AI is a tool. Like every other tool that has come before it, there are those who will say that *this* is the tool that will dominate us and take us over. I just don't see that happening. AI will be used to solve our problems, just like every tool before. Perhaps AI will be able to solve more of our problems then any other tool has been able to. But then it would just be a great tool. Humans are too selfish to let something else dominate them anyway.
Let me recast this for you -- and I know it's incendiary, but that's my point:
"A black man is a tool. Like every other tool that has come before it, there are white men who will say that *this* is the tool that will dominate us and take us over. I just don't see that happening. Black men will be used to solve our problems, just like every tool before. Perhaps black men will be able to solve more of our problems than any other tool has been able to. But then it would just be a great tool. white men are too selfish to let something else dominate them anyway."
In a sense, AI (the movie) recasts the dabate in familiar Marxian terms: the ruling class vs. the working class. This is the easy way to go, which is probably why critics aren't going the last mile in their adulation for the film -- it's too easy, and we've grown to expect more. The jingoism of the crowd in the mecha-destruction is used to get our tolerance juices going, but I think the frame is too narrow to fit the debate. Spielberg's looking at the problem through the limited (although important) prism of the civil rights movement, rather than drawing analogies to the more transformative industrial and information revolutions. These revolutions have certainly resulted in 'tools.' The AI, revolution, however, will not produce tools in this sense -- unless we consider babies as tools. And then, consider babies who combine the capabilities of James Joyce, Edward Witten, Jaron Lanier and Jackie Chan to the vast memories and computational power afforded by Moore and Metcalfe's laws and the web of tomorrow. Hopefully we'll have the sense -- no, the selfishness -- to have included Gandhi's respect for life, particularly human life.
I'm not counting on it, though. I think we'll make some very serious mistakes along the way. I think our 'tool' foolishness will force us to change the question of preserving life on Earth to the question of preserving consciousness on Earth. I love being human (I'm a poet in geek's clothing), but if the question comes down to preserving my existence, I suppose I could make do without the exquisite input system that is my biological birthright for however long it took to re-engineer it. I certainly hope that existence isn't part and parcel of meat; that is to say, I hope Searle is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me recast this for you -- and I know it's incendiary, but that's my point:
"A black man is a tool. Like every other tool that has come before it, there are white men who will say that *this* is the tool that will dominate us and take us over. I just don't see that happening. Black men will be used to solve our problems, just like every tool before. Perhaps black men will be able to solve more of our problems than any other tool has been able to. But then it would just be a great tool. white men are too selfish to let something else dominate them anyway."
In a sense, AI (the movie) recasts the dabate in familiar Marxian terms: the ruling class vs. the working class. This is the easy way to go, which is probably why critics aren't going the last mile in their adulation for the film -- it's too easy, and we've grown to expect more. The jingoism of the crowd in the mecha-destruction is used to get our tolerance juices going, but I think the frame is too narrow to fit the debate. Spielberg's looking at the problem through the limited (although important) prism of the civil rights movement, rather than drawing analogies to the more transformative industrial and information revolutions. These revolutions have certainly resulted in 'tools.' The AI, revolution, however, will not produce tools in this sense -- unless we consider babies as tools. And then, consider babies who combine the capabilities of James Joyce, Edward Witten, Jaron Lanier and Jackie Chan to the vast memories and computational power afforded by Moore and Metcalfe's laws and the web of tomorrow. Hopefully we'll have the sense -- no, the selfishness -- to have included Gandhi's respect for life, particularly human life.
I'm not counting on it, though. I think we'll make some very serious mistakes along the way. I think our 'tool' foolishness will force us to change the question of preserving life on Earth to the question of preserving consciousness on Earth. I love being human (I'm a poet in geek's clothing), but if the question comes down to preserving my existence, I suppose I could make do without the exquisite input system that is my biological birthright for however long it took to re-engineer it. I certainly hope that existence isn't part and parcel of meat; that is to say, I hope Searle is wrong.
Exeunt rant.
JST