What is meant by saying you want to “live fully?” Why did millions of Americans rebalance their lives with new careers during the Great Resignation? And what did the cool kids mean by YOLO? There is more meaning behind “life” than simply the standard dictionary definition. Much more. In an earlier article, an updated dictionary definition for “life” was used to justify the claim that machines/robots may soon be considered “living.” In this article, a deeper understanding of “life” is explored by comparing two classes of beings: rational animals and passionate machines. Will machines also soon meet the deeper requirements for what it means to “live?”
Plato described humans as like a chariot (our soul) with two winged horses working to pull it in different directions (our rational and passionate impulses). As a philosopher, Plato naturally valued the rational “horse.” Rockstars may disagree and value the passion “horse.” Who is correct or, more reasonably, what is the right balance? Simple forms of life lack rational capabilities; no balancing required. At the other extreme are humans, the “rational animal.” We evolved rationality to evaluate and respond to complicated situations. But, this also complicates life by constantly yielding two different answers to the question “what should I do next?” Should we make ourselves happy by choosing the passion answer or focus on our long-term future and make ourselves successful with the rational one? Luckily, we can each choose our own individual balance. Personally, I value both happiness and success; my choice is to balance rationality and passion to maximize the combination of both happiness and success. Similarly, my working definition for rational animal is “an animal capable of rational thought and living with balanced rationality and passion.”
Machines are completely different. Machines think differently, are composed differently, are motivated differently, and are created differently. Machines are completely different. Historically, machine “thinking” would be considered purely rational; it followed well-defined logical steps to achieve a well-defined objective. However, the way machines “think” is rapidly evolving. In particular, machines are rapidly gaining artificial intelligence (AI); truly general-purpose problem-solving is predicted within several decades. The number of silly mistakes made by AI because it doesn’t truly “understand” a situation (lacking a fundamental model of the universe) is decreasing. Simultaneously, the appearance of impressive new capabilities is accelerating. Will AI “thinking” always be purely rational or will “passions” either be programmed or learned by the system? If developers copy Mother Nature, a common occurrence, future AI will require both a fundamental model of the universe and, more relevant here, “passions” to help decide “what should I do next” in a general environment. Aren’t such motivators the same as human desires/emotions? Will a passionate machine, “a machine governed by motivators,” function essentially the same as a rational animal?
Machines are “motivated” completely differently than animals. Animals are motivated through desires and emotions which evolved to help decide which needs were more important in simple situations. Was it time to eat or sleep, for example. “Advanced” animals later evolved the ability to analyze complicated situations using rational thought. Was it time to plant crops yet? Machines are “evolving” in the opposite order; they began with rational thought and may add emotions later. To date, machines have gotten by just fine without passion.
Importantly, how machines evolve is also completely different. Animals evolve through natural selection; different humans have a wide variety of both emotions and ambitions. Machines, however, are designed and built by humans to exact specifications, for exact purposes; differences are minimized. Any trait that hinders a machine’s ability to achieve its objective is avoided. Humans, however, often celebrate traits that don’t directly help us achieve major goals. Humans have hobbies, spend too much money buying things we don’t really need, and jump out of perfectly good airplanes. Fun, but none of the activities help us pass on our genetics! They are “true passions.” Machines will likely soon require some form of “motivators,” but will they have “true passions?” Not likely. Sure, it is possible that future programmers could artificially include random passions, but why would they? Why reduce a machine’s performance? It is also possible that machines will one day gain control over their own advancement. Will machines evolve true passions? Also, not likely. True passions are fun for humans, but inherently less efficient than focused behavior. Machines are unlikely to decide that YOLO!
Predicting the future for rapidly evolving machines is challenging. AI systems are already too complicated to fully understand or predict how they will respond. It is with that uneasiness, that I conclude that machines will soon meet the (updated) dictionary definition for “living”, but that they will not meet the deeper requirement for what is meant by “truly living” because they will lack “true passion.” That is my conclusion. What’s yours?
Copyright © 2022 Thinkverum.com - All Rights Reserved.
We use cookies to analyze website traffic and optimize your website experience. By accepting our use of cookies, your data will be aggregated with all other user data.