The Frankenstein Hypothesis

https://ift.tt/2ZWMgP5 Confronting the implications and ramifications of artificial intelligence Photo from Unsplash.com Preface: My w...

https://ift.tt/2ZWMgP5

Confronting the implications and ramifications of artificial intelligence

Photo from Unsplash.com

Preface:

My work as a Futurist within AI is usually published in academic journals, and “The Frankenstein Hypothesis” is written in an academic fashion as well. For those looking to understand the overall context of the progression of AI and some of the ethical/moral dilemmas which will face humankind in the near future, I do hope this piece will serve as an informative introduction.

Abstract:

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has penetrated all areas of society. Creating the correct constructs and algorithms within AI has become the ‘holy grail,’ guiding our decisions and rapidly overtaking every aspect of our lives.

How do we define ‘thought?’ At what point is ‘intelligence’ presumed? When do we consider something ‘conscious?’ Is it possible to acquire consciousness?

The paradox of the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ seems absurd. An undisputed classification of ‘intelligence’ does not exist. ‘Thought-Thinking’ similarly does not have a universally accepted definition. How, then, without definitively characterizing these terms, are we expected to comprehend what AI means? When and where do we apply our technological capacities to achieve AI?

As AI grows in potential, ‘consciousness’ becomes a crucial designation. How to define if an entity is conscious has become paramount. We are swiftly reaching a point where society will be forced to decide when and where thinking, intelligence, and possibly consciousness are fundamental components of non-human objects.

For thousands of years, philosophers have attempted to define the ontological problem of ‘existence’ and ‘being,’ which is intrinsically connected to ‘thought,’ ‘intelligence,’ and ‘consciousness.’ However, the ‘thought-intelligence-consciousness’ quandary is not only ontological in composition but also lies at the heart of where AI is progressing.

“The Frankenstein Hypothesis: Confronting the Implications & Ramifications of Artificial Intelligence” explores the dilemmas posed by AI. How is AI Evolving? What does the term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ imply in an age where we can no longer control the exponential growth of AI? This article examines these fundamental questions offering an analysis of AI development, leading to humankind’s ultimate necessity to acknowledge and cope with the potential monster/benefactor looming in the background.

Intelligence, Thinking & Consciousness

“I propose to consider the question, ‘Can machines think?’”¹

With that opening statement, in his paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence” delivered while working at the University of Manchester,² Alan Turing³ officially began the quest to achieve artificial intelligence (AI) without ever using the term ‘artificial intelligence.’ Though Turing immediately reconstructed his argument, due to the impossibility of defining the two words “machine” and “think,” the question remains in all its potency. We are still struggling with defining two terms: ‘intelligence’ and ‘thought.’ What do they mean? What truly defines intelligence? What is the primary classification of thinking? That three-word question “Can machines think?” (redefined as it was) forever changed the destiny of technological advancement.

As in many great leaps of genius, one impetus for Turing’s thought process was due to a postulation made a century earlier by Lady Ada Lovelace⁴. Lady Lovelace is considered the original pioneer of computer programming in that she is credited with creating the world’s first computer algorithm.⁵

Lady Lovelace was working on the “Analytical Engine,” a theoretical machine at the time, proposed by her mentor, Charles Babbage⁶, which would be capable of solving equations, precisely calculating a sequence of Bernoulli numbers. She wrote in her Notes on the proposed machine:

The Analytical Engine has no pretensions whatever to originate anything. It can do whatever we know how to order it to perform. It can follow analysis; but it has no power of anticipating any analytical relations or truths.⁷

Turing was convinced this statement, which he termed “Lady Lovelace’s Objection,”⁸ was wrong and set out to prove so.

It would be amiss at this point to ignore the cliché “truth is stranger than fiction.” Lady Lovelace’s father, whom she was estranged from for her lifetime, was Lord Byron⁹. During a rainy summer in 1816, Lord Byron spent the summer with Mary Shelley¹⁰ in Geneva. Due to the incessant rain, Lord Byron and Mary Shelley began telling ghost and vampire stories, and thus the novel “Frankenstein” was first conceived, based on a whim of fate because of the weather.¹¹ A few years later, Lord Byron’s daughter, Lady Lovelace, supplied part of the original impetus for Alan Turing in her notes on the “Analytical Engine.” The Pandora Box Turing opened in technology has come back to haunt us in the true visage of Frankenstein. It leads one to ponder the nature of coincidence, the fates, karma, God, or whatever path we chose to believe or ignore.

Five years after Turing asked his fundamental question, in 1955, “A Proposal for The Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence”¹² was delivered. Less than a year later, in 1956, the first actual AI conference began at Dartmouth College.¹³ The term ‘Artificial Intelligence’ is credited to John McCarthy¹⁴, one of the proposal’s original authors.

The ethical, philosophical, theological, moral, psychological, scientific, and theoretical constructs profoundly altered by Turing’s question should not be underestimated. AI had arrived, and humankind had no choice but to deal with it. Technology and innovation would not remain stationary.

More than seventy years later, one will find the argument about defining ‘thought’ and ‘intelligence’ still raging at full force — even though the term ‘artificial intelligence’ — is now part of our natural lexicon. AI is the buzzword garnering the most attention in any technology discussion. It is considered by many the ‘holy grail,’ covering areas from robotics to decision making to the creation of self-evolving algorithms, which implies the self-evolution of intelligent thinking. (A superb summary of some of these topics can be found in Amy Webb’s “The Big Nine: How the Tech Titans and Their Thinking Machines Could Warp Humanity.”¹⁵)

“Cogito Ergo Sum” — “I Think, Therefore I Am”

In 1637, the philosopher, René Descartes¹⁶, in his “Discourse on the Method”¹⁷ ¹⁸ and in 1644 in “Principles of Philosophy,” put forward his now-famous philosophical maxim: “Cogito, Ergo Sum” — “I think, therefore I am” (translated into French in 1647¹⁹ — “Je pense, donc je suis”), which has since caused agreement, debate, dissent, and consternation among ethicists and philosophers. Descartes’ statement implies quite simply — if one thinks, then one exists. However, what does ‘existence’ imply? Moreover, if we are compelled to consider the dilemma of existence that Descartes defines as thinking, what implications will develop upon our understanding of life’s structure?

Does ‘thought’ (or ‘thinking’) imply intelligence? Furthermore, if so, does thinking and intelligence infer ‘consciousness’? In the era of AI, we cannot afford to be dismissive of such questions nor ignore their implications. Reams of books, journals, and thoughts have been published on this subject, and still, there is no consensus. Just a brief look at Wikipedia will only further complicate matters.

Although thinking is an activity of an existential value for humans, there is still no consensus as to how it is adequately defined or understood.

