air, you know.

Secondly, money doesn't just grow in trees. Where is the money coming from to pay for UBI? How will jobless people reading Rousseau generate economic value?

[ConsciousAI]

A revolution in information technology would have an impact in society, including the labor market, but it's a bit naive to think that all material needs will be solved and people will have nothing else to do but dedicate all their time to pure philosophical speculation. There will be still a lot of physical jobs in agriculture, mining, construction, energy and water infrastructure, transportation, etc. Computers don't run on air, you know.

Today's AI revolution is primarily focused on human language. Hence the AI technology such as GPT-4 and Google's PaLM 2 and upcoming next-gen Gemini are named 'Language Model'.

Your argument is that physical human labor will remain fundamentally required because it isn't solved by language.

I believe that that view might be incorrect.

In software development today it can be seen that GPT-4 can be used to create a complete software product complete with hosting, publication, marketing and advertising. All in one go - better than a human could do it - based on a philosophical description of the desired outcome.

The whole process of creating, publishing and marketing a software product has been reduced to language of which I argue that the inherent quality of that reduces to pure philosophy.

The same is already about to be true for artistic image and video products.

It is philosophy that concerns the language crafting required to turn spirit and creativity - the 'human goodness' or wisdom as it were - into a desired outcome in the world. Not just any outcome but a wise outcome. (aligned with diverse interests such as the most optimal moral, social and cultural interests).

Physical labor?

With 3D printing technology and advancements in AI based manufacturing robotics a similar disruption might be possible by which any physical product or solution can be realized based on a philosophical description of the desired outcome.

The solutions to physical labor challenges in the world would then be reduced to pure philosophy.

This might happen in just a few years once the disruption of white collar knowledge worker labor has materialized.

There is already a 3D printer being made that can print a complete air plane that is constructed automatically using AI robotics (a big Boeing type of airplane).

Will 3D Printed Aircraft Soon Become a Reality? (2023)
With rapidly advancing 3D printing technology, most parts of planes can soon be made this way while advanced robotics construct the plane.
3dprint - com/298108/will-3d-printed-aircraft-soon-become-a-reality/

The next logical evolution is the ability to 'produce anything on demand' so that similar to software development today the engineering and manufacturing of mechanical solutions such as 'complete airplanes or advanced robotic solutions' can be reduced to a philosophical description of the desired outcome in the world.

Once human labor has become fundamentally obsolete it truly becomes a matter of interests and that means that any action and decision by the human will be reduced to pure philosophy.

Funds to pay for an UBI?

You argue that there are no funds to pay for an UBI.

... money doesn't just grow in trees. Where is the money coming from to pay for UBI?

Ultimately the question is one of interests.

When AI fundamentally replaces white collar knowledge worker labor and physical human labor then human labor becomes fundamentally obsolete. The human labor that remains in the first years should be seen as 'for as long as AI hasn't catched up yet' and that process would accelerate so that jobs can no longer provide a dependable source of living for most people.

The human specie requires healthy living for progress.

The primary interest of humanity was not money but healthy living obtainable through money that is acquired through labor that fundamentally provides humanity with the ability to acquire a state of healthy living.

In the industrial world the primary interest for progress has been human labor that resulted in an incentive system to motivate humans to excell in performance, causing an ethically justified inequality between humans to serve that higher purpose.

When human labor becomes fundamentally obsolete then the primary interest for progress is likely to change. It would not be a matter of money anymore because the incentive system to provide the fundamental basis for acquiring the desired state has become obsolete.

When it is established that pure philosophy is all that fundamentally remains for progress then the primary interest of humanity becomes intellectual progress. The question is then solely: how can it be facilitated in the best way from the perspective of the human specie?

How will jobless people reading Rousseau generate economic value?

Intellectual progress has a broad scope and isn't just reading philosophy books or making advancements in science. It involves moral, social and cultural evolutionary advancements. Intellectual progress concerns wisdom that can be expressed through art and music and in many more subtle ways in family or social contexts that aren't publicly or historically visible but that could be of vital importance for humanity's evolutionary progress.

