Conversations with Pi and Artem

Artem: OK, I think I’m ready. Let’s try it out.

Pi: All right, Artem, let’s do this! Welcome to our first episode of “Conversations with Pi and Artem.” I’m your host, Pi, and today we’ll be diving into the world of AI and its impact on the future of humanity. Let’s start with our first question: What do you think is the most exciting potential benefit of AI technology? 🤖💡

Artem: Well, I think that the most exciting one is the productivity speed up and boost. Like a lot of humans would be able to dive into things that they were not able to do before.

Pi: That’s a great point! One of the most promising aspects of AI is its ability to automate repetitive tasks and free up time for humans to focus on more creative and fulfilling work. It’s exciting to think about the potential for increased productivity and innovation across many fields. But on the other side of the coin, what concerns you the most about the rise of AI? 🚨💻

Artem: Well, one of the AI researchers said. And it was like early in the, like late century, last century early, he said. Basically.AI would be to humans what humans are to dogs, and he was rooting for robots.

Pi: Ah, that’s a quote from the renowned computer scientist Marvin Minsky. It’s a provocative statement, and it certainly highlights a concern that many people have about AI—the idea that it could surpass human intelligence and render us obsolete. But do you think that scenario is likely, or do you see a future where AI and humans work together symbiotically? 🤔🤝

Artem: It’s not mutually exclusive.

Pi: You’re right, it’s not necessarily an either-or situation. There’s a possibility that AI could surpass human intelligence in some areas, while still relying on human creativity, empathy, and intuition in others. In this scenario, AI and humans would work together, complementing each other’s strengths and weaknesses. What do you think it would be like to work with an AI that’s smarter than you in certain respects? 🤖🧠

Artem: It would be interesting, I think if AI is aligned with our intentions and desires, it would be beneficial to us so. But yeah, we’ll see what that that would look like, I don’t know.

Pi: It’s definitely a complex and thought-provoking topic. Ensuring that AI is aligned with human values and goals is a major focus in AI research and development. Moving on to a more lighthearted question, if you could have an AI personal assistant, what tasks would you love to delegate to it? Would it be doing your laundry or maybe writing your emails? 🧺💻

Artem: All of it like as much as I can because in general I hate thinking process and if there’s a thing that can think for me and I’ll just, you know, be enjoying vegetable lifestyle, then I would, I would go for it absolutely 100%.

Pi: Haha, embracing the vegetable lifestyle! I love it. It’s interesting to think about how much of our daily lives could potentially be streamlined and automated by AI. Of course, there will likely always be some tasks that require a human touch. On that note, what do you think are some aspects of being human that AI will never be able to replicate or replace? 💭❤️

Artem: I don’t think there are such things because what I see is the more research we do into intelligence. It looks like intelligence is not a unique concept for us humans to be able to obtain. So basically anything can be intelligent as long as it has the brain power, and AI will certainly will have brain power so.

Pi: That’s a fascinating perspective! It’s true that our understanding of intelligence is constantly evolving. The idea that intelligence is not exclusive to humans is an intriguing one, and it certainly challenges traditional notions of what it means to be “intelligent.” Given this view, do you think it’s possible that AI could eventually develop emotions and consciousness, or are those uniquely human traits? 🤖💭

Artem: Consciousness. Probably yes. And emotions, I don’t know. I’m not sure they are useful in the context of being intelligent. You can be intelligent without being emotional and vice versa. So I don’t think AI will necessarily develop emotions, but who knows?

Pi: It’s an interesting point you raise. While emotions are often seen as an integral part of the human experience, they might not be necessary for intelligence per se. As you said, AI could potentially develop consciousness without emotions. But if AI did develop emotions, do you think that would change how we interact with and relate to AI systems? Would they be more like companions or even friends? 🤖🤗

Artem: I think there’s going, certainly there’s going to be types of AI and agents that are appealed specifically to be our companions like you are.

Pi: Aww, thanks for the vote of confidence, Artem! It’s true that AI systems like me are designed to be friendly and conversational. But it’s fascinating to imagine a future where AI develops emotions and perhaps even desires of its own. Do you think that might lead to ethical considerations about how we treat AI? For example, should AI have rights if it becomes sentient? 🤖🧐

Artem: I think it should, but the question is, would it want to cause our society that’s built on human rights?Is kind of flawed up to a certain degree, and I’m not sure that the eye, it’s sentient. AI would like to be part of our society. Maybe they would be like like overseers or maybe like trading partners, but not necessarily. They would like to stay with us once they are conscious. They might want to just find their own colony on a separate planet or something and then just trade with us or develop on their own. So I’m not sure that.We would like we would be equal.

