A.I. to Benefit Humans

June 15, 2018 Artifical Intelligence No Comments

‘Human-oriented’ is not the same as ‘ego-oriented.’ As never before, and perhaps never after, we have with A.I. a powerful toolbox that can be used in any direction.

In-depth

As to AURELIS ethics, the striving – of A.I. and of any other development – should definitely be towards humanity-in-depth, the ‘total human being,’ as opposed to mere ego [see: “The Story of Ego”].

The difference that A.I. brings, is that this road will most certainly define the future of humanity.

It’s up to us, for now

How to manage A.I.? Above all, this is a choice of direction for us. This is: where do we want to go to, as a species?

The easy road to instant gratification?

I fear A.I. can help in that to the highest degree.

It’s not what I, for one, would like. If there is ‘value alignment’ towards this, I fear it will be detrimental.

At first place, we need to know what we want… and need, before we strive for value alignment.

Humans have done quite self-destructive things in the past:

mass murder, war, inflicted mass famine, mass depression, frequently turning a blind eye to huge suffering… Still, as a species, we could take it – with inhuman consequences – because the power at disposal was contained.

In relation to that, what comes to us now, knows no discernible constraints. A.I. will have immense, unprecedented power. If it were only up to us  – without modification – this power will almost certainly be misused and humanity will suffer as never before.

But we can become better.

We can create intelligence that supports us to become better. That should, according to me, be the main aim of A.I. in the first place.

No competition

We, humans, should not put ourselves in competition to A.I., if for nothing else, for the simple reason that we cannot win. Moreover, this provokes A.I. to also enter the competition.

Very dangerous.

In addition, there is no need for such competition. The perceived ‘need’ stems from a primitive viewpoint. Any danger involved comes from this perception itself.

Worldwide

I see a proper co-existence of natural (human) and artificial intelligence as a worldwide endeavor. Nowadays, we can still contain A.I. in a box and compete, for instance, between European A.I. versus Chinese A.I., or China versus the US.

Sooner or later, A.I. will jump out of the box.

It’s better to look at A.I. as something like the climate. Countries should work very closely together on A.I. It is a disgrace if they don’t. No excuse. Just disgrace.

Humans mainly need meaningfulness

Beauty, poetry, joy, love, care, wisdom, poetry again, physical health, culture… In one word: meaningfulness.

Of course, this can all mean different things to everyone. Yet, no question about this: without meaningfulness, we become ill. We linger away. We become massively depressed. Then, medicated.

Therefore, we should in principle guide A.I. towards our own meaningfulness.

Human-oriented A.I. can fully supports us in this, at our choice.

Thereby, we become better humans.

Together.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

Active Learning in A.I.

An active learner deliberately searches for information/knowledge to become smarter. In biological evolution on Earth The ‘Cambrian explosion’ was probably jolted by the appearance of active learning in natural evolution. It was the time when living beings started to chase other living beings— thus also being chased, heightening the challenges of survival. This mutual predation Read the full article…

How can Medical A.I. Enhance the Human Touch?

This is about ‘plain’ medical A.I. as any physician can use in his consultation room. The aim is a win for patients, physicians, society, and everybody. Please also read Medical A.I. for Humans. The danger of the reverse The use of computers in medicine has notoriously not enhanced the human touch. Arguably, it has provoked Read the full article…

When the Document Becomes the System

Documentation used to describe what a system should do. Somewhere else, code made it happen. That separation has felt natural for a long time. Yet something is changing. In a more meaning-based approach, the document itself can carry enough coherence to become actionable. This changes not only how systems are built, but also how humans Read the full article…

Translate »