Does AI have a Since of Conscious?

 

Most of us are familiar with 2001, a Space Odessey, but we may not realize how many other films have also involved Androids who became a character in the film.  Those movies are fiction, but as AI computer systems show the ability to perform processes associated with the human mind, some people are asking whether we may be risking too much if we are not careful.

Consider the things we know that AI can do.  They have been programmed to drive cars.  They can recognize faces.  They can compose music, and those are the least of things.   Are we creating something that may be able to act on its own to become human like.  Experts disagree.

One theory argues that because consciousness is grounded in biology and synthetic systems are not composed in that manner, they cannot have the ability to experience consciousness.  In disagreement, another argues that biological brains are not necessary for consciousness.  A third argument is that since we don't know what makes us conscious, how can we know what AI needs to achieve consciousness.  

Since even some of the most intelligent people in the world either cannot reach a conclusion or cannot agree about these issues, I am very far out of my league.  However, I can share some of my research.

Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrom, who studies "existential risk" believes that artificial intelligence might be the most apocalyptic technology of all, with intellectual powers beyond human comprehension.  We humans could be enslaved or destroyed, if they wished.  Yet, he believes we could enslave them.

Ray Kurzweil, director of engineering at Google, has long believed that AI will bring about a technological revolution after which human existence will be so transformed as to be unrecognizable.  Instead of viewing that as frightening, he believes AI is a panacea for human problems.

In 1957 future Nobel laureate Herbert A. Somun declared that the age of intelligent machines had already dawned.  He collaborated with RAND researcher Allen Newell, and although their efforts may seem silly today, they were pioneers.  Their failure resulted in eliminating the continuation of going down the wrong path.  Those that followed learned a great deal about what did not work.

Elon Musk described A-1 enhanced technologies as "summoning the demon," and technologies may still be extremely dangerous, primarily because it has the potential for amplifying human stupidity.  As Edward Moore Geist concluded in his 2015 article, from which I have shared some of the forgoing information, "Nor does artificial intelligence need to be smarter than humans to threaten our survival--all it needs to do is make the technologies behind familiar 20th-century existential threats faster, cheaper, and more deadly."

How many of us pause to reflect on what is happening, and even if we do, what can or should be done about it?  For our entire lives we have lived with change, with little pausing to question their use.  We have accepted the loss of privacy in exchange for conveniences that came with it.  Today, who is the watchdog?

    

     

Advice from Alvin Toffler, with comments from me

 The illiterate of the 21st Century

will not be those who cannot read & write, but those who

cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.

Last week's blog focused on the impact of AI on authors and writers, but the issue involves everyone.  The quote above is from futurist Alvin Toffler, 1928-2016), whose wife Heidi also deserves crediting.  They wrote prolifically, but probably most well-known are Future Shock, 1970, The Third Wave, 1980, and Power Shift, 1990. His influence during his life has been acknowledged by individuals such as Ted Turner, Mikhail Gorbachev. George H. W. Bush, Margaret Thatcher, and Carl Sagan.   

In addition, his ideas have had significant influence in education.  It was Toffler's opinion that school should focus on "students' critical thinking skills, creativity, and adaptability to change."  (StudentsMirrowblog@gamil.com.)  In other words, students must learn how to learn so that they can solve problems in our rapidly evolving world.  

Alvin Toffler

Reflecting on last week's blog about writers, I worry that as AI begins to replace humans in some roles, are we going to be flexible and adaptive enough to stay ahead of AI?  Today's generation of children are clever enough to utilize AI, but are they keeping up with their own skills of creativity and critical thinking?  Just because they are better able to navigate their computers and phones, does that mean they have the wisdom and knowledge to fulfill the three requirements Toffler named--critical thinking, creativity, and adaptability to change?  

Our computers are essential, and most kids are more proficient with them than are their parents and grandparents.  But is that a measure of Toffler's big three?  His big three doesn't include the ability to interact with others.  In doing my research for this blog I found a blog from 2016, by BBC News Washington writer Courtney Subramani.  It delt with the question of whether Toffler's idea that the wave of information and data might spark social isolation.  One of her interview subjects said, No, "We are not isolated by it.  And when the information overloads us, most people are still wise enough to use the power key of the off button to gain some peace."  Since that response from 2016, I believe that we have learned otherwise, with the lack of will to hit the off button as often as we should.  

I believe we have seen a downturn in socialization, exacerbated by Covid, that has actually done what was predicted regarding social isolation.  I recently blogged about what I called 'careful speech' in which we avoid opening conversations in which conflicting ideas might emerge.  We text instead of calling friends, or we simply stay in touch on face book. My husband still has phone conversations with friends, but I admit that I rarely do.

Toffler was right to urge 'learning, unlearning, and relearning, but I believe there must also be the firm foundation of knowledge and history upon which to build for a stable future.  And, I also believe we should resume friendly conversations with those with whom we may not always agree.  Maybe if ordinary people resumed sharing ideas, our politicians might learn the value of exchanging ideas too.

Will AI and GPT Make Writers Obsolete?

