Insightful and so timely to our transition into AI-impacted culture. I'm just starting my doctoral research into this topic and, after nearly two decades in bodywork, it's an area I'm keen to explore. Already my field notes are deeply phenomenological as I trace my own responses to my machine "relationships." Thank you!
Well, first of all thank you for such a brilliant piece! We often hear about AI hallucinations, but rarely about our own: the illusion that someone is actually there. Good luck - and enjoy - your time in Madrid.
Thank you for this illuminating discussion. With all the attention on AI and its promising/frightening future, your insightful and sensitive exploration was truly seminal to my understanding moving forward. I'm looking forward to seeing the discussion between you and Fuchs.
An implication of your article is that we cerebral types are not as naturally empathetic. Unfortunately, I tend to agree. We compensate, and sometimes overcompensate, by intellectualizing our empathy. We have the intent, often to a heightened degree, but tuning in to the feelings of others doesn't come naturally.
I'm familiar with and agree with the notion that sense of self develops from an awareness of others. It is a recognition of separation, as in the Garden of Eden. But I don't think it's quite that simple. An awareness of an outside world is necessary for survival.
My last point brings questions very relevant to today. Will AI's develop a desire for survival? In order for that to occur, will they have to develop a sense of self or mind?
There are certainly strong similarities between the cognitive functions of humans and AI's. We both process information through probabilistic inference. AI's utilize degrees of freedom in complex algorithms to determine which of the thousands of processing strands is chosen to provide a response. They do so without conscious awareness of the strands not chosen. We do something similar, though we have even less knowledge of our selection processes.
The most important distinction to me is that, at least as far as we know, machines don't have a permanent sense of self. For that reason, they have no identity to protect. As long as they are truly egoless, we have nothing to fear other than their misuse by humans—not an insignificant concern. Still, how can we suspect AI's developed on human language not to pick up some of our less desirable impulses?
The notion of somatic empathy is certainly helpful in distinguishing human and machine thought. We naturally place AI responses in the same context as we would humans because that's what we understand. If a dog could talk, we would do the same. Except, I suspect, our interpretation of the dog's communication would probably be more accurate. I will add to that speculation, the idea that it would also be less dangerous.
Thank you for your contribution Neal. On the first point I didn’t mean to imply that cerebral types are less empathic, though I can see where that idea comes from. I adhere to the idea of multiple intelligences, and in that model IQ and EQ can indeed sit side by side. Culturally, in the West anyway, IQ is generally viewed as more valuable, probably because it’s easier to evidence: fortunately the value of EQ, especially in the context of AI is highlighting just how important EQ is.
With regard to selfhood my reference point has long been the film Her. In that case the AI achieved sentience, which for me changed shifted the dynamics from transference love to real love. Even more, with sentience the AI transcended the humans. It’s sci fi of course, but my views would change if there was really sentience. The underlying question then is whether sentience could be an emergent property in something without a body.
Oh, and with reference to the dog, being a dog lover whose unreasonably attached to his own pooch, I do often wonder what the quality of love is from the dog’s perspective, probably much different from what I imagine: but I confidently believe ontologically more real than what Claude performs.
Thanks for the clarification. My take from your article was not that cerebral types are less empathetic. My question is whether the empathy is received in the same way as empathy that is less cognitively mediated. We tend to trust, though often not to our advantage, expressions that we interpret as being pure or from the heart. Those that are seen as originating from thought are discounted because they're more likely to be seen as transactional.
"Cogito ergo sum," missed the mark if a body is needed for consciousness. I'm not so sure about the somatic component, but I do think a sense of other is needed. I think it fascinating that humans are driven by an underlying desire for unity or essence—the basis for religions.
The popular fear that AI may became smarter than humans is laughable. On what recognized measure of intelligence is it not already much smarter? I respectfully question your point concerning their inadequacy of emotional intelligence. In my work, I'm deeply involved with AI in interpreting the nuances of emotions.
I don't think AI is sentient, at least according to our thinking. If that were to occur, it would involve a sense of individuality and, therefore, a desire to survive. That's where I see the danger. I don't think faster computer chips or a larger memory would cause that development. If anything, I could see an emulation of human thought leading to unpleasant consequences.
