ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: SOME PROBLEMS!

On discussions about AI, People fear that one day machines will be able to think like humans. I have a different concern. I have also mentioned this in passing when talking to my friends. I want to know, First of all, let us start with some fundamentals,

1. Why Human intelligence is so objectively traceable? Is not this a machine like feature of humans themselves? 

2. Are not the development of AI shows the hidden human fantasy of objectification of other humans? Like if you could not objectify other humans, then you tried subjectify-ing objects? This deep-seated desire of humans to remove all unpredictability and all uncertainty in human behavior? Is not it in the basis of AI? 

3. Can we trace how much artificial intelligence exists in man of this age? Like what is that which can be copied and studied to make an AI work like humans? 

I will put some opinions based on my understanding of AI, which is quite limited, but I think I know a great deal about natural intelligence and human behavior. So, maybe we can give it a shot. 

The problem of human civilization since its beginning can be seen from a vantage point that I am proposing. It is not like I am reducing all human problems to one problem. But I have just given one point of view of understanding this. Like, the problem of human civilization is the conflicts between individuals and collective, collectives and collectives and so on. The same Idea which was acceptable to the collective, becomes unacceptable to an individual or a whole group, and then begins a series of conflicts which take generations to solve. Sometimes it gets solved superficially and we realize that it has given rise to or has made the problem deeper rooted. 

The nature of acceptance is paradoxical. Is the collective, which is accepting a certain problem as ok, is it doing justice to the whole collective? But then Dissent also does not solve the problem, it raises it, and then the problem keeps surfacing and gets linked to individual ego and it never gets solved. 

Then, Acceptance of dissent leads to a negative space where no solution comes up. Acceptance without dissent is ignorance, Acceptance with dissent is just conflict. Is there an end solution which is both acceptable and dissent free? Seems not. 

One might argue that this is the nature of Humans, change. Human civilization grows like this only, through a dialectical to and fro between Acceptance and dissent. But have we solved anything till now? And if not, is it fitting to say that we have grown? What is growth of human civilization? Scientific knowledge? Philosophical tradition? Spiritual growth? What else? I believe Human civilization should rethink its modus operandi for growth, if there is any possible. 

Change has to come through this process that is sure, for is this change for the better is the question. 

Now, if we come back to AI. I think this pattern of humans is artificial. Humans have mimicked it from nature artificially. There are two cores in human psyche through which we can act. One, natural, which is itself given by nature. Like, we are given feet. Walk. But now if you somehow stole the knowledge of flight, or decoded it, that is Artificial knowledge in my opinion. 

The modus operandi of conflict resolution through dialectics of acceptance and dissent is nature's mimicking at its best. Nature progresses through these cycles of conflict and acceptance. A habitat grows, One Lion dissents, either the conflict will be resolved by Lion's acceptance of defeat or other lion's acceptance of him as the leader of the pack. In nature, nothing remains pending. They resolve it quickly through acceptance of one or other after a thorough dissent. 

To say whether nature has given this resolution mechanism to Humans, or it is artificially learnt as mimicry is debatable. It seems like nature is coherent and Like lions, Humans have also been programmed by nature like that. But I think we can verify this on human behavior that this conflict resolution mechanism that we have in the political structure was not there when we were hunters and gatherers. 

So, now if we say that the political structure, this way of resolution mechanism is not natural but artificially learnt, that is, it can be encoded into an algorithm, why is it a shock that humans are now able to encode it in a language only machines can understand and hence created artificial humans? 

On objectification, Sartre has written extensively. We, humans have a habit of finding stability and security which is far more than any animal. It is not like it is not found in animals. Beavers make dams, Ants collect food all the time, they want stability and security, but this extensive need for all time carefreeness is a human specialty. if we see since beginning, we have tried to remove all impediments from our path towards security. 

Even when dealing with ourselves, we have made constructs of sanity, behavior, and conduct to avoid any discomfort. In relationships, which I like to call 'Relationshops', we are constantly searching something that I call, "Porn with a story". Let me expand on that. 

Like, what is "Porn with a story?" Porn is precisely sex without subjectivity. Pure objects, vagina, and curves, boobs, and stuff placed under right lights and so on. A story creates an artificial subjectivity which helps further in stimulation. Human beings search for subjects, that is other humans, and now want from them a continuous behavior, a sort of feature that only objects are demanded of. We want that other person should be in love 24x7. We want sex 24x7. We want that today if someone is interested in us, they remain so and show no deviation from that behavior. They should show loyalty of a dog and may I say, sex appetite of a prostitute. This human desire to make every other human an object makes a relationship, a relationshop. 

Jaun Elia's couplet, 

गाहे गाहे बस अब यही हो क्या
तुम से मिल कर बहुत ख़ुशी हो क्या

Or it means, should always this happen, that I should be happy to meet you, then only am I worthy of love? 

Jaun's question is not to his muse, his lover, but to the whole human civilization? He is asking for his right to be unpredictable. Am I allowed to be subjective? Am I allowed to not fit in boxes made?

People will say, of course. But then you lose perks. You lose people. You lose benefits. This kind of a hidden reward-punishment mechanism is in place which in a way, punishes change in behavior patterns and rewards objectivity. Why am I rewarded for behaving like an object? 

Jaun's questions are valid. So, is mine. Jaun writes, 

Yahi Rishton ka Kaar-Khana hai, 

Ek machine aur uske pass machine. 

Or, to paraphrase, this is the ultimate factory of relationships, we can all it relationshops, One machine and beside it, another. 

I think, it is high time humans should realize that they only way to save themselves or distinguish themselves from AI is to find something within them that cannot be artificially learnt. Something that even they did not learn artificially but is given through nature. Only then can humans say that we still are different from Machines. 

So, in a sense, I conclude, that it is not like AI is like humans. I like; Humans have behaved like AIs for centuries now. It is time to stop.