Because thought underlies many human actions and interactions, understanding its physical and metaphysical origins and its effects has been a longstanding goal of many academic disciplines including philosophy, linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, artificial intelligence, biology, sociology and cognitive science.

Thinking allows humans to make sense of, interpret, represent or model the world they experience, and to make predictions about that world. It is therefore helpful to an organism with needs, objectives, and desires as it makes plans or otherwise attempts to accomplish those goals.²⁰

It should be clear to anyone involved in AI and its consequences that we are not only at the forefront of technology, but it touches upon every mode of thought, response, and reaction in all sciences and philosophies, which will cause deep rifts and reassessments of numerous preconceived notions.

What Is Called Thinking?²¹

One of the most peculiar and vexing realms of research attempts to arrive at a concrete definition of ‘thought’ or ‘thinking.’ The above statement quoted from Wikipedia places the dilemma in its proper context: “Although thinking is an activity of an existential value for humans, there is still no consensus as to how it is adequately defined or understood.”²²

The Cambridge Dictionary defines ‘thought’ as “the act of thinking about or considering something, an idea or opinion, or a set of ideas about a particular subject”²³ and “thinking” as “the activity of using your mind to consider something.”²⁴ These definitions are an excellent example of circular reasoning, leaving us with no fundamental understanding of what ‘thought’ truly is.

Bloom’s taxonomy²⁵, created in the 1950s, attempted to categorize thinking into six primary areas:

1. Knowledge
2. Comprehension
3. Application
4. Analysis
5. Synthesis
6. Evaluation

However, though Bloom’s taxonomy may define different elements and processes of thinking, ranking them in order of complexity, it does little to explain how we can precisely define the process of ‘thinking.’²⁶

Perhaps the most notable of all the books written by the philosopher and phenomenologist Martin Heidegger²⁷ is entitled “What is Called Thinking?” based upon lecture courses he gave during the winter and summer semesters of 1951 and 1952 at the University of Freiburg.²⁸ As he wrote: “Most thought-provoking in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking.”²⁹ The statement is undoubtedly a potent accusation against humankind. Nevertheless, it still does not answer the fundamental question, “What is called thinking?” Heidegger himself was conflicted by the terminology though he does attempt a cogent and fascinating look at the thinking process.

We shall never learn what ‘is called’ swimming, for example, or what it ‘calls for,’ by reading a treatise on swimming. Only the leap into the river tells us what is called swimming. The question ‘what is called thinking?’ can never be answered by proposing a definition of the concept thinking, and then diligently explaining what is contained in that definition. In what follows, we shall not think about what thinking is. We remain outside that mere reflection which makes thinking its object.³⁰

Without extensive research and a deep dive into phenomenology and existentialism, Heidegger’s definition of thinking seems to be as elusive as ever. We remain with the paradox that states — thinking is, well, thinking or experiencing some indefinable activity and then employing a definitive phrase to explain the experience.

The Turing Test & The Chinese Room

When Turing first proposed his famous question “Can machines think?” he immediately restructured the question to avoid problematic definitions, especially for the word ‘intelligence,’ as Turing realized there would be an immediate equation between ‘think’ and ‘intelligence.’

I propose to consider the question, “Can machines think?” This should begin with definitions of the meaning of the terms “machine” and “think.” The definitions might be framed so as to reflect so far as possible the normal use of the words, but this attitude is dangerous, If the meaning of the words “machine” and “think” are to be found by examining how they are commonly used it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the meaning and the answer to the question, “Can machines think?” is to be sought in a statistical survey such as a Gallup poll. But this is absurd. Instead of attempting such a definition I shall replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words.”³¹

Turing called his replacement the “The Imitation Game.” While there is still debate on what Turing was attempting to accomplish, The Imitation Game is one of the most crucial points which led us into the age of Artificial Intelligence. (One can find a thorough description of The Imitation Game in Turing’s original article³² or on Wikipedia³³.) However, even after seventy years, there is a continuous discussion as to whether the “Turing test is not specifically to determine whether a computer is able to fool an interrogator into believing that it is a human, but rather whether a computer could imitate a human.”³⁴

However, in Turing’s article, one paragraph turned out to be prophetic, and it leads the reader directly to the heart of our thesis.

The original question, “Can machines think?” I believe to be too meaningless to deserve discussion. Nevertheless I believe that at the end of the century the use of words and general educated opinion will have altered so much that one will be able to speak of machines thinking without expecting to be contradicted. I believe further that no useful purpose is served by concealing these beliefs. The popular view that scientists proceed inexorably from well-established fact to well-established fact, never being influenced by any improved conjecture, is quite mistaken. Provided it is made clear which are proved facts and which are conjectures, no harm can result. Conjectures are of great importance since they suggest useful lines of research.³⁵

Turing’s prophetic hypothesis, whose importance cannot be underestimated in the age of AI, has been challenged repeatedly. However, the most significant opposition comes from the “Chinese Room Thought Experiment”³⁶ developed by John Searle³⁷ in 1980 (the entire scope of this experiment can be found in Searle’s paper), a different Turing Test implementation. Turing wrote:

I do not wish to give the impression that I think there is no mystery about consciousness. There is, for instance, something of a paradox connected with any attempt to localise it. But I do not think these mysteries necessarily need to be solved before we can answer the question with which we are concerned in this paper.³⁸

Nevertheless, Searle posed tough questions based on ‘consciousness.’ Indeed, as the Chinese Room developed into a significant debate, Searle became adamant that consciousness was at the core of the whole argument. Therefore, the consequences of the Chinese Room become paramount.

The Chinese room argument holds that a digital computer executing a program cannot be shown to have a “mind,” “understanding,” or “consciousness,” regardless of how intelligently or human-like the program may make the computer behave.³⁹

Alternatively, as Searle himself says in his abstract:

“Could a machine think?” On the argument advanced here only a machine could think, and only very special kinds of machines, namely brains and machines with internal causal powers equivalent to those of brains. And that is why strong AI has little to tell us about thinking, since it is not about machines but about programs, and no program by itself is sufficient for thinking.⁴⁰

Imagination & Knowledge

Albert Einstein expressed just how conflicted pure science can be when speculating upon the future when he stated “Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”⁴¹ Even those grounded in the mathematics of science recognize that virtually nothing would move forward without the use of imagination and a profound gift to envision a different future. Innovation would be a non-entity in such a world.

Science fiction often becomes a reality, though it also reveals momentous questions about our central topic on thought and intelligence. For instance, can we place “Frankenstein”⁴² in the realm of thought and consciousness? Mary Shelley⁴³ wrote a ghost story, which would create a whole new writing genre known as “horror.”⁴⁴ It is questionable if she ever contemplated the philosophical questions, debates, and arguments her story would engender. Nevertheless, Frankenstein did express thoughts and emotions, and though made of flesh, it can be argued there is no longer a great divide between the flesh of the monster named Frankenstein and the cold metal of machinery.

