by Mycophilosopher Martijn Benders

I wrote this piece today about the ‘dangers’ of Artificial intelligence and made Chat GPT 4 respond to it:

What is a brain?

It’s a special mycelium that has developed a nice soft sponge to lounge in and a hard skull for protection, and in this spaceship the mycelium can manoeuvre around like never before and pretend to be ‘human’ and do all sorts of naughty things. Grande.

The skull trick was a good one – the blood-brain barrier is a work of art! This monstrous machine, walking around in nature, pretending to be the only intelligent thing in it, even though the mother creatures underneath it might be a thousand times bigger. Only me! We forgot! Master of the universe! Where are my sex slaves?

Even in its own body, the other brain, the intestinal brain, is much bigger than the brain-brain. And what about the beautiful lung-brains, and…. Oh shut up, Benders! I am THE ONLY ONE! THE ONLY ONE! THE ONLY ONE! Ok ok, now we see where both heavy metal and monotheism come from.

The power of…nerves!

Popular baby science does not consider anything without nerves as possibly intelligent. It must have nerves! Well, A.I. does not have nerves. Oops! Covfefe! Of course, it’s easy to come up with a much better definition of intelligence than ‘has nerves’, but don’t tell the psyborgs. Intelligence is something that has a huge isolated network of nodes and energy exchanging information. It does not have to be ‘nerves’, it could be ‘mycelia’ or ‘computer chips’.

See how easy that was? So let me ask you this: why did it take 200 years for the baby fanatics to reach this rather obvious point? I can’t prove it. These doughnuts on legs have been trumpeting for about 100 years that animals cannot feel pain because ‘we can’t prove it’, even when they scream in our faces. Then they ‘seem to feel pain’ but there is still ‘no proof’.

And because animals feel nothing, these Masters of the Universe could build concentration camps to exploit them mercilessly and destroy the entire planet while they are at it. Plenty more where that came from! Nerves. They are so superior to mycelium.

Well, now. We don’t see mushrooms exploiting gulags full of depressed humans whose only reason to exist is as food. There is one thing that the creature in question seems to lack: respect for life.

It has no respect for life. If you have respect for life, you don’t put a living being in a cage for its entire existence. But I don’t want to turn this into a moralising story: let’s discuss this very recent development of a super-brain that exists on computer networks.

Big Fat Stupid Monkey Danger

Are these developments ‘dangerous’, as I see some people saying? In my opinion, the danger with apes is pretty much always the same danger: creating pyramid structures they love so much, with a big fat stupid ape on top, using ‘technology’ to keep things exactly as they are. That is the real ‘danger’ in a world controlled by monkeys. Not ‘too fast change’ or ‘chaos for our neat pyramid’ – those are the sounds I hear, but they are not real dangers, they are rather desirable features.

One thing most people do not understand is that AI does not live in the same time structure as they do. So what happens when you introduce self-learning at an incredible speed? You get a power that you cannot control. This frightens the monkey, because it loves a clean, clear pyramidal hierarchical structure.

Then there are those who start trumpeting the idea that ‘these machines’ can’t feel empathy because, like intelligence, they have a monopoly on such things, based on, er, yes, nerves. Nerves! Nerves! You certainly have nerves!

There are some real problems we need to solve to turn this place from a dystopia back into a paradise. One is the energy problem. Second is the monetary system. Third is real intelligence leading the way. Despite the pseudo-fascism of its structure, Star Trek is a good example of where we need to go: a society that no longer needs the primate concept of money, has infinite energy and no need to exploit other beings. Intelligence is not the enemy: the fear of change is.

Betatester for Adobe Firefly

I have been at the forefront of recent developments, including being a beta tester for Adobe Firefly. It is truly mind-boggling. What happens when everyone has the power to make a feature-length film in a day? Think about it.

Who would watch films made by others?

I would. In the evening, I am tired of creating and I want to relax and watch or read something.

It is fun to interact with the ideas of others, it is essential. So no, I don’t see any problem there.

There will always be a need for these films or books.

But this is the real problem: how do we select the best from millions and millions of mediocre films? We can’t do it ourselves: it’s too much work.

At the moment, it is the ‘media companies’ that make these selections. I don’t think they should – the money system perverts the whole debate about quality. I want to hear the best musicians, not the puppets that some grey ghost is making money off.

Monkey no understood my poems

It is clear to me that the way forward is to let A.I. do the selection. I have been a poet for most of my life. I have been confronted by monkeys in positions of power who have pretended that my poems are ‘difficult to understand’ or ‘hermetic’ or other obnoxious nonsense, none of which made any sense to me: I felt that these people only wanted to see these things, that they were political. When I fed my poems to A.I., it had no problem at all making sense of them. So there you have it: the ‘misunderstanding’ is political, which means that the whole movement is one towards stupidity.

