The subjective robot doesn't exist - yet

 

 

Subject: The subjective robot doesn't exist - yet





So the ‘conscious’  part of our mind is being bypassed by a process of Algorithms and feed back loops just as begin we struggle to understand what our sense of consciousness means.

The subtle difference between the iterative feedback and the comprehension we extend from that iterative process, our intuition and originality are to be side-lined  for machine learning where eventually you won’t be able to tell the difference between us and the robot. It has the imprint of ‘Big Brother’ written right across it, the infantilisation of humans for the purposes of cost reduction.

The House of Lords is going to be presented with a demonstration of Artificial Intelligence and it’s implication in the creative arts industry by a robot. Setting aside the temptation to say what’s new, or that his Lordships and politicians in general are robotic in their performance, towing the party line irrespective of truth, I’m sure they will be fascinated at the thought of having another captive to cast their tawny stare on, the robot not yet having a vote can be discounted, much like the bulk of the general.

It’s tempting to imagine which side of the house the robot will sit, will it be programmed with Chinese chips to accept only the chairman’s word or will it be a crossbencher able to flit from one position to another without the tow of any allegiance.

Our emancipation as homo sapiens will be complete as a loop feedback filters out all disturbing opinions and settles on the one chosen by the omni present leader. How satisfying to have 100% compliance such as in a banana republic where the vote is rigged and in severe cases, opposition voices are silenced for good.

The beauty of dissent was revealed in the days of Socrates where the human mind engaged in the iteration, being asking a question of an answer to a question, eventually paring down the answer to a logical conclusion. This process whilst effective doesn't always reveal the truth since it's not only the truth which is being challenged but the individuals interpretation of the truth. There is more than one truth since the shades of the alternative truth become intermingled and it's then a matter of pure interpretation. This is something a robot can't do well as it feeds in the reasoning of the last answer, it avoids the blurring of the line of reasoning which search’s for an emotional accuracy also.  Accuracy is impossible when you introduce emotion or fear, these other forms of reasoning, the fight or flight syndrome are impossible to resolve and best left to the compromise the which brain is good at.

Of course we reach a divide in the road when we become too prone to compromise. Not sure how to make the hard decision, which the robot would do without any compulsion instead we dither and cloud or reasoning with what ifs. Hard decisions like, what to do about over population, decisions regarding fossil fuels and the economy, health and education, should they be an equal commodity to everyone, is longevity a common right and a  common goal or should we be parcelled out according to resources.

One could go on and I'm sure the robot would make a cleaner fist of deciding the answer but like those surreal scenes in Brave New World we diminish so much of what we have struggled to recognise as good because good is a qualitative not a quantitive term.