Although the AI entities we are now creating are neither sentient nor intelligent, they are nonetheless breakthrough technology that will probably influence the future course of human civilization in fundamental ways. In my opinion, from here on out, these information processing entities will become an intrinsic part of our lives at every level; from the intimately personal, to planet-level discussions/decisions.
The significance of these new tools for human cultural development can be gauged by all the fuss they are presently causing. Although I have only a vague understanding of how Large Language Models and Generative AI mechanisms work, as an 84-year-old intellectual scribbler with declining cognitive abilities, I personally welcome ChatGPT [1]. Prior to adding ChatGPT to my intellectual toolbox I made use of use of several of it’s weaker forerunners. Google search provides a rudimentary window into a lot of humankind’s knowledge base. Word’s assistance on grammar and spelling is a personal boon.
I’m a previously livelihood-constrained, but always less-than-brilliant, polymath, so I generate a never-ending stream of questions about everything. ChatGPT almost always provides generally valid, sophomoric answers, and also references that I can use to obtain a more complete and accurate understanding.
During the few years I have left of functional mental acuity I expect that ChatGPT’s successors will appear and offer improved services. Currently, personalization occurs only within a particular chat. More personalization that could access my personal knowledge base would be helpful; as would an ability for even rudimentary but logically sound reasoning. Whether or not these capabilities materialize depends largely on our market-driven economy rather than technology.
Note
[1] Given the nature of the American economy there are several other products that offer similar services. I have not explored them. As with most creative processes, proliferating tools with minor differences can be an impediment.
SEE DIFFERENTLY LORdiff_1: Beings Creating Other Beings
“beings that cannot even live in peace with each other have no business designing other kinds of beings.”
COMMENT
I’ll pass on commenting on this statement as an instance of rule ethics.
By any reasonable stretch of the word, the current crop of public AIs are not beings. They are not sentient. They are not alive. They are human constructed mechanisms that can be used for a variety of purposes. Like the sticks chimpanzees use to obtain food, they are just the latest manifestation of the imperative for advanced life-form to utilize tools to facilitate specific ends.
Aye, as per our previous discussion what I'm commenting about here is what we're aiming for (artificial life), and not what we're currently capable of... my point being, even if it is (as we both think) implausible, others think we should be doing it, or even that we have to do it (why? Beats me!). Hence, I offer this as a proposition to ponder; it is less of an ethical directive than it is a proposal for political consideration. I personally think it is a reasonable stricture.
It may also be worth mentioning that there is a crop of contemporary philosophers - the Object Oriented Ontologists (I know most of them personally, oddly enough) who think that the distinction between being and thing is irrelevant and should be abandoned. I thoroughly disagree with them. It seems clear that you do too!
SEE DIFFERENTLY LORdiff_2: Object Oriented Ontology
“the Object Oriented Ontologists (I know most of them personally, oddly enough) who think that the distinction between being and thing is irrelevant and should be abandoned.”
COMMENT
Chris, thanks for introducing me to OOO.
Humans, like other primates, like to play. Our ultimate toys can be found in the inexhaustible creation of our own invention, words. Using words our imagination knows no bounds. In our imagination the universe can be anything we want it to be. From Euclidean geometry we can create numerous non-Euclidean geometries. What fun! From a Kantian universe that distinguishes thought and being, why not imagine a universe without such a distinction? Have fun, people. Kant’s sandbox is, for me, enough.
I too prefer Kant's sandbox. And you are right to draw attention to this: it is precisely a desire to escape Kant's metaphysics that motivates OOO. They don't always admit this about themselves... but almost all of them have said as much in one form or another.
“what I'm commenting about here is what we're aiming for (artificial life), and not what we're currently capable of... my point being, even if it is (as we both think) implausible, others think we should be doing it, or even that we have to do it (why? Beats me!). Hence, I offer this as a proposition to ponder; it is less of an ethical directive than it is a proposal for political consideration. I personally think it is a reasonable stricture”
COMMENT
Chris, thanks for introducing me to Alife.
