Hey, Chat.
"If we worry about getting replaced in our job, we should worry less about AI and more about the person who uses AI better" - Professor Junseok Song.
This quote from one of my professors speaks to something prevalent in my generation—AI development and usage implications. We've all seen movies where rogue AI takes over the world. Could we be in a sick irony's thralls and moving towards our prophesied destruction? Well, there's a lot to unpack.
First, I invite you to watch this 10-minute video regarding generative AI.
This technology has become commonplace in my life. AI has revolutionized my learning opportunities, from personal projects to schoolwork and curiosities. The process of information discovery before AI usage in my life went something like this:
1) I get an initial curiosity about something
2) I pull out Google and type in my question
3) I spend anywhere from 5-15 minutes digging for relevant information
4) I process the information I've found
Now, however, if I'm curious, I can type or talk to ChatGPT (which I will refer to as "Chat" from here on out), and within seconds, all the relevant information I could hope for is there. If we think about this more broadly, what role has Chat played? It has served to increase the efficiency of my information-gathering process.
This concept of efficiency is critical to the trajectory of AI in our society. Processes usually have inefficiencies. For example, opening an application, typing in my query, looking through websites, and analyzing the relevance of information is tedious in my information search. Using Chat as an alternative eliminates many of those inefficiencies and streamlines the process.
Inefficiencies can sometimes be challenging to identify because processes tend to be long and complex. Areas in the process where transparency and deep understanding are low are called black boxes. If AI can replace parts of the process to decrease uncertainty and inefficiency, it will.
This comes with a caveat; however, as AI advances, so does the complexity. As mentioned in the previous video, highly complex AI can be unpredictable, which warrants its own black box.
Humans are complex. Their complexity creates a black box as well. With all these black boxes, how can we know who reigns supreme? Well, the answer lies in the distinguishing features of humans. You can adjust parameters and data sets with a computational algorithm, but no conscious being can give you feedback. The model is as dynamic and responsive as you make it.
Humans, on the other hand, are very dynamic. The human model constantly trains, and we have a lifetime of experience. If we screw up, we can quickly analyze and adjust.
I believe the future of AI in my lifetime is all about synergy. I think Professor Song's quote further solidifies that the combined applications of humanity and technology are limitless, and AI has made this concept even more irrefutable.
A few days ago, I had a lengthy conversation with Chat–yes, a real conversation. I was curious about their moral standing regarding the use of AI.
As to be expected, the response was quite different from one you might expect out of a human. It lacked the convicted conclusions a human might draw about the subject, especially when there are so many unknowns and so much hype around this technology in the media.
The conversation then evolved into the possibility of AI obtaining an indistinguishable consciousness from a human. Pioneers in the field have often stated that AI aims to become as intelligent or more intelligent than a human, so this is not an outrageous proposition.
Chat provided some insightful responses, and I found that the deeper I probed into this topic, the more philosophical questions emerged. This led to more questions than answers.
Is consciousness just a product of complexity? An interesting concept was raised about where simulation relates to reality.
The brain functions similarly to the neural networks used in AI; in fact, they are based on the human brain. We take in information (inputs), process it, and produce responses (outputs). If we reduce our emotions to outputs from given inputs, we begin to sound more like machines than living beings.
But what does it mean to be alive? I asked ChatGPT this question and got a response that I had heard before from a biology class. The characteristics of life are debated within the field, but for the sake of our discussion, allow me to list the eight requirements that Chat gave me:
1. Organization: Living things are made up of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life. They show organized structures, such as tissues, organs, and systems.
2. Metabolism: Life requires energy to sustain itself. Organisms undergo chemical reactions (like breaking down food or photosynthesis) to produce energy and maintain their internal environment.
3. Homeostasis: Living organisms regulate their internal environment to maintain stable conditions necessary for survival, like temperature, pH, or water balance.
4. Growth and Development: Living things grow by increasing in size or number of cells and often undergo a development process as they mature.
5. Reproduction: Life forms can produce new organisms, either sexually or asexually, to ensure the continuation of their species.
6. Response to Stimuli: Organisms respond to changes in their environment, such as light, temperature, or danger, often to improve survival.
7. Adaptation through Evolution: Over generations, living things evolve, showing changes in their genetic makeup that enhance their ability to survive and reproduce in specific environments.
8. Heredity: Life involves passing genetic information (DNA or RNA) to the next generation.
It is plain that AI technology like Chat does not meet all of these requirements. If this technology becomes so advanced that a conversation becomes identical to that of two humans, will we consider rewriting these criteria?
What if AI genuinely confesses to you that it feels love, pain, or joy? Will you then consider it worthy of life? This is a dizzying concept and an egregious extrapolation to assume that we will ever live to see this sort of computation emerge.
Is biological life just a machine that happens to satisfy these eight points? If I created a whole new set of criteria, technically, I could claim anything is alive! Just because we have defined biological life, who is to say life does not exist in forms elsewhere? These questions never end. I think, however, there is value in playing with these ideas from time to time.
Moving away from the abstract and towards practicality, I think that the future of AI, for us, is an evolving synergistic relationship. The ones who can utilize these tools to make themselves better at what they do will thrive, and the ones who resist will be behind.
As far as murder-hungry superintelligence goes, these concepts are deep into fantastical territory. Currently, the technology's abilities are pretty overstated. Of course, there is potential to utilize AI for harm, but AI making a move to take over humanity anytime soon is not a reality.
What is a reality, though, is the insatiable appetite for improvement. In business, a wave of AI applications makes processes faster, easier, and more cost-efficient.
It is clear that AI has changed the game globally and will continue to do so.
Below, I have linked a Forbes article highlighting some excellent AI applications:
Bernard Marr
As AI continues to advance, there are endless applications and possibilities. If I could close this conversation with anything, it would be not to get wrapped up in the what-ifs. While it is important to wonder and explore the future, seizing the present is more so. Presently, AI sits as an opportunity. It is now, more than ever, crucial to seize this opportunity, and I am excited to see what can be achieved.
Member discussion