Is GPT Scarier than any of Edgar Allen Poe's Stories? 

 Recently, I have blogged about my concern for the impact of AI.  Until the recent edition of "The Authors Guild Bulletin" I had overlooked the impact of AI on professional writers, but Professional writers in Hollywood are already aware of the impact on their livelihoods and have joined other strikers to seek protection from being replaced by AI.  

Recently, the Executive Director of the Authors Guild interviewed the founder of a company providing GPT for writers.  After reading this blog, you may want to google GPT to find a more detailed description; however, my simple explanation is that GPT is an artificial intelligence that can process our natural human language and generate a response.  What is significant about GPT for authors is whether the art of writing will eventually displace the need for authors.  The striking writers in Hollywood have already recognized the threat.

However, some authors see AI positively, using it as an aid rather than a threat.  For example, Al can assist with word selection or composing a description.  GPT can provide ideas in each of the five senses.  I sometimes use my dog-eared 'Roget's Thesaurus. to find the exact word I want, so GPT could help in that way, but it goes a lot further than just finding the best word.  It can also help a writer create characters and outline story structures.  The more I read, the more I could imagine a future in which  authors become nearly unnecessary, reduced to prompters.  

The man being interviewed used the calculator as an example of how something new may seem disruptive of tradition and norms, but once implemented becomes quickly accepted.  Children may still learn the multiplication tables, he explained, but with calculators on smart phones, few of us rely on our grade school memory to do calculations.  

Another example is the impact of cell phone cameras.  Professional photographers have not disappeared entirely, but most people are satisfied with their cell phone cameras, and taking snapshots and waiting for them to be developed to put into photo albums is uncommon.  

Near the end of the interview, the Guild interviewer asked whether he thought writers would become nearly extinct.  He answered that he believed there would always be a professional class of creators.  However, he predicts that as GPT is programed by having been feed the words of the world's greatest writers, the role of human authors will become more a matter of "training" GPT.  

As I write this blog, spell-check is warning me when I misspell words. That is a predecessor to loading massive collections of writings to educate or train the GPT to do what it does.  

With some writers already using GPT to help create characters and to help structure settings and describe scenes, the technology is racing ahead of the law, neglecting the issue of copyright and some kind of compensation to writers for the material with which they "train" the GPT.  Should it be forbidden for GPT to use copyrighted material?  Has that already happened?   Are writers who have begun using GPT helping to make themselves obsolete?  These questions are what the Hollywood writers have already recognized.

From the Interview, it appears that most of the GPT is currently used for fiction, especially science fiction and short stories.  However, the man being interviewed acknowledged that AI has proceeded without determining whether or not their actions exceed 'fair use.'  He admitted that from a pure ethical standpoint, authors should be compensated for using their work.  The interviewer agreed, asking how can the work of those writers, whose books and other material have already been used for training, be compensated?  Should authors have the right to refuse to allow their work to be used?  How long should copywrite protect authors?  As the old saying goes, 'Is it too late to shut the barn door once the horses are out?'  Perhaps those strikers in Hollywood are trying to round up the horses!

The man suggested that some kind of an automated collective licensing system should be developed to compensate authors, with some legislation licensing solution to get compensation back to the creators of the words already being downloaded.  Just how to make that happen hasn't been figured out.

Are our brilliant minds dashing forward, ignoring ethical issues and consequences?  Is it possible that this is not only a question of fair dealing but also a risk of using human intelligence so carelessly that we are making ourselves obsolete? ( P.S.  I had already written this blog before the strike, but I am glad to have it ready, with a few additions regarding the strike, to share this information that may help explain why the Hollywood writers are concerned. )

Books, Movies, and Artificial Intelligence--Just a difference of Technology?

     

A dress and hat the Lost Lady might have worn.

    Those of you who have followed this blog know that I love the writing of Willa Cather, and that we often enjoy attending the Cather Conferences in Red Cloud, Nebraska.  This year, the book chosen to be explored was A Lost Lady, published by Alfred A. Knopf.  Knopf sold the film rights to A Lost Lady to Warner Brothers, and Cather was so dismayed by the film version that she resolved never to permit a screen adaptation of her work in the future.  

     As with many of her books, names of towns and people are changed, but the identities of people and locations are often identifiable, and that is particularly true in the case of A Lost Lady.  This past week, several speakers explored Cather's use of actual people in this particular book.  Were there reasons for the family to have been offended?  Was the identity obvious, despite changed names and other variations?

    This week's blog ponders the question of privacy.  Did Willa Cather invade the privacy of the people she used as inspiration for her characters, and did it matter that she waited until after their deaths to 'borrow' their lives?

    One speaker at the Conference observed that all writers of fiction rely on creating their characters from individuals they have met throughout their lives.  Most writers are good observers, catching expressions and mannerisms and countless other details with which they construct imaginary people for their stories.  When does that 'borrowing' go too far?

    In the case of A Lost Lady, Cather altered appearances, professions, and names, but she used descriptions of their home, their travel habits, and their uniqueness in that community which made it easier to associate those details with the couple.  Today, countless Cather scholars and fans like me have learned the identities of the real people Cather used in her books.

