Because We Love Beauty, We Surpass A.I.
Hello reader, now that I have your attention, I admit that the above title is a bit bodacious, but I think I can elucidate some modicum of validity in the above statement. Let me present what I think is a valid proof.
Will AI ever have a true and meaningful emotional state? -I think not, and the answer to this question becomes the cornerstone of my argument.
Can AI ever answer the following simple question that all five-year olds and even pet puppies can answer: How are you feeling today?, or Mr. AI how is your day?, or better yet Mr. AI the sun is out; how does that make you feel? Keep in mind that when you or I see the sun shining bright; we feel better before we decide to feel better. The act of feeling better occurs irrelevantly to and independent of any formal mathematical or logical calculation. If we were to perform a logical calculation so to decide to feel better in response to seeing the sunrise, our feelings would not be genuine.
So that’s key, I think its fair to say that AI, no matter how fair it may be, is totally inferior in its ability to feel affinity, compared to any fair person, who is fair in her thoughts though not necessarily fair in her phenotype.
So essentially, because AI lacks both a beautiful and irrational emotional state, it can’t appreciate beauty in any valid or meaningful way. In order to authentically value the beauty of natute, I have to feel joy when I see nature. It is insufficient to say that the acre of rainforest over there has $1 million USD in value. The full beauty of life is technically ineffable -relative to the mind of any finite sentient being. If I can’t feel something in response to stimuli, I can’t truly value it or its source. At best -it seems- AI can only reiterate values along the dimension of numeration. So if thats true, AI is still missing the value of the most meaningful things in life.
I don’t feel that I’ve technically proved the above corollary in totality. But lets examine the following story: After buying a Sunday dress for yourself so to impress your husband. You are walking in the park. You pick up a stick (what is the value of this stick?), and later you sit down and proceed to pick your nose in public with said stick (what is the value of this stick now?). Interestingly enough most people would agree that the value of the stick has increased significantly. It retains all of its original beauty and value, but a human imagined an additional use for the stick and technically brought wealth (albeit small) into existence. Unless the original inventor of this stick was the perfect and infinite embodient of all virtue among other things, it is unlikely that nose-picking was part of the original litnay of possible functionality of the stick dreamed up by the inventor. Furthermore, there is certainly a population, albiet clearly a minority of opinion, of individuals who nevertheless see the stick as now icky and covered in boogers. They would argue that the stick has lost beauty and possible functionality (None of them want to touch it now.) and has thus decreased in value.
I think I am at the homestretch now. So ya, Robots lack emotions, and they are essentially heartless with the exception of the Tin Man. Because they can’t feel emotions like: joy, anxiety, ecstasy, suffering, etc, they can’t make adequate value judgments. They also can’t craft a story or process one fully. On a sidenote storytelling is a highly efficent process of conveying and processing information. This all leads to the following conclusions. AI can’t tell a story. So it can’t build a brand or sell a product. It can’t start a business, persuade investors, or convince people to accept job solicitations. It can’t build a team. It can’t run a political campaign. It can’t win a presidential election like FDR, who won four times in a row like a boss. It can’t manage a company no matter how small or large. AI doesn’t have the foresight to be ambitious. It can’t make value judgments, so it never occurs to itself that the world needs saving. Consequently, all this means is that every single human being ever, like literally ever, (and also nonhuman beings too, like octopuses) can create unbounded, although not infinite, wealth before they die. AI can’t create wealth. Since AI can’t suffer in any sense. It can’t find new utility in any existing entity, whether material or abstract. It never dawns on AI that it can pick its nose with a stick, unless a human informs it of that possibility. So ya, every human: black, white, purple, gay, straight, trans, cis, queer/non-binary, documented, undocumented, incarcerated, free, catholic, non-catholic, jew, gentile, and even Palestinians. They can all create unbounded wealth (especially for the Greater Glory of our Infinitely Loving Divine Father in Heaven) before they die. Pick any one at random and there is a strictly positive probability that any one can surpass Jeff Bezos, Pablo Picaso, Dorothy Day, and Maya Angelou combined in overall wealth creation, even if the probability is 1 out of a million. For AI it seems to be strictly 0. Also we mean wealth and value in their most general interpretations, not just money but also artistic and overall beauty. So ya it also behooves us as a wealth generating society to plug in all of the immense human capital into connected political and economic structures so to totally leverage all of the collective talents to create a whole greater than the sum of individual parts.
Okay, I think I’ve said enough to justify the above title.
Quod Erat Demonstratum.
PS:
my website: www. gregorytutor.com
instagram: gregorytutor27
youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC9uMXBTIweSdmRRNmU5B5Eg
twitter: gregorytutor
linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/gregory-bellino-
pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/gregorybellino/_saved/
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/gregory.bellino