The universe endowed humans with insatiable curiosity, expansive awefullness, and wild imagination. As we increase our understanding of everything the more mysterious it becomes. We’re compelled to create. Our imagination has no bounds. The ultimate mysteries are that out of nothing comes something, out of something comes life, and then us.
As a recognizable area of study Artificial Life came into existence at a 1987 conference at the birthplace of the H-bomb. It’s been ticking along ever since.
To further England’s dominance of the oceans, King Williams funded the first AI project in 1820. In due course, using an expanding understanding of both the structure of inert matter and living nervous systems, we’ve made crude models of our brains that, like airplanes, exceed those of nature in a few ways. Naturally, we’re going to attempt to ape every other aspect of nature, including life itself. We may be earthbound, but our creations need not be. If we can just keep from blowing ourselves up!
Your position on alife seems to be something akin to 'we're going to do it anyway, so why get bent out of shape about it?' I have sympathy for this viewpoint. My own is captured in the title of one of my academic papers (back when I believed in universities): "We can make anything. Should we?"
“Artificial life”. Really? Google informs me that this really is a recognized research effort. There’s even an international society and a research journal. I need to do a bit of research before commenting.
AGREE LORagr_2: We Will Not Colonize Other Planets
“The flat refusal to accept this ranks right up with the certainty that we will ‘colonise other planets’.”
COMMENT
It’s not a certainty that we will not colonize other planets, but it appears to be unlikely. We are creatures of this planet. At the molecular, and probably at the quantum level, our biology is intimately tied to the evolution of life on this planet. Our bodies are ecological systems, not standalone chemical factories.
Aye, you are quite right - I cannot rule out the possibility of interstellar travel. What I can comfortably rule out is the logic that we should be pursuing this *now*. Actually, a half a century of space travel has already taught us the lesson we just don't want to learn: we are adapted to life here on our planet, and we are wildly in-suited to travel through space. But even putting aside the biological, just as a matter of physics this is a flight of fancy. Don't get me wrong, I love science fiction stories about space travel... but I love sword and sorcery stories about magic and dragons. And they're both fantasy.
Certainly, there are some human endeavors that in the interest of ensuring species survival must be restrained. Many others can be constrained by social policies. If we separate out the programs that just address humankind’s apparently insatiable curiosity from those aimed at pursuing the establishment of extraterrestrial human civilization, it seems to me there’s not really enough left to be concerned about. On the other hand, the US government spends in the neighborhood of 4% of its budget on R&D. Most of this goes for looking for solutions to practical problems. The numbers are flaky but say a quarter of this goes to pure research like the Webb telescope. I’m all for society spending on pure research, but 1% of 5 trillion is still 50 billion.[1] That’s a lot compared to most social programs. Is this an example of what you call “imperial technology”?
Note:
[1] All quantities are just ballpark estimates given to provide order of magnitudes realistic enough to legitimately raise this question.
Some care is required here - I am not against, say, NASA, and would not normally consider them as part of imperial technocracy as such (except in so much as any government agency is swept into the maelstrom). I do see problems with the weird space they end up in terms of funding and justifications for their funding, and the way it is prioritised. We tend to forget this is a military-adjacent agency because they make a big deal about waving the science flag. I think it apparent that, behind the scenes, the money ploughed into the agency isn't justified by 'for all mankind' arguments...
What I am against, however, is those who take the view 'we've already ruined this planet, so our only hope of survival is to colonise other planets' .This is patently insane, since if we cannot life on this planet - for which we are perfectly adapted - there literally can be no possibility of our survival beyond it.
“We tend to forget this is a military-adjacent agency because they make a big deal about waving the science flag.”
COMMENT
Hi Chris. As usual, your comments are food for thought. It seems to me that we often end up at the same place, but by different routes. It seems that we each have different ways of constructing our worldviews. We also, it seems to me, are doing so using different objective reality “data”.
