If man succeeds in building a general artificial intelligence, will this mean that man has become better acquainted with the essence of his own intelligence and consciousness?
If man succeeds in building a general artificial intelligence, i.e., AI technology capable of self-improvement, independent development and perhaps also achieving a state of artificial consciousness, will this mean that man has fully learned the essence of his own intelligence and consciousness?
Assuming that if man succeeds in building a general, general artificial intelligence, i.e. AI technology capable of self-improvement, independent development and perhaps also obtaining a state of artificial consciousness then perhaps this will mean that man has fully learned the essence of his own intelligence and consciousness. If this happens, what will be the result? Will man first learn the essence of his own intelligence and consciousness and then build a general, general artificial intelligence, i.e. AI technology capable of self-improvement, independent development and perhaps also obtaining a state of artificial consciousness, or vice versa, i.e. first a general artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness capable of self-improvement and development will be created and then thanks to the aforementioned technological progress made from the field of artificial intelligence, man will fully learn the essence of his own intelligence and consciousness. In my opinion, it is most likely that both processes will develop and implement simultaneously on a reciprocal feedback basis.
I have described the key issues of opportunities and threats to the development of artificial intelligence technology in my article below:
OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE APPLICATIONS AND THE NEED FOR NORMATIVE REGULATION OF THIS DEVELOPMENT
Article OPPORTUNITIES AND THREATS TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARTIFICIAL I...
In view of the above, I address the following question to the esteemed community of scientists and researchers:
If man succeeds in building a general artificial intelligence, i.e., AI technology capable of self-improvement, independent development and perhaps also achieving a state of artificial consciousness, will this mean that man has fully learned the essence of his own intelligence and consciousness?
If man succeeds in building a general artificial intelligence, will this mean that man has better learned the essence of his own consciousness?
And what is your opinion about it?
What is your opinion on this issue?
Please answer,
I invite everyone to join the discussion,
Thank you very much,
Best wishes,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
The above text is entirely my own work written by me on the basis of my research.
In writing this text I did not use other sources or automatic text generation systems.
Copyright by Dariusz Prokopowicz
It will be very difficult to create an AGI... and it will be a different type of intelligence...
The cognitive system will have to go through "crime and punishment"... The genie will need to be let out of the bottle... Only intense mental suffering shapes humanity and spirituality... You have to love and hate at the same time... Mental struggle necessarily leads to a violation of ethics, morality...
Governments are trying to ban this path of AI development... But without this, AGI cannot be created...
Without a Soul there is no AGI! ... there is no consciousness and human intelligence...
AGI will appear like Covid-19... from secret laboratories... after many, many decades...
In my opinion, the answer to your question is "NO". No doubt this is because I am deeply suspicious of realist philosophies.
In this context I recommend reading the "FOUR QUARTETS" of T.S.Eliot.
Keep on truckin...!
James
I will also answer with a NO. Devices can be put together with components mediating between inputs and outputs that, from a theoretical point of view, are black boxes.
Of course not!
In the understanding that has been established at the moment, AGI does not imitate the process of thinking or consciousness, but performs only certain functions of thinking. Although the result of AGI's work may exceed the results of human thinking in terms of speed and quality, these functions are not necessarily performed by AGI exactly as human thinking does. The question that was asked by G. Dariusz Prokopowicz can be set only when it is possible to reproduce the process of human thinking in its entirety – as the process of the emergence, transmission, exchange and processing of signals by neural clusters on the cerebral cortex.
The sudden jump in capability reflected in ChatGPT should send the message that AGI just needs to stick to its knitting. GANs, Attention Mechanisms, and the like, affords the architectural cobbler a whole new set of functions and modules with which to experiment. Perhaps we should focus on some elevated intermediate goals, such as a storytelling engine, and then we might make Turing blush in his grave. Yes, we will get there.
