I won’t lie, I take some issues with this one. So let me gather my thoughts for a bit…
I think you are right that AI won’t take all the jobs. That being said, sometimes I can’t help but feel that we have lost/are losing something because of AI or automations in general.
But my biggest issue is with the idea that AI can do what the human mind can. I think you’re overselling AI a bit (and underselling the human mind), to be honest.
Now I’m going to get into metaphysics here so bear with me.
I think the issue is that people nowadays conflate the “brain” with the “mind” (by that, I mean just about everyone does it so I’m not picking on you). But the brain isn’t your mind, it’s simply a tool that our mind uses.
In terms of “AI creations”, I’m a little conflicted myself. I admit that I use AI generated images for my works because I can’t draw to save my life and I don’t have the money to hire artists willy-nilly. But AI Art isn’t a substitute for real artists. Real artists bring something to the table that computers don’t.
As someone who write fiction (and analyze them), I think there’s more to human creativity than simply taking what’s there and mashing them together. In fact, one of the biggest insults you can throw at a creative is to say that his work is a “rip-off”.
Sure, artists take inspiration from various places, but a good artist is able to make his own vision based on his inspirations. It’s the crappy artists who ended up making things that are nothing more than regurgitations of what’s already there. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we see the rise of “AI Art” and “AI Stories” now that Hollywood had been producing nothing but rehashes, remakes, and general shlock.
Finally, the AI can’t do what the human mind can: make decisions. This might sound strange, but I don’t believe that AI really exists. By that I mean that the term itself a misnomer because it’s not really intelligence. It’s simply a tool that people use that’s been programmed beforehand.
For example, take a look at ChatGPT. First of all, it’s basically a more sophisticated Google Search. But it’s also been manipulated by their programmers to be politically biased.
As I said before, AI can’t make decisions, they can only do what’s been programmed beforehand. Meanwhile, human beings make decisions based on their moral values.
I’ll say no more because this comment is already long enough as it is. Enjoy my rant, lol. I’m looking forward to seeing the next part.
With regards to jobs - I absolutely agree, there is definitely something that has been lost/is currently being lost with regards to human labor due to AI and automation, which is what I am currently writing on with much effort but also confusion haha. It's a tricky one.
With regards to AI and creativity and all the metaphysics that comes with it, it is an issue that has been discussed for decades by philosophers and neuroscientists, so I suspect we will not be able to solve this one on Substack anytime soon haha, but here are my overall thoughts.
It comes down to two school of thoughts: One believes that the mind (or we can also say consciousness) is purely an emergent property of the physical brain. It is 100% the byproduct of biochemical processes within the brain and nothing more. Thus, proponents of this perspective absolutely believe that artificial general intelligence (AGI) is possible. Creativity, decision making, and anything that the human mind can do is programmable once we understand the human brain well enough. There is nothing 'magical' about the human mind or consciousness that is someone 'not attached' to the biochemistry and neural networks of the physical brain. I guess this is the view I was taking when I say that there is nothing meaningfully different between very powerful AI (eventually AGI) and the human brain. In this sense, yes, the mind and the brain is the same thing, or at least the mind is the direct byproduct of the brain, nothing more nothing less. I hope I don't sound like an evil robot here.
The other school of thought (which is where I suspect you stand on) believes that consciousness is independent from the brain, and that there is something unique about it that is outside/not emergant from the physical processes of the brain. The philosopher David Chalmers has interesting theories on this one. I probably should not elaborate more on this school of thought because I do not find it convincing; or maybe I'm just confused about it..? That's also possible. Anything is possible when we're discussing interesting and difficult subjects.
I'm not a materialist (in both sense of the word, but in this context I mean philosophically) so I definitely reject the first school of thought. Personally, I see the idea of a super-advanced AI that will "think" like a human is more science fiction than anything (and I consider myself an expert in science fiction).
Also, I find it odd the claim that we'll be able to program the human mind once we understand the brain enough. But how can one possibly know that when by his own admission, we don't know enough about the human brain (nor the mind)?
I see you just posted the next part. Gonna have to make time to read that one.
Well at least we have a common ground: I am not a materialist in the typical sense of the word either;
but I’m definitely a materialist and a determenist in the philosophical sense of the word.
Next time you’re in Indo or I’m in the States we should discuss this interesting subjecf further, it definitely deserves more nuanced conversation rather than through substack comments.
As a predominantly non-fiction reader, I’m looking forward to more of your writtings on the Indonesian and American Substack!