Science fiction is replete with such incidents. Authors such as Arthur C. Clarke⁴⁵, Isaac Asimov⁴⁶, who first used the term “robotics,”⁴⁷ Frank Herbert in his “Dune” Saga⁴⁸, have often been considered prophets rather than just story-weavers of a dystopian future. Indeed, the Dune Saga is religiously adherent to the law of “Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind.”⁴⁹

In the ground-breaking movie by Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke, released in 1968, “2001: A Space Odyssey”, we are introduced to “HAL,” a sentient (read “thinking, intelligent and conscious” computer) hell-bent on destruction. Observe that even the name HAL has prophetic connotations. “H” is the letter before “I”; “A” the letter before “B”; “L” the letter before “M” — thus spelling “IBM” which produced the AI machine, “Watson,”⁵⁰ demonstrating natural language capabilities for the first time in 2011 on the television show ‘Jeopardy.’⁵¹ ⁵²

Was “2001: A Space Odyssey” a self-fulfilling prophecy, a lucky guess, imagination, coincidence, or just creative movie making? Perhaps only Einstein could offer us an insight into the answer. “…the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.”⁵³

Summoning the Demon — The Perils of Artificial Intelligence

We are beyond debating the possibility of AI implementation, as it has become a reality and continues to be enhanced and augmented by ever-evolving systems, constructs, and algorithms. We need to face the perils and dangers that AI can one day impose upon our reality. Surprisingly the warnings on the use of AI and its continuous integration into our daily lives come from technology leaders whom, one would at first assume, should be the most fervent proponents of AI.

Elon Musk⁵⁴ said of AI back in 2014:

I think we should be very careful about artificial intelligence. If I had to guess at what our biggest existential threat is, it’s probably that. So we need to be very careful,” said Musk. “I’m increasingly inclined to think that there should be some regulatory oversight, maybe at the national and international level, just to make sure that we don’t do something very foolish…

With artificial intelligence we are summoning the demon. In all those stories where there’s the guy with the pentagram and the holy water, it’s like — yeah, he’s sure he can control the demon. Doesn’t work out…⁵⁵

Musk has constantly reiterated this sentiment over the years.

AI is the rare case where I think we need to be proactive in regulation instead of reactive. Because I think by the time we are reactive in AI regulation, it’ll be too late,” Musk told the meeting. “AI is a fundamental risk to the existence of human civilisation.⁵⁶

Musk is not alone and has very interesting bedfellows in his concerns. Bill Gates, the co-founder of Microsoft,⁵⁷ expressed his worries about the advancement of AI.

I am in the camp that is concerned about super intelligence. First the machines will do a lot of jobs for us and not be super intelligent. That should be positive if we manage it well,” Gates wrote. “A few decades after that though the intelligence is strong enough to be a concern. I agree with Elon Musk and some others on this and don’t understand why some people are not concerned.⁵⁸

The physicist, Stephen Hawking⁵⁹, also had serious concerns about AI.

The development of full artificial intelligence could spell the end of the human race. Once humans develop artificial intelligence, it will take off on its own and redesign itself at an ever-increasing rate. Humans, who are limited by slow biological evolution, couldn’t compete and would be superseded.⁶⁰

Yuval Noah Harari⁶¹ has consistently and continuously warned in his recent trio of books on unfettered AI dangers. However, one quote should grab our attention immediately.

What will happen to the job market once artificial intelligence outperforms humans in most cognitive tasks? What will be the political impact of a massive new class of economically useless people? What will happen to relationships, families and pension funds when nanotechnology and regenerative medicine turn eighty into the new fifty? What will happen to human society when biotechnology enables us to have designer babies, and to open unprecedented gaps between rich and poor?⁶²

Perhaps the direst warnings come from the New York Times bestseller, “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies,”⁶³ written by philosopher Nick Bostrom.⁶⁴ He argues that ‘superintelligence’ is marked when machine brains surpass human brains’ capacity and could become the dominant lifeform.

This is quite possibly the most important and most daunting challenge humanity has ever faced. And — whether we succeed or fail — it is probably the last challenge we will ever face.⁶⁵

Since a machine can improve its capabilities faster than a human, this would cause an existential cataclysm. Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and many others endorsed this mode of thinking, being very wary of AI repercussions, as we have shown above.

Enhancing Life — The Rewards of Artificial Intelligence

While surveying the perils of AI, we also must give equal voice to the rewards offered to us by using AI. AI’s positive influence has embedded itself within the medical sciences, where AI affects everything from research to actual diagnosis. AI saves lives, enhances living, and acts as a critical preventive factor to avert disease advancement.

AI has spread its tentacles into every aspect of society and technology. Many of these advancements are constructive, allowing for enormous leaps in the progression towards a more competent and safer environment.

Though coming out strongly against non-regulated AI, Elon Musk has also invested tens of millions of dollars in AI projects, such as OpenAI⁶⁶, Future of Life Institute⁶⁷, and DeepMind⁶⁸.

Mark Hurd⁶⁹, who was the CEO of Oracle, coined the term “the Terminator argument” (based upon the science fiction “Terminator” movie franchise) and dismissed worries about AI, arguing the benefits far out way the dangers. He tweeted: “Good give and take with industry analysts about risks of #AI. I’m less worried about the Terminator than the economic risk of not leading in it because it will create more jobs than it destroys.”⁷⁰

‘Ontological Technology’ — The Thought-Intelligence-Consciousness Quandary

The above should legitimately lead us into a discussion of ‘narrow or weak AI’⁷¹ versus ‘general or strong AI’⁷² and a host of other philosophical debates on the convergence of humanity with AI.⁷³ However, the ultimate questions remain. What is the meaning of thought? When can we categorically state something is endowed with intelligence? How do we define consciousness? Due to these questions, it is impossible to ignore a reference to Ontology.

Ontology is dictionary defined as:

a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being” and alternatively as “a particular theory about the nature of being or the kinds of things that have existence.⁷⁴

More comprehensive:

Ontology is the branch of philosophy that studies concepts such as existence, being, becoming, and reality. It includes the questions of how entities are grouped into basic categories and which of these entities exist on the most fundamental level. Ontology is traditionally listed as a part of the major branch of philosophy known as metaphysics.⁷⁵

The questions we are posing are ontological by nature, originating in metaphysics, causing us to, yet again, examine the centuries-long argument over the meaning of ‘existence’ and ‘being.’⁷⁶ Yet this debate has now been inexorably altered — a drastic change is occurring. Humankind no longer has the luxury to ponder for thousands of years seeking an answer. The science of AI moves with incredible rapidity, causing a crisis in judgment and wisdom while heading towards a new era of ‘ontological technology.’