Does it serve a project of constructing realistic models of objective reality to claim that NASA “is a military-adjacent agency”? I did not request references, but ChatGPT reported: “While there have been instances where NASA has worked in partnership with the military, such as the development of technologies with dual-use applications or collaborations related to national security, these activities are not the primary focus of the agency.” So, on this basis we could claim that NASA was “a military-adjacent agency”, but then the same could be said for most US government departments and agencies, so the assertion doesn’t distinguish NASA.
The use of smoke screens to make parochial interests appear to be aligned with more universal goals is endemic and probably a feature of any semi-democratic civilization. Claiming that money plowed into NASA is justified as a service to all mankind is par for the course. Still, objective reality is necessarily more complex than any of our models, so I think it’s fair to say that some of NASA’s projects serve all of mankind as well as advancing the parochial interests of the US.
AGREE #LORagr_2: Humankind Is Earthbound
“What I am against, however, is those who take the view 'we've already ruined this planet, so our only hope of survival is to colonise other planets'. This is patently insane”
COMMENT
I my view, the belief that homo sapiens can live for any extended period of time outside of Earth’s ecosystem is a dangerous fantasy. This fantasy diverts people from the hard truth that our social development has brought us to the point where we either create a viable global civilization or we annihilate ourselves. Who wants to face this truth? Now that we’ve created technology that can put a couple of humans on our moon for a few hours, let’s ignore the loaded gun we’ve pointed at our heads and image human civilization on other planets.
Thanks for these further remarks, and of course I agree with you about 'escape the planet' fantasies.
Regarding NASA, my claim that it is "military-adjacent" should not be controversial, since it's just a matter of history. Project Mercury was supported by the US Army's ballistic missile programme and the Air Force provided the pilots. All the rockets before Saturn V were military, the Atlas, of course, being a nuclear weapon delivery system. Let's also not forget the joint 'memorandum of understanding' signed in 2020 by the US Space Force and NASA. This is what I mean by "military-adjacent". Whatever we make of NASA in and of itself, the US military has always had a highly influential stake in its activities. Let us never forget that the race to the moon was a media battle against the US's then-and-now adversary, USSR/Russia, and that without this element the funding would not have been provided.
I also have a question: what is the fate of the International Space Station now the US has declared proxy war on Russia, and encircled China...? Of all NASAs projects, this is the one that seemed the most hopeful, but now Russia has announced it is quitting next year. Expect to hear much about all the wonderful new international partners being brought in (this is probably good news for India, for instance), and nothing at all about how the uniting vision of the ISS has now failed.
As for whether NASA projects "serve all mankind" in any capacity, I know there are those who believe this, and I imagine many NASA staff believe this, so I acknowledge this as one of the many worlds available here. I do not personally think that any scientific project today "serves all mankind", and view this as a rhetoric that has been used to defend scientific research practices from adequate scrutiny. On this, I will leave you with a quote from Hannah Arendt:
"The simple fact that physicists split the atom without any hesitations the very moment they knew how to do it, although they realized full well the enormous destructive potentialities of their operation, demonstrates that the scientist qua scientist does not even care about the survival of the human race on earth or, for that matters, about the survival of the planet itself."
Note that this does not say that scientists don't care about the human race or our planet. Rather, it says that in their role 'as scientists', this is all peripheral. There is much more I could say here, but this is a good place to leave our discussion today.
Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful contributions! They are greatly appreciated.
SEE DIFFERENTLY #LORdiff_4: Science Serves Mankind?
Chris: I do not personally think that any scientific project today “serves all mankind”.
COMMENT
Hi Chris. Many thanks for the NASA history lesson. I suspect that a full analysis of the budgets for NASA projects would back you up.
For me, a key word in your assertion here is “today”. Something seems presently out of kilter. Did it start with the Manhattan Project? The first human-induced chain reaction at the U of Chicago? Earlier?
For me, another key word in your assertion is “any”. My take is that indeed there are now new areas of scientific inquiry the need to be under stronger social oversight, but certainly not all of science.
SEE DIFFERENTLY #LORdiff_5: Scientist As Boogeyman?
Arendt: “the scientist qua scientist does not even care about the survival of the human race on earth or, for that matter, about the survival of the planet itself."