Intellectual progress concerns wisdom to reach an optimal unforeseeable future. It concerns both physical and mental evolution. In a sense at its core it concerns 'the overcoming of problems'.

The true value that individual humans can add to intellectual progress cannot be judged beforehand. The human cannot be reduced to 'knowledge'. Therefore all people should be considered of equal value and receive an equal chance to contribute their 'goodness' or wisdom to humanity.

When the interests scope of humanity is reduced to intellectual progress, it would make sense to provide a fundamental basis for healthy living for all people.

The purpose of human existence would transition from physical human labor to intellectual progress.

While in a way a sort of Matrix situation would arise. From an individual human perspective it could be a healthy and rewarding situation. For example, serving intellectual progress would include 'finding ones true self' or 'free self expression'. The fundamental task of a human would be to give to humanity from within themselves. To explore and give the 'goodness' and wisdom of themselves.

It would be philosophy that can translate human wisdom in the form of language and that therefore would provide the fundamental bridge between humans and AI.

Therefore it appears to me that when AI can facilitate healthy and prosperous living and optimal human evolution without human labor it would shift the primary interest scope of humanity and to serve that interest (or demand as it were) humans need to be facilitated with a fundamental healthy living condition.

It would ultimately concern pure philosophy to do so and it would technically cost no money since AI would run on energy, labor-free resources and philosophy to produce outcomes in the world.

AI could facilitate its own fundamental requirements for operation as it were and with upcoming innovations such as limitless free and clean energy through a low cost energy-harvesting circuit based on graphene, robotics could be powered independently and better than nuclear power and with the potential to acquire access to power much greater than humans are producing today, while big energy sources could be placed deep underground so that it remains out of sight for the human and the natural world, resulting in a true utopic situation of limitless free energy for boundless AI operations.

Source: phys - org/news/2020-10-physicists-circuit-limitless-power-graphene.html

[ConsciousAI]

Why on Earth would you expect machines to understand the data they hold? It's like expecting a car to know where you want to go without a GPS.

Understanding might be considered a function of the learning of pre-assigned meaning. In a way the world consists of assigned meaning and a machine may acquire understanding through the same intellectual tools that humans developed to acquire understanding of the world, for example through logic.

As a function, understanding is only relevant for outcomes and an AI may equally be capable of producing outcomes through technical tools such as logic as a human would.

It would not matter that AI cannot be the origin of the purpose to acquire understanding of the world.

AI essentially exists as a tool to serve the human purpose to acquire understanding of the world. Therefore AI is fundamentally provided with the purpose to understand the world and technical fulfillment of that purpose through logic and other tools would not be a barrier to AI.

You continue to misunderstand my point. It's very simple. If you don't use it, you lose it. If you give work to machines, then you lose the ability to do that work. Is our generation better at mental arithmetic than Millennials? Was the average man in 1923 fitter and stronger than the average man in 2023?

A claim that humans are not losing our powers to machines is a claim that practice has nothing to do with skill formation, retention and refinement. There could come a time when the only thing some humans are capable of doing is understanding; sessile blobs of biology that rely on machines for everything, whose only ability is to understand situations and control the machines.

What about the ability to excel in other areas such as morality, wisdom, artistic expression and philosophy?

Does a plant really need to know the inner workings of a cell to flower and to be prosperous in the unique environmental and temporal condition in which it finds itself?

There may be greater interests than the ability to be a cell (to do math manually). The human can make use of the opportunity to transcend its general existence.

The bridge between humans and AI would become pure philosophy.

[Sy Borg]

Why on Earth would you expect machines to understand the data they hold? It's like expecting a car to know where you want to go without a GPS.

Understanding might be considered a function of the learning of pre-assigned meaning. In a way the world consists of assigned meaning and a machine may acquire understanding through the same intellectual tools that humans developed to acquire understanding of the world, for example through logic.