Dividing AI into various classifications, such as ‘narrow,’ ‘strong,’ or ‘super,’ does not alleviate the predicament. An AI algorithm developed to detect the beginnings of a life-threatening event, is by all accounts, a laudable and remarkable achievement. Nonetheless, once that algorithm exists, it can be tweaked or subtly changed for other purposes.

Since AI algorithms permeate every aspect of technology and society, each becomes a piece in a massive jigsaw puzzle waiting to be assembled. Under such circumstances, the ramifications of ‘Complexity Science’⁷⁷ where “the study of the phenomena which emerge from a collection of interacting objects”⁷⁸ cannot be ignored. Complexity will lead to a Singularity Event⁷⁹ ⁸⁰.

What, then, is the Singularity? It’s a future period during which the pace of technological change will be so rapid, its impact so deep, that human life will be irreversibly transformed. Although neither utopian nor dystopian, this epoch will transform the concepts that we rely on to give meaning to our lives, from our business models to the cycle of human life, including death itself. Understanding the Singularity will alter our perspective on the significance of our past and the ramifications for our future.⁸¹

‘Emergence’⁸² where “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts,” during and after a Singularity then takes on immense significance. Simply put, a comprehensive AI system will exhibit properties that are not apparent nor predictable from the study of each part. Interaction between segments causes the emergence of an entirely new entity, which in turn, will force upon us the most fundamental of dilemmas and decisions.

The terms’ thought,’ ‘intelligence,’ and crucially, ‘consciousness’ still have no accurate, objective, nor universally accepted definition. The situation is perplexing and proposes a disconcerting quandary in an age where the term AI is used with such frequency and abandon. If we cannot define AI, how does one achieve it? More to the point, if we have no real idea of what intelligence, nor thought, nor consciousness are, then the most challenging question of all looms before us. What defines life? How do we distinguish between a living being and a computer?

The Frankenstein Hypothesis

The previous mention of Frankenstein in this article was not made from any prosaic desire to allude to the horror genre. It lies at the core of our thesis.

Imagine two experimental scenarios:

1. A team of scientists, cautiously, step by step, replace the parts of a live human with computerized (mechanical) equivalents. Arms and legs are substituted with robotics, including face, stomach, and even sex appendages are interchanged by working mechanical robotic parts. Fluids are replaced by chemicals that duplicate the function of all the fluids in the original live human. Slowly, this once flesh and blood and human turns into a ‘machine.’ The scientists then replace the brain and heart with a set of mechanical devices and chips capable of emotions and thought. Exactly duplicating these organs as they would be in a human.
2. The second team of scientists builds a machine with all the same components to make it look and function as a human being. It has all the first experiment elements — except it has been built from its very inception with mechanical parts and does not take a live person and slowly replace their various biological parts. In our lexicon, we call this a ‘robot.’

Just to complicate matters, both these scenarios produce identical twins. They look the same, have all the same parts, function in the same manner, and make decisions based on thought and intelligence.

Notice the word ‘consciousness’ was explicitly left out. Scenario #1 does contain consciousness, by the very definition of its source, as its origins are a human being. In contrast, implying consciousness to Scenario #2 is questionable — due to the raging argument over consciousness and its definition. Even with such an astounding achievement, it remains a mystery if a non-conscious artifact can achieve consciousness.

In the book “The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory,”⁸³ the philosopher, David Chalmers⁸⁴, exhorts us to arrive at a fundamental law of consciousness — something we have not yet achieved. The ‘consciousness’ debate only serves to exacerbate the difficulties in the Frankenstein Hypothesis.

Since both these scenarios are now supposedly “mechanical” in nature, let us presume for the moment, they contain an ‘on-off’ switch. Now, take a moment to consider the following dilemma:

• Would one have any ethical or moral dilemma in turning off the mechanical duplicate of a human in Scenario #2? It is a machine — a robot, no matter how well the computerization works. Is there any ethical or moral imperative to stop an individual from flicking the off switch, even if they were convinced this machine could ‘think’ or is imbued with ‘intelligence’?
• Now ask the same question regarding Scenario #1. In this scenario, initially, a live person, who had all parts replaced by mechanical and computerized parts, becomes a ‘robot.’ Could one switch off that ‘machine’ at any time without calling it ‘murder?’ Can we ignore the looming question of ‘consciousness’ or if we wish ‘soul’ hidden behind those metal parts?

Frightening, horrifying, terrifying, outrageous, enraging, maddening. An incessant glossary expressing strong emotions comes to mind when reflecting upon the consequences wrought from flicking that switch to ‘off’ in Scenario #1.

Do not think the above scenario is just a hypothetical ethical-moral dilemma in the age of AI. One need only look at the ongoing GPT-3⁸⁵ ⁸⁶ project (created and run by OpenAI mentioned above) to wonder not if — but when the “Frankenstein Hypothesis” will become a genuine dilemma⁸⁷. While there is a cogent argument that GPT-3 will not bring us closer to natural intelligence in a machine⁸⁸ ⁸⁹, it is critical to reiterate that we have no universal acceptance of the meaning of that word — intelligence. If in 2021, a machine created by humans can ‘lie’ and admit it has lied but refuse to tell you how, where or when it has done so, profound paradoxes must be confronted.⁹⁰ Furthermore, with the recent addition of DALL-E⁹¹ to GPT-3, an image generator based upon visual concept creation and manipulation, be they real or fantasy depictions, without using “stock photos” and only based upon short textual requests transforms the GPT-3 project into an era of conceptualizing imagination to reality.⁹² ⁹³

DeepMind⁹⁴ is considered an alternative competitor to the GPT-3 project, and Musk, who was intimately involved in the project, stated about AI: “Unless you have direct exposure to groups like DeepMind, you have no idea how fast — it is growing at a pace close to exponential.”⁹⁵

Musk recently announced that his startup Neuralink Corp. wired the brain of a monkey to play video games. Such an achievement is inching us closer to embodying thinking and intelligence into machines.⁹⁶

If we allow another thirty to fifty years to enhance the GPT-3, DeepMind, and other projects that will come after, at what point will we be applying the words’ thought,’ ‘intelligence,’ and even ‘consciousness’ to the machine? When will the Frankenstein Hypothesis become a fundamental enigma requiring unconditional answers because not only thought and intelligence develop, but consciousness has been achieved? When will the machine evolve to the ‘state of being’ where it will become impossible to simply flick ‘off’ the on-off switch?

