The Wikipedia report on artificial intelligence - AI in July 2023, seen as an introduction to artificial general intelligence - AGI, in the last paragraph of its introductory section observes that the term artificial intelligence has been criticized for overhyping AI’s true technological capabilities. The present text is intended to specify a few details of my criticism. The second paragraph of the very same introductory section writes about AI’s “several waves of optimism”: Artificial intelligence was founded as an academic discipline in 1956, and in the years since it has experienced several waves of optimism, followed by disappointment and the loss of funding (known as an \'AI winter\'), followed by new approaches, success, and renewed funding. AI research has tried and discarded many different approaches, including simulating the brain, modeling human problem solving, formal logic, large databases of knowledge, and imitating animal behavior. In the first decades of the 21st century, highly mathematical and statistical machine learning has dominated the field, and this technique has proved highly successful, helping to solve many challenging problems throughout industry and academia. I understand that we are experiencing its last, or unfortunately only the latest, wave of optimism. I suggest that the cause of these waves of optimism is the basic misunderstanding of what intelligence and consequent artificiality are or should be, allied to the forecasted marketing power and hoped economic profitability, and for whom, of the hype of AI and now AGI. This is related to a misunderstanding of the essence of logic and mathematics as I tried to show that they are embodied in computers. The result suggests an ongoing cultural crisis as a societal analogy to the scientific scandal of lobotomy, a cut off of the emotions and feeling, valuational and intuitional dimensions of thought and psyche of a great deal of the population.
It further opened to the tautological consequence of the ambitions of mathematize logic into "mathematical logic" in order to finally being used as substitute for language conversation between humans that logic was originally extracted from. Humans then gradually leave the scene as unemployed, and the original language conversations and negotiations turn into authoritarian LLM declarative sentences sent through computer networks by a few to the many, plunging everything into the problematic "human-computer interaction".
id: 3320c081ed68acd285c1d645127daee1 - page: 28
It is the kind of chat that produces instances in Japan where individuals are reported to have fallen in love or having developed so-called romantic feelings for (holograms of) contrasexual (cf. LGBT), virtual or fictional characters, sometimes referred to as "2D lovers" or "waifu culture" (commented in depth by The New York Times, July 26, 2009). It all to be related to the concepts of 3D lovers and Real Doll. This phenomenon gained some attention in the media, particularly with the emergence of vocaloid characters like Hatsune Miku in a perhaps more permissive Japanese culture permeated by Shintoism. More information about the topic can be obtained in connection with the Nijikon and Hentai phenomena as well as fictosexuality and pansexuality, which paradoxically indicate the deep genderpsychological and thereby theological implications of human-computer interaction.
id: 4cd28cb23ab1844e9dfa9eb9258f6677 - page: 28
Such detours of so-called human sexuality stand at the basis of the undermining of the fundamental I You relation whose archetype is the gender relation between humans represented by man and woman. This undermining implies the sliding of the You into an It and a consequent confusion of pronouns that are illustrated by what happens lately in the computer field of human-computer interaction or HCI with the appearance of the device ChatGPT mentioned above. In fact, when I inputted into the machine the question Please explain which are the basic databanks, whether including the whole Internet, which are used in order to find and elaborate the answers in ChatGPT, I initiated my question with a please felt to be directed to those They (or a He or She?!) who are (or were?!) responsible for its operation. But I got the following answer from an I that could have been a We but was an It, as follows (my emphasis):
id: c89a05fd0b45880c777d1058803fe516 - page: 28
As an AI language model, my responses are generated based on a mixture of licensed data, data created by human trainers, and publicly available data. I don't have direct access to databases or retrieve information from specific sources in realtime. I have been trained on a diverse range of data, including books, websites, and other texts, to develop a broad understanding of human language. My purpose is to assist and provide information to the best of my abilities, regardless of the specific sources of my training data. This is, of course, the problem of responsibility in human interaction that is today exasperated also in the introduction of the autonomous technology represented by the ramblings of so-called artificial general intelligence AGI where no longer is questioned what intelligence is or should be.
id: 3d4ce817bb8e436001faa40b59d70e32 - page: 28