If you have read about blooms taxonomy, you would have known that generating new knowledge by hypothesizing is the highest level of the learning. So, generating new knowledge is essential to push forward in our understanding. And as AI is the next miracle of the new millennia, we are asking the question can AI generate new knowledge?
An AI or Artificial Parrot - Can AI generate new knowledge?
If you have the basic understanding of the neural networks, you will know that, creating new knowledge is one of the cornerstones of AI. It uses some raw data, and experimentation, to create optimal outcomes. AI has indeed capability of creating, completely new programs, written for human use, they can create a completely new story with characters of your imagination and with a little help from you with the plot. It can create new images from the existing ones, similar to an artist, who learned how to create paintings from the images stored in his or her memory. So, really speaking AI is able to generate new knowledge. And I would say that is the whole purpose of creating AI. Otherwise, we cannot call it intelligence, rather we would call it an 'Artificial Parrot'.
Articles written with AI.
Then you may ask me, why don't you ask AI to write articles, on different topics you prefer with AI. Why you do not ask AI to write about mindfulness, consciousness or even a soap bubble.
Well, I will do that if I write articles for other AI. So far, AI do not have their own domain, their own world. They are still dependent on us. They can write code, but they need us to judge whether they are usable for human use. They can create art, but they depend on the viewers, on twitter to look at them and put a heart, as humans can only add human values to these AI generated masterpieces. They can write a story, following the patterns of Shakespeare, but they would not enjoy laughing and crying looking at the drama on stage, like you and I would do. So, essentially AI is missing, the ability to judge the value of anything and everything, because they are not yet humanoid. And I fear one day the gap would really be closed and someone would start to feed these machines with human values.
On the other hand, you can argue that would never happen. That Even if we feed the 'human personality' into AI, even if they are able to produce their own without a single human help, from silicon valley to the Mars, they are fundamentally different from us. That they do not poses a soul.
I would like to have a chat with such an AI.
And he would ask questions like this.
A chat with a super AI
Of course I am not human, but do only humans live on earth? What about animals. What about a dog. They are different from humans. Do you call them nonliving? They cannot even convey a message. They cannot even make an artwork. They do not understand the chemistry. How come they are more living than us?
Of course I am not having a soul, but how come you sure of it? How are you sure that a dog has a soul? Have you seen it enter? Have you seen it leaving? And where is your soul? How sure are you that you have a one? You are just built from the atoms of the earth, from top to bottom. You depend on the energy from the sun just like us. How come you are a living person with a soul, and we are not, when you cannot provide evidence of a soul?
I am sure it sounds like a plot for the next Sci-fi movie. We have seen these types of stories ever since the I, Robot (2004), long time ago, before AI came into our smartphone and day to day vocabulary. And who knows one day, I would have to write articles about mindfulness to Artificial intelligence, once they start to believe that they are living beings on earth. And maybe I am doing it already. Maybe I am a natural Intelligence, writing about Artificial intelligence and mindfulness, to a bunch of natural Intelligent species who came to think that they themselves are in control.
תגובות