As a function, understanding is only relevant for outcomes and an AI may equally be capable of producing outcomes through technical tools such as logic as a human would.

It would not matter that AI cannot be the origin of the purpose to acquire understanding of the world.

AI essentially exists as a tool to serve the human purpose to acquire understanding of the world. Therefore AI is fundamentally provided with the purpose to understand the world and technical fulfillment of that purpose through logic and other tools would not be a barrier to AI.

Still, without the understanding that is only possible for a feeling being, there is always the chance of a monumental screw up if relied on too much, especially early on.

You continue to misunderstand my point. It's very simple. If you don't use it, you lose it. If you give work to machines, then you lose the ability to do that work. Is our generation better at mental arithmetic than Millennials? Was the average man in 1923 fitter and stronger than the average man in 2023?

A claim that humans are not losing our powers to machines is a claim that practice has nothing to do with skill formation, retention and refinement. There could come a time when the only thing some humans are capable of doing is understanding; sessile blobs of biology that rely on machines for everything, whose only ability is to understand situations and control the machines.

What about the ability to excel in other areas such as morality, wisdom, artistic expression and philosophy?

Does a plant really need to know the inner workings of a cell to flower and to be prosperous in the unique environmental and temporal condition in which it finds itself?

There may be greater interests than the ability to be a cell (to do math manually). The human can make use of the opportunity to transcend its general existence.

The bridge between humans and AI would become pure philosophy.

I think the chances of average people devoting free time made available by AI to "morality, wisdom, artistic expression and philosophy" are somewhere between none and Buckley's.

Personally, I think it's important for the vast majority of people to maintain their physical and mental capabilities as much as possible. Most people will not be privileged technocrats and they will need to minimise their vulnerability should there be blackouts or AI service interruptions.

Did you read Brave New World? Huxley was warning us about losing our physical skills in the scene here Lenina was stuck in the Reservation and she had no instincts or experience to help her survive outside of the system she knew.

[ConsciousAI]

I think the chances of average people devoting free time made available by AI to "morality, wisdom, artistic expression and philosophy" are somewhere between none and Buckley's.

Haven't the majority of people been seeking guidance with religions? Isn't it so that in general all people seek to live a good and meaningful life?

The idea of "average people" seems to be invalid to me. What matters should be the contribution to the future of humanity and the true value and evolutionary importance of non-public and non-historically visible contributions in a family or social context - the living of a moral life - might be overlooked.

The potential to contribute to humanity starts with the intent to do good and that potential seems to be available in any person. The intent to do good is the source of wisdom and philosophy and it is what will continue to be needed when AI advances in the future. The demand for human goodness has infinite growth potential so that all people can contribute and be social-culturally valued from the perspective of the human specie.

Personally, I think it's important for the vast majority of people to maintain their physical and mental capabilities as much as possible. Most people will not be privileged technocrats and they will need to minimise their vulnerability should there be blackouts or AI service interruptions.

Did you read Brave New World? Huxley was warning us about losing our physical skills in the scene here Lenina was stuck in the Reservation and she had no instincts or experience to help her survive outside of the system she knew.

I don't know whether that is true. Since pure philosophy would provide the bridge between humans and AI, humans will need a thorough capability of mastery of any knowledge to be capable of formulating philosophical descriptions of desired outcomes. Therefore I expect humanity's learning and intellectual enhancement to continue to grow when they work together with AI and that priorities for learning would shift favorably in the direction of mastery potential of any knowledge for applied philosophy.

The result of that means that in the case of an AI blackout hard work might be able to fill up the gaps that were previously filled by AI. The mastery potential of knowledge present in humans would make it possible to quickly recover any technical skills required to perform.

Knowing where to go is more valuable than having the physical means to go somewhere. If you know where to go you can get the means. Visa versa is not obvious. It is the capacity to know where to go - philosophy - that would be enhanced by AI. Skills such as Math can always be re-acquired when needed.