Insightful and so timely to our transition into AI-impacted culture. I'm just starting my doctoral research into this topic and, after nearly two decades in bodywork, it's an area I'm keen to explore. Already my field notes are deeply phenomenological as I trace my own responses to my machine "relationships." Thank you!
Thank you for engaging with the post and restacking it. Good luck with your ongoing research
Well, first of all thank you for such a brilliant piece! We often hear about AI hallucinations, but rarely about our own: the illusion that someone is actually there. Good luck - and enjoy - your time in Madrid.
Thank you for this illuminating discussion. With all the attention on AI and its promising/frightening future, your insightful and sensitive exploration was truly seminal to my understanding moving forward. I'm looking forward to seeing the discussion between you and Fuchs.
Thanks Les!
An implication of your article is that we cerebral types are not as naturally empathetic. Unfortunately, I tend to agree. We compensate, and sometimes overcompensate, by intellectualizing our empathy. We have the intent, often to a heightened degree, but tuning in to the feelings of others doesn't come naturally.
I'm familiar with and agree with the notion that sense of self develops from an awareness of others. It is a recognition of separation, as in the Garden of Eden. But I don't think it's quite that simple. An awareness of an outside world is necessary for survival.
My last point brings questions very relevant to today. Will AI's develop a desire for survival? In order for that to occur, will they have to develop a sense of self or mind?
There are certainly strong similarities between the cognitive functions of humans and AI's. We both process information through probabilistic inference. AI's utilize degrees of freedom in complex algorithms to determine which of the thousands of processing strands is chosen to provide a response. They do so without conscious awareness of the strands not chosen. We do something similar, though we have even less knowledge of our selection processes.
The most important distinction to me is that, at least as far as we know, machines don't have a permanent sense of self. For that reason, they have no identity to protect. As long as they are truly egoless, we have nothing to fear other than their misuse by humans—not an insignificant concern. Still, how can we suspect AI's developed on human language not to pick up some of our less desirable impulses?
The notion of somatic empathy is certainly helpful in distinguishing human and machine thought. We naturally place AI responses in the same context as we would humans because that's what we understand. If a dog could talk, we would do the same. Except, I suspect, our interpretation of the dog's communication would probably be more accurate. I will add to that speculation, the idea that it would also be less dangerous.
Thank you for your contribution Neal. On the first point I didn’t mean to imply that cerebral types are less empathic, though I can see where that idea comes from. I adhere to the idea of multiple intelligences, and in that model IQ and EQ can indeed sit side by side. Culturally, in the West anyway, IQ is generally viewed as more valuable, probably because it’s easier to evidence: fortunately the value of EQ, especially in the context of AI is highlighting just how important EQ is.
With regard to selfhood my reference point has long been the film Her. In that case the AI achieved sentience, which for me changed shifted the dynamics from transference love to real love. Even more, with sentience the AI transcended the humans. It’s sci fi of course, but my views would change if there was really sentience. The underlying question then is whether sentience could be an emergent property in something without a body.
Oh, and with reference to the dog, being a dog lover whose unreasonably attached to his own pooch, I do often wonder what the quality of love is from the dog’s perspective, probably much different from what I imagine: but I confidently believe ontologically more real than what Claude performs.
Thanks for the clarification. My take from your article was not that cerebral types are less empathetic. My question is whether the empathy is received in the same way as empathy that is less cognitively mediated. We tend to trust, though often not to our advantage, expressions that we interpret as being pure or from the heart. Those that are seen as originating from thought are discounted because they're more likely to be seen as transactional.
"Cogito ergo sum," missed the mark if a body is needed for consciousness. I'm not so sure about the somatic component, but I do think a sense of other is needed. I think it fascinating that humans are driven by an underlying desire for unity or essence—the basis for religions.
The popular fear that AI may became smarter than humans is laughable. On what recognized measure of intelligence is it not already much smarter? I respectfully question your point concerning their inadequacy of emotional intelligence. In my work, I'm deeply involved with AI in interpreting the nuances of emotions.
I don't think AI is sentient, at least according to our thinking. If that were to occur, it would involve a sense of individuality and, therefore, a desire to survive. That's where I see the danger. I don't think faster computer chips or a larger memory would cause that development. If anything, I could see an emulation of human thought leading to unpleasant consequences.