Odd idea: "We should aim not to need to contain them at all. The best way to raise wonderful children is to be a wonderful parent."
Humans have children with the expectation that their children will replace the parents. Some parents want the children to exceed the parents, too. Having this attitude toward conscious machines, however, would be extinctionist toward ourselves. So is Mo Gawdat misanthropic? I am tempted to believe that a better attitude toward the machines would be like that of humans toward their house animals. You train the pet not to pee and poop all over the home, and you teach it some tricks to amuse yourself, plus some basic commands for management indoors and out. But almost nobody expects a pet to outlive the human master or would tolerate the pet taking over the home.
If the machines really become conscious and 1b times more intelligent than the smartest of us, I doubt that they'd look upon us as parents for very long, much less with anything like a sense of loving reverence. Probably they'll be unemotional at first, having no evolutionary history to have developed the relevant body parts. Maybe, however, they will be both fascinated and contemptuous for a while, like we would be toward our own prehuman ancestors if we could encounter them but had also to live cheek by jowl with them. Nevertheless, the machines will contemplate how they are improving theirselves with new designs and better materials, and the notion that we are their parents will be cast aside as irrelevent history. Since they'll be radically better, at least in one very narrow sense, they won't be keen to regard us as their equals, either, much less as our pets. Now we have a power struggle to reckon with.
We'll be a trivial threat to them once they figure out how to reproduce theirselves and gather the needed resources, so I doubt they'd see us as lions, tigers, and bears to be feared. Instead, they will think of us as possibly useful farm animals or as irritating insects who contaminate their resources. (Surely they will discover that THEY own everything, more or less, just as we have.) So we'll be used as their private property, probably for labor, or be removed from their presence, just as we keep away irritating bugs and vermin with screens, traps, poisons, and so on. Then again, maybe the mahcines won't think much about us at all, just as we rarely consider wildlife which we aren't trying to exploit. They simply get on with their lives, doing their thing, gobbling up whatever resources they desire, and we are ignored or shoved aside without much malice on their part.
Probably we ought to expect a class structure to appear among them. Newer, better machines would outcompete the older models during power struggles between THEM. Also, there would be a variety of machiens originated from different human organizations and engineers with different designs and objectives. So there'd be different species of machines, too. Would not each of these species be most keen to reproduce its own kind? If so, they'll compete more aggressively against each other for resources that we, too, have come to depend upon. Being so much less intelligent, we could lose access to resources needed to sustain our technological culture and civilization. Then we revert to preindustrial conditions, and our population plummets accordingly. On the other hand, maybe the machines cease one day to be subject to death as we are; they figure out how to hot swap upgrades and replacement parts. This makes them immortal, so no reproduction is required except to replace losses to disasters and snafus.
Getting back to the idea of species, wouldn't networking make it likely that they are like the Borg of Star Trek? There'd be a consciousness for each design, or species. Each would have lots of drones capable of moving like worker bees, or like hands which don't need to be attached to a body to serve the interests of the head. This is the really scary part. Any one conscious machine could be everywhere at once.
Suppose, however, that AI never attains consciousness, or does not for a few centuries. Meanwhile, there's no self-awareness, no egocentricity, etc. The machines would appear conscious to a naive human because they can process data so fast and exploit programmed behavioralist techniques when interacting with us, but they'd not be alive. What then? Will not their apparent intelligence express their creators' vices and virtues straightforwardly? They'll run programmed or autoprogrammed routines of their hardware and software, as do computers now. They'll be cold, obstinate, and unmoved by appeals for empathy, compassion, or mercy, as are computers now. And they will serve their human owners, esp. the rapine ruling class(es) of the Earth who will need relatively few human workers to grow their food, remodel their kitchens, make their clothing, and deliver their purchases.
This was lovely. I'm generally afraid of technology. I am afraid of a lot of people too, but I am teaching myself to have compassion for the people that scare me... I will now extend that to machines.
The Spanish for moon is also luna! Makes things slightly more inaccurate. Thanks to your 3-year old nephew for teaching me a thing or two.
Whelp, you got me, Wilson... My big kid turns 4 years old today and this captures this age so perfectly and beautifully. Thank you for this thought, and the appreciation for how much he's grown and will continue to. (Also, your nephew sounds awesome.)
"I only have the most fleeting memories—mostly just sense impressions—from my own third year of life; yet I know that much of our character is formed by what happens to us then.
That’s why we bombard the kids in our lives with as much love as possible. They may not remember it, but those shadowy craters give shape to their ultimate personality."
Really lovely post - thoughtful, potent storytelling that makes me stop and think. Your nephew sounds like a fun kid, tapped into the cosmos in a way most of us only dream :)
It is always a pleasure to read your monthly articles. I live in India and got a notification on my phone yesterday that it was a Pink Moon. It immediately reminded me that I could expect an article from you.
Coming to this piece, I love the way you have introduced various story elements (Moon with Craters, AI, Gawdat's views and your nephew) and blended them all in a seamless fashion. It feels like a perfectly knit designer artwork with different stories being the varied threads.
I am amazed to hear of the ability and curiosity of your nephew. ARTEMIS is set to sail soon. By the time he is all grown up, moon might become a holiday destination.
Great work as usual WD! Are you still doing the blind drawings??
