I argue that a reverence for the transcendent—which has always permeated human history and culture—is at risk of being displaced by the existential threat that is artificial intelligence. The transcendent could take the form of God, secular spirituality, literature—anything that introduces a matter of respect for that which is distinctly human that exists in relation to the greater powers or truths that we believe should regulate or inform our behavior or understanding in some capacity. Thus, the transcendent is that which guides even in physical or mental hardship; it is a bulwark against destructive, deregulatory forces. This is not quite how transcendence is typically defined, but I think that this is how it functions in reality.
That which precedes as a matter of necessary respect—respect for the transcendent—supposes a relation between the self and the transcendent not entirely different from that which dictates that a dog respect its leash as a function of the benevolent master’s perhaps mysterious judgement. As such, a certain amount of agency has typically been required to sustain any sort of state associated with positive wellbeing—but what happens when traditional conceptions of the transcendent are replaced by materialist concerns that have no inherent respect for the will and well-being of the self-respecting human? That is the role AI is shamelessly taking. Does Sam Altman care if AI amplifies psychotic symptoms in certain people? Likely not: he and others stand to benefit from eliminating respect for the regulatory mechanisms built into the human power structures that have survived for centuries. They seek to pervert the sacred—the transcendent—until the only things we might have left to guide us are the beaten, bruised scruples we so arrogantly ignored.
Will the end come from a rogue artificial intelligence, or will it come from allowing ourselves to be subsumed by a particular strain of transhuman delusion—if such a belief is even genuinely held? These two questions are largely indistinct: the former presupposes the content of the latter: if we allow the tech oligarchs to pursue their anti-human agenda, then we could perhaps speedrun our way to superintelligence and then get stepped on like ants—or we could just live in eternal agony as the most essential aspects of our humanity are augmented with cheap cyberware. I say we could take back control of humanity’s trajectory from these ghouls and make an effort to restore that which should always have been minimally transcendent: a resolute appreciation of authentic interpersonal human connections.
Just as there is no respect that a chatbot can afford you that could compare to the love of another human being, there is no human being that would claim to love you unconditionally as a function of tokens generated. Those are no ordinary distinctions.
For most people belief in the trascendent is a passing illusion and occassionally society has to clear up the mess it creates when peoples expectations are disappointed.
So I am not worried about AI displacing transcendence.
However, I would be worried if AI undermined what you call fhe resolute appreciation of authentic interpersonal human connections. Does it?
I am not sure what you are responding to. I offer no commentary on humanity transcending its current state. All I say is that human connections should be valued as being more than ordinary.
I think that building a superintelligence in an attempt to combat every deficiency humanity might have is kind of the opposite of humanity transcending. If we were to approach AI much like we approach other tools insofar as we acknowledge that it needs special treatment because it is categorically different from, and more dangerous than, pretty much any other tool at our disposal, then I would support limited AI research. On the other hand, I contend that if we are okay with society being upended to reach a point at which lonely men can buy beautiful, demure android wives or some other such frivolous garbage, then we need to reevaluate our current value system.
And why would anything that is compromised now by AI be fixed later? If anything, I can only see things getting worse.
We are selling our souls for the water at the bottom of a rusty barrel in the hopes that the promised rain will cure our botulism.
For whom are things getting worse? For anyone who is interested in having conversations with other, actual human beings. For those who don’t want to be inundated with slop every time they look at a screen. I could go on.
Yes, a superintelligence could do incredible things, but there are things that will never be fixed. Deepfakes will always be a thing.
You clearly think that nothing could have prevented AI from making things worse for us in myriad ways. I contend such a thing was, and might still not be, inevitable. To emphasize the importance of human connections in light of this conviction is not to chase our tails because it could lend itself to a state that is very much attainable—if only for enclaves of humans like those who frequent this forum. I mean, should Jamal just shut down the forum because any conviction that human connection is important can be objected to on some vague grounds of circularity?
So, any attempt to reevaluate our value systems in the face of the application of AI is fallacious. Got it. What do you think of Israel using shoddy AI to target suspected terrorists in their homes with their families? Do you think that the value system that gave rise to that was impeccable? Do you think value systems are automatically sacrosanct if they lead to an AI-related outcome?
I suppose you are implying that I’m arguing from a position of re-enchantment. I’m not sure if my conviction that we ought to elevate human connection counts as the kind of “creed” something like psychoanalysis is, though. Furthermore, I don’t view the world as a “great enchanted garden”, but rather a world in which we are tossed about by forces much greater than ourselves—but that we still ought to try to stand up for what really matters.
Nor do I think that 180 is taking up some sort of rational, pro-science viewpoint that must by default come into friction with my own and many others’ worldviews. We can have a distinctly pro-human basis for modernity while acknowledging the uses of AI.
I read your OP as sanctifying human existence (you referred to to reverence for the transcedent), seperating it from the mundane, which I take to be the very definition of making something holy. I read it as inserting something additional into our every day existence, which I generally referenced as enchantment, but I wasn’t suggesting some naive garden of eden.