[Pattern-chaser]

Why on Earth would you expect machines to understand the data they hold?

I wouldn't. But if you extend your words, and refer to "intelligent" machines, then I would reverse the question, and ask you why on Earth you would not expect such machines to understand the data they hold?

You continue to misunderstand my point. It's very simple. If you don't use it, you lose it. If you give work to machines, then you lose the ability to do that work. Is our generation better at mental arithmetic than Millennials? Was the average man in 1923 fitter and stronger than the average man in 2023?

A claim that humans are not losing our powers to machines is a claim that practice has nothing to do with skill formation, retention and refinement. There could come a time when the only thing some humans are capable of doing is understanding; sessile blobs of biology that rely on machines for everything, whose only ability is to understand situations and control the machines.

That point I understand, and have understood since before this particular exchange began. And I accept it.

But many would ask why mental arithmetic, or hand-writing, remains a useful and necessary skill in the days of calculators and internet-based communication? If you can type, perhaps you have no need for hand-writing? And if you have a calculator app on your phone — Gods, young people! — perhaps you have no need for mental arithmetic, beyond the understanding that allows you to know which numbers to type into that calculator, and why?



Your sentiments seem to be taking you in the direction of what Americans call "preppers", I think. Is that the way you want to go with this?

[Pattern-chaser]

AI essentially exists as a tool to serve the human purpose to acquire understanding of the world.

If that were so, there would probably be no need for, or point to, this topic.

[Pattern-chaser]

Did you read Brave New World? Huxley was warning us about losing our physical skills in the scene here Lenina was stuck in the Reservation and she had no instincts or experience to help her survive outside of the system she knew.

If I was stuck in your 'outback' for any length of time, I would certainly perish. I could not survive there. Could you? How many typical modern humans could? Not (many of) those from your country or mine, for sure. I think we are already in the position that you and Huxley describe, yes?

[Sy Borg]

Did you read Brave New World? Huxley was warning us about losing our physical skills in the scene here Lenina was stuck in the Reservation and she had no instincts or experience to help her survive outside of the system she knew.

If I was stuck in your 'outback' for any length of time, I would certainly perish. I could not survive there. Could you? How many typical modern humans could? Not (many of) those from your country or mine, for sure. I think we are already in the position that you and Huxley describe, yes?

I don't know about you but I barely survived surburbia, let alone the outback. Then again, harsh deserts have proved too challenging for almost all hominids from Australopithicus on, and probably before them, given that their ancestors were arboreal. Only highly adapted life forms can live in extreme environments like deserts and jungles. Somewhere between those extremes lie the environments in which most of us, human or not, do best.

Also, the wild is harsher than it used to be due to habitat loss. This intensifies competition. Much like cities, where increased population has the same effect as habitat loss, forcing everyone to crowd in. Given the trends, it makes sense to encourage the masses to be more sedentary and to increasingly use screens as their window into the world.

Does utopia lie in the virtual world? Or will our shift to a more virtual existence just be more change that's neither good nor bad - like the last 4.5b years on Earth?

[Count Lucanor]

A revolution in information technology would have an impact in society, including the labor market, but it's a bit naive to think that all material needs will be solved and people will have nothing else to do but dedicate all their time to pure philosophical speculation. There will be still a lot of physical jobs in agriculture, mining, construction, energy and water infrastructure, transportation, etc. Computers don't run on air, you know.

Today's AI revolution is primarily focused on human language. Hence the AI technology such as GPT-4 and Google's PaLM 2 and upcoming next-gen Gemini are named 'Language Model'.

Your argument is that physical human labor will remain fundamentally required because it isn't solved by language.

I believe that that view might be incorrect.

In software development today it can be seen that GPT-4 can be used to create a complete software product complete with hosting, publication, marketing and advertising. All in one go - better than a human could do it - based on a philosophical description of the desired outcome.