Gerardo Ó. Matía Cubillo Some components (or configurations thereof) might be nonfungible in that they fortuitously have special chemical or physical properties that are unknown to the engineers or scientists who built the device but which enable the device to work or work well.
he development of a general artificial intelligence (AGI) capable of self-improvement, independent development, and potentially achieving artificial consciousness would undoubtedly represent a significant milestone in our understanding of intelligence and consciousness. However, it's important to recognize that even if we achieve such a feat, it does not necessarily mean that we have fully understood the essence of human intelligence and consciousness.
Human intelligence and consciousness are incredibly complex phenomena that arise from the interactions of biological processes, neural networks, environmental factors, and subjective experiences. While AGI may be able to emulate certain aspects of human intelligence and behavior, it is unlikely to fully replicate the intricacies of human consciousness.
One key challenge is that human consciousness encompasses subjective experiences, emotions, creativity, and a sense of self-awareness, which are deeply intertwined with our biological and evolutionary history. These aspects of consciousness may be difficult to capture within the framework of artificial intelligence, especially considering the current limitations of our understanding of consciousness itself.
Furthermore, the development of AGI raises important ethical, societal, and existential questions about the implications of creating entities that possess intelligence and potentially consciousness. How do we define and measure consciousness in artificial beings? What rights and responsibilities do we owe to conscious artificial entities? These are complex questions that require careful consideration and deliberation.
In summary, while the development of AGI would undoubtedly advance our understanding of intelligence and consciousness, it is unlikely to provide a complete explanation of the essence of human consciousness. It is a fascinating and challenging area of exploration that will continue to drive scientific inquiry and philosophical debate for years to come.
I get your Cartesian dualism drift, but I would argue that, once achieved, AGI will be able to emulate the full range of human cognitive gifts without needing to be conscious in any biological sense. It just needs an adequate architecture served by a properly designed hierarchy of governing and special purpose modules. One reason why ChatGPT represents a major step up the maturity curve is that its makers (OpenAI) have added an order-of-magnitude greater number of processing layers (4K) to its ML architecture over and above their predecessors. The net effect is that it pushes the combinatorial space of the computational substrate across a threshold such that it now allows for a far greater range in the system's ability to exploit the vector math of NLP to repesent complex concepts. And the result of that is an ability to generate, not just sentences, but entire discourses. We are nowhere near the objective of true AGI, but we are just now awakening to the potential of the neural-net, connectomic models. That is why I called out such recent innovations as GANs and attention mechanisms. You can add transfer learning to that list. I would remind us all that DaVinci took a serious swing at designing a flying machine.
In any event, thank you for your provocative discussion. It is my pleasure to participate.
Pat
In the following research:
https://www.academia.edu/105224705/LearningforAll_1_
I started an initiative to Reinforce communication between student
s and teachers, other articles try to explain this complementarity
between man and machine by considering the superiority of man
capable of producing as many machines according to his needs.
My next publication "The impact of artificial intelligence on
human work" focuses on an SPDF standard which in my opinion goes
beyond ChatGPT and provides an opening towards non-commercial
cooperation.
AI is based on algorithms, human thinking goes far beyond that. Some of the concepts relevant to human consciousness can be better understood by studying quantum field theory. AI does not encompass consciousness.
And while you're at it, how about using the word "human" instead of man? Using the word man to represent the human race is outmoded and literally excludes half the human race.
Cosmin Visan
You have move the discussion to the field of philosophy, but it is unlikely that this will be useful for the practical implementation of new AGI projects. It is worth recalling the discussion of two ancient philosophers, one of whom argued for a long time that "movement, from a philosophical point of view, is impossible, and the other JUST GOT UP AND GO!"
"AI is based on algorithms, human thinking goes far beyond that." Sarah S. Knox. AI-thinking can go far beyond that, too.
To return to our original question, I would contend that once we are able to simulate human cognition - to create what I would call a mindulacrum - then we will be able to test out all sorts of scientific scenarios that are foreclosed to us today because they are rightly considered to be invasive. Such testing will be immensely beneficial to psychology, neuroscience, and even to the arts, particularly to the now-fledgling practice of interactive fiction (my area of interest).
