I feel like AI can go in any direction we can and farther. The more data an algorithm has to analyze the more it can narrow down a conclusion. Isn't that the same thing we do? We take the data of our experiences and accessible knowledge and sift through the relevant parts to apply to an idea or situation and act based on the output of that data. As with us, if the parameters are set to process moral or ethical ideologies along the way they are considered or ignored based on priority set within the parameters. Or am I misunderstanding your question?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It looks like we have two different definitions of 'judgment' we are working with.
The ability to
does not constitute 'judgment' (according to my definition). Yes, machines and AI can do that (and do it better than we can). 'Judgment' is (according to my definition), when all that sifting through the data would lead you to decide to do "X" but you choose to do "Y" instead.
Embedded within my definition of judgment is the 'free will' argument. In other words, humans have free will and are able to exercise that free will by going against the data.
My short definition of 'judgment' is the ability to be 'rationally irrational'. I am 'irrational' in the sense that I am going against what the data (or algorithm) would tell me, but I am going against the data not out of some randomness or whimsical nature, but because I sincerely believe it is 'best' to go against the data. I may not even be able to explain 'why' I am going against the data, but I am actively choosing to do so, nonetheless.
There was a time I probably would have agreed with you out of hand, but lately I’ve been questioning free will and if it really even exists and I have landed on anything solid yet.
If one is primed to do something such that it feels wrong not to do it, even if it’s obviously wrong to do it, is there really a choice or is there just a default response?
This is the ultimate question to be grappled with, imho. If there is no free will, then we are all merely machines. And, if we are all merely machines, then the likelihood that other 'machines' (i.e. machine-learning algorithms and AI) overtake the human race is but a matter of time.
Also, if there is no free will, there is no morality -- how can an individual be held responsible for 'bad actions' when he/she had no choice in the matter? How can Thanos be 'evil' for wanting to annihilate half of all the beings in the universe?
Personally, I do not find the "there is no free will" argument compelling; however, I doubt I could ever present an adequate 'proof' that free will exists (other than the notion that our own conception of morality exposes something within ourselves that deeply begs the question -- similar to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" -- I have an innate sense of right and wrong, therefore there must be some reason I have that sense, and a lack of free will would violate that reason).
However, like all things, that sense of right and wrong can become corrupt, can lose its bearings, can end up pointing an individual in the opposite direction. The fact that we possess a moral compass strongly suggests that we are free to choose one direction over another -- even if that compass is subject to various corruptions and/or misalignment or drift.
"If there is no free will, then we are all merely machines. And, if we are all merely machines, then the likelihood that other 'machines' (i.e. machine-learning algorithms and AI) overtake the human race is but a matter of time."
Take a look around :P
"Also, if there is no free will, there is no morality -- how can an individual be held responsible for 'bad actions' when he/she had no choice in the matter? How can Thanos be 'evil' for wanting to annihilate half of all the beings in the universe?"
Morality changes depending on the society one is looking at.
I never really considered Thanos evil... just misguided and lazy.
I know these aren't particularly stimulating well thought out responses, but I'm getting ready for work and a little short on time. My apologies.
I'm not convinced there is or isn't free will,.. I'm just struggling with it. A few years ago I was introduced to the concept that wheat domesticated humanity rather than the other way around and taking that into account with Sagan's theories on genetic drivers and it left me with a lot to sift through, lol. I hope I'll ponder this throughout the day and have a more compelling reply, but I didn't want to get stuck in a loop and just burn out before responding.
I'm sorry it's taken so long to get back to this. I hope the wait hasn't offended you.
Before I go on I'd like to re-iterate that I'm still on the fence on this topic and I'm just playing devil's advocate for the sake of interesting discussion and maybe debate.
I don't think morality is necessary in determining whether or not a threat should be removed. For instance, a wolf snatching a child from a village is a bad actor but morality doesn't factor in. From the wolf's perspective the hunting party that guns it down, either for revenge or simply to remove further threat, would be bad actors. It was only doing what wolves do.