COMMENT
Arendt has made significant contributions to human knowledge, but this assertion is not one of them.
My view is that science as a human activity seeks to construct and verify useful models of physical reality. As such its fundamental ethic is strictly utilitarian.[1] All human action affects physical reality. Some actions can have disastrous consequences. Science provides guidelines for avoiding or ameliorating such disasters. In my view, scientists are individually driven by curiosity and desire for recognition.
Yes, Arendt does say “qua scientists” but for me the overall thrust of her statement casts scientists as evil. Echoing your interpretation of her statement, every scientist is also a human being. With rare exceptions human beings are concerned about the welfare of other human beings. As a group, the atomic scientists on the Manhattan Project were no exception.
Note
[1] Some societies appear to find value in the efforts of scientists as another expression of human creativity, and as enlarging humankind’s store of knowledge.
“there is still no sign that sentient robots are even possible with our kinds of computing techniques - much less plausible.”
COMMENT
Yes, I think this is true. By definition a sentient being must be conscious. In general, those of us who are attempting to construct personal mental models of what is, are reasonably sure that consciousness is a feature of complex physical brains. At the moment we don’t know how this works. When we do have at least some inkling of the physical processes that manifest in consciousness, I suspect that some of these processes will lie in the quantum realm. If that is the case it may not even be theoretically possible to create artificial consciousness.[1] Further, if it is possible, it might be the case that such creations will be inherently unpredictable.[2]
Notes
[1] Since currently we don’t know how consciousness is created, scientists and technicians are actively trying to create artificial consciousness. Ask ChatGPT for a few papers published prior to Sept. 2021.
Aye, I spent a lot of time pursuing this question of consciousness from this kind of perspective, including exploring the potential role of the quantum dimensional. Now I have reached a different understanding that finds consciousness less mysterious (but no less wonderful). We are still tied to the machine metaphors of the Enlightenment, even though 'information' has become the new key metaphor... if artificial sentience comes about, it will not happen via these paradigms. We can, however, make what I might call 'artificial insects'. Just 400 million years of natural selection remains to be circumvented in order to get to where people expect us to be tomorrow! 🤣
...also, your footnote [2] gave me a good giggle. 😁
Many thanks, as always, for your thoughtful interjections, Frank!
‘Sentient’ appears to be key word in this post. I don’t really understand what it is referring to:
sentient – adjective (dictionary.com) (1) having the power of perception by the senses; conscious, (2) characterized by sensation and consciousness.
sentient – noun (dictionary.com) (1) a person or thing that is sentient
sentience (MW): feeling a sensation as distinguished from perception or thought
sentience (Cambridge): the quality of being able to distinguish feelings
sentience (Encyclopedia of Animal behavior) Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others. … Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others.
Although it appears that many people are confused, ChatGPT is billed as an AI, not an AS (Artificial Sentience). So, is this post about AS, or AI?
An excellent question, Frank! And the truth of the matter is that people mix the two up, and cause a great deal of confusion as a result. You may or may not have noticed this big push in US public discourse recently, calling for AI regulation, and along with this public concerns that AI poses an existential threat to humanity. But AI, being what it is, is no such thing.
People confuse artificial life (or AS, as you say!) for AI. There is a trend to coin the term 'Artificial General Intelligence' to avoid admitting AI isn't as powerful and magical as is assumed while simultaneously promising that the real deal is just moments away... But it's all legerdemain to hide the limitations of something that is never as marvellous as it appears in science fiction stories.
So in answer to your question, this post is about both AI (what we have) and artificial life (which we do not have and possibly never will), and also about our tendency to confuse the two.
Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful commentaries!
PERSONAL COMMENT #LORcmnt_1: New Tools
Although the AI entities we are now creating are neither sentient nor intelligent, they are nonetheless breakthrough technology that will probably influence the future course of human civilization in fundamental ways. In my opinion, from here on out, these information processing entities will become an intrinsic part of our lives at every level; from the intimately personal, to planet-level discussions/decisions.