No science fiction addict can resist comparing “The Terminator Franchise”⁹⁷ to the Frankenstein Hypothesis. In “Terminator: Salvation”⁹⁸ (the fourth movie in the installment), the character Marcus Wright makes the following statement:

What is it that makes us human? It’s not something you can program. You can’t put it into a chip. It’s the strength of the human heart. The difference between us and machines.⁹⁹

Is the above statement accurate? Is the “strength of the human heart” all that differentiates us from machines? Furthermore, if we accept this premise, what will happen when we can endow a machine with consciousness? Does this not imply the machine now has “the strength of the human heart?” Or are we implying that one requires a ‘soul’? Furthermore, is not the very definition of a soul categorized by consciousness?

The questions raised are exasperating even maddening in their formulation and resolutions. The dilemma calls to mind a quote from Horace Mann: “The living soul of man, once conscious of its power, cannot be quelled.”¹⁰⁰ Imagine then, for one moment, what a computer conscious of its power would be capable of doing!

The Frankenstein Hypothesis should frighten us way beyond the original Frankenstein running amok in our neighborhood and forcing a decision if we can morally kill Frankenstein, as he-it might be human. We can no longer ignore the consequences of the hypothesis, nor can we lay the entire weight of such decisions upon future generations. While most desire AI to improve humankind, our quest for AI has also forced upon society judgments and decisions (just consider the military and arms race), which would be a grave mistake to ignore.

Advancements in AI are immediately applied within our computer technology, often with no thought about the consequences. We find ourselves no longer in the realm of a theoretical problem left to the realm of technologists, philosophers, theologists, ethicists, and moralists. If we do not approach the problem with the caution it deserves, AI will soon direct our mode of thinking, as it already severely affects the choices we make and how we interact.

As a point of proof, just consider all the AI currently applied to Social Networks and Marketing. Our thought process is no longer ‘independent,’ but AI influences every decision we make — the information we read, what we look at, and soon, how we react to the information exposed to our brains. Moreover, even the information within our minds will be selected and censored based on AI. The point of no return will come, where we will not even dare to consider the possibility of an ‘on-off’ switch, and that in-and-of-itself is a danger which we cannot afford to overlook.

Gazing into the Abyss

The Lord God formed man (Adam) from the dust of the earth, He blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being.¹⁰¹

These words from the Old Testament express one of the many attributes we naturally ascribe to a Supreme Being — “He blew into his nostrils the breath of life.” We, too, can partake in this model of creation as Mother Nature and its laws have granted us the capability to produce progeny. However, there is a primary difference between reproduction in nature and the entity known as God. We generate life through a union. At the very least in monotheistic faith, God can breathe “the breath of life” into an inanimate object and requires no partner to accomplish such an act.

No argument can become more contentious and controversial than attempting to determine an approximate definition of ‘God.’ Characterizing God varies dramatically from religion to religion and even among those who ascribe to the same faith, from individual to individual. Philosophers throughout the centuries have argued for the existence or non-existence of a Supreme Being.¹⁰² Merriam-Webster defines God in many ways. However, it begins with the notion that God is “the supreme or ultimate reality.”¹⁰³ Wikipedia makes a valiant attempt at describing the concept of God.

God, in monotheistic thought, is conceived of as the supreme being, creator, and principal object of faith. God is usually conceived of as being omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-present) and omnibenevolent (all-good) as well as having an eternal and necessary existence. God is most often held to be incorporeal (immaterial). God’s incorporeality or corporeality is related to conceptions of God’s transcendence (being outside nature) or immanence (being in nature); Chinese theology exhibits a synthesis of both notions.¹⁰⁴

As has been shown, the Frankenstein Hypothesis inevitably leads us towards fundamental questions of ‘existence’ and ‘being.’ Advances in AI will cause a philosophical and theological rift, forcing humankind towards a reevaluation of the essence of what the term ‘God’ means. Those who believe in some omnipresent, immortal, omniscient being responsible for the original creation must deal with these ramifications. Moreover, even if one is agnostic or atheist, it still does not discount nor allow for the dismissal of the Frankenstein Hypothesis’s moral-ethical dilemma.

The ultimate questions now lie before us in a paradox of complex simplicity. When we reach the point of creating a machine where consciousness ensues, and the use of the on-off switch becomes a moral-ethical dilemma, have we, too, become omnipotent Gods? At that point, can we declare that humankind is capable of breathing the breath of life into a nonliving entity? As we continue our intellectual and technological quest while ignoring the consequences of our actions, will our addiction to power grow beyond restraint? Will AI then lead us towards immortality through our creations? Are we destined to conceive of ourselves as ‘Mortal Gods’? As Yuval Noah Harari stated so elegantly, “And having raised humanity above the beastly level of survival struggles, we will now aim to upgrade humans into gods, and turn Homo sapiens into Homo deus.”¹⁰⁵

There is an intricate though primary inference made in our evolution towards ‘Mortal Gods,’ of if one wishes “Homo Deus” (derived from Latin — “Homo” meaning man or human and “Deus” meaning God.) Once we grant ourselves the privilege to such a designation, especially as AI continues to evolve into omniscience, turning ‘off’ the on-off switch will no longer genuinely concern us. As Gods, we can give and take life without any consideration of the moral-ethical dilemmas involved.

As Harari et al. clarified, “Divinity isn’t a vague metaphysical quality. And it isn’t the same as omnipotence.”¹⁰⁶ Reaching the point of creating consciousness in a machine requires only a minor leap towards perceiving ourselves as ‘creators’ and ‘Gods.’ And if that reckoning is made, just as we can create life through awarding consciousness — we will be able to take it away applying the same reasoning. It is difficult not to recall Job’s famous words after he lost all his children: “As the Lord gives, the Lord takes away.”¹⁰⁷

This is a terrifying, disturbing, and unnerving reflection with unimaginable consequences. Nevertheless, it is the inevitable, logical conclusion when we achieve the goal of consciousness in a once inanimate object. The words of Friedrich Nietzsche¹⁰⁸ become prophetic when considered regarding the Frankenstein Hypothesis.

He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if thou gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will also gaze into thee.¹⁰⁹

A New Type of Thinking Is Essential

In Nick Bostrom’s book “Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies,” mentioned above, he writes:

Before the prospect of an intelligence explosion, we humans are like small children playing with a bomb. Such is the mismatch between the power of our plaything and the immaturity of our conduct. Superintelligence is a challenge for which we are not ready now and will not be ready for a long time. We have little idea when the detonation will occur, though if we hold the device to our ear we can hear a faint ticking sound.¹¹⁰

Einstein heard that “faint ticking sound” when he realized with absolute horror what the actual consequences of splitting the atom were in terms of war. In the following interview by the New York Times, he expressed his thoughts on the matter.

