Be All You Can Be in the Cyborg Army

 

The problem with being a cyborg soldier is that your shiny medals won't stand out against your shiny skin.

Today, I'll address the second big problem I have with AI cheerleaders.  Previously, I chatted in length about those hoping to cash in on the next big thing and the massive flaws that would be exposed if the collective AI hype dream reached its terminal state.

The other dystopian wish - I'm guessing here, but the language I see on social media platforms (and in the press) seems to support the conclusion I'm about to draw - is the burning desire to fuse the digital with the biological.  In other words, there are people rushing to bring about the age of the cyborg.

This isn't a massive surprise.  Several billionaires have been pursuing means to achieve immortality, and at least one has an unhealthy obsession with a brain chip.  I recall, more than a decade ago, that some nightclub was willing to implant a chip into patrons' arms to give them the ability to skip the line and take advantage of drink specials.  Sticking a chip in your arm to get 2 for 1 fuzzy navels seems bad enough.  Augmenting your brain for, well, anything is downright stupid. 

I understand that we all struggle with mortality and the limitations of being human and constantly search for ways to extend those limitations, but I don't believe that digital augmentation is the overarching answer to the question "Why are we here?"

I'll start with the more practical argument of why this is a bad idea - are you really willing to trust a relatively unknown collective with potential control not only of your body but also your mind?  With the amount of e-waste blooming coupled with the increasingly lower quality of the product offered, I don't feel comfortable having a brain link that has the shelf life of my shitty Bluetooth headphones and degrades just as unpredictably.

That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what people manufacturing these parts would do to increase revenue ("Gee, why do I have the urge to consume my 9th protein shake of the day?  I used to like real food, but now I can't get enough of this powdery nutritional substitute at $1000 a jug!  Goodbye disposal income and free will!")

For those who argue that the people ushering us into this tech utopia won't be so abusive - (a) these are the same people creating the so-called dystopia we're hell-bent on escaping now, or (b) even if it's not the usual suspects, human nature will always rear its head where absolute power is concerned and drive behavior accordingly.

But that's the easy argument.  I'm even more disappointed with the AI cheerleaders because their arguments in favor of a tech utopia are unfailingly lazy.  The arguments are always a weak mix of unbridled hope or poorly executed gaslighting attempts.

For example, I recall one comment in favor of Artificial General Intelligence essentially arguing how arrogant humans are in believing that machines can't be as creative as we are.  Wuh???

We humans are certainly an arrogant species - whether or not it's dividing ourselves into self-proclaimed elite groups based on dubious characteristics in order to tear others down or to completely ignore the massively complex ecosystem around us and assume it's in place solely for our pleasure.

If the argument is that intelligence across species is fluid and shouldn't only assume an anthropomorphic view of the world or other species contributions to our existence, that's reasonable.  Other flora and fauna are equal citizens on this planet.  We didn't manufacture them from whole cloth.  We're an extension of them, so we have to give them equal consideration.

However, the argument that we shouldn't insult actual tools we created to make our lives easier is extremely...dumb.

If there's a group of things that we should control, it's the mechanisms we've built for our own comfort and convenience.  Computers have no free agency.  We don't owe them any rights.  If assuming that computers should be given viable opportunities to contribute to society is a valid argument, then I can make the equally valid argument that I need to be empathetic to my shorts' concerns.  Who knows, maybe my shorts want to go into acting rather than clothe me.

If my know-it-all LLM begins to binary-splain to me when I vent my frustration with its obtuseness, I have every right to abuse it or simply pull the plug.  In fact, that's much healthier than taking out my frustrations about the bot's ineptness on a living being.  The only potential argument against this is if I'm unable to distinguish my abusive tendencies toward an unthinking, unfeeling server farm vs. a sentient being.  Otherwise, feel free to tell the bots how completely stupid they are in the name of stress relief.  Yelling at a digital wall is much healthier than bottling up your anger.

Granted, if AI ever reaches an acceptable definition of consciousness, then my argument becomes less relevant.  But the machines currently aren't conscious regardless of how often they refer to themselves as 'I,' so the point is moot.

And, good luck defining consciousness, intelligence, or creativity.

In order to determine whether or not a computer has reached an appropriate level of consciousness, intelligence, or creativity, we need to know what milestone it's met or surpassed.  

Neuroscientists have been trying for decades to determine how the brain functions and what causes the spark of self-recognition that we deem consciousness.  If we can't make a call on ourselves - the very beings in which these thinking organs are housed and off which modern AI is modeled (they don't call them neural nets for nothing, people), we're going to have an even harder time recognizing it in an abstraction and handling it appropriately (thus leading to people making confounding statements about respecting automata's creative rights).

Creativity is even more elusive.  No less an authority figure on creativity and AI than Ashton Kutcher himself has recently warned us of the dangers of AI in creative fields.  He's stated that, before long, people will simply type an idea for a script and will be so enamored by their own entertainment, external creative producers will be left in the dust.

I don't know about you, but that sounds like hell to me (then again Dude, where's my car? didn't quite crack my top 10 all-time films).  I understand that Hollywood will do anything to capitalize on the most derivative idea - I'm still waiting for Avengers 12 - Avenging the Loss of the Guaranteed Box Office - but, even in those cases, occasional artistry slips through.

I'm not attempting to play the role of an intellectual snob here.  The original Marvel comics and the original few movies that started the current trend play to a popular audience but are also generally enjoyable and have undergone a creative process.

But, it's precisely seeing what humans can do and understanding the ephemerality of it (I don't want to continue seeing a virtual Brad Pitt play Benjamin Button 100 years from now) that lends pathos to the performances.

Anything solely puked out by a computer is just a parlor trick.  Art has meaning because it has history.  The songs or movies that have meaning to you are a connection in part to the artist creating the work.  You both felt something and it's that feeling that imparts meaning.  Lose that connection and the work becomes an empty, even when highly-polished, vessel.

You can argue this won't be the case once we see the sheer beauty of horseshit a rack of machines can collectively create.  But, if you're any type of sports fan - and I'll double down and say, in particular, a college sports fan - you've already lost this argument.

We watch sports because we like to see what humans are capable of.  Yes, these humans are extremely athletic and the top 0.1% of their field, but we still connect to them because they're human.  And, in the world of college sports, we're watching individuals who are talented but who are far from being at the literal top of their game.  And yet, time and time again, I hear that people watch college sports for "the passion," "the tradition," or "the connection to a certain point in my life.  Particularly that time when the Gators were beating the pants off FSU while I was doing keg stands at my friend Matt's apartment."

As for someone employing the creative process rather than consuming it - other than the all-mighty buck (which is a pretty powerful draw, don't get me wrong), I see zero satisfaction in using AI to write, sing, play, or direct anything.  

I don't write reams and reams of words that no one will ever read because AI isn't good enough (though it isn't unless your favorite flavor of non-fat ice milk is 'plain').  I do it because I enjoy the process and feel a  rush when a certain phrase comes together or someone compliments me on my style.  I do it because I'm occasionally able to glue together a snappy metaphor and understand where the original idea came from.

Most people, if they're out to make a fast buck, do so because they want to pursue something else they're passionate about.  But if all the robots are in rock bands, are out on the golf course, or are creating all the crap on daytime TV, what is there left to look forward to?  Your next cyber-enhancement?

Until next time, my human and robot friends.