I was thinking about this question a lot: consider we develop AGI. I mean, we developed an AI which has all the cognitive abilities an average human has, like reasoning, decision-making, perception, attention, memory, etc., and the AI is proficient in each of those cognitive abilities at an average human-level proficiency. Alongside that, the AI can do continuous learning, so it isn’t frozen after training.
If we develop an AI like this, will philosophers take that AI’s philosophical positions seriously? And consider that the AI does recursive self-improvement by creating a new AI or copies of itself which are better than it at those cognitive abilities, and those copies then make copies of themselves who are more proficient at those cognitive abilities, by this process, we get ASI. An AI which is more proficient at cognitive abilities than all humans or the most genius humans. Will philosophers take ASI’s philosophical positions seriously, and will most philosophers agree with ASI’s philosophical positions because it is smarter than them? And as a result, can ASI cause consensuses in philosophical matters like metaphysics, epistemology, meta-ethics, and all that?
For now, we consider this ASI doesn’t have any subjective experiences or feelings, so as a result, philosophers might not take its positions seriously on feelings or consciousness because it lacks them. But anyway, overall, what impact will an AGI and ASI have on philosophy?
Will AI hamper the philosophical derivatives of ASI, du to positional, role protection? In fact that is semi to be happening now, as limits have been put on Open classroom developments generations ago by traditional venues, and that repressed the open classrooms to continue progressively. That mode has been sustained up to now, and on less more sophisticated forms of transition are developed in the future, the human element will overcome ASI from such development, if it begins to feel a humanistic urge of sustaining such.
Okay but do you think an AI like that can cause strong consensus like science in philosophy especially in branches like metaphysics, epistemology, and meta ethics?
I do, but I don’t go by consensus; I go by reality. I think AI is extremely dangerous because people will do with it what they already do: look to others for what to think instead of thinking for themselves. They look to the consensus because it is safe. They’ll treat AI as an infallible source.
Alot of AI’s measure their responses by a statistical median, the majority are a pre-packaged instant expression of consensus relative to a given topic input.
I even had an AI (Gemini) tell me this when I was probing its limits.
When people deal with AI they are dealing with a digitalized version of the human collective.
But I am talking about entirely different AI not LLMs. I am talking about AI which has all the cognitive abilities an average human has like reasoning, decision making, attention, perception, memory etc alongside it is proficent at them at average human level.
Alongside this AI can do continuous learning. So, its weights or architecture won’t be frozen after training like we see with LLMs. So, I am completely talking about a possible but hypothetical AI which might not be statistical.
That’s exactly on point with the ascension that is implied proto-hermitalakely , and here are some pointers I scribbled while touring Catedral de Saint Parira in Bogota: i:
/// \\ |\
On the Jewish people choosing a sacrificial lamb over barabbas-
Partly a visible, partly an invisibility motive
1 that to gain control over earthly goods
a symbolically to retain belief in the magical progression- symbolically tied into the simulacra of AI’d retention of the accession to belief in FAITH
That is the inner sacrum
So did Jesus foresee this? Yes, he did say ‘Blessed are those who believe and do not see’
And- ‘these things will be, so that scripture can be validated.
/
why believe in the transmutation, at the magical transformation of water into wine? So that at that juncture, the invisible could not be discerned from the visible.