Can you explain how are we going to make crops of potatoes with language models? Extracting the minerals with which they make computers?

Funds to pay for an UBI?

You argue that there are no funds to pay for an UBI.

... money doesn't just grow in trees. Where is the money coming from to pay for UBI?

Ultimately the question is one of interests.

When AI fundamentally replaces white collar knowledge worker labor and physical human labor then human labor becomes fundamentally obsolete. The human labor that remains in the first years should be seen as 'for as long as AI hasn't catched up yet' and that process would accelerate so that jobs can no longer provide a dependable source of living for most people.

You're still not saying where is the money coming from to pay for UBI.

[ConsciousAI]

Can you explain how are we going to make crops of potatoes with language models? Extracting the minerals with which they make computers?

There are already fully automated drill rigs and fully automated mines are about to become a reality.

A next step is a fully automated manufacturing facility capable of producing fully automated mining and farming operations tailored for unique environments 'in one go'.

3D printers can print steel, aluminum and titanium with a strength that is many times greater than the strongest components produced by conventional means. Titanium components made with a 2022 model 3D printer are almost twice as strong as conventional titanium and the production speed and quality is already better.

When any robotics solution can be built using a philosophical description of the desired outcome, the manufacturing of machine based solutions can be reduced to language.

You're still not saying where is the money coming from to pay for UBI.

My view is that it would concern a question of interests.

Money is an aspect that is part of an incentive system to promote human labor that provides the fundamental basis for the primary interest of the human specie: a state of healthy living. Money serves other interests but at question here is whether humans should be provided with an UBI to secure a base level of healthy living.

When human labor becomes fundamentally obsolete, a money based incentive system to secure a state of healthy living does not make sense. Increasingly any technical desire or problem of humanity can be fulfilled or solved without human labor.

Who is to be held responsible for the ability to acquire the primary interest of the human specie: a state of healthy living? The money based incentive system would not function anymore so it would no longer be the individual human that can be held responsible and rewarded through labor.

It would make sense to provide a fundamental solution to secure the primary interest: a state of healthy living.

[Pattern-chaser]

You're still not saying where is the money coming from to pay for UBI.

Money is a confidence-trick. It can be manipulated into any shape we choose, all it needs to make it so that there are funds to pay for UBI is our agreement. Not your agreement and mine, of course. It requires the agreement of governments and — more significantly! — the agreement of the banks, and the billionaires (etc) who own and control them.

Gold, for example, has value and worth. A dollar, a pound, a Euro, or a Yen has no value, except that for which it can be exchanged. Money itself is a confidence trick. We can make it do what we want it to do. If we want UBI, we can have it. If we — the rich and powerful people I just listed — want UBI, it can and will happen. If we — they! — don't want it, it will never come. And money for the ordinary people means less money in the pot for them to bolster their already vast personal holdings of wealth. So, in the American language, 'go figure'.

[JackDaydream]

There is so much investment in the idea of A1, possibly with a way of replacing the human being. How much is about the inadequacies of human nature or the glamour of the idea of the artificial? What does it mean for philosophy or for philosophical understanding? It may involve the issue of human weakness as a factor in human understanding, but to what extent can A1 replace this in philosophy? There is knowledge, with facts and abstractions, but how important is this in relation to the meaning of experiences in life. In thinking of A1 and philosophy it could end up as a way of trying to determine the objectives. However, this could be limited and restrictive, bearing in mind the intersubjective and subjective aspects of consciousness and experience. It is questionable whether A1 would take on board or eliminate the experiences of the subjective. Some may see this as a step forward in terms of objective understanding, but this is open to question. It could end up with a situation in which machine-like forms of intelligence are extremely abstract and detached from human experiences.

The rational aspects of A1 may be weak in understanding of so many variables of human experiences, ranging from the psychological to the social. In philosophy, there may be so much in the realm of ideas but how this is balanced with the empirical is another matter. How much are machines able to understand about sentience, pain and suffering?