The question is asked, "“Will AI eventually be able to do whatever humans can do?” Maybe the follow up question should be, how long will we allow the limitations of the scientific method to define human existence?
I am not enamored with AI, even as I see its potential. I am more interested though in the unrealized potential of human beings. As a leadership guy for forty years, one of the strong conclusions that I reached early on was that the greatest limitation on human potential was the structure of society and its institutions. The scientific revolution paired with the industrial revolution organized human development and social interaction to be a machine-like set of transactions. Human relations became a zero-sum game of extraction and exploitation. Human society didn't survive past centuries living this way. Relationships of trust and mutuality formed the center of communities. Our present age, in my opinion, is an aberration, not a predictor of the future.
My expectation is that AI will ultimately be treated like other technological innovations. There is a lot of promise, but eventually calls for efficiency and mass application will mean that its potential will be never be fulfilled. Possibly, centuries from now, the modern age will be known for its missed opportunities instead of its advanced technologies.
“What does it mean to be a person?” I believe that is the right questions to ask and one that is so much more difficult for people to answer. Especially, if it gets even more personal: "Who am I?" Many years, I have watched top managers fight change because they weren't able to redefine their role when agile principles and empowerment transformation initiatives were rolled out. Now I wonder how will people react if other people have Artie friends or when more Cyborgs walk among us?
Bringing ChatGPT & Co. in the public domain has made a lot of questions more pressing but none of them are really new: There was and is a lot of unregulated junk on the Internet (mankind has many beautiful but also has many dark sides), there is and were bullying and desinformation campaigns that are hard to combat, and there are many different, sometimes contradicting cultural definitions on what is right, what is important, what is human.
Now, when we want to regulate technology, we will need to describe it. To agree on a common ground. To answer: What does it mean to be human? I believe this will be an ongoing definition and redefinition, but somehow I am deeply convinced in the human ability to adapt and to grow.
The question is asked, "“Will AI eventually be able to do whatever humans can do?” Maybe the follow up question should be, how long will we allow the limitations of the scientific method to define human existence?
I am not enamored with AI, even as I see its potential. I am more interested though in the unrealized potential of human beings. As a leadership guy for forty years, one of the strong conclusions that I reached early on was that the greatest limitation on human potential was the structure of society and its institutions. The scientific revolution paired with the industrial revolution organized human development and social interaction to be a machine-like set of transactions. Human relations became a zero-sum game of extraction and exploitation. Human society didn't survive past centuries living this way. Relationships of trust and mutuality formed the center of communities. Our present age, in my opinion, is an aberration, not a predictor of the future.
My expectation is that AI will ultimately be treated like other technological innovations. There is a lot of promise, but eventually calls for efficiency and mass application will mean that its potential will be never be fulfilled. Possibly, centuries from now, the modern age will be known for its missed opportunities instead of its advanced technologies.
We are certainly fulfilling the Confucian desire to be born in interesting times. Appreciate your observations Ed
“What does it mean to be a person?” I believe that is the right questions to ask and one that is so much more difficult for people to answer. Especially, if it gets even more personal: "Who am I?" Many years, I have watched top managers fight change because they weren't able to redefine their role when agile principles and empowerment transformation initiatives were rolled out. Now I wonder how will people react if other people have Artie friends or when more Cyborgs walk among us?
Bringing ChatGPT & Co. in the public domain has made a lot of questions more pressing but none of them are really new: There was and is a lot of unregulated junk on the Internet (mankind has many beautiful but also has many dark sides), there is and were bullying and desinformation campaigns that are hard to combat, and there are many different, sometimes contradicting cultural definitions on what is right, what is important, what is human.
Now, when we want to regulate technology, we will need to describe it. To agree on a common ground. To answer: What does it mean to be human? I believe this will be an ongoing definition and redefinition, but somehow I am deeply convinced in the human ability to adapt and to grow.