I won’t lie, I take some issues with this one. So let me gather my thoughts for a bit…
I think you are right that AI won’t take all the jobs. That being said, sometimes I can’t help but feel that we have lost/are losing something because of AI or automations in general.
But my biggest issue is with the idea that AI can do what the human mind can. I think you’re overselling AI a bit (and underselling the human mind), to be honest.
Now I’m going to get into metaphysics here so bear with me.
I think the issue is that people nowadays conflate the “brain” with the “mind” (by that, I mean just about everyone does it so I’m not picking on you). But the brain isn’t your mind, it’s simply a tool that our mind uses.
In terms of “AI creations”, I’m a little conflicted myself. I admit that I use AI generated images for my works because I can’t draw to save my life and I don’t have the money to hire artists willy-nilly. But AI Art isn’t a substitute for real artists. Real artists bring something to the table that computers don’t.
As someone who write fiction (and analyze them), I think there’s more to human creativity than simply taking what’s there and mashing them together. In fact, one of the biggest insults you can throw at a creative is to say that his work is a “rip-off”.
Sure, artists take inspiration from various places, but a good artist is able to make his own vision based on his inspirations. It’s the crappy artists who ended up making things that are nothing more than regurgitations of what’s already there. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that we see the rise of “AI Art” and “AI Stories” now that Hollywood had been producing nothing but rehashes, remakes, and general shlock.
Finally, the AI can’t do what the human mind can: make decisions. This might sound strange, but I don’t believe that AI really exists. By that I mean that the term itself a misnomer because it’s not really intelligence. It’s simply a tool that people use that’s been programmed beforehand.
For example, take a look at ChatGPT. First of all, it’s basically a more sophisticated Google Search. But it’s also been manipulated by their programmers to be politically biased.
As I said before, AI can’t make decisions, they can only do what’s been programmed beforehand. Meanwhile, human beings make decisions based on their moral values.
I’ll say no more because this comment is already long enough as it is. Enjoy my rant, lol. I’m looking forward to seeing the next part.
Hi Michael,
Thanks for the comment.
With regards to jobs - I absolutely agree, there is definitely something that has been lost/is currently being lost with regards to human labor due to AI and automation, which is what I am currently writing on with much effort but also confusion haha. It's a tricky one.
With regards to AI and creativity and all the metaphysics that comes with it, it is an issue that has been discussed for decades by philosophers and neuroscientists, so I suspect we will not be able to solve this one on Substack anytime soon haha, but here are my overall thoughts.
It comes down to two school of thoughts: One believes that the mind (or we can also say consciousness) is purely an emergent property of the physical brain. It is 100% the byproduct of biochemical processes within the brain and nothing more. Thus, proponents of this perspective absolutely believe that artificial general intelligence (AGI) is possible. Creativity, decision making, and anything that the human mind can do is programmable once we understand the human brain well enough. There is nothing 'magical' about the human mind or consciousness that is someone 'not attached' to the biochemistry and neural networks of the physical brain. I guess this is the view I was taking when I say that there is nothing meaningfully different between very powerful AI (eventually AGI) and the human brain. In this sense, yes, the mind and the brain is the same thing, or at least the mind is the direct byproduct of the brain, nothing more nothing less. I hope I don't sound like an evil robot here.
The other school of thought (which is where I suspect you stand on) believes that consciousness is independent from the brain, and that there is something unique about it that is outside/not emergant from the physical processes of the brain. The philosopher David Chalmers has interesting theories on this one. I probably should not elaborate more on this school of thought because I do not find it convincing; or maybe I'm just confused about it..? That's also possible. Anything is possible when we're discussing interesting and difficult subjects.
Cheers!
Hi Alvin,
I'm not a materialist (in both sense of the word, but in this context I mean philosophically) so I definitely reject the first school of thought. Personally, I see the idea of a super-advanced AI that will "think" like a human is more science fiction than anything (and I consider myself an expert in science fiction).
Also, I find it odd the claim that we'll be able to program the human mind once we understand the brain enough. But how can one possibly know that when by his own admission, we don't know enough about the human brain (nor the mind)?
I see you just posted the next part. Gonna have to make time to read that one.
-Michael
Hi Michael,
Well at least we have a common ground: I am not a materialist in the typical sense of the word either;
but I’m definitely a materialist and a determenist in the philosophical sense of the word.
Next time you’re in Indo or I’m in the States we should discuss this interesting subjecf further, it definitely deserves more nuanced conversation rather than through substack comments.
As a predominantly non-fiction reader, I’m looking forward to more of your writtings on the Indonesian and American Substack!