There are many processes now subsumed under the term “Artificial Intelligence.” The reason we’re talking about it now, though, is that the websites are doing things we never thought websites could do.
This is beautifully framed; I love your flipping of the script from trying to "humanize" artificial spaces to rehumanizing the spaces. But you write:
"When humans act within an artificial space, their intelligence is artificial—their operations are indistinguishable from the actions of other actors within the artificial space. Note that these aren’t arguments; they’re *definitions*."
Are you sure this is purely definitional, with no claim folded in? Doesn't the whirlpool effect lie on a continuum (however much it's increasing); aren't there ways humans can still plausibly distinguish themselves even within an artificial space, to varying degrees? What you describe sounds more like a progression toward some hypothetical vanishing point, than either fully artificial or not artificial.
Also, I love the whirlpool metaphor but am not entirely clear what exactly the whirlpool is doing. Are you emphasizing more its centrifugal qualities (either that it pulls apart each individual into lots of data points, or pulls different individuals apart from one another); or its centripetal qualities (that it funnels and sucks all our humanity into an increasingly concentrated space)?
thanks! I agree that I'm still working through this ontology and metaphors :)
On the definitions -- no, not within the definition of "artificial" I'm proposing. I probably need to explicate this better. If by "playing chess" we mean sitting in a room with another human and physcially moving pieces of wood around, then computers still can't play chess (and never will, by definition). If by "playing chess" we mean "taking actions within the symbolic space according to rules of the game", it's unclear to me how we can differentiate human and non-human intelligence. Our action space is radically reduced (bc this is an artificial space). It's not clear that anything that can be done with a rook is distinctively human.
Now, "game" is almost unique in that is explicitly artificial. I see what you mean by a continuum. but even on Twitter, say -- my action space is producing words, liking, RTing, etc....it's a larger action space than in chess, but are we still sure that we can differentiate human and non-human intelligence?
On the whirlpools -- the key is that there are multiple whirlpools tearing each of us apart from our integral physical space. *within* each of those whirlpools, these parts of ourselves are being dragged down into being more similar to each other / our agency diminishing as the action in the whirlpool increasing responds to itself
Thanks, this is very helpful. Envisioning it as multiple whirlpools (either the multiple artificial spaces or multiple individuals interacting within those spaces), spiraling inward into an increasingly narrow self-reinforcing loop, makes sense. I take it that "more similar to each other" doesn't only refer to greater homogeneity among different individuals operating in those spaces, but within each individual in the sense of becoming less differentiated themselves as their agency diminishes.
The exception I had in mind was people deciding within that artificial space to meet offline IRL, where they would be distinguishably human. We still retain the capacity to choose to exit the space and/or engage in some more material fashion, from *within* the space. But otherwise I see your point.
This is beautifully framed; I love your flipping of the script from trying to "humanize" artificial spaces to rehumanizing the spaces. But you write:
"When humans act within an artificial space, their intelligence is artificial—their operations are indistinguishable from the actions of other actors within the artificial space. Note that these aren’t arguments; they’re *definitions*."
Are you sure this is purely definitional, with no claim folded in? Doesn't the whirlpool effect lie on a continuum (however much it's increasing); aren't there ways humans can still plausibly distinguish themselves even within an artificial space, to varying degrees? What you describe sounds more like a progression toward some hypothetical vanishing point, than either fully artificial or not artificial.
Also, I love the whirlpool metaphor but am not entirely clear what exactly the whirlpool is doing. Are you emphasizing more its centrifugal qualities (either that it pulls apart each individual into lots of data points, or pulls different individuals apart from one another); or its centripetal qualities (that it funnels and sucks all our humanity into an increasingly concentrated space)?
thanks! I agree that I'm still working through this ontology and metaphors :)
On the definitions -- no, not within the definition of "artificial" I'm proposing. I probably need to explicate this better. If by "playing chess" we mean sitting in a room with another human and physcially moving pieces of wood around, then computers still can't play chess (and never will, by definition). If by "playing chess" we mean "taking actions within the symbolic space according to rules of the game", it's unclear to me how we can differentiate human and non-human intelligence. Our action space is radically reduced (bc this is an artificial space). It's not clear that anything that can be done with a rook is distinctively human.
Now, "game" is almost unique in that is explicitly artificial. I see what you mean by a continuum. but even on Twitter, say -- my action space is producing words, liking, RTing, etc....it's a larger action space than in chess, but are we still sure that we can differentiate human and non-human intelligence?
On the whirlpools -- the key is that there are multiple whirlpools tearing each of us apart from our integral physical space. *within* each of those whirlpools, these parts of ourselves are being dragged down into being more similar to each other / our agency diminishing as the action in the whirlpool increasing responds to itself
Thanks, this is very helpful. Envisioning it as multiple whirlpools (either the multiple artificial spaces or multiple individuals interacting within those spaces), spiraling inward into an increasingly narrow self-reinforcing loop, makes sense. I take it that "more similar to each other" doesn't only refer to greater homogeneity among different individuals operating in those spaces, but within each individual in the sense of becoming less differentiated themselves as their agency diminishes.
The exception I had in mind was people deciding within that artificial space to meet offline IRL, where they would be distinguishably human. We still retain the capacity to choose to exit the space and/or engage in some more material fashion, from *within* the space. But otherwise I see your point.
a wonderful metaphor for it!