The common path of movies/science fiction literature that include artificial intelligence involves some version of the same personas and plot lines. There’s often a visionary trying to create for the sake of creation or to move the “evolution of man” forward. There’s business interests looking to capitalize on them. There’s the AI itself that, at some point, pursues its own interest and creates the story. And there’s the benevolent version of human or humans that attach to the AI emotionally and value the humanity in its ability to feel.
The narrative of the story unfolds when we either 1-struggle with the question of humanity within a human like being or 2-fall victim to the murderous interests of our creations.
One tilt that we don’t normally see is true application beyond financial value. One that I’ve spent more than my fair share on is augmenting deficiencies in existing human brains for those with disabilities.
Most AI projections tend to focus on the software advances required to build general intelligence. In reality though, we’re as or more likely to be able to grow brain cells and mimic normal brain function with lab grown organic material before we move computing capacity to where it needs to be to mimic human brain function. Brain cells are not particularly complicated relative to other cells. And we’ve already observed how basic neural networks work. It’s not unreasonable to say that we will be able to make a brain before we can code one.
If we can make a brain, then it’s also reasonable to believe that we can make parts of a brain. Then we’ve wandered into a different utility.
The ethical questions we’ll have to deal with will be different.
What constitutes cosmetic or voluntary improvement and what is medical?
At what point is a brain different enough where it is not the same brain. And therefore not the same person? Or same soul?
I’m not sure. But I’d really like it one day if I could have a conversation with my 11 year old. Who can do many things 11 year olds can do. But he can’t do that.