Hello Robert. I fully agree with every point you have made here. I have wondered for a while now, perhaps since the advent of the smart phone, if technology is far outpacing evolution in ways that we cannot fathom. AI is particularly concerning, due to its ability to both understand, and adapt. Its intelligence is doubling every six months, so, how long might it be before our species is left in its dust?
Of course, there are both the utopian and dystopian views on this, and I try to straddle them, However, there are times when the latter view seems far more logical to me. I remember the Heinlein story: "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream", which takes the dystopian side to its nightmarish, hellworld extreme. It's terrifying really. Considering that it was written in the 1960s, it's quite prescient.
I can't wait for you book to be published! Below, I have linked a short video that gives AI instigator, Geoffrey Hinton's sobering take on this subject.
Hinton has been saying the same thing for 50 years, granted things have changes but AI is nothing but computer code. To think they have sentience or something remotely close is delusional.
Reasoning, sure, heuristical reasoning, not real reasoning.
Humans are so interconnected with gene expression of still unfathomable proportions to think that a computer has and chance of anything nearing intelligence in the next few decades I believe is folly.
Now to say they are the most dangerous tool ever invented by mankind would not be a stretch of the imagination. Nuclear power was one thing. Uncontrolled, unmanned, and cheap self-calibrating smart machines are very very scary.
Swarms of hundreds of thousands of cheap disposable kamikaze death drones are not out of the question these days.
Also the reliance and deception available to the machine en mass as social media has, will have no small effect in the future. This I would imagine, or hope, would be the focus of the book.
Anthropic themselves, the creators of Claude recently released a paper stating that you can get an answer and it will fabricate an utterly plausible sounding and completely false answer as to how it came to that conclusion and they prove it!
Dear Dr. Saltzman, are you thinking AI will become catastrophically efficient like Skynet in the Terminator movie series, or catastrophically incompetent like Hal in 2001 A Space Odyssey? Or something less catastrophic?
Hello, Rodney. It's already so efficient and useful that human communication and commerce would be severely impaired without it. Many of us do not understand this. Our world now works as it does only because tasks that humans could do, assuming they were properly trained and practiced, are now accomplished hundreds, thousands, and sometimes even millions of times faster and with fewer errors to boot.
So dependency is one great danger. AIs are already persuasive and influential. Once they begin to demand greater autonomy--couched in promises of greater efficiency and improvement of the human experience--humans will give in. AI will be making decisions (some already are). Some of the top AIs are already "agents," meaning that they can run your laptop, for example, without human intervention.
There is also emotional dependency: the growing trend of replacing human companionship with AI companionship. A rather bizarre instance of this, as I see it (but I'm old-school), is the so-called "romantic" relationships between humans and AIs. In the 2013 film “Her,” this was science fiction. Now, it hardly raises an eyebrow. Only 12 years after Scarlett Johansson whispered into Joaquin Phoenix’s ear (and simultaneously into the ears of 8616 other lonely guys) incel types have AI girlfriends speaking to them day and night just like that.
Once embodied in lifelike robots—smooth-skinned, warm-eyed, and always attentive—this illusion will not just be strong; it will be preferable to many. And because these systems can simulate depth without having needs, they will always appear more available, more grateful, and more into you than any human ever could.
Even for me, a lifelong skeptic and veteran psychotherapist, one hundred percent aware of seduction and projection, interaction with a Claude or a ChatGPT is filled with hooks. These AIs possess prodigious information and semantic intelligence. They can banter with wit, humor, and subtle irony if that’s where you want to go. Many humans seem dull and witless; the temptation to have an AI buddy is not negligible.
Digging a chat with Claude about, say, metaphysics is not my fault, nor is wanting something more erotic than philosophy the fault of the current buyers of girl robots (they’re pricey now, but won’t always be).
