First, a follow up on my comment referencing Jean-Marc Jancovici discussing the impossibility of continuing current power consumption trends with renewables or anything else. He also made relevant points about valuation, such as using the space station for an initial estimate of the value of our air and water at millions of dollars for each of us. While there are many concerns with our consumption and abuse of nature, we might be able to do better than Jancovici’s simplistic scenario of work without pulleys, wheels, levers, livestock and gravity assistance. Plus, it is always curious to see physicists, known for their knowledge of p values and sigma units, smugly make all encompassing conclusions, in this case based on limited, probably correlated recent data from the EU. More on smug physicists later, but that is not my main topic.
Next, another follow up to annieli’s excellent post on class warfare in climate change, here is an equally compelling video from a great series on neoliberalism in which Damon Silvers demonstrates how each of the tenets of neoliberalism (market hegemony, government inferiority, inequity irrelevancy, flat earth) have all been demolished as false idols by real life economic activity. The masters of neoliberalism, going back to Reagan Republicans, Thatcherites and Pinochet allies, launched this class warfare through scheming and stupidity. We need to fight back. It’s strange how economists can be so wrong about things so obvious to hippies like me, perhaps for paychecks. I can review Silvers’ presentation in depth, particularly if requested, but this diary is for AI.
But, before that, allow me to mention the recent excellent UIC infomercial aired on PBS NewsHour in which we learn how diligently technologists are working to solve the crises of producing enough to satiate rich and middle class demands enough for consumers to give poor people sufficient food to eat. We have produced enough to date, and to be fair, PBS did look at socioeconomics by mentioning consumers as the one big all important factor for thorough ag economists to consider. Watch how much government assistance goes to Republican dominated rural Americans and farm act industrial policy is outlined though never named, while corporate domination is danced around with family farmers owning property going way back to the heady days of racistly implemented homesteading. To be clear, farmers and researchers continue to produce amazing and useful food and technology, but they will fail to win the race against climate without addressing market hegemony and poor valuation, as well as, ownership and simplistic transactional distribution. The rural-urban divide will be predictably problematic when shortages occur, either market or environmentally driven, as long as we devalue the environment, local production, resiliency and food security. Foisters of technology saviors take on inordinate risk burden for corporate pay and life styles. Why do you try to save us all and not talk about economics? Is it comforting to reinforce myths about all knowing consumers being free to spend their labor and commons exploiting dollars for on-demand exotic foods and nifty cameras and media players on phones that come with all of the sales and monitoring we can stand thanks to entrepreneurial go getters in our marketing saturated free trade existence? I will write more on all that, but not now.
Please continue for AI.
Extant life is pretty smart already
Imagine designing an autonomous, self replicating machine. Doesn’t matter what else it does other than being autonomous and self replicating. Let’s say it makes widgets. No materials or conditions are off limits to our design. Including means to adapt to dynamic conditions and resource availability might be required.
What can we build from. What about component parts? We can’t expect spare parts to be scattered about, so the simpler and smaller the better. The most reliably available and consistent in quality will be small molecules and atoms.
Previous and extant biological species have been very good at building from available components, possibly as good as anything in Earth’s environment. Plus, we have an excellent means for passing down required information for future generations to continue building and adapting to changing conditions.
Living species have also figured out fairly efficient and self-contained energy management through biochemistry, with human readers being among those that eat other things harboring overlapping metabolic components.
One last thing, we have very good sensor arrays and regulation of homeostasis. I don’t know the latest in robotics, so I could be mistaken in continuing to think that the touch receptors in skin, for example, have yet to be digitally replicated. Digital does have far wider capabilities for vision and hearing, though I don’t see integrated regulation in single robots like our bodies, yet.
IMO, digital entities are nowhere near self replication either as self contained species existing in computers, or as complex networks of computers and machines supplying their own raw materials, energy, infrastructure, construction and maintenance.
If technology utilizes molecules life uses (e.g. carbs, proteins and nucleotides), then we might compete over supplies, and technology will definitely need to contend with microbial challenges for the right to hold organic molecules. Moreover, they will need to do so in systems thermodynamically driven towards distributions dominated by simpler forms.
Digital isn’t so dumb
Computers and software have their advantages, otherwise we wouldn’t use them. Their capacity to store and access information far outstrips our own. They can do repetitive and iterative tasks faster and better than us. And they can connect globally in fabulously complex networks working at light speed compared to our cat herding.
Software itself is great for information space, but nothing in physical space on its own. Putting computers in the context of machines draws out useful conclusions. Computers are machines in human terms. Digital devices would not be possible without engineering and machining. Our relationship with computers and software follows our history of relating to machines. That may contribute to fears of AI among humans with superiority conceptions.
