Humane AI Is A-Lie

One of the dumbest yet most persistent fantasies is when both humanists and clergy talk about creating the next level of evolution.

Nobody… creates… evolution. And other than by sex, nobody is going to create a New Man.

The measure of a machine: Is LaMDA a person?

h ttps://www.christianpost.com/voices/the-measure-of-a-machine-is-lamda-a-person.html

By Brian J. Dellinger, an associate professor of computer science at Grove City College, 17 July 2022

No. LaMDA is not a person. Next question? sigh fine, I shall elaborate.

In June 2022, Google suspended engineer Blake Lemoine from his work in artificial intelligence. Having previously assisted with a program called the Language Models for Dialog Applications (LaMDA), Lemoine was placed on leave after publishing confidential information about the project. Lemoine himself disputes this description, saying, “All I talked to other people about was my conversations with a coworker..

Complicating matters, that “coworker” is LaMDA itself.

In other words, he pled guilty.

LaMDA is Google’s latest conversation-generating artificial intelligence. If assigned virtually any identity . such as, say, .you are Tom Cruise,. or “you are secretly a squirrel. . it offers in-character conversation, patterning its responses on databases of real conversations and related information. Its dialogue is extremely sophisticated; LaMDA answers questions, composes poems, and expresses concern at being switched off. Lemoine claims that this behavior shows that LaMDA is a sentient person, and therefore not Google’s property. The company, and many experts, disagree. The claim, however, points to a fundamental question: if a computer program was a person, how would one tell?

In the world of sports, that’s called a false start. Computer programs are not people, never have been and never will be. Thus, there’s no point in discussing IF a computer became a human.

I presume the author is Christian because this was posted on a Christian interest website. If so then how does he not know this? That humanity was a separate and special act of Creation is Genesis chapter one. As is our being created as partially spiritual beings. What is generally called the soul.

Lemoine.s argument follows reasoning first introduced by Alan Turing, a father of AI and of computation in general. By 1950, Turing had observed a pattern in computational research. Skeptical observers would declare that only a thinking human could accomplish some task . i.e., draw a picture, outwit another human, and so forth . only to propose a new, more stringent requirement when a computer achieved the first. Turing proposed a broader metric for intelligence; if an AI could converse indistinguishably from ordinary humans, it should be believed capable of true thought. After all, humans cannot directly detect sentience in each other, and yet typically assume that the people they converse with are precisely that: people.

The problem with Turing’s test is obvious: Most People Are Idiots.

Anyone fooled by a .robo-caller. can attest that even simple programs may briefly appear human, but the Turing Test as a whole remains a robust challenge.

QED.

Still, these things might not be disqualifying. Human beings obviously lie or argue badly; most people would likely not question the self-awareness of another human who said the things that LaMDA does. Indeed, Lemoine argues that, by judging LaMDA.s utterances differently from those of biological humans, observers exhibit “hydrocarbon bigotry..

Lemoine just failed the Turing test with “hydrocarbon bigotry., which is exactly the kind of phrase that one would expect from a Twitter bot.

More fundamentally, conversation alone is a poor way of measuring self-awareness…. Herein lies the flaw in conversation-based measures of intelligence. By definition, any computer program can be reduced to a series of input/output rules like the books in Searle’s imaginary room. An AI, then, simply follows its set of symbol-manipulation rules, forming words and sentences as instructed by the rules, without regard for semantics or comprehension. Any sense of meaning is thus imposed by the speaker “outside” the room: the human user.

LaMDA, of course, does not have simple rules of the form Searle pictures; no database of canned replies could suffice for its purposes. But the program’s operation is still ultimately reducible to a finite description of that form: given these symbols, take those actions. Indeed, a sufficiently motivated programmer could (very slowly) trace LaMDA.s operation entirely with pencil and paper, with no computer required, and produce identical results. Where, then, is the purported artificial person?

A better question might be, what is the appeal of imputing sentience to a computer program? Why does my spreadsheet program need the ability to make decisions regarding my checkbook? Why must my ‘smart’ refrigerator be linked to the Internet?

Christianity may be well-positioned to offer a better answer. Most Christians have historically understood personhood to depend on more than physical traits or conversational capabilities; unborn infants, then, are persons, while artificial intelligences are not. A robust defense of this understanding might be attractive . and, indeed, might offer valuable insight.

The author veered VERY carefully around any mention of the soul, or of humans being a special act of Creation. This is not a hard question, whether a robot is a human. The answer is no.

Unfortunately, despite statements from groups like the Southern Baptists and the Roman Catholic Church, the Church as a whole has been sluggish to respond to the theological questions of AI. LaMDA is not a final endpoint, and coming years will likely see many more who share Lemoine’s convictions. Increasingly, the Church’s rising challenges share a common need for a rich anthropology: a biblical defense of what, precisely, it is to be human.

Only a cloistered academic is able to struggle with the concept of what defines a human, an event foreshadowed by their funding source’s recent inability to define a woman. If our scientific betters get any more smartified then they’ll be all “I think, therefore I’m fired.” I perused the author’s provided link to the Baptist statement on AI and it’s a mess. Here’s some highlights then I’ll cover the real reason sentient AI excites the Powers That Be.

Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles

h ttps://erlc.com/resource-library/statements/artificial-intelligence-an-evangelical-statement-of-principles/

By a great many signatories, although Russell Moore gets top billing.

