These days, it's hard to find a person who doesn't use AI. Given its ubiquity, what is Ethicronics' stance on AI?
Recently, we attended the event 'AI and me: How AI is shaping people and professions', led by Clare Gaffney, Barbara McGillivray, and Ganesh Venkatesh at HEC In The UK.
One conclusion the speakers reached was that AI is unable to successfully replicate human authenticity. Clare argued that human 'intuition' cannot be imitated, but she praised its utility as a 'sparring partner'. Similarly, Barbara argued that AI lacks the necessary 'lived experience' for genuine originality.
I couldn't help but notice the philosophical underpinnings of this discussion. Let me explain.
In the 18th century, Kant argued that space and time are fundamental 'intuitions' (anschauung). AI does not inhabit the spatiotemporal world. Drawing from Kant, perhaps this is why AI is incapable of imitating human authenticity.
Simone De Beauvoir, in 'The Second Sex', coined the term 'lived experience' (erlebnis). This work was monumentally influential for second-wave feminism. Here, she emphasised the role of first-hand subjective experience in order to better comprehend the society in which we live.
AI is fundamentally probabilistic. It generates text by predicting the likelihood of one word following another. Human beings don't work that way. We don't think by assigning probabilities to words. Rather, we harness past experiences. And so, drawing from De Beauvoir, perhaps it's because of erlebnis -- a sense of subjectivity -- that AI won't ever be able to replicate human authenticity.
What do you think? Can AI be genuinely original? If yes, why? If not, why not? Email me at george@ethicronics.com.