Of course, there will be many who will find such contemplation both repulsive and impossible. It will be asserted that we will never be able to create an artificial mind that passes anything like an elevated version of the Turing test wherein it seems like we are interacting with a real human mind. I would like to suggest one avenue of development that might speed the march up this mindulacrum maturity curve.
Many of our most thoughtful cognitive scientists, such as Damasio, talk about the centrality to human intelligence of the "self." The discussion separates "self" as though it were a distinct module in the mind. Could we develop a computational correlate of a self - call it a "self object." But lets go further. Let's also employ a neural phenomenon widely referred to as the mirror neuron. Apparently, mirror neurons awake to action whenever we anticipate taking any type of involved physical action, or even when we observe others involved in actions of the least complexity.
What about positing the production of multiple self pobjects as an almost innate feature of the human brain? Call it "self-objects on demand." This would explain Piaget's theory of mind, which appears in children about the time they are 3 or 4. Then, how about producing a special, highly privileged version of the self-object, a mirror self. After all, who is it that we talk to when we talk to ourselves? Here, I am thinking a bit like Freud and his ego-superego construct - but much more generally. Now, when we talk about consciousness, we almost always talk in the same breath about self-awareness as one of the distinguishing traits. To me, this makes perfect sense. We are aware of ourselves because we spawn both an acting self and a mirror self. One self object beholds the other, and, voila, we are self-aware. When we engage in inner speech, we effortlessly and subconsciously switch between these self objects. Of course, such internal dialogue is often fractious, particularly when we are confronted with difficult life decisions.
And so, if we can build a computational self-object, instantiate it with a full compliment of human cognitive traits, and then build an opposing self-object, instantiated with similar but selectively differing traits, then we just might be able to create a mindulacrum that experiences the same type of internal dialogue and conflict that we all experience, thereby rendering a mindulacrum that seems truly human. Such a mindulacrum would also possess the trait of having a conceal self - our so-called backstage self - and a reveal self, often referred to as our social mask.
Excuse me for running on, but just a thought experiment that seemed appropos for this audience.
Patrick Dillon
A very constructive idea for those who will continue to develop AGI projects
This is more of a philosophical question: Man doesn't know how precisely he can define himself. As far as AGI is concerned, if it behaves like humans, that's what we do NOT want it to be. Humans are irrational, not standardised, and have different opinions. We do not want AGI to be the same. We want AI to complement ourselves not to make something similar to us as a result, for an AGI, the conscious is to complement humans not to be like humans.
This is my pov
May I invite you to join the following group:
Research Proposal Network -based human intelligence PART I
would you send your email address to create a project to handle the proposed topic?
Sarah S. Knox
Dear Sarah,
about using the word "human"
https://www.academia.edu/35150771/handling_human_social_technical_dimension_in_particular_man_system_interface_including_positioning_technology_at_man_services
https://www.academia.edu/99455049/A_case_study_for_Human_intelligence_vs_artificial_intelligence
I appreciate your comment, and I am pleased to invite you to join
a think tank:
https://www.academia.edu/89399367/Network_based_human_intelligence
In case you are interested to join us, please send me your email
address
yours,
Cosmin Visan
which school of Eastern philosophy are you talking about? In Buddhism, there is no explicit concept of Atman and in Charvak also as far as I remember. My point is that AGI is a rational complementary object IMHO. Humans are irrational and we can't afford AGI to be the same.Moreover, Bramhan and other societal divisions are not there in other communities such as Muslims and Indin being a secular country, cannot impose such kinds of stuffs that 'Atman us Bramham', so that's why there can't be any AGI.
My point is again, based on rationality and accountability, not on consciousness. Consciousness is 'mumbo-jumbo' for AGI, if there's any
The development of a general artificial intelligence (AI) would certainly be a significant technological achievement and could potentially lead to a deeper understanding of human consciousness. However, it is important to note that AI and human consciousness are fundamentally different concepts.
