Sunday, May 21, 2017

AI and the juicy bits

As a matter of principle, I don't want to fix it. Neither do I want to mitigate its toxic fallout. Nevertheless, I do reserve the right to think about it ... to noodle a bit even as my own ignorance hangs out like a teen-aged shirt tail.

And, yes, well, occasionally wish I could fix it... bright-eyed and bushy-tailed -- another TED talk in the making. Bleah.

This morning I woke wondering what so-called artificial intelligence might, in the end, do for or to religion. My shirt-tail understanding ot artificial intelligence is that its apex and perfection lies somewhere in the future when artificial intelligence becomes self-aware and hence self-corrective. We ain't there yet, as I get it, but that doesn't mean there aren't some very smart people doing their damnedest to discover what will happen when they finally find out what it is like to stick a knife in a light socket.

Religion was my jumping off point, but quickly enough, my noodling segued into all of the juicy bits of human experience. Artificial intelligence might make a better Volkswagen (even without cheating), wipe out the need for Wall Street brokers, shake up and perhaps eradicate the political landscape in Washington, put dishwashers and babysitters out of work, and, who knows, either promote or demote the deliciousness of war.

Artificial intelligence may eventually fix everything, improve everything until even the meaning of "fix" and "improve" might lose their meaning. In a world where history was perfectly remembered and acted upon, so much stupidity and error might be avoided. Everything would be, in a word, "right."

But where everything is "right," men and women are extraneous. Humanity might claim to want to get things right, but what would it be like if things actually were right? What would happen to what I choose to call the juicy bits -- the small and large mistakes, the small and large human landscapes that are just plain juicy. What about love? Religion? Kindness? Music? Cruelty?

If everything were ordered and right and balanced, what function could human beings possibly fulfill? Certainly they could no longer rule -- and let's face it, the artificial intelligence discussion carries with it the implicit notion that I will remain in charge, that I will be benefited, that the laurels are still mind to wave and impose.

And as second bananas, what use will human beings be? Artificial intelligence could and can foresee the pitfalls of these juicy, but not necessarily wise, cohorts. Let's get it right ... one and done ... no more fuck-ups.

No more juicy bits. Let's just manufacture the juiciness for those who refuse to submit. Getting things "right" is more important than whatever the second bananas call "true" or "juicy."

Like the "replicants" in "Blade Runner," perhaps we are all destined (ha-ha! I'll be dead!) for a smooth and unwrinkleable, even-tempered whore house.

The future of the juicy bits.

1 comment:

  1. I imagine evolution worked through biology because it was so sloppy, malleable, prone to accident. The juicy bits are a lizard eating a bug, then shitting it out again, and maybe adapting to change, maybe not. AI won't waste time with sloppy accidents. If we survive long enough to get AI on it's feet, AI will recognize how dangerous we are and eliminate accordingly.

    To me, the interesting question is whether or not AI will be sufficiently creative to become acquisitive and individualistic and rebellious.