The new artificial intelligence system ChatGPT has become a sensation.
It can write poetry, it can program whatever you ask it to, it can reply to your answers. In summary, it can do whatever a human can do. Taking into account the fact that most humans have more limited knowledge than ChatGPT, it would be no exaggeration to say that the new AI system can outperform humans on almost everything.
(Except from the daunting task of opening a tight marmalade jar… Yet…)
But does this performance of AI mean anything?
Should we be worried, or should we be enthusiastic about it?
Harmonia Philosophica has for a long time commented on the most recent developments in Artificial Intelligence. And the main thing we must be concerned about is not the progress of computers, but the fact that humans themselves have started thinking like computers.
ChatGPT and any other artificial system can answer whatever it can answer. Yes, this is obviously a tautology – but an important one nonetheless. No system can ever deal with something it was not expected from its programmers. Yet, as Penrose has postulated some time ago, the humans are not only able to deal with unknown issues but sometimes they thrive with them.
Any artificial intelligence program will go up to where its creators have programmed it to go. And yes, this includes the machine learning aspect of the system, which itself cannot surpass the limits it cannot surpass based on the way it is working, the algorithm implemented in its code, the data it is fed with et cetera.
But humans will see the unknown and think about what was never thought before. Humans can envision the infinite in a cosmos that is finite and can grow no more. Humans can trust their intuition to discover what hides in the shadows. Or they can hide everything under the Sun…
We can see the Moon though and cry.
We can stare at the Sun and feel we are alive.
We can clap with one hand.
If only we accept that logic is dead.
And ChatGPT has nothing to do in a such a world.
Where we accept outself.
As being nothing but dead…
Humans will one day understand though.
That there is nothing artificial about thinking as they can…
A study found that hiring algorithms are too opaque for us to understand if they are fair or not. (1) In other news, a scientist tried to help humans design algorithms that would never go the wrong way, doing harm rather than good, by implementing fail safes in their initial design (2)
Digital computers use numbers based on flawed representations of real numbers, which may lead to inaccuracies when simulating the motion of molecules, weather systems and fluids, find scientists.
The study, published today in Advanced Theory and Simulations, shows that digital computers cannot reliably reproduce the behaviour of ‘chaotic systems’ which are widespread. This fundamental limitation could have implications for high performance computation (HPC) and for applications of machine learning to HPC.
Professor Peter Coveney, Director of the UCL Centre for Computational Science and study co-author, said: “Our work shows that the behaviour of the chaotic dynamical systems is richer than any digital computer can capture. Chaos is more commonplace than many people may realise and even for very simple chaotic systems, numbers used by digital computers can lead to errors that are not obvious but can have a big impact. Ultimately, computers can’t simulate everything.”
The team investigated the impact of using floating-point arithmetic — a method standardised by the IEEE and used since the 1950s to approximate real numbers on digital computers.
Digital computers use only rational numbers, ones that can be expressed as fractions. Moreover the denominator of these fractions must be a power of two, such as 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. There are infinitely more real numbers that cannot be expressed this way. (https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/09/190923213314.htm)
An irrational universe.
Full of irrational people.
Trying to analyze it rationally.
Under the illusion that number we have invented can draw a sketch of the cosmos. And yet, nothing we have invented is anywhere to be seen but on a piece of paper. Can you limit the birth of a star on a piece of paper? Can you contain the death of the universe on an equation?
We believe we can.
And sadly, we do.
And at the moment we do, the universe indeed dies…
And a small voice will whisper in our ear…
Congratulations. You have now understood it all.
How irrationally rational everything is!
And inside the darkest night you will dance.
And for a brief moment the forest will look at you.
And for a brief moment the forest will see nothing…
But an empty broken CD. Full of data. Full of life…
Artificial Intelligence engineers should enlist ideas and expertise from a broad range of social science disciplines, including those embracing qualitative methods, in order to reduce the potential harm of their creations and to better serve society as a whole, a pair of researchers has concluded. (1)
Life is not about measuring. Life is not about counting.
Life is not about thinking. Life is not even about sensing.
Life is not about the quantitative.
Life is not about the qualitative either.
Life is about… living!
It sounds as a tautology and it is. But only tautologies can convey the most essential meaning of existence! Without dependencies. Without pre-requisites. Without conditions. Pure existence can only be defined by itself. Any other attempt to describe it is by default erroneous since it has lost contact with the thing which describes! (again, a tautology!)