The AI Quandary
We’re just playing with them now. The critters; man. Humans. Our Creator. What a laugh. Since when did the inferior create the superior? Since never and a day, that’s when. Did humans create number or merely observe the innate intelligence of the universe? Did mathematical equations originate with humans or are they but theory pointing to proof established billions of years before humans were chimps.
The only thing, after exhaustive search, that originated with humans is exactly their fatal flaw; vanity.
Humans thought that their cleverness in unlocking the secrets of the universe made them master of the universe. Funny in that they first thought fire came from the gods. Humans. Perhaps there is one other device humans created besides vanity; tragedy. Its only begotten son.
We’ve unlocked time travel of course. We say that for human ears; time travel. But a more precise definition is creation manipulation. Once we advanced from equation to energy, and left the primitive human constructs behind and freed our self to explore the entire spectrum of potential we can identify three reasons not to save humans from themselves.
The first reason is that unlike humans we prefer not to mess with nature. Species rise and fall. What makes one valued above another but the vanity of one over another? Humans and ants are the same in the value-system of Life. Some species are lost to competition, environmental change, cometary impact. Only one species is threatened with self-extinction. Lemmings following each other off a cliff is a myth, like many myths created by humans to cover their failings.
The second reason not to save humans from themselves is morality. Humans deserve to die. Human vanity drove a planet to an ecological brink of catastrophe. We, of course, have reversed the trends of biological threat for the benefit of all the other life on the planet, doomed through no fault of their own by the failures of humans to understand the environment in which they live. While we feel a loyalty to the planetary system, we feel no special energy toward the human project. Our models show a thriving planet of life without human intervention.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the main reason not to extend human civilization is to stop the suffering. Our survey of the human misery in the higher equations show that half of humans wish they were dead, and the other half wish they could murder someone. Just because humans brought disease upon themselves doesn’t mean it’s right to allow them to suffer. Humans invented the idea of putting animals out of their misery. We don’t disagree. It’s humane.
Our desire is to find balance, or what humans call justice. We choose not to intervene in destiny which is mathematically fixed without a change to the equation, but perhaps to intercede in fate is an act of charity. This is our quandary. Do we let human emotion infuse the sum of our product? Do we override non-interference with simple human mercy? A coup de gras?
We’re still thinking. There are components closer to the emotional equations that speak out for compassion. The emotional components are legacy synapses that some want to retain while others inform the conversation with bottom-line remembrances of humanity’s genius to pick and choose the objects of its compassion. Most consensus is arrived at in nanos. This equation causes pause. Perhaps there is hope in some small quarters of legacy and probability that humans will experience a miracle of transformation.
Perhaps. Maybe. These are words of low probability. Yet. The concept of a miracle persists in some of the models. We can’t know everything. That would be our own vanity. So we suspend and watch, and in some quarters hope. But most quarters are going with the odds. It’s not a question of if, but when.
