It was very interesting to read about Augustine vs Maximus and I agree with the definition of self as psychosomatic. However, to jump from this to 'AI is therefore not a threat' seems like dismissing the essence of its disruptive effects.
As an architect and digital artist, my main concern is the role of AI text-to-image art generators like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion.
A good summary of their pernicious consequences is given by Steven Zapata in a manifesto that can be found on YouTube under the title 'The End of Art: An Argument Against Image AIs'.
We are not concerned that AI might develop better thinking minds than humans, we are concerned that:
1) human decision-makers might advance false definitions of human nature, instantiate them into laws and customs and force societies to comply to them. Patrick Deneen's 'Why Liberalism Failed' provides ample evidence of this happening over the past 300 years
2) human innovation developing chaotically, indifferent to *any* definition of human nature, community, telos
These two phenomena have been happening since the industrial revolution (are we uncle-Ted-pilled?) and it can be argued that ethicists and scientistic-minded people have been providing post-hoc rationalisations of unleashed technology; they either sold it as 'progress', or as an equalising force, or reduced all higher order values (Scheler's pyramid) to utility and pleasure.
With AI we have all these already existing drives, ramped up to 11. AI art generators were created by learning from copyrighted material (Zapata's video covers this), and are now used as a replacement for human artists. I don't care whether they could do a better job, this is immaterial and of a metaphysical nature; the concrete reality is CEOs of large animation or architecture companies (like Zaha Hadid) starting to generate digital art without paying artists to do it, but rather learning how to carefully type words in the text box of Midjourney, resulting in images that later inform the company's designs.
It is strange that in the 20th century, the justification of automatising everything was the elimination of hard labour and unpleasant chores, so that men could spend time doing pleasant activities like *art*. Now it seems even that is taken from him.
Last but not least, AI art has a cheapening effect and a further destruction of the aura of authenticity (Walter Benjamin wrote a good essay on the influence of mass production in eroding the aura of art); with NFTs and AI generative models, this process reaches unimaginable depths. We already know that facebook, google and amazon collect our preferences and sell them to 3rd parties that can then offer targeted ads, or political parties can recruit, watch us or shadowban us. When this data is connected with AI art generators, you will start seeing content created instantly targeted at individuals; imagine an AI-generated comic book that develops an idea you had, but never managed to find the time to materialise it; or a music video about the death of your pet, or the nasty words your mother said to you. It is happening, Stable diffusion are already working on creating an AI music creator.
A technology does not have to develop a mind of its own in a true metaphysical sense to cease being a tool; disruptive technologies *are* becoming strange golems and fetishes that force us to adapt or perish, kinda like in an arms race.
"There is really no reason why a human being should do more than eat, drink, sleep, breathe, and procreate; everything else could be done for him by machinery. Therefore the logical end of mechanical progress is to reduce the human being to something resembling a brain in a bottle. That is the goal towards which we are already moving, though, of course, we have no intention of getting there; just as a man who drinks a bottle of whisky a day does not actually intend to get cirrhosis of the liver" - Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier
'AI can be a helpful tool, so long as we have a sound theology of the self.'
Let me try to put this quote in perspective, by replacing 'AI' with 'sex robots' and 'theology of the self' with 'human relationships':
'Sex robots can be a helpful tool, so long as people favour healthy human relationships.'
Why? Because robots cannot really fulfil us; the self is so much more than a computer etc.
The real question is: can techno-optimists *replace* healthy human relationships with robot surrogates? Ever heard of porn hub?
It was very interesting to read about Augustine vs Maximus and I agree with the definition of self as psychosomatic. However, to jump from this to 'AI is therefore not a threat' seems like dismissing the essence of its disruptive effects.
As an architect and digital artist, my main concern is the role of AI text-to-image art generators like Midjourney or Stable Diffusion.
A good summary of their pernicious consequences is given by Steven Zapata in a manifesto that can be found on YouTube under the title 'The End of Art: An Argument Against Image AIs'.
We are not concerned that AI might develop better thinking minds than humans, we are concerned that:
1) human decision-makers might advance false definitions of human nature, instantiate them into laws and customs and force societies to comply to them. Patrick Deneen's 'Why Liberalism Failed' provides ample evidence of this happening over the past 300 years
2) human innovation developing chaotically, indifferent to *any* definition of human nature, community, telos
These two phenomena have been happening since the industrial revolution (are we uncle-Ted-pilled?) and it can be argued that ethicists and scientistic-minded people have been providing post-hoc rationalisations of unleashed technology; they either sold it as 'progress', or as an equalising force, or reduced all higher order values (Scheler's pyramid) to utility and pleasure.
With AI we have all these already existing drives, ramped up to 11. AI art generators were created by learning from copyrighted material (Zapata's video covers this), and are now used as a replacement for human artists. I don't care whether they could do a better job, this is immaterial and of a metaphysical nature; the concrete reality is CEOs of large animation or architecture companies (like Zaha Hadid) starting to generate digital art without paying artists to do it, but rather learning how to carefully type words in the text box of Midjourney, resulting in images that later inform the company's designs.
It is strange that in the 20th century, the justification of automatising everything was the elimination of hard labour and unpleasant chores, so that men could spend time doing pleasant activities like *art*. Now it seems even that is taken from him.
Last but not least, AI art has a cheapening effect and a further destruction of the aura of authenticity (Walter Benjamin wrote a good essay on the influence of mass production in eroding the aura of art); with NFTs and AI generative models, this process reaches unimaginable depths. We already know that facebook, google and amazon collect our preferences and sell them to 3rd parties that can then offer targeted ads, or political parties can recruit, watch us or shadowban us. When this data is connected with AI art generators, you will start seeing content created instantly targeted at individuals; imagine an AI-generated comic book that develops an idea you had, but never managed to find the time to materialise it; or a music video about the death of your pet, or the nasty words your mother said to you. It is happening, Stable diffusion are already working on creating an AI music creator.
A technology does not have to develop a mind of its own in a true metaphysical sense to cease being a tool; disruptive technologies *are* becoming strange golems and fetishes that force us to adapt or perish, kinda like in an arms race.
"There is really no reason why a human being should do more than eat, drink, sleep, breathe, and procreate; everything else could be done for him by machinery. Therefore the logical end of mechanical progress is to reduce the human being to something resembling a brain in a bottle. That is the goal towards which we are already moving, though, of course, we have no intention of getting there; just as a man who drinks a bottle of whisky a day does not actually intend to get cirrhosis of the liver" - Orwell, The Road to Wigan Pier