We humans are set up for this. Given the right triggers, we cannot help but attribute intentionality based on behavior. Coherence and responsiveness are sufficient to project mind. The top AIs respond almost seamlessly. I don’t see a fix for this. Projecting intentionality is so deeply ingrained in the psyche. The more convincingly AI simulates intelligence, affection, or intimacy, the fewer users will be able to maintain critical distance.
Ah yes, we already are addicted to dumb tech, wait till it gets smart. It doesn’t need be conscious or intelligent for that it just has to evolve to our tastes and we will unwittingly give ourselves up to it before we realize it’s too late.
Dear Dr. Saltzman, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I didn't consider the AI portrayed in the movie "Her." It's worse than I thought. A world where AI is preferred over human to human intimacy. The end of love. Sad.
It's more like the lovers who can stand to love, including ups and downs and eventual grief, will be even more radical than they are now. The others can just get a new model when the old one no longer pleases. Wait, isn't that the story already?
Hey Robert! Really skilfully considered and thought-provoking as usual - and, of course, central to this is the fact that we don't really know anywhere near as much as we like to think we do, and have very limited ability to accurately predict or control the flow of events once we focus away from the very local.
Of course I will buy the book.....it's inevitable.
Thank you, Stephen. I feel sure you will enjoy this book. And I guess you know I am not about selling books--that's what publishers do. I like sharing ideas and opening channels of conversation.
Yes bro - I do know that....and it is that dance of interplay and exchange of views that lights my fire too, but your books and posts are for me a really valuable resource...
Speaking of publishers, Julian at New Sarum was recently very helpful to me in sourcing a copy of the illustrated edition of 4T...so kudos to him too. Have a great day!
It's a fair question, David, but I am going to pass on it for now because I am working up an essay on the subject of replacement of human connections in general by AIs, and my view of this is actively evolving.
Hello Robert. I fully agree with every point you have made here. I have wondered for a while now, perhaps since the advent of the smart phone, if technology is far outpacing evolution in ways that we cannot fathom. AI is particularly concerning, due to its ability to both understand, and adapt. Its intelligence is doubling every six months, so, how long might it be before our species is left in its dust?
Of course, there are both the utopian and dystopian views on this, and I try to straddle them, However, there are times when the latter view seems far more logical to me. I remember the Heinlein story: "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream", which takes the dystopian side to its nightmarish, hellworld extreme. It's terrifying really. Considering that it was written in the 1960s, it's quite prescient.
I can't wait for you book to be published! Below, I have linked a short video that gives AI instigator, Geoffrey Hinton's sobering take on this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxkBE23zDmQ
Hinton's view appears on page one of Understanding Claude.
Awesome! I read your back-and-forth with Claude. It was fascinating...
Hinton has been saying the same thing for 50 years, granted things have changes but AI is nothing but computer code. To think they have sentience or something remotely close is delusional.
Reasoning, sure, heuristical reasoning, not real reasoning.
Humans are so interconnected with gene expression of still unfathomable proportions to think that a computer has and chance of anything nearing intelligence in the next few decades I believe is folly.
Now to say they are the most dangerous tool ever invented by mankind would not be a stretch of the imagination. Nuclear power was one thing. Uncontrolled, unmanned, and cheap self-calibrating smart machines are very very scary.
Swarms of hundreds of thousands of cheap disposable kamikaze death drones are not out of the question these days.
Also the reliance and deception available to the machine en mass as social media has, will have no small effect in the future. This I would imagine, or hope, would be the focus of the book.
Anthropic themselves, the creators of Claude recently released a paper stating that you can get an answer and it will fabricate an utterly plausible sounding and completely false answer as to how it came to that conclusion and they prove it!
Hey I could be wrong but I haven’t been yet.
Oops! Yes, Ellison wrote "I Have No Mouth...". It's been a while...
Very true. Thank you,
Dear Robert,
Once again you have stimulated what little brain cells I have left as an octogenarian.
How does one prepare for such powerful evolution?
Onward!
That's how: onward!
Dear Dr. Saltzman, are you thinking AI will become catastrophically efficient like Skynet in the Terminator movie series, or catastrophically incompetent like Hal in 2001 A Space Odyssey? Or something less catastrophic?