While AI systems can simulate human intelligence and perform tasks that require human-like intelligence, they do not possess consciousness, emotions, or self-awareness in the same way that humans do. AI operates based on algorithms and processing of data, whereas human consciousness is a complex and multi-dimensional phenomenon that is not fully understood by science.
The development of AI may provide insights into how human cognition works and could lead to new discoveries in neuroscience and cognitive science. It may also raise philosophical questions about the nature of consciousness and the differences between artificial and human intelligence.
In conclusion, while the development of AI could deepen our understanding of cognitive processes and intelligence, it is unlikely to fully explain the essence of human consciousness, which remains a profound mystery.
Zarina Tasheva Dear Zarina,
Perhaps this new research topic might interest you,
AI potential to augment human intelligence and streamline complex processes Sangat Naik added a very informative answer to my question: How to reinforce a network - based human intelligence supported with a new IA standard?
Research Proposal Network -based human intelligence PART I
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/378876761_AI_potential_to_augment_human_intelligence_and_streamline_complex_processes You may follow the discussion at: https://www.academia.edu/s/6fed733e46 Two years left to commentIn case you are interested in developing a large Network - based human intelligence, please don't hesitate to write to me:
https://www.academia.edu/43796598/Stochastic_Model_and_Worldwide_Conflict_Resolution_chaos_control_modeling_and_simulation
It's time to rework the stochastic model, new data is likely to achieve long-awaited convergence
I appreciate this discussion very much! In addition to my work on AI, I also study human science, and I believe we have many kinds of intelligence that have yet to be made visible to AGI or AI... While a researcher at UC Berkeley, and later Stanford, I became certified in compassion therapies, working with people in various hospitals around the Stanford campus (thank you to my bosses for allowing this). What I saw was that our survival is linked to compassionate intelligence, and now, as neuroscience and psychology have been brought together with almost every field in medical science, there is a renaissance in medical science around positive emotion. I believe these medical discoveries will drive the next generation of technology, whether general AI or not...It is already happening in gaming and VR. I wrote about these at length in The Emotion Organon, ISBN 979-885-1933-400. Did you realize most of AI, generative AI, robotics and machine learning rely on knowledge? In fact, they don't exist without it. So how we define that knowledge matters greatly. We currently rely on ideas of knowledge that relate back to Aristotle and Francis Bacon. We must bring new ideas about what knowledge is into our tools and technology, and I believe it must include compassion because our biology depends on it. Our relationship with machines grows increasingly closer every day, and the way we use machines is different now than when we first began to develop automation and efficiency. People are not automatic, nor efficient. They need care, protection and compassion. :). Human kind has always built tools to support our lives. And science drives technology. I don't think we will ignore these medical science developments for much longer... I apologize, for the length of this reply... but it really struck a nerve... I feel so convinced of this. I am writing a follow on book to The Emotion Organon called "Designing Artificial Compassion Technology" which is the application of these ideas to technology design. Hopefully it will be out before the end of the year... see www.artificialcompassion.org
ps. Also see, "Human Level AI requires Compassionate Intelligence" https://cdn.aaai.org/Workshops/2008/WS-08-07/WS08-07-023.pdf
The Answer is "Yes", definitely. And:
(1) LLMs are not AGI, and will never be AGI. AGI's Break relies on cognitive Theory but not Tech.
(2) From the mechanism perspective, Consciousness is an epiphenomena of the cognition process.
(3) From the behaviorism perspective, the Consciousness of AGI systems is different from human beings. But most of us are still reasoning based on anthropocentrism.
NEW TOPIC How does the Applied Artificial Intelligence AAI and Humanoid change the way we live today and what are the future prospects for AI to become adopted?
Cosmin Visan
Not at allhttps://www.academia.edu/35150771/handling_human_social_technical_dimension_in_particular_man_system_interface_including_positioning_technology_at_man_services
Cosmin Visan
The Death of Critical Thinking Will Kill Us Long Before AI
Article How to increase our learning considering The impact of artif...