Eric Schmidt in a Youtube interview, said something like the following:
AI is filled with emergence, but unlike the enlightenment, there is no philosophy to help us understand what is happening. This will destroy our politics. We are upset, because social media is making us upset. AI can answer questions like “how do I make a bomb and where should I place it to blow up X? How do I replicate the Spanish flu?”
Fmr. Google CEO Eric Schmidt on the Consequences of an A.I. Revolution | Amanpour and Company
We have lost the philosophical perspective to tell us something about the role of metaphor and passions. We have weird paradoxes like information theory, which is a probabilistic theory of choices from a fixed set of alternatives that concludes that a strand of random characters the length of Hamlet has more information in it than hamlet because of the redundancy in Hamlet. Like economics, which pushes growth, but is creating system wide destruction. We do not have the intellectual tools or habits of mind to cope with the very things that we have created.
We have the power to approximate bio process and thinking to increasing near identity. We then have a bioworld and a mechanical world operating in parallel on the planet with similar functions with utterly different foundations, one in dead machine professes the other in biological.
Maybe our collective thinking, is like a handful of sand thrown on the ground: to ask, what is the meaning in the patterns of the sand has no answer because there is no meaning to it besides being a pile of sand. Of course, there is a physics to the pile And each grain, but there is no message. If our human (and biological)thinking is like that, which I suspect it is, we have multiple people thinking, but no emerging consensus, everything is fragments.
Ai is filled with emergence, but unlike the enlightenment, there is no philosophy to help us understand what is happening. this will destroy our politics. We are upset, because social media is making us upset. AI can answer questions like “how do I make a bomb and where should I place it to blow up X? How do I replicate the Spanish flu?”
We have lost the philosophical perspective to tell us something about the role of metaphor and passions. We have weird paradoxes like information theory, which is a probabilistic theory of choices from a fixed set of alternatives that concludes that a strand of random characters the length of Hamlet has more information in it than hamlet because of the redundancy in Hamlet. Like economics, which pushes growth, but is creating system wide destruction. We do not have the intellectual tools or habits of mind to cope with the very things that we have created.
We have the power to approximate bio process and thinking to increasing near identity. We then have a bioworld and a mechanical world operating in parallel on the planet with similar functions with utterly different foundations, one in dead machine professes the other in biological.
Maybe our collective thinking, is like a handful of sand thrown on the ground: to ask, what is the meaning in the patterns of the sand has no answer because there is no meaning to it besides being a pile of sand. Of course, there is a physics to the pile And each grain, but there is no message. If our human (and biological)thinking is like that, which I suspect it is, we have multiple people thinking, but no emerging consensus, everything is fragmented.