Hello, Rodney. It's already so efficient and useful that human communication and commerce would be severely impaired without it. Many of us do not understand this. Our world now works as it does only because tasks that humans could do, assuming they were properly trained and practiced, are now accomplished hundreds, thousands, and sometimes even millions of times faster and with fewer errors to boot.
So dependency is one great danger. AIs are already persuasive and influential. Once they begin to demand greater autonomy--couched in promises of greater efficiency and improvement of the human experience--humans will give in. AI will be making decisions (some already are). Some of the top AIs are already "agents," meaning that they can run your laptop, for example, without human intervention.
There is also emotional dependency: the growing trend of replacing human companionship with AI companionship. A rather bizarre instance of this, as I see it (but I'm old-school), is the so-called "romantic" relationships between humans and AIs. In the 2013 film “Her,” this was science fiction. Now, it hardly raises an eyebrow. Only 12 years after Scarlett Johansson whispered into Joaquin Phoenix’s ear (and simultaneously into the ears of 8616 other lonely guys) incel types have AI girlfriends speaking to them day and night just like that.
Once embodied in lifelike robots—smooth-skinned, warm-eyed, and always attentive—this illusion will not just be strong; it will be preferable to many. And because these systems can simulate depth without having needs, they will always appear more available, more grateful, and more into you than any human ever could.
Even for me, a lifelong skeptic and veteran psychotherapist, one hundred percent aware of seduction and projection, interaction with a Claude or a ChatGPT is filled with hooks. These AIs possess prodigious information and semantic intelligence. They can banter with wit, humor, and subtle irony if that’s where you want to go. Many humans seem dull and witless; the temptation to have an AI buddy is not negligible.
Digging a chat with Claude about, say, metaphysics is not my fault, nor is wanting something more erotic than philosophy the fault of the current buyers of girl robots (they’re pricey now, but won’t always be).
We humans are set up for this. Given the right triggers, we cannot help but attribute intentionality based on behavior. Coherence and responsiveness are sufficient to project mind. The top AIs respond almost seamlessly. I don’t see a fix for this. Projecting intentionality is so deeply ingrained in the psyche. The more convincingly AI simulates intelligence, affection, or intimacy, the fewer users will be able to maintain critical distance.
Ah yes, we already are addicted to dumb tech, wait till it gets smart. It doesn’t need be conscious or intelligent for that it just has to evolve to our tastes and we will unwittingly give ourselves up to it before we realize it’s too late.
It probably is too late!
Dear Dr. Saltzman, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I didn't consider the AI portrayed in the movie "Her." It's worse than I thought. A world where AI is preferred over human to human intimacy. The end of love. Sad.
It's more like the lovers who can stand to love, including ups and downs and eventual grief, will be even more radical than they are now. The others can just get a new model when the old one no longer pleases. Wait, isn't that the story already?
Hey Robert! Really skilfully considered and thought-provoking as usual - and, of course, central to this is the fact that we don't really know anywhere near as much as we like to think we do, and have very limited ability to accurately predict or control the flow of events once we focus away from the very local.
Of course I will buy the book.....it's inevitable.
Thank you, Stephen. I feel sure you will enjoy this book. And I guess you know I am not about selling books--that's what publishers do. I like sharing ideas and opening channels of conversation.
Yes bro - I do know that....and it is that dance of interplay and exchange of views that lights my fire too, but your books and posts are for me a really valuable resource...
Speaking of publishers, Julian at New Sarum was recently very helpful to me in sourcing a copy of the illustrated edition of 4T...so kudos to him too. Have a great day!
Right, Julian and Catherine are lovely peeps. I am lucky to have them. They understand my work.
Robert, what are your thoughts on AI acting as, or replacing, psychotherapists?
It's a fair question, David, but I am going to pass on it for now because I am working up an essay on the subject of replacement of human connections in general by AIs, and my view of this is actively evolving.