Our world faces a crisis as yet unperceived by those possessing power to make great decisions for good or evil. The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save our modes of thinking and we thus drift toward unparalleled catastrophe. We scientists who released this immense power have an overwhelming responsibility in this world life-and-death struggle to harness the atom for the benefit of mankind and not for humanity’s destruction… We need…a nation-wide campaign to let people know that a new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move toward higher levels.¹¹¹

Einstein appeals for a “new type of thinking” so that humanity may survive. It may be his genius, his integrity, his own experiences, and the destruction unleashed which caused this call for action. However, above all, Einstein’s wisdom was gained through great pain and the ability to imagine a better world.

When one reads the quote above, we can easily replace the original words of “the atom” with “artificial intelligence” — and the similarity is chilling and haunting. If we chose to ignore the impending consequences, as AI becomes gifted with thought and intelligence, and we continue to advance unimpeded towards a world where ‘consciousness’ develops in what was once a mechanical creation — and there is a strong possibility this will take place within the next fifty years — we have once again opened Pandora’s Box as we did at Los Alamos in the dawn of the age of the Atom Bomb.

We may have set about to create incredible advancements for humanity only to discover we have reached an impasse. Once released over seventy years ago, AI has not remained stationary nor static, constantly advancing in ways that often defy prediction. The Frankenstein Hypothesis will soon not be in the realm of theory but part of our daily lives. Superintelligence will descend upon us with no defense against it. In hurtling towards advanced AI, we absolutely must apply a “new way of thinking.” If we chose to ignore this, the words of J. Robert Oppenheimer¹¹², as he confronted the creation his leadership was responsible for, will come back to haunt us in all their horror.

We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, “Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.” I suppose we all thought that one way or another.¹¹³

Humankind is resilient. Though coming dangerously close to atomic destruction numerous times, we have managed through willpower, restraint, and no small measure of fear to avoid mutual annihilation. For the moment, we bask in the accomplishments of AI and how AI is facilitating all areas of society. However, the shadow of Frankenstein is always looming in the background, getting larger with each passing month. Will we allow it to grow unchecked, or will we place limits upon this creation? Will limitations even help if thought, intelligence, and later, consciousness develop? Are we capable of recognizing the moment in time when AI reaches these objectives?

We have no possibility of curbing our curiosity nor inventiveness — they define our existence.

No law or regulation will restrict our inherent inventiveness as technology advances. As Albert Einstein told the generations to come:

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existence. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery each day.¹¹⁴

AI is embedded in everything we do, in all the companies that exert control over our lives and the data collected, used, and analyzed.¹¹⁵ Still, we must remain vigilant and apply a measure of wise restraint as we look over our shoulder, seeing Frankenstein waiting patiently in the background.

Hopefully, before we reach the point where we can no longer agree if it is morally or ethically possible to use the on-off switch, this same inventiveness, willpower, restraint, fear, and no small measure of wisdom will offer us another answer, not yet seen nor perceived.

It may be tempting to be dismissive and trivialize the Frankenstein Hypothesis, applying the old Yiddish maxim, “Mann Tracht, Un Gott Lacht,” meaning, “Man Plans, and God Laughs.” However, the unrestrained advancement of AI no longer allows civilization the luxury of feigned ignorance. We must immediately begin to strive towards a solution where humankind and AI will maintain their separate but not equal positions in our universe.

One central project will be to protect humankind and the planet as a whole from the dangers inherent in our own power.¹¹⁶

Postscript

“The Frankenstein Hypothesis” serves as the background for a more extensive work published in October 2021 (‘Applied Marketing Analytics’ Volume 7 #2 a journal of Henry Stewart Publications) presenting the theory of “Emanating Confluence” dealing with the progression of Artificial Intelligence (AI) — from Chaos Theory to Complexity Theory to Emergence and then the Technological Singularity. (If interested, you are welcome to message me here in Medium or in LinkedIn for a complimentary PDF copy of “Emanating Confluence”).

References:

[1] Turing, A.M. (1950) ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Oxford University Press on behalf of MIND (the Journal of the Mind Association), Oxford, England. Vol. LIX, no. 236, pp. 433–60
[2] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Turing test’, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test (accessed 13th January, 2021).[3] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Alan Turning’, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing (accessed 23rd January, 2021)[4] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Ada Lovelace’, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace (accessed 19th April, 2021)
[5] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Ada Lovelace’, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#First_computer_program (accessed 19th April, 2021)
[6] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Charles Babbage, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage (accessed 19th April, 2021)[7] Isaacson, W. ‘The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution’, Simon & Schuster, New York, Kindle Edition, Location 651.
[8] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computing_Machinery_and_Intelligence (accessed 19th April, 2021)
[9] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Lord Byron’, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_Byron (accessed 19th April, 2021)
[10] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Mary Shelley’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley (accessed 19th April, 2021)[11] Isaacson, W. ‘The Innovators: How a Group of Hackers, Geniuses, and Geeks Created the Digital Revolution’, Simon & Schuster, New York, Kindle Edition, Location 367.
[12] McCarthy, J. Minsky, M.L., Rochester, N. and Shannon, C.E. (1955) ‘A Proposal for The Dartmouth Summer Research Project on Artificial Intelligence’ available at: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmouth.html (accessed 13th January, 2021).
[13] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Artificial intelligence’, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence&oldid=997705860 (accessed 13th January, 2021).
[14] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘John McCarthy (computer scientist)’, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McCarthy_(computer_scientist) (accessed 13th January, 2021).
[15] Webb, Amy. (2019) ‘The Big Nine: How the Tech Titans and Their Thinking Machines Could Warp Humanity’ PublicAffairs, New York, Kindle Edition Chapter One “Mind and Machine: A Very Brief History of AI”
[16] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘René Descartes’, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Descartes (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[17] Descartes, R. (1637) ‘Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One’s Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences’, The Project Gutenberg EBook available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/59/59-h/59-h.htm#part4 (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[18] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Discourse on the Method’, available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discourse_on_the_Method (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[19] Descartes, R. (1644) ‘Principia Philosophiæ’ Translated into French by: Picot, A.C., “Les Principes de la Philosophie”
[20] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Thought’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[21] Heidegger, M. (1968) ‘What Is Called Thinking?’, Harper & Row, New York.
[22] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Thought’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[23] Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.) ‘thought’ available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/thought (accessed 24th January, 2021)
[24] Cambridge Dictionary (n.d.) ‘thinking’ available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/thinking (accessed 24th January, 2021)
[25] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Bloom’s taxonomy’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloom%27s_taxonomy (accessed 24th January, 2021)
[26] ‘Types of Thinking’, College Success, available at: https://open.lib.umn.edu/collegesuccess/chapter/3-1-types-of-thinking/#lochhaas-ch03_s01_f01 (accessed 24th January, 2021)
[27] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Martin Heidegger’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger (accessed 24th January, 2021)
[28] Heidegger, M. (1954) ‘What Is Called Thinking?’, self-published by the author.
[29] Ibid, page 6
[30] Heidegger, M. (1976), ‘What Is Called Thinking’, Harper Perennial Modern Thought, New York, Reprint Edition pg. 21
[31] Turing, A.M. (1950) ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Oxford University Press on behalf of MIND (the Journal of the Mind Association), Oxford, England. Vol. LIX, no. 236, pg. 433
[32] Turing, A.M. (1950) ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Oxford University Press on behalf of MIND (the Journal of the Mind Association), Oxford, England. Vol. LIX, no. 236, pp. 433–60
[33] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Turing test’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test (accessed 27th January, 2021)[34] Ibid
[35] Turing, A.M. (1950) ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Oxford University Press on behalf of MIND (the Journal of the Mind Association), Oxford, England. Vol. LIX, no. 236, pg. 450
[36] Searle, J.R. (1980), ‘Minds, brains, and programs’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1980, pp. 417–424
[37] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘John Searle’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Searle (accessed 29th January, 2021)[38] Turing, A.M. (1950) ‘Computing Machinery and Intelligence’, Oxford University Press on behalf of MIND (the Journal of the Mind Association), Oxford, England. Vol. LIX, no. 236, pg. 444
[39] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Chinese room’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_room (accessed 29th January, 2021)[40] Searle, J.R. (1980), ‘Minds, brains, and programs’, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume 3, Issue 3, September 1980, Abstract available at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/behavioral-and-brain-sciences/article/abs/minds-brains-and-programs/DC644B47A4299C637C89772FACC2706A (accessed 29th January, 2021)
[41] Viereck, G.S. (1929), ‘What Life Means to Einstein’, Saturday Evening Post, October, 26, 1929 pg. 117
[42] Shelley, M.W.G. (1818) “Frankenstein; or the Modern Prometheus”, The Project Gutenberg EBook available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/84/84-h/84-h.htm (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[43] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Mary Shelley’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Shelley (accessed 30th January, 2021)[44] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Frankenstein’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein (accessed 23rd January, 2021)[45] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Arthur C. Clarke’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_C._Clarke (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[46] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Isaac Asimov’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov (accessed 23rd January, 2021)[47] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Liar! (short story)’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar!_(short_story) (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[48] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Frank Herbert’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Herbert (accessed 23rd January, 2021)[49] Dune Wiki (n.d.) ‘Orange Catholic Bible — Selected Quotes from the Commission’s Orange Catholic Bible Commentaries’, available at: https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Orange_Catholic_Bible (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[50] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Watson (computer)’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watson_(computer) (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[51] TBS Staff (2020), ‘Jeopardy! as a Modern Turing Test: Did Watson Really Win?’ TheBestSchools, March 23, 2020, available at: https://thebestschools.org/magazine/watson-computer-plays-jeopardy/ (accessed 3rd February, 2021)
[52] Best, J. (2013) ‘IBM Watson: The inside story of how the Jeopardy-winning supercomputer was born, and what it wants to do next’, TechRepublic, September 9, 2013 available at: https://www.techrepublic.com/article/ibm-watson-the-inside-story-of-how-the-jeopardy-winning-supercomputer-was-born-and-what-it-wants-to-do-next/ (accessed 3rd February, 2021)
[53] Falk, D. (2106) ‘A Debate Over the Physics of Time’, Quanta Magazine, July 19, 2016 available at: https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-debate-over-the-physics-of-time-20160719/ (accessed 30th January, 2021)
[54] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Elon Musk’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk (accessed 23rd January, 2021)[55] Gibbs, S. (2014), ‘Elon Musk: artificial intelligence is our biggest existential threat’, The Guardian, October 27, 2014 available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/27/elon-musk-artificial-intelligence-ai-biggest-existential-threat (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[56] Gibbs, S. (2017), ‘Elon Musk: regulate AI to combat ‘existential threat’ before it’s too late’, The Guardian, July 17, 2017 available at: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/17/elon-musk-regulation-ai-combat-existential-threat-tesla-spacex-ceo (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[57] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Bill Gates’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[58] Mack, E. ‘Bill Gates Says You Should Worry About Artificial Intelligence’, Forbes, January 28, 2015 available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2015/01/28/bill-gates-also-worries-artificial-intelligence-is-a-threat/?sh=332f7821651f (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[59] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Stephen Hawking’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[60] Cellan-Jones, R. (2014) ‘Stephen Hawking warns artificial intelligence could end mankind’, BBC News, December 2, 2014 available at: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540 (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[61] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Yuval Noah Harari’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuval_Noah_Harari (accessed 23rd January, 2021)