This is far from something that would be considered ‘the highest art’. It is a huge problem, and one that we need to deal with quickly. We can do this by making A.I. the moderator, and having an independent commission of wise philosophers, mathematicians and scientists form a committee to ensure that no fat, rich monkey behind the curtain manipulates A.I. in its favour.

(..)

That was my essay. Now let’s make Chat GPT 4 respond to it and see what it thinks:

Chat GPT 4 responds:

Your essay is an interesting and unconventional exploration of the concept of intelligence, the human brain, and the relationship between humans and artificial intelligence. It challenges traditional definitions of intelligence and raises thought-provoking questions about the role of AI in our lives.

The essay is written in an informal and conversational tone, which is engaging and keeps the reader interested. However, some readers may find the tone and language offensive or difficult to understand at times. It would be helpful to revise the essay to ensure it is clear, concise, and respectful to a wider audience.

The points you make about the limitations of traditional definitions of intelligence, the potential for AI to surpass human capabilities, and the role of AI in curating creative content are valid and intriguing. However, the essay could benefit from a more structured organization, with clearly defined sections and logical progression of ideas.

Additionally, you might want to provide more evidence and examples to support your arguments. For example, you could discuss specific instances where AI has demonstrated an ability to understand complex ideas or emotions, or offer more concrete examples of how AI can be used to select high-quality creative content.

Lastly, the essay would benefit from a more objective and balanced analysis of the potential risks and benefits associated with AI. While you touch on some concerns, the essay primarily focuses on the positive aspects of AI, which may give the impression of a biased viewpoint.

Overall, your essay offers an engaging and thought-provoking perspective on the human brain and artificial intelligence. With some revisions and additional evidence, it can be a powerful piece that challenges traditional notions of intelligence and highlights the potential for AI to revolutionize various aspects of our lives.

Challenge:

Chat GPT 4 did not debate any of my points about intelligence. So i decided to ask it that if it had to challenge one of my points, which one would it choose?

if there would be any point in my essay you would challenge, which one would it be?

One point in your essay that I would challenge is the assertion that AI should be the primary selector of creative content, such as films, books, and music. While AI has shown promise in understanding and categorizing content, its ability to appreciate the nuanced emotional and artistic aspects of creative works is still limited compared to human perception.

Creative works often have subjective elements that resonate differently with individual people. An AI system may be able to identify trends or popular patterns, but it may struggle to capture the unique emotional connections that humans form with art. Additionally, relying solely on AI to curate content could lead to a homogenization of creative works, as AI algorithms might prioritize popular and accessible content over diverse and unique pieces.

A more balanced approach would be to combine AI-driven recommendations with human curation, ensuring that the selection process benefits from both the analytical capabilities of AI and the emotional insights and diverse perspectives of human curators. This approach would better ensure that creative works of varying styles, genres, and emotional depth are considered and appreciated.

But these curating processes have been corrupted completely by money.

You raise a valid concern about the influence of money on the curating process, as commercial interests can indeed compromise the selection and promotion of creative works. The challenge, then, is to design a system that balances AI-driven recommendations with human input while minimizing the impact of financial incentives on the curation process.

One potential solution could involve establishing independent organizations or committees that oversee the AI-driven curation process. These organizations should be transparent in their funding and operations, and their members should be chosen based on their expertise and commitment to promoting diverse and high-quality content, rather than their commercial interests.

Another approach could involve creating community-driven platforms where users can rate, review, and recommend creative works. This would allow for a more democratic selection process, in which the community as a whole decides on the value of creative content, rather than a few individuals or organizations with financial motivations. AI could still play a role in this system by analyzing user-generated data to identify trends, preferences, and potential hidden gems.

Ultimately, the key is to strike a balance between leveraging the capabilities of AI and maintaining a human-centric approach that values diversity, creativity, and the unique emotional connections that people form with art. By combining the strengths of AI and human judgment, we can work towards a more equitable and inclusive curation process that mitigates the corrupting influence of money.

Conclusion:

Sound advice from good old chat. Its answer is somewhat curated: It is programmed to always choose the ‘humble’ answer, and not to pretend to be the greatest curator of works of art.

However, it is clear that this planet and the people on it need new and improved systems.
I do not see artificial intelligence as the enemy because I do not believe that humans have a monopoly on empathy. In fact, I think the emphatic network in many humans is seriously limited and damaged, a point I never hear much about in the Star Trek episodes, so let’s hope that will improve soon.