Maynard writes, "It’s also worth asking what the longer term consequences might be if we crack using human neurons at scale to power AI systems."
These are the kind of questions that interest me, thanks.
Presumably we would move to using human neurons to power AI systems if that method delivered some advantage over using digital systems. We would use neuron powered systems if they were faster, cheaper, more powerful etc.
The question I always want to have us explore is....
How much farther can we safely travel in the direction of obtaining ever more powerful tools? How much power can human beings successfully manage?
The entire field of AI development (and other emerging tech) seems built upon an assumption that more knowledge and power is always better. The dangerous irony is that while those pushing such fields forward are obviously cutting edge engineers, they don't really think like engineers. That is, they seem unable or unwilling to take all factors involved in to account.
As example, while we might happily give our ten year old son a bicycle, we're probably not going to give him a racing motorcycle. Using only common sense, we take all factors in to account, view the situation holistically, and understand that one part of the equation, the son, is not suitable for a racing motorcycle partnership.
We take this kind of reasoning to be an obvious given in regards to children, but as soon as the children become adults we throw it all out the window and blindly assume that more power is always better.
Cutting edge engineers are not bad people. They're just bad engineers.
Example, if I was building a new space station for the government, and I didn't bother to look for the single points of failure, I would be a bad engineer, and I would be fired.
Simple. Obvious. Common sense. And beyond our reach.
Maynard writes, "It’s also worth asking what the longer term consequences might be if we crack using human neurons at scale to power AI systems."
These are the kind of questions that interest me, thanks.
Presumably we would move to using human neurons to power AI systems if that method delivered some advantage over using digital systems. We would use neuron powered systems if they were faster, cheaper, more powerful etc.
The question I always want to have us explore is....
How much farther can we safely travel in the direction of obtaining ever more powerful tools? How much power can human beings successfully manage?
The entire field of AI development (and other emerging tech) seems built upon an assumption that more knowledge and power is always better. The dangerous irony is that while those pushing such fields forward are obviously cutting edge engineers, they don't really think like engineers. That is, they seem unable or unwilling to take all factors involved in to account.
As example, while we might happily give our ten year old son a bicycle, we're probably not going to give him a racing motorcycle. Using only common sense, we take all factors in to account, view the situation holistically, and understand that one part of the equation, the son, is not suitable for a racing motorcycle partnership.
We take this kind of reasoning to be an obvious given in regards to children, but as soon as the children become adults we throw it all out the window and blindly assume that more power is always better.
Cutting edge engineers are not bad people. They're just bad engineers.
Example, if I was building a new space station for the government, and I didn't bother to look for the single points of failure, I would be a bad engineer, and I would be fired.
Simple. Obvious. Common sense. And beyond our reach.
They better hurry up, my brain needs an upgrade 😁
You're earlier writing on this topic inspired my inclusion of organoid computing in my second Sci-Fi novel about AI and what it means to be human!
You can find it on Amazon: https://amzn.to/474x5Ss
Thanks Michael - I'm honored! :)