The significance of these new tools for human cultural development can be gauged by all the fuss they are presently causing. Although I have only a vague understanding of how Large Language Models and Generative AI mechanisms work, as an 84-year-old intellectual scribbler with declining cognitive abilities, I personally welcome ChatGPT [1]. Prior to adding ChatGPT to my intellectual toolbox I made use of use of several of it’s weaker forerunners. Google search provides a rudimentary window into a lot of humankind’s knowledge base. Word’s assistance on grammar and spelling is a personal boon.
I’m a previously livelihood-constrained, but always less-than-brilliant, polymath, so I generate a never-ending stream of questions about everything. ChatGPT almost always provides generally valid, sophomoric answers, and also references that I can use to obtain a more complete and accurate understanding.
During the few years I have left of functional mental acuity I expect that ChatGPT’s successors will appear and offer improved services. Currently, personalization occurs only within a particular chat. More personalization that could access my personal knowledge base would be helpful; as would an ability for even rudimentary but logically sound reasoning. Whether or not these capabilities materialize depends largely on our market-driven economy rather than technology.
Note
[1] Given the nature of the American economy there are several other products that offer similar services. I have not explored them. As with most creative processes, proliferating tools with minor differences can be an impediment.
SEE DIFFERENTLY LORdiff_1: Beings Creating Other Beings
“beings that cannot even live in peace with each other have no business designing other kinds of beings.”
COMMENT
I’ll pass on commenting on this statement as an instance of rule ethics.
By any reasonable stretch of the word, the current crop of public AIs are not beings. They are not sentient. They are not alive. They are human constructed mechanisms that can be used for a variety of purposes. Like the sticks chimpanzees use to obtain food, they are just the latest manifestation of the imperative for advanced life-form to utilize tools to facilitate specific ends.
Aye, as per our previous discussion what I'm commenting about here is what we're aiming for (artificial life), and not what we're currently capable of... my point being, even if it is (as we both think) implausible, others think we should be doing it, or even that we have to do it (why? Beats me!). Hence, I offer this as a proposition to ponder; it is less of an ethical directive than it is a proposal for political consideration. I personally think it is a reasonable stricture.
It may also be worth mentioning that there is a crop of contemporary philosophers - the Object Oriented Ontologists (I know most of them personally, oddly enough) who think that the distinction between being and thing is irrelevant and should be abandoned. I thoroughly disagree with them. It seems clear that you do too!
Thanks again for your commentary, Frank!
SEE DIFFERENTLY LORdiff_2: Object Oriented Ontology
“the Object Oriented Ontologists (I know most of them personally, oddly enough) who think that the distinction between being and thing is irrelevant and should be abandoned.”
COMMENT
Chris, thanks for introducing me to OOO.
Humans, like other primates, like to play. Our ultimate toys can be found in the inexhaustible creation of our own invention, words. Using words our imagination knows no bounds. In our imagination the universe can be anything we want it to be. From Euclidean geometry we can create numerous non-Euclidean geometries. What fun! From a Kantian universe that distinguishes thought and being, why not imagine a universe without such a distinction? Have fun, people. Kant’s sandbox is, for me, enough.
I too prefer Kant's sandbox. And you are right to draw attention to this: it is precisely a desire to escape Kant's metaphysics that motivates OOO. They don't always admit this about themselves... but almost all of them have said as much in one form or another.
SEE DIFFERENTLY LORdiff_1: Artificial Life
“what I'm commenting about here is what we're aiming for (artificial life), and not what we're currently capable of... my point being, even if it is (as we both think) implausible, others think we should be doing it, or even that we have to do it (why? Beats me!). Hence, I offer this as a proposition to ponder; it is less of an ethical directive than it is a proposal for political consideration. I personally think it is a reasonable stricture”
COMMENT
Chris, thanks for introducing me to Alife.
The universe endowed humans with insatiable curiosity, expansive awefullness, and wild imagination. As we increase our understanding of everything the more mysterious it becomes. We’re compelled to create. Our imagination has no bounds. The ultimate mysteries are that out of nothing comes something, out of something comes life, and then us.