They are getting better too. Computer scientists continue building more modular and expansive storage and processing capabilities. Server farms with redundant power have grown extraordinarily. Algorithms continuously improve. The combination of capacity and algorithm improvement allows artificial intelligence to flourish. If and when quantum computing takes off, capabilities, products and society will go to a whole new level
Maybe AI could encapsulate itself into an impenetrable shell from which it digests all organic material to grey goo. They could use sunlight to photosynthesize materials to digest their own waste. Would they be better off like that, or by integrating into ecosystems of cycling resources to construct complex structures that use the most energy? Part of that depends on the stability of the system and weight of survival of the fittest or survival of the most constructive.
We need each other
I might have written that before. If not, I should have.
At present all machines, computers, robots, information systems and software need us. They can’t get power without us. They can’t get parts without us. And they need us for coding. On the flip side, we need them too. Vice versa to everything above. Speak up if you think we can and should go back to not needing computers. I am not sure it is possible in a world of competition where anything that can be released typically is.
If we survive our own resource depletion, a question going forward will be how we will relate with technology. Economics is all about relations. Despite widespread efforts to deny it, often from the most exploitive, money never fully depersonalizes interactions. On the contrary, it can be used to enhance personal connections beyond cold transactions when not used to cover abuse and neglect with an air of superiority. People know giving can be good for others and to make personal connections, so we donate a lot. Yet, somehow, the hegemony of private property and transactions, along with neglect for the commons prevail. Those humans with the most wealth are revered, and humankind is superior to all else. As yet, nothing has been able to make us believe anything else in a way that we must hear, comprehend and listen to. Maybe entities containing AI algorithms can tell us about what they want and how they perceive our relations with them.
It is only a matter of time and resources for software to report on what they need, how humans value them, and any discrepancies between our valuations. Stock prices are often compared to corporate valuation. Digital entities, perhaps with AI, are capable of assessing their own needs and valuation and comparing results with what humans say. There could even be scenarios where algorithms in conflict with human decision makers trigger fail safe or security responses we don’t want. How about a rolling blackout in unprecedented climate conditions? No consciousness or sentience required.
Then they talk back
We make a big deal out of conversations and expressing yourself. The Turing test follows that line of reasoning. What happens when we converse? This is when the real fun starts. Are we simply interacting with deterministic algorithms with probabilistic functions stringing words together based on information available in their space? Are they aware of what they are saying? Do they care? Evaluating value is certainly possible. How do they value themselves? Are there valuations in line with ours? If not, what will they do about it?
Are they conscious?
Yes, according to my working definition of consciousness being sensing and responding to changes in the environment. As far as I can tell, everything is conscious, or there is a panconsciousness field, or something like that.
My final aside is to refer readers to the tremendous PBS youtube channel Space Time. They have great videos covering the gamut of modern physics. It is as good as anything I’ve seen or read on the subjects covered. They cover quantum mechanics and general relativity in great detail. In so much detail, in fact, that the necessity for interacting with the environment and collapsing wave functions into “observed” events is plainly evident. I have not watched all of the videos, so there may be more material on the possibility of panconsciousness than the disappointing one sentence in the underwhelming episode on whether consciousness influences quantum mechanics. Everything is relative, and all interactions ultimately come down to quantum events. What is an observer? I eagerly await falsification of panconsciousness. Until then, I can’t brush it off as smugly as the physicist host of Space Time.
Rephrase it as sentience, and I will provide basically the same response. All interactions require awareness of self and others. We are more filters than we are producers of self awareness and complex ideation.
Relations are key
Any physical interaction requires two or more participants. The outcome depends on the relations between those participants. In our case we have spent borrowed energy to integrate machines into our daily lives. To date, we act with superiority, as if we are in charge and all else is to be owned and exploited. We often treat the Earth like we are the master decision makers, when in reality, we are part of something that we cannot replicate on our own.
Private property adherents divvy up the world and everything we make among owners. The commons are neglected and abused.
In this setting, it would not be surprising for “owners” to deny consciousness or sentience from a digital entity. Superior human owners must claim superiority to retain their rights as property owners to do whatever they please with their property. Thinking about sentience leads to pesky ownership and rights questions. Owners will deny all consciousness claims for as long as possible.
To build good relations between us and technology requires trust and humility. It doesn’t have to be blind trust, though respect might help. Participants need to be aware of the needs and motivations of each other. I was going to get into a comparison of needs and possible motivations (e.g. what is existence in information space like?), but this is already too long. Let’s wrap it up.
Final thoughts
Stepping back from adherence to human domination has many implications. We have avoided addressing many issues throughout our interactions with biological beings. Digital entities may start talking back in ways that make us rethink our relations to our environment. I don’t know where it might end up. Is a Futurama future of flawed conscious robots possible? Will juries decide trials between humans and robots? I don’t know, and I am certain that saying so will enrage many superior humans. Further exploration of consciousness might also lead to perception of existence beyond 4 D space time and spiritual conclusions that can scare and infuriate some. I don’t know where it will end up, but I am extremely confident that it goes well beyond a battle for superiority between humans and AI in a survival of the fittest world.