Foucault wrote: «Man will be erased, like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea.» Nietzsche declared that humanity is a rope stretched between the ape and the Übermensch.
The only chance for fish to survive in a drying sea is to grow legs. The only chance for humanity to survive in a world where AI exists is to «grow» intelligence not only equal to but superior to AI.
This cannot happen naturally. The solution lies in the formula: «X+1> X,» where X represents the capabilities of Artificial Intelligence (AI), and 1 denotes the enhancement introduced by human integration. Humans must ascend to the next evolutionary step by enhancing their intelligence through the artificial fusion of the human brain with AI.
Separation
The sum of apes is apekind. At one point, the upper echelon of this community broke away from the mass and made a quantum leap – from ape to human. The lower part remained too bound by instinct and stayed behind, stuck in the past.
The sum of humans is mankind. Soon, or perhaps it has already begun, the upper echelon of humanity will break away from the masses. What follows is a quantum leap – the transformation of mortal and frail humans into immortal and powerful beings. The lower echelon will remain below, unable to take the necessary step forward.
The majority rarely advances to the next stage of development. Average people cannot think beyond the familiar, and thus they prefer death in the old to life in the new. Just as the burnt-out stages of a rocket detach and disintegrate in the atmosphere, leaving only the working module – the rocket’s head – to reach space, so too will the masses detach from the vanguard.
In their novel The Waves Extinguish the Wind, the Strugatsky brothers wrote:
«Mankind will be divided into two unequal parts based on a parameter unknown to us, and the smaller part will forcibly and forever surpass the larger.»
They depicted superhumans who outpaced the majority as humans outpace apes. Their appearance remained the same, but their monstrously powerful intellect changed them from within. The Ludens found it as impossible to communicate with people – their former friends and family – as you would find it if you had grown up among apes and then suddenly became a human. Reconnecting with your kin, friends, and acquaintances, with whom you had once joyfully swung from vines, would be inconceivable.
The gap between a traditional human and one merged with AI will initially resemble the gap between humans and apes. It is impossible to imagine that this process will stop. In the second stage, the divide between the new and old humans will become an unbridgeable chasm. The minority that ascends will care as much for the majority left behind as you care for insects.
Such indifference cannot be judged negatively for the same reason that a human’s indifference to the fate of the bacteria living inside them is not judged. Morality has no place here. The only metric is functionality: if the bacteria are beneficial, they are treated well; if harmful, they are eliminated with antibiotics.
The Strugatskys write that those left behind found this unpleasant:
«In fact, it looks as if humanity is splitting into higher and lower races. What could be more repugnant? Of course, this analogy is superficial and fundamentally incorrect, but you cannot escape the feeling of humiliation when you think that one of you has gone far beyond a limit insurmountable for hundreds of thousands. …Humanity, sprawling across a blooming plain under clear skies, surged upward. Naturally, not as a crowd, but why does this upset you so much? Humanity has always advanced into the future through the sprouts of its best representatives.» (The Waves Extinguish the Wind)
I fully understand how unpleasant this developing situation is for the majority, but the process cannot be stopped because it is rooted in life’s pursuit of the good. The only way to stop it would be to eliminate this drive. Even if that were possible, it would still be unacceptable. A life without the pursuit of good is not life but merely sustenance for something else. Life, by its very nature, will strive forward. The old will give way to the new, which means the old will be destroyed.
The Bible tells of how Moses led his enslaved compatriots out of Egypt. He promised them the Promised Land, where rivers of milk flowed between jelly banks. But instead, he wandered with them in the desert for 40 years until all who had been born as Egyptian slaves perished. Those who entered the Promised Land were those born and raised in the desert – born free.
The new will be entered by the new. The old will remain in the old. Applying this to myself, I do not exclude the possibility that I may not enter the world I want to build. If that is the case, when faced with the choice between moving from the old to the new and remaining stationary in the old, I choose the movement toward the new.
Harmony
For most people, the future is merely an upgraded version of the present: the same refrigerators, buildings, clothes, and so on, just in a different form. True innovation is met with, at best, ridicule as foolishness or, at worst, outright hostility. This applies equally to ignorant masses and great scientists.
«A scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.» (Max Planck, Scientific Autobiography and Other Papers)
It is difficult to say definitively why the new is perceived this way. I find the idea compelling that this is a kind of filter. The new must not be tainted by the old, and the most reliable way to shield it is to give all things new a frightening image.
If you conceptualize God, you are not conceptualizing God. If you conceptualize the future, you are not conceptualizing the future. The new does not fit within the boundaries of the known. It is neither this nor that, nor anything conceivable. It is something «Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man» (1 Corinthians 2:9, KJV).
The future hinges entirely on whether humanity merges with AI or not. The hope that humanity can remain as it is, while computers remain just machines, has no foundation other than the desire to believe in such a possibility.
A striking example of naivety is the belief in Isaac Asimov’s rule of robotics: «Do not harm.» It collapses under the question: what is harm? A humanist’s answer differs from an Islamist’s, and each is absolutely certain that their perspective is correct.
Attempts to amend the situation with new rules, such as «Preserve life,» or «Bring joy,» do not resolve the issue because there are countless ways to formally comply with these requirements in ways humans would find abhorrent. Humans understand these nuances instinctively. AI, however, perceives reality as a sequence of zeros and ones, where concepts of good and evil have no place.
It is impossible to write rules that AI will understand and interpret as humans do. Even within the same culture, people may interpret a phrase differently. Across cultures, these differences are even more pronounced. A humanist and an Islamist will have fundamentally different views of good and evil.
While there is some hope of aligning human perspectives through delving into the roots of worldviews – a process more challenging than higher mathematics – no such hope exists for aligning the perspectives of humans and machines. Machines lack the concepts of good and evil altogether.
This problem is compounded by the fact that humans themselves do not understand the fundamental premises upon which their truths rest. Intuitively, emotionally, humans know what is good and bad but cannot articulate these understandings rationally.
For instance, everyone knows what time is, but many falter when asked to define it. We all know what existence is, yet few can define it. The same applies to all core concepts. People consider true what they are accustomed to seeing as true. What you consider good and evil depends entirely on where you grew up. Had you been raised in a cannibalistic tribe, your moral compass would be different but just as self-evident.