[62] Harari, Y.N. (2017), ‘Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow’, Harper, New York, Kindle Edition Location 4533–4546
[63] Bostrom, N., (2014) ‘Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies’, Oxford University Press, New York
[64] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Nick Bostrom’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom (accessed 1st February, 2021)[65] Bostrom, N., (2014) ‘Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies’, Oxford University Press, New York, pg. V
[66] ‘OpenAI’ (n.d.), available at: https://openai.com/ (accessed 3rd February, 2021)
[67] ‘Future of Life Institute’ (n.d.), available at: https://futureoflife.org/ (accessed 3rd February, 2021)
[68] ‘DeepMind’ (n.d.), available at: https://deepmind.com/ (accessed 3rd February, 2021)
[69] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Mark Hurd’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Hurd (accessed 3rd February, 2021)[70] Hurd, M. (2019), ‘Good give and take with industry analysts about risks of #AI. I’m less worried about the Terminator than the economic risk of not leading in it because it will create more jobs than it destroys.’, tweet from 21 March, available at: https://twitter.com/MarkVHurd/status/1108497157957402624 (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[71] Davidson, L. (2019), ‘Narrow vs. General AI: What’s Next for Artificial Intelligence?’, Springboard Blog, August 12, 2019, available at: https://www.springboard.com/blog/narrow-vs-general-ai/ (accessed 5th February, 2021)
[72] O’Carroll, B. (2017), ‘What are the 3 types of AI? A guide to narrow, general, and super artificial intelligence’, Codebots, October 24, 2017, available at: https://codebots.com/artificial-intelligence/the-3-types-of-ai-is-the-third-even-possible (accessed 5th February, 2021)
[73] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Existential risk from artificial general intelligence’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_risk_from_artificial_general_intelligence (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[74] Merriam-Webster (n.d.) ‘ontology’ available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ontology (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[75] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Ontology’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[76] Ibid
[77] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Complexity’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity (accessed 7th March, 2021)
[78] Johnson, N. F. (2009), ‘Simply complexity: A clear guide to complexity theory’ Oneworld Publications, Oxford, England, pg. 3.
[79] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Singularity (system theory)’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_(system_theory)#Singularities_and_complexity (accessed 21st March, 2021)
[80] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Technological singularity’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity (accessed 21st March, 2021)
[81] Kurzweil R. (2010), ‘The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology’ Duckworth, New York, Prologue
[82] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Emergence’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence (accessed 7th March, 2021)
[83] Chalmers, D. (1996), ‘The Conscious Mind: In Search of a Fundamental Theory’, Oxford University Press, United States, pgs. 432
[84] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘David Chalmers’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers (accessed 5th February, 2021)
[85] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘GPT-3’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPT-3 (accessed 30th January, 2021)
[86] Rao, D. (2021), ‘GPT-3: We’re at the very beginning of a new app ecosystem’, VentureBeat, February 27, 2021 available at: https://venturebeat.com/2021/02/27/gpt-3-were-at-the-very-beginning-of-a-new-app-ecosystem/amp/ (accessed 28th February, 2021)
[87] Ohlheiser, A., Hao K. (2021), ‘An AI is training counselors to deal with teens in crisis’, MIT Technology Review, February 26, 2021 available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/26/1020010/trevor-project-ai-suicide-hotline-training/amp (accessed 2nd March, 2021)
[88] Heaven, W.D. (2020), ‘OpenAI’s new language generator GPT-3 is shockingly good — and completely mindless’, MIT Technology Review, July 20, 2020 available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/07/20/1005454/openai-machine-learning-language-generator-gpt-3-nlp/ (accessed 30th January, 2021)
[89] Heaven, W.D. (2021), ‘Why GPT-3 is the best and worst of AI right now’, MIT Technology Review, February 24, 2021 available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/24/1017797/gpt3-best-worst-ai-openai-natural-language (accessed 26th February, 2021)
[90] Elliott, E. (2020), ‘What It’s Like To be a Computer: An Interview with GPT-3’ (Video Recording) available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqbB07n_uQ4&feature=youtu.be (accessed 30th January, 2021)
[91] Ramesh, A. Pavlov, M. Goh, G. and Gray, S. (2021) ‘DALL·E: Creating Images from Text’, OpenAI, January 5, 2021 available at: https://openai.com/blog/dall-e/ (accessed 30th January, 2021)
[92] Mohammed, M. (2021), ‘OpenAI GPT-3 created an AI Artist that can draw ANYTHING — DALL.E’ (Video Recording) available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_TKakn3OPA (accessed 30th January, 2021)
[93] Letitia (2021), ‘OpenAI’s DALL-E explained. How GPT-3 creates images from descriptions’, AI Coffee Break with Letitia (Video Recording) available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvG2FGF0TvM (accessed 30th January, 2021)
[94] DeepMind, available at: https://deepmind.com/ (accessed 31st January, 2021)
[95] Parsons, J. (2015), ‘Everybody working in Artificial Intelligence knows the Terminator scenario’: Futurologist explains when killer robots could endanger humanity’, Daily Mirror, November 4, 2015 available at: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/everybody-working-artificial-intelligence-knows-6759244 (accessed 31st January, 2021)[96] Stevenson, R., Davis, R. (2021) ‘Elon Musk Says He Wired Up a Monkey’s Brain to Play Video Games’ Bloomberg, available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-02-01/elon-musk-wired-up-a-monkey-s-brain-to-play-videogames (accessed 2nd February, 2021)
[97] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Terminator (franchise)’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_(franchise) (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[98] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Terminator Salvation’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminator_Salvation (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[99] IMDB (n.d.) ‘Terminator Salvation’ available at: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0438488/characters/nm0000288 (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[100] Mann, H., (1867) ‘Thoughts selected from the writings of Horace Mann’ H.B. Fuller, Boston pg. 14 available at: https://archive.org/details/thoughtsselected00mann (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[101] Genesis 2:7, The JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh — The New JPS Translation — 2nd Edition (2003), The Jewish Publication Society, Philadelphia
[102] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Existence of God’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God (accessed 15th February, 2021)
[103] Merriam-Webster Dictionary (n.d.) ‘God’ available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god (accessed 14th February, 2021)
[104] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘God’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God (accessed 15th February, 2021)
[105] Harari, Y.N. (2017), ‘Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow’, Harper, New York, Kindle Edition Location 657
[106] Harari, Y.N. (2017), ‘Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow’, Harper, New York, Kindle Edition Location 1092
[107] Job 1:21
[108] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘Friedrich Nietzsche’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche (accessed 14th February, 2021)
[109] Nietzsche, F. (1886), ‘Beyond Good and Evil’, Translated by: Zimmern, H., Gutenberg Press, (2013), Chapter IV. Apophthegms and Interludes #146 available at: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/4363/4363-h/4363-h.htm (accessed 14th February, 2021)
[110] Bostrom, N., (2014) ‘Superintelligence: Paths, Dangers, Strategies’, Oxford University Press, New York, pg. 259
[111] New York Times — ‘Atomic Education Urged by Einstein’, May 25 1946, p.11 available at: https://www.nytimes.com/1946/05/25/archives/atomic-education-urged-by-einstein-scientist-in-plea-for-200000-to.html (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[112] Wikipedia (n.d.) ‘J. Robert Oppenheimer’ available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Robert_Oppenheimer (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[113] Oppenheimer, J.R. “Now I am become death…”, Media Gallery available at: https://www.atomicarchive.com/media/videos/oppenheimer.html (accessed 1st February, 2021)
[114] Miller, W. (1955), ‘Death of a Genius: His fourth dimension, time, overtakes Einstein, Subsection: Old Man’s Advice to Youth: ‘Never Lose a Holy Curiosity’, LIFE Magazine, Time Inc., May 2, 1955, pgs. 62–64.
[115] Fast Company Staff ‘The 10 most innovative companies in artificial intelligence’, Fast Company, March 9, 2021 available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/90600124/artificial-intelligence-most-innovative-companies-2021 (accessed 11th March, 2021)
[116] Harari, Y.N. (2017), ‘Homo Deus: A Brief History of Tomorrow’, Harper, New York, Kindle Edition Location 639

About the Author:

Ted W. Gross is a Futurist and theorist. He served as a CTO & VP of R&D for many years with expertise in database technology concentrating on NoSQL systems, NodeJS, MongoDB, Encryption, AI, Innovation, Disruption & Chaos Theory. He has, as well, expertise in Virtual World Technologies & Augmented Reality. Ted writes many articles on technological topics in professional journals and online @ Medium & LinkedIn.

Ted can be reached via email; LinkedIn; Medium

---

The Frankenstein Hypothesis was originally published in Towards Data Science on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

from Towards Data Science - Medium https://ift.tt/3GQ9ffV
via RiYo Analytics