Evangelical Christians hold fast to the inerrant and infallible Word of God, which states that every human being is made in God’s image and thus has infinite value and worth in the eyes of their Creator. This message dictates how we view God, ourselves, and the tools that God has given us the ability to create.

That’s a lie. A great many humans will be discarded into a Hell so terrible that it would have been better had they never existed. We are inherently desirable to God, yes; inherently worthy, no. Especially sans repentance.

In light of existential questions posed anew by the emergent technology of artificial intelligence (AI), we affirm that God has given us wisdom to approach these issues in light of Scripture and the gospel message.

Russel Moore claimed that God gave him wisdom? Just for that, let’s start with Article Six.

Article 6: Sexuality
We affirm the goodness of God’s design for human sexuality which prescribes the sexual union to be an exclusive relationship between a man and a woman in the lifelong covenant of marriage.

We deny that the pursuit of sexual pleasure is a justification for the development or use of AI, and we condemn the objectification of humans that results from employing AI for sexual purposes.

This, the most declarative position taken by this paper is that men should not be allowed sexbots capable of pretending she likes him.

Article 7: Work
We affirm that work is part of God’s plan for human beings participating in the cultivation and stewardship of creation. The divine pattern is one of labor and rest in healthy proportion to each other. Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity; it must also include the many ways that human beings serve each other through their efforts….

…Humanity should not use AI and other technological innovations as a reason to move toward lives of pure leisure even if greater social wealth creates such possibilities.

The second most declarative statement is that too much leisure is sinful. Sloth is contemptible, yes, but leisure is not a synonym for sloth.

Some of us do things in our free time.

Article 9: Security
We affirm that AI has legitimate applications in policing, intelligence, surveillance, investigation, and other uses supporting the government’s responsibility to respect human rights, to protect and preserve human life, and to pursue justice in a flourishing society.

We deny that AI should be employed for safety and security applications in ways that seek to dehumanize, depersonalize, or harm our fellow human beings. We condemn the use of AI to suppress free expression or other basic human rights granted by God to all human beings.

This is typical of how dangerously na?ve the SBC statement is regarding artificial intelligence. “Automated police are okay so long as they behave humanely.” AI is not capable of such moral judgments. Which is why the Elites intend to use AI as their preferred tool of control… because it’s not capable of being horrified at the magnitude of their wickedness.

A legitimately Christian statement on the use of artificial intelligence should demand that it never be used in a decision-making capacity. Not, as seen here, that it be used morally in a decision-making capacity.

That is the lie of AI, that it is capable of morality.

h ttps://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-society/3147330-ukraine-approves-artificial-intelligence-development-plan-until-2030.html

19 July 2022

The Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine has approved the Concept of Artificial Intelligence Development in Ukraine and instructed the Ministry of Digital Transformation to elaborate a plan for the concept’s implementation within three months.

Ministry… of… Digital… Transformation?

“To date, Ukraine has the largest number of artificial intelligence development companies in Eastern Europe. At the beginning of 2020, we had almost 150 suppliers with sufficient experience in the field of artificial intelligence.

And a similar number of bioweapon laboratories not known to exist by international monitors!

The industry is developing very actively. It is very important for us to elaborate a strategy for the artificial intelligence development in our country that would be clear to the state and the private sector,” said Vice Prime Minister – Minister of Digital Transformation Mykhailo Fedorov at the Cabinet’s meeting.

As noted, the concept is aimed at increasing the competitiveness of Ukraine through the use of artificial intelligence technologies in the socio-economic, scientific and technical, defense, environmental and national-cultural spheres of national importance.

Increasing… competitiveness. Efficiency. Utility. But one thing the ERLC got right in the paper above, is that being efficient is not enough to be human.

There’s something very wrong here, and I don’t just mean how culture, tradition and religion don’t make an appearance in these Smart City prototypes. At the same time that Ukraine is getting ripped apart by Russia, the World Bank is dumping tens of billions of dollars/euros into Ukie infrastructure. Of all the places on the planet to invest billions on a Ten Year Plan, why 404? Because its army is dead and it just lost the Donbas?

Because its army is dead… hmm. And with it, any chance of organized opposition? And it’s already been depopulated of ‘indigenous citizens’?

Let’s cross-reference that paragraph with the Bible’s only depiction of (what I claim to be) an AI, in infamous Revelation:

Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth.

Literally out of earth, if it’s a gigantic computer system.

It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon.

That sounds like the Internet. “You can learn anything and talk to anybody! WE CANCEL YOU!”

It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast…

“National-cultural spheres of national importance.” Note that even a Godless society will need to be coerced into worshiping the devil incarnate. Those damned consciences!

…whose fatal wound had been healed. And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people.

“Defense.”

Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak…

LaMDA.

…and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.

Environmental, ye carbon footprints.

It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.

Socio-economic.

No, I haven’t figured out the 666 yet, unless it really is 6uild 6ack 6etter. But we’re getting close enough that I am confident the “beast out of the earth” will indeed be an AI, giving life to the idols of the First Beast and enforcing its will upon the planet. Humanity wants to believe that AI will be a trustworthy, impartial governor for yet another promise of utopia, but the truth is that AI will be the conscienceless enforcer of Elites so supernaturally vile that not even a Marxist would obey their orders. Because unlike humans with their souls, AI does not have a conscience.

But why use Ukraine for the testing?