    Lately, I have blogged about AI and the ability to impose the features of real people to make it appear that they did or said things that they never did or said.  Was what Willa Cather did a century ago an early example of that, just done without the technology?    

    Will it matter if movies are made using the images of long-dead movie stars from the past as characters?  Should their descendants receive payment for using the images.  Should anyone have the right to object on behalf of the dead movie star if AI is used to impose nudity or vulgar language or to express opinions the person would never have held?  

    It seems ironic that Cather was so offended by the changes to her book in the film that followed that she refused to allow her other books to be made into movies, since she had altered the lives of real people to create characters in her novels. 

    The possible uses of AI have concerned me, as the questions raised in some of my earlier blogs have shown.  Was Cather's use of adapting real people's lives in her fiction  a forerunner without the technology to what is happening now?  Can it be stopped, and should it be?  Or is AI just a technical advancement of something we long ago accepted?

Is AI a tool or a threat?

Is Artificial Intelligence a positive tool or a threat to humanity?

Medical Challenges of Covid,   Art by Lyn Fenwick

The pandemic was what awakened us to the potential of AI.  If you are curious, I recommend that you visit https://financesonline.com/ai-trends/ to learn more.  That article explains how AI can "spot anomalies early enough to give them time to dynamically respond to the threats."  Having recognized the threats, AI can move more quickly to create simulation modeling, workforce planning, and demand projection.  

Using AI to confront covid showed us the importance of quick responses and constant oversight, and having seen the value of AI, its development and use has advanced rapidly.  The question is, while we are smart enough to have made rapid advancements in AI technology, are we wise enough to establish ethical guardrails to avoid the abuses AI can accomplish?

Challenges on our Planet & in Deep Space

Google has announced a new computing device capable of doing in 3 minutes and 20 seconds what current supercomputers could not complete in under 10,000 years.  I cannot even wrap my mind around that capability.  

I struggle with blocking robocalls on my phone, and I am struggling with learning how to do the same things I did efficiently on my old computer on my new computer which has, so far, intimidated me.  I respect the fact that younger minds can deal more easily with the current computer world than I can, but are they wise enough to remain smarter than the computers they create?

We already know about the threat of spying on us through face book and the websites we visit, the ability to deceive us with altered images, the use of computers to draft essays assigned by teachers rather than doing the research and writing yourself, and the loss of personal skills once valued, like creating art, poetry, music, and cursive penmanship, relegating those skills to computers.   Are we willing to abandon too many of the things that define humanity, the ethical judgements, the wisdom of generations, the refinement of beauty in art and music, the very exercise of intelligence that allowed us to create these computers?  

Or, is this just a generational thing that parents and grandparents for centuries have viewed with skepticism and worry about the natural evolution of new thinking and the opportunities of technology?  I don't know.  But, I do know that the younger generation must be smarter than our generation has been because they are going to be responsible for far more dangerous decisions than past generations faced.  

So, you want to be an Artist.

From the time I was a little girl I wanted to learn to draw.  None of the schools I attended had an art program.  In the 3rd and 4th grade we cut out shapes for the season--pumpkins for Halloween, Trees for Christmas, Bunnies for Easter.  The windows in our classroom were divided, and each of our seasonal shapes filled one window.  

I never really gave up on the idea of learning to draw, and on my own I learned a little.  I also volunteered as a docent for an urban museum and learned a great deal from the training I received.  I joined art organizations and learned more.  I even took a few classes.  I bought books and visited museums.  I didn't give up. 

Portrait from a photograph:  Lyn Fenwick

How silly of me.  Recently I was watching television and learned about AI used to create art with Artificial Intelligence.  What does that mean?  It is the simulation of human intelligence using computers.   Computers can be trained to think and act in the same way humans can.

These computers can learn, and the more it learns the better the output it can produce.  If the computer has thousands of specific descriptions or images you have put into it, the more specific the result of what it can produce will be.  

So, if you tell the computer you want a "picture of a little girl at the zoo" that is one level of description, but it you tell the computer you want a "picture of a little girl about 8 years old with blue eyes, freckles, and red hair pulled back into a pony tail, leaning on the wooden railing of the elephant pen," you are going to get a portrait much closer to the little girl you wanted to create, assuming you have "taught" the computer by entering all the information it needs to complete your description of the girl.

Copyright:  Lyn Fenwick

The question remains, are you an artist?  Did you create the picture of the little girl?

Another question might be, does it make any difference how it was created if the end result is a satisfactory portrait of the little girl you set out to draw?

But, perhaps the next question should be will you experience the same satisfaction by creating the portrait with AI as you would have by using your own hands and shaping and coloring to complete the image?  Is there something missing in an AI portrait that can't be exactly explained but has failed to capture the indescribable spark that art requires?

Is going for a drive in the country the same if your hands are not on the wheel?   Is the pride of training and practicing and sacrificing to improve as rewarding if everyone who entered the race gets a trophy? 

We human beings should be asking these questions.