As a recognizable area of study Artificial Life came into existence at a 1987 conference at the birthplace of the H-bomb. It’s been ticking along ever since.
To further England’s dominance of the oceans, King Williams funded the first AI project in 1820. In due course, using an expanding understanding of both the structure of inert matter and living nervous systems, we’ve made crude models of our brains that, like airplanes, exceed those of nature in a few ways. Naturally, we’re going to attempt to ape every other aspect of nature, including life itself. We may be earthbound, but our creations need not be. If we can just keep from blowing ourselves up!
Hey Frank,
Your position on alife seems to be something akin to 'we're going to do it anyway, so why get bent out of shape about it?' I have sympathy for this viewpoint. My own is captured in the title of one of my academic papers (back when I believed in universities): "We can make anything. Should we?"
Many thanks for two more thoughtful comments!
“Artificial life”. Really? Google informs me that this really is a recognized research effort. There’s even an international society and a research journal. I need to do a bit of research before commenting.
AGREE LORagr_2: We Will Not Colonize Other Planets
“The flat refusal to accept this ranks right up with the certainty that we will ‘colonise other planets’.”
COMMENT
It’s not a certainty that we will not colonize other planets, but it appears to be unlikely. We are creatures of this planet. At the molecular, and probably at the quantum level, our biology is intimately tied to the evolution of life on this planet. Our bodies are ecological systems, not standalone chemical factories.
Aye, you are quite right - I cannot rule out the possibility of interstellar travel. What I can comfortably rule out is the logic that we should be pursuing this *now*. Actually, a half a century of space travel has already taught us the lesson we just don't want to learn: we are adapted to life here on our planet, and we are wildly in-suited to travel through space. But even putting aside the biological, just as a matter of physics this is a flight of fancy. Don't get me wrong, I love science fiction stories about space travel... but I love sword and sorcery stories about magic and dragons. And they're both fantasy.
QUESTION_2 #LORques_2: Imperial technology?
Certainly, there are some human endeavors that in the interest of ensuring species survival must be restrained. Many others can be constrained by social policies. If we separate out the programs that just address humankind’s apparently insatiable curiosity from those aimed at pursuing the establishment of extraterrestrial human civilization, it seems to me there’s not really enough left to be concerned about. On the other hand, the US government spends in the neighborhood of 4% of its budget on R&D. Most of this goes for looking for solutions to practical problems. The numbers are flaky but say a quarter of this goes to pure research like the Webb telescope. I’m all for society spending on pure research, but 1% of 5 trillion is still 50 billion.[1] That’s a lot compared to most social programs. Is this an example of what you call “imperial technology”?
Note:
[1] All quantities are just ballpark estimates given to provide order of magnitudes realistic enough to legitimately raise this question.
Some care is required here - I am not against, say, NASA, and would not normally consider them as part of imperial technocracy as such (except in so much as any government agency is swept into the maelstrom). I do see problems with the weird space they end up in terms of funding and justifications for their funding, and the way it is prioritised. We tend to forget this is a military-adjacent agency because they make a big deal about waving the science flag. I think it apparent that, behind the scenes, the money ploughed into the agency isn't justified by 'for all mankind' arguments...
What I am against, however, is those who take the view 'we've already ruined this planet, so our only hope of survival is to colonise other planets' .This is patently insane, since if we cannot life on this planet - for which we are perfectly adapted - there literally can be no possibility of our survival beyond it.
Thanks for furthering our conversation, Frank!
SEE DIFFERENTLY LORdiff_3: NASA
“We tend to forget this is a military-adjacent agency because they make a big deal about waving the science flag.”
COMMENT
Hi Chris. As usual, your comments are food for thought. It seems to me that we often end up at the same place, but by different routes. It seems that we each have different ways of constructing our worldviews. We also, it seems to me, are doing so using different objective reality “data”.
