Human-Centered or Ego-Centered A.I.?

November 2, 2023 Artifical Intelligence No Comments

‘Humanism’ is supposed to be human-centered. ‘Human-A.I. Value Alignment’ is supposed to be human-centered. Or is it ego-centered?

Especially concerning (non-)Compassionate A.I., this is the crucial question that will make or break us. Unfortunately, this is intrinsically unclear to most people.

Mere-ego versus total self

See also The Big Mistake.

This is not about ‘I’ versus other people. It’s about what happens inside ‘I’ and, of course, the consequences to oneself and others.

The consequences are vast and terrible. Examples are abundant in healthcare (the whole domain of psycho-somatics), sociopolitical issues, etc. What are we doing?!

Ego versus total self’ PLUS the power of A.I.

This is not about ‘bad actors’ who willingly abuse A.I. to harm people. It’s also not about autonomous weapons being used by two sides — each against the ‘bad ones.’

Ego-centered A.I. can be developed by people with the best intentions, even calling it ‘human-centered A.I.’ Nevertheless, it is prone to diminish the wholeness of the human being — heightening dissociation in depth and scaling. Therefore, the distinction between ego and total self should be made explicitly, again and again. If that is not done, rest assured, we’re deluded by ego ― in the first place, our own.

Big problem: humanity still grapples very much with this in theory and practice.

Millennia of philosophy haven’t brought profoundly satisfying insights. Also, many religions have worked with many closed doors ― inciting people to battle for mere doors, goodness.

Science makes progress, at least, by investigating how the brain and the mind are related. However, this is so counter-cultural that, for the time being, these insights are kept unwittingly in a silo without much societal impact.

As a result, practice lags.

We’re in the Middle Ages concerning the issue ‘ego versus total self.’ Meanwhile, waves of technology have increasingly engendered situations for which humanity hasn’t been ready.

But the times, they are a-changing ― unfortunately, toward becoming even more dangerous.

Ego-centered A.I. is challenging at large.

Specific problems stemming from A.I. lie in depth and scaling: the influence upon one and many. After all, A.I. is a powerful tool ― actually, a never-ending stream of new tools and combinations. Thus, many humanly challenges that have been containable until now – more or less, with relatively minor damage – can grow into quite uncontainable issues.

A pressing question remains whether we should focus mainly on existential risks from A.I. (from bad actors to killer robots) or ego-centered uses of A.I.

The answer is both.

The urgent dangers are manifold in both directions.

The positive possibilities also: Better A.I. for Better Humans.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Super-A.I. and the Meaning Crisis

I don’t know how things will evolve, especially with those unpredictable humans. But it is clear that we are in a meaning crisis at present, globally. With the advent of super-A.I., soon enough, what shall we do? Please read about the meaning crisis. We use(d) to get meaning from fairy tales. No lack of them. Read the full article…

Will Super-A.I. Unite Us or Divide Us?

Super-A.I. won’t just change things. It will multiply what already is — x1000. If we are united, it may amplify harmony. If we are divided, it will deepen the rifts. Either way, it will do so on a scale we have never encountered. The time to ask whether we’re ready isn’t tomorrow. I mean ‘divide’ Read the full article…

Endgame 2050: How super-A.I. Destroyed Us

Me: “Lisa, imagine it’s the year 2050. Humanity doesn’t exist anymore. Non-Compassionate super-A.I. has finished us off. How do you think it may have happened?” The rest of this blog is an unedited answer by Lisa, who presents a chilling but coherent narrative of how non-Compassionate super-A.I. might extinguish humanity. At every stage, a failure Read the full article…

Translate »