When you say you have an inane sense of right and wrong, do you mean you believe it's something your born with? And do we have a moral compass, per say? Or do we just have a collection of chemical interactions and electrical impulses layered innumerable times and interwoven into what we perceive as such?
There are theories out there that with enough data everything can be predicted, even peoples’ behaviors. The advancement in weather prediction technology seems to support that.
The more data collected across the globe the more predictable the weather becomes. One could posit when the day comes when we’ve seeded the entire stratosphere (or wherever clouds roam) with nanobots we’ll be able to predict months out to the minute.
In closing, however, I’d like to stay on the fence. I came to the conclusion some time ago that there’s a very delicate mix of random and predetermination at play simply because humanity isn’t driving force behind life. The earth itself is a living organism and we’re but one part of it.
I also gravitate toward the idea that we’re more or less a “micro organism” in a recently fertilized embryonic universe and are equivalent to whatever builds the neural network of our own brains in utero. The cycle of life seems pretty consistent to me. I don’t see any reason to doubt it’s the same all the way up. Not to be confused with turtles all the way down, though. 😁
Edit to add: I wonder if the fertilization of a human egg replicates the Big Bang. We know it’s not a case of nothingness to sudden everything, but we have the benefit of an overview. Considering theories on dark matter and other cosmic intellectualism well beyond my comprehension maybe we’re to small to see the nothingness is really something.
No problem with the delay; and no problem with your desire to sit on the fence and to play devil's advocate.
I've also been having some interesting in-person discussions about 'free will' with a group the past few weeks.
This represents the crux of my disagreement with the "AI will rule the world" crowd. My take on human intelligence is that humans are unique in our ability to willingly go against the aforementioned 'prediction algorithm' (if it were to ever become a reality). In other words, I am saying that humans have the unique ability to go against what all the neurons, synapses, circumstances, etc. would predict, and that we have the ability to do that rationally (which can sometimes be conscious, but can also be subconscious).
I cannot prove my position and I do not think the alternative can be proved either -- it is merely what makes 'sense' to me as I try to formulate a holistic view of the world.
My point about the 'moral compass' is that we each have one and that reality, imho, points toward the existence of free will and thus the ability to go against the prediction model. This follows some of the arguments laid out by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. It's been a while since I've read that book, but it gives some thought-provoking philosophical arguments in support of a Divine Creator who has given us that moral compass.
My assertion is that, without free will, everything is meaningless. And, if everything is meaningless, why bother with anything and why take on any responsibilities -- eat, drink, and be merry, for what else is there. To me, that would make fence-sitting an unenviable position -- unable to benefit from either perspective, caught in the middle.
I am curious as to why you find fence-sitting desirable.
"My assertion is that, without free will, everything is meaningless. And, if everything is meaningless, why bother with anything[...]
Without free will everything would be meaningless to us, but I'm not sure that would have a significant impact on life in it's entirety. Therefore, life might, as a matter of it being the only thing that works, require us to evolve into thinking we have free will, without ever really being in the driver's seat, so to speak. Looking at faithful fanatics we can see that once our minds decide something we're capable of closing our eyes to everything that doesn't align with what we want to believe. I don't see any reason why this can't happen on a subconscious level without us even being aware that we're choosing an illusion.
Regarding fence-sitting... I wouldn't say it's desirable so much as necessary for me, personally, to get a more comprehensive view of as many sides as possible, but I don't feel caught in the middle. I feel like I have options. :)
I can wake up tomorrow a slave to a tyrannical god or a god in my own right. Or neither at all. Who knows how it all really works?
Sounds like a reasonable 'truth-seeking' position to take. Personally, even though I find myself solidly on the 'free will' side of the fence, I strongly prefer truth to illusion, deception, or whatever the alternative might be. That is why I welcome constructive discourse with other genuine truth-seekers.