Does it serve a project of constructing realistic models of objective reality to claim that NASA “is a military-adjacent agency”? I did not request references, but ChatGPT reported: “While there have been instances where NASA has worked in partnership with the military, such as the development of technologies with dual-use applications or collaborations related to national security, these activities are not the primary focus of the agency.” So, on this basis we could claim that NASA was “a military-adjacent agency”, but then the same could be said for most US government departments and agencies, so the assertion doesn’t distinguish NASA.
The use of smoke screens to make parochial interests appear to be aligned with more universal goals is endemic and probably a feature of any semi-democratic civilization. Claiming that money plowed into NASA is justified as a service to all mankind is par for the course. Still, objective reality is necessarily more complex than any of our models, so I think it’s fair to say that some of NASA’s projects serve all of mankind as well as advancing the parochial interests of the US.
AGREE #LORagr_2: Humankind Is Earthbound
“What I am against, however, is those who take the view 'we've already ruined this planet, so our only hope of survival is to colonise other planets'. This is patently insane”
COMMENT
I my view, the belief that homo sapiens can live for any extended period of time outside of Earth’s ecosystem is a dangerous fantasy. This fantasy diverts people from the hard truth that our social development has brought us to the point where we either create a viable global civilization or we annihilate ourselves. Who wants to face this truth? Now that we’ve created technology that can put a couple of humans on our moon for a few hours, let’s ignore the loaded gun we’ve pointed at our heads and image human civilization on other planets.
Hi Frank,
Thanks for these further remarks, and of course I agree with you about 'escape the planet' fantasies.
Regarding NASA, my claim that it is "military-adjacent" should not be controversial, since it's just a matter of history. Project Mercury was supported by the US Army's ballistic missile programme and the Air Force provided the pilots. All the rockets before Saturn V were military, the Atlas, of course, being a nuclear weapon delivery system. Let's also not forget the joint 'memorandum of understanding' signed in 2020 by the US Space Force and NASA. This is what I mean by "military-adjacent". Whatever we make of NASA in and of itself, the US military has always had a highly influential stake in its activities. Let us never forget that the race to the moon was a media battle against the US's then-and-now adversary, USSR/Russia, and that without this element the funding would not have been provided.
I also have a question: what is the fate of the International Space Station now the US has declared proxy war on Russia, and encircled China...? Of all NASAs projects, this is the one that seemed the most hopeful, but now Russia has announced it is quitting next year. Expect to hear much about all the wonderful new international partners being brought in (this is probably good news for India, for instance), and nothing at all about how the uniting vision of the ISS has now failed.
As for whether NASA projects "serve all mankind" in any capacity, I know there are those who believe this, and I imagine many NASA staff believe this, so I acknowledge this as one of the many worlds available here. I do not personally think that any scientific project today "serves all mankind", and view this as a rhetoric that has been used to defend scientific research practices from adequate scrutiny. On this, I will leave you with a quote from Hannah Arendt:
"The simple fact that physicists split the atom without any hesitations the very moment they knew how to do it, although they realized full well the enormous destructive potentialities of their operation, demonstrates that the scientist qua scientist does not even care about the survival of the human race on earth or, for that matters, about the survival of the planet itself."
Note that this does not say that scientists don't care about the human race or our planet. Rather, it says that in their role 'as scientists', this is all peripheral. There is much more I could say here, but this is a good place to leave our discussion today.
Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful contributions! They are greatly appreciated.
SEE DIFFERENTLY #LORdiff_4: Science Serves Mankind?
Chris: I do not personally think that any scientific project today “serves all mankind”.
COMMENT
Hi Chris. Many thanks for the NASA history lesson. I suspect that a full analysis of the budgets for NASA projects would back you up.
For me, a key word in your assertion here is “today”. Something seems presently out of kilter. Did it start with the Manhattan Project? The first human-induced chain reaction at the U of Chicago? Earlier?
For me, another key word in your assertion is “any”. My take is that indeed there are now new areas of scientific inquiry the need to be under stronger social oversight, but certainly not all of science.
SEE DIFFERENTLY #LORdiff_5: Scientist As Boogeyman?
