Posted 3 декабря 2021,, 07:46
Published 3 декабря 2021,, 07:46
Modified 25 декабря 2022,, 20:54
Updated 25 декабря 2022,, 20:54
Alina Vitukhnovskaya, writer
Of course, he was not “created” by some “superintelligence” or “god”, but is a product derived from the very environment in which he evolved from an animal to what we now call Homo sapiens.
In other words, a person is that very real AI, based on a primitive and vulnerable organic medium, which has long and actively used analog-digital (commodity-money) methods of interacting with the environment and other carriers, but whose thinking is still largely limited and controlled parameters, first of all, of its internal, endogenous psychophysiological states, which can include both instincts (genetically fixed elements of basic "consciousness"), and various kinds of exogenous factors - mostly cultural imprints, socially fixed patterns of reactions and subsequent behavior. The needs of the weighted average person fit well into Maslow's pyramid, but of course, there are exceptions to each rule.
The learning ability and reproductive function of humans are also software-limited, resulting from a process of natural biological selection. The "artificiality" of intelligence in this particular case is determined by the degree of its limitedness, lack of subjectness, even in the case of a purely scientific approach to reality, which in its fundamental, axiomatic foundations differs little from religion - the most ancient way of interaction of people with reality through the religious myths (in the case of science, theories unverifiable in practice). Of course, science here boasts a real empirical field in which it can demonstrate many (but not all) of its theoretical constructs.
Arguing further on the topic of AI, I would also like to outline a number of theses and premises. AI, on the one hand, is a person's attempt to recreate his own likeness, carried out by him due to his awareness of the frailty of being and the finitude of his own life, and this attempt is often unconscious. Simply put, this is a desire to extend your life, or even make it endless. However, such an approach, in my opinion, can only lead to a serious increase in the number of related problems, but not to the solution of the main one. We will talk about it a little later.
Often, AI is deliberately combined with frightening images already loaded into the sphere of the mass unconscious with the help of cinema in the form of fantastic plots in which it appears as a powerful and uncontrollable destroyer, closed on itself. I will say right away that I am not one of those who are afraid of AI, or the consequences of its use. First of all, because it is a matter of competent control and management, as in all spheres of human life, associated with risk. In addition, AI-based hardware platforms have been used for at least several decades in automation systems of various industries, as well as in the defense sector, contrary to the well-known "Azimov" laws.
In the context of the constant human desire to create a full-fledged AI, one can turn to the simulation hypothesis, which at the same time simplifies and complicates this task. The simplification is that reality can be "calculated" - in order to calculate in it the optimal parameters of existence for each carrier of the mind. The complication is that an artificial mind, overloaded with an excess of incoming data (including erroneous ones), will not be able to draw qualitative conclusions solely on their basis, because as a subject it will always be forced to be outside their field, to become elusive, literally rushing beyond the event horizon. Otherwise, everything will end up plunging into object chaos, the way out of which will be a periodic global reboot of all reality, and therefore - from the task, briefly referred to as "tabula rasa". And starting from scratch every time, risking repeating the path of previous iterations, of course, does not make sense.
In other words, the bright hopes of all progressive humanity, pinned on classical AI, run the risk of crashing into smithereens on a harsh, chaotically changing reality, not even because this product of the human mind has significant, I would even say, fundamental limitations, but because it is too is similar to the parameters of the thinking of its founder, and therefore, carries in itself, inherent in its foundation, objectivist, scientific approach both at the conceptual level and in the area of its immediate implementation. It should be noted separately that the influence of a specific AI creator (a programmer or a group of programmers) on the final result is also inevitable. Thus, flaws or even pathologies of an individual person can seep into his algorithms.
Indeed, for the most part, people are still in the field of the unconscious and are often guided by anything (for example, impulsive, passionate impulses), except for common sense and progressive goal-setting. A significant part of humanity is not just religious, but aggressively and expansively religious, i.e. in fact, he is in a very real altered state of consciousness, while continuing to use the achievements of scientific and technological progress exclusively in a one-sided, “consumer” (not research) mode.
Accordingly, the approximation of the parameters of AI on a machine carrier to the current human potential by an exclusively objectivist (traditionalist) method can become a huge and costly, but exactly the same and absolutely useless thing, because one way or another, the problem of the absence of subjective thinking will nullify all the titanic efforts of engineers and programmers. For is it worth striving for something that already exists and, at the very least, functions? Spoiler - and in another way the objectivist consciousness cannot function. Personally, I think not. But it is definitely worth considering the qualitative steps from artificial intelligence (AI) towards subjective intelligence (SI).
The question arises, can a real constructive alternative to AI appear, capable of leading humanity on the path of real, and not imaginary, only multiplying useless entities, progress? The answer is yes, it is capable and it lies in the field of synthesis, i.e. splicing SI with the potential of machine AI, optimized for computational problems of varying complexity.
Doctor of Biological Sciences, Professor of the Faculty of Physics, leading researcher at the Center for Neurotechnologies of the Southern Federal University (SFedU) Boris Vladimirsky suggests combining the capabilities of the human mind with machine intelligence. That is, to receive at the output what I call SI - subjective intelligence.
In the case of the implementation of this and similar projects, humanity can get at its disposal: the acquisition of a second life by the disabled, a radical extension of biological existence, for example, for genius scientists who, thus, will be able to complete the full cycle of their research without relying on students or descendants. This can provide almost limitless possibilities for aesthetic medicine. And in the future, and the transition of the subjective mind to a completely inorganic carrier.
It should be noted separately that the SI will be able to deny itself as part of the manifested, the so-called. "Objective", in reality - only objectified in a limited area of reality, and all manifested reality as a whole (as the only and no alternative) - thereby completely getting rid of both any kind of systematic errors - inevitability when interacting with reality, and false ones, the secondary and tertiary models and systems self-limiting in their development generated by it; but the classical AI, both organic and machine, respectively, cannot - because it is inevitably thrown into "garbage" data and turns into a maximum - only into its outwardly changed, rebranding likeness.
Also, SI is able to combine both human and machine potential and use it both separately and in combination - depending on tactical tasks, while only SI will be able to determine the highest goal-setting - something that no mechanistic AI can fundamentally do. because it is limited by both the binary logic of the machine and the tertiary logic of the probability tables, or the so-called. "Creative" thinking, guided by the same tertiary logic, but without clear data, but rather in an intuitive form. Not to mention the well-known and infamous vulnerable version of AI in the form of Homo sapiens.
Summing up my next article, I want to say: the development of SI through synthetic cyborgization, combining man and machine - this is what truly progressive mankind should do instead of "spiritual inclinations" into the illusory and still technically unattainable deep space, as well as other dances around all kinds of , hastily altered in a new way pathetic native cults of gods, ancestors and dead heroes. In other words, it is necessary to begin the process of a qualitative and irreversible processing of all the uncontested, limited organic reality imposed on us in sensations and dogmatic interpretations.