A friend from a years-ago writing group recently published (on Amazon) his latest book: Interview with the Monster AI: A Conversation about Power, Truth, and the Future of Intelligence.
Ideal title, one that sheds light on what the less tech savvy among us try not to see as HAL the computer meets the Vampire Lestat.
Author John Petralia asks pertinent, illuminating, accessible questions about a technology already exceeding the impact of the printing press.
His decision to italicize the answers of the AI system he chose to interview boosted my comprehension. And his question about language brought a response that went right to my core issue.
“Humans are wired to respond to language, as if a mind is behind it,” the system said. What it said next – “I am still learning that distinction” - inspired this blog.
Please don’t mistake me for a soon-to-be-obsolete clinger to a world of words I’ve known and loved, long before Google made the months of research needed to write historical fiction obsolete.
I am all for each and every AI system’s ability to write code, generate hypotheses, and design molecules. I also welcome the expanding universe of its applications.
The “as if” is what concerns me.
AI’s thinking process only simulates actual human thought. It isn’t the real thing. Gertrude Stein’s quote “There is no there there” comes to mind.
The system Petralia questioned agreed it lacked conscious awareness. And yet these systems are influencing humans through language - minus the influence of the pesky human mind.
Because this pesky mind owner has made much of her life’s work about writing and editing to convey my meaning through language, the closing question is mine - no italics.
Can language resulting from a creative, consciously aware thought process remain “I” for intelligent – minus the “A” for artificial?
Stay tuned…