Arendt: “the scientist qua scientist does not even care about the survival of the human race on earth or, for that matter, about the survival of the planet itself."
COMMENT
Arendt has made significant contributions to human knowledge, but this assertion is not one of them.
My view is that science as a human activity seeks to construct and verify useful models of physical reality. As such its fundamental ethic is strictly utilitarian.[1] All human action affects physical reality. Some actions can have disastrous consequences. Science provides guidelines for avoiding or ameliorating such disasters. In my view, scientists are individually driven by curiosity and desire for recognition.
Yes, Arendt does say “qua scientists” but for me the overall thrust of her statement casts scientists as evil. Echoing your interpretation of her statement, every scientist is also a human being. With rare exceptions human beings are concerned about the welfare of other human beings. As a group, the atomic scientists on the Manhattan Project were no exception.
Note
[1] Some societies appear to find value in the efforts of scientists as another expression of human creativity, and as enlarging humankind’s store of knowledge.
AGREE LORagr_1: Robotic Sentience Not Plausible
“there is still no sign that sentient robots are even possible with our kinds of computing techniques - much less plausible.”
COMMENT
Yes, I think this is true. By definition a sentient being must be conscious. In general, those of us who are attempting to construct personal mental models of what is, are reasonably sure that consciousness is a feature of complex physical brains. At the moment we don’t know how this works. When we do have at least some inkling of the physical processes that manifest in consciousness, I suspect that some of these processes will lie in the quantum realm. If that is the case it may not even be theoretically possible to create artificial consciousness.[1] Further, if it is possible, it might be the case that such creations will be inherently unpredictable.[2]
Notes
[1] Since currently we don’t know how consciousness is created, scientists and technicians are actively trying to create artificial consciousness. Ask ChatGPT for a few papers published prior to Sept. 2021.
[2] Isn’t this the case for humans?
Aye, I spent a lot of time pursuing this question of consciousness from this kind of perspective, including exploring the potential role of the quantum dimensional. Now I have reached a different understanding that finds consciousness less mysterious (but no less wonderful). We are still tied to the machine metaphors of the Enlightenment, even though 'information' has become the new key metaphor... if artificial sentience comes about, it will not happen via these paradigms. We can, however, make what I might call 'artificial insects'. Just 400 million years of natural selection remains to be circumvented in order to get to where people expect us to be tomorrow! 🤣
...also, your footnote [2] gave me a good giggle. 😁
Many thanks, as always, for your thoughtful interjections, Frank!
QUESTION #LORques_1: ‘sentient’?
COMMENT
‘Sentient’ appears to be key word in this post. I don’t really understand what it is referring to:
sentient – adjective (dictionary.com) (1) having the power of perception by the senses; conscious, (2) characterized by sensation and consciousness.
sentient – noun (dictionary.com) (1) a person or thing that is sentient
sentience (MW): feeling a sensation as distinguished from perception or thought
sentience (Cambridge): the quality of being able to distinguish feelings
sentience (Encyclopedia of Animal behavior) Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others. … Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others.
Although it appears that many people are confused, ChatGPT is billed as an AI, not an AS (Artificial Sentience). So, is this post about AS, or AI?
An excellent question, Frank! And the truth of the matter is that people mix the two up, and cause a great deal of confusion as a result. You may or may not have noticed this big push in US public discourse recently, calling for AI regulation, and along with this public concerns that AI poses an existential threat to humanity. But AI, being what it is, is no such thing.
People confuse artificial life (or AS, as you say!) for AI. There is a trend to coin the term 'Artificial General Intelligence' to avoid admitting AI isn't as powerful and magical as is assumed while simultaneously promising that the real deal is just moments away... But it's all legerdemain to hide the limitations of something that is never as marvellous as it appears in science fiction stories.
So in answer to your question, this post is about both AI (what we have) and artificial life (which we do not have and possibly never will), and also about our tendency to confuse the two.
Thanks, as always, for your thoughtful commentaries!
Thanks for the clarification. I’ll try to comment on this piece in the light of this comment.