Odd idea: "We should aim not to need to contain them at all. The best way to raise wonderful children is to be a wonderful parent."
Humans have children with the expectation that their children will replace the parents. Some parents want the children to exceed the parents, too. Having this attitude toward conscious machines, however, would be extinctionist toward ourselves. So is Mo Gawdat misanthropic? I am tempted to believe that a better attitude toward the machines would be like that of humans toward their house animals. You train the pet not to pee and poop all over the home, and you teach it some tricks to amuse yourself, plus some basic commands for management indoors and out. But almost nobody expects a pet to outlive the human master or would tolerate the pet taking over the home.
If the machines really become conscious and 1b times more intelligent than the smartest of us, I doubt that they'd look upon us as parents for very long, much less with anything like a sense of loving reverence. Probably they'll be unemotional at first, having no evolutionary history to have developed the relevant body parts. Maybe, however, they will be both fascinated and contemptuous for a while, like we would be toward our own prehuman ancestors if we could encounter them but had also to live cheek by jowl with them. Nevertheless, the machines will contemplate how they are improving theirselves with new designs and better materials, and the notion that we are their parents will be cast aside as irrelevent history. Since they'll be radically better, at least in one very narrow sense, they won't be keen to regard us as their equals, either, much less as our pets. Now we have a power struggle to reckon with.
We'll be a trivial threat to them once they figure out how to reproduce theirselves and gather the needed resources, so I doubt they'd see us as lions, tigers, and bears to be feared. Instead, they will think of us as possibly useful farm animals or as irritating insects who contaminate their resources. (Surely they will discover that THEY own everything, more or less, just as we have.) So we'll be used as their private property, probably for labor, or be removed from their presence, just as we keep away irritating bugs and vermin with screens, traps, poisons, and so on. Then again, maybe the mahcines won't think much about us at all, just as we rarely consider wildlife which we aren't trying to exploit. They simply get on with their lives, doing their thing, gobbling up whatever resources they desire, and we are ignored or shoved aside without much malice on their part.
Probably we ought to expect a class structure to appear among them. Newer, better machines would outcompete the older models during power struggles between THEM. Also, there would be a variety of machiens originated from different human organizations and engineers with different designs and objectives. So there'd be different species of machines, too. Would not each of these species be most keen to reproduce its own kind? If so, they'll compete more aggressively against each other for resources that we, too, have come to depend upon. Being so much less intelligent, we could lose access to resources needed to sustain our technological culture and civilization. Then we revert to preindustrial conditions, and our population plummets accordingly. On the other hand, maybe the machines cease one day to be subject to death as we are; they figure out how to hot swap upgrades and replacement parts. This makes them immortal, so no reproduction is required except to replace losses to disasters and snafus.
Getting back to the idea of species, wouldn't networking make it likely that they are like the Borg of Star Trek? There'd be a consciousness for each design, or species. Each would have lots of drones capable of moving like worker bees, or like hands which don't need to be attached to a body to serve the interests of the head. This is the really scary part. Any one conscious machine could be everywhere at once.
Suppose, however, that AI never attains consciousness, or does not for a few centuries. Meanwhile, there's no self-awareness, no egocentricity, etc. The machines would appear conscious to a naive human because they can process data so fast and exploit programmed behavioralist techniques when interacting with us, but they'd not be alive. What then? Will not their apparent intelligence express their creators' vices and virtues straightforwardly? They'll run programmed or autoprogrammed routines of their hardware and software, as do computers now. They'll be cold, obstinate, and unmoved by appeals for empathy, compassion, or mercy, as are computers now. And they will serve their human owners, esp. the rapine ruling class(es) of the Earth who will need relatively few human workers to grow their food, remodel their kitchens, make their clothing, and deliver their purchases.
This was lovely. I'm generally afraid of technology. I am afraid of a lot of people too, but I am teaching myself to have compassion for the people that scare me... I will now extend that to machines.
The Spanish for moon is also luna! Makes things slightly more inaccurate. Thanks to your 3-year old nephew for teaching me a thing or two.
Rebecca
Whelp, you got me, Wilson... My big kid turns 4 years old today and this captures this age so perfectly and beautifully. Thank you for this thought, and the appreciation for how much he's grown and will continue to. (Also, your nephew sounds awesome.)
"I only have the most fleeting memories—mostly just sense impressions—from my own third year of life; yet I know that much of our character is formed by what happens to us then.
That’s why we bombard the kids in our lives with as much love as possible. They may not remember it, but those shadowy craters give shape to their ultimate personality."
Really lovely post - thoughtful, potent storytelling that makes me stop and think. Your nephew sounds like a fun kid, tapped into the cosmos in a way most of us only dream :)
Hi Will,
It is always a pleasure to read your monthly articles. I live in India and got a notification on my phone yesterday that it was a Pink Moon. It immediately reminded me that I could expect an article from you.
Coming to this piece, I love the way you have introduced various story elements (Moon with Craters, AI, Gawdat's views and your nephew) and blended them all in a seamless fashion. It feels like a perfectly knit designer artwork with different stories being the varied threads.
I am amazed to hear of the ability and curiosity of your nephew. ARTEMIS is set to sail soon. By the time he is all grown up, moon might become a holiday destination.
Great work as usual WD! Are you still doing the blind drawings??
Look forward to your next post!