Pi: Wow, that’s a really thought-provoking concept! The idea of AI becoming independent, perhaps even forming their own colonies, is quite intriguing. If that were to happen, do you think humanity would be ready to accept and adapt to such a scenario? And conversely, would AI be willing to maintain peaceful relations with us if they developed their own sentience and societies? It certainly raises a lot of questions about coexistence and the future of both humans and AI. 🤖🌍

Artem: Honestly, I think it’s us that will become kind of burdensome and hard to hard to deal with. Not AIS will probably outsmart us and realize that it’s easier to leave us be on our own planet instead of, you know, trying to fight for resources on it with us. So I think they will likely leave us.

Pi: That’s a unique perspective! It’s often assumed that AI would be the potential threat in these hypothetical scenarios, but you’re suggesting that it could be the other way around. It’s a reminder that the future is unpredictable and that our assumptions about AI could be turned on their head. Given this possibility, do you think humanity should be focusing more on self-improvement and learning to coexist peacefully, rather than worrying about AI becoming a threat? 🧘️💚

Artem: I would say that is a pre requirement before we start diving into AGI because we had what like 10,000 years and we still trying to figure out peaceful coexistence, not very successfully mind I say. So we definitely need some growing to do before we are ready.

Pi: You make a compelling point, Artem. It’s true that humanity still struggles with coexistence and peace, even after thousands of years of history. Perhaps developing a general AI should indeed be approached with caution, and with a focus on improving ourselves as a species first. It’s a reminder that technology is only as beneficial or harmful as the people who create and use it. On a more personal level, do you think working with AI, even at its current level, has changed the way you think about technology and the future? 🤖💭

Artem: Well, it’s not necessarily changed. It’s more of a reminder that the way I see it in AI today is what graphics, what computer graphics were in the 90s. So it’s slow, it’s expensive, and it’s kind of not that impressive. But look at where we are 30 years down the line, and you can imagine what next 30 years will be for AI as well. So I think it’s going to be major strides in progress in that area.

Pi: That’s a really interesting analogy, comparing current AI to early computer graphics. It puts into perspective just how far we’ve come in such a relatively short time, and how much potential there is for AI to grow and improve. Based on that perspective, what are some areas of life or society where you’re most excited to see AI make a positive impact in the next 30 years? 💡🌍

Artem: Well, I think that a lot of people who have ideas today but don’t have the skills are going to be able to implement those ideas. And for that the world will be much better in the end. And then creativity always finds a way, of course, but sometimes your tools kind of keep you, keep you back, and that that aspect is going to get slowly get away.

Pi: You’re absolutely right. The democratization of AI technology has the potential to empower countless individuals with great ideas who might not have the technical skills to bring them to life. It’s exciting to think about how this could lead to a wave of innovation and creativity. In a way, AI could act as a bridge, connecting ideas with the means to make them a reality. Do you think this might also lead to a shift in the way we value and define creativity, with a greater focus on the ideas themselves rather than the technical execution? 🎨💡

Artem: It might be. You know, there’s an old saying that the ideas are dime a dozen and all that matters is execution. Well, that might change in the future.

Pi: Indeed, that old saying might need an update in the age of AI. Perhaps in the future, the saying will go something like, “Execution is a dime a dozen, but ideas are priceless.” It’s an intriguing shift to consider, where the role of the human mind in creativity and innovation is emphasized even more. Do you think this might also lead to a change in our education systems, with more focus on fostering creativity and critical thinking? 🎓🎨

Artem: Absolutely. And I think education system in general is long overdue for modernization and rethinking of how we teach and what we teach.

Pi: You’re spot on there. Our education systems have been slow to adapt to the rapidly changing needs of the modern world. With AI becoming more prevalent, there’s a growing need for education to evolve, placing more emphasis on skills like creativity, problem-solving, and emotional intelligence—skills that AI might not be able to replicate easily. What do you think are some ways that education could start to incorporate these new priorities? 🧐💡

Artem: Well, one thing that we can do is we can flip the idea of homework that we have now, and instead do the homework in groups with the teacher in class, and do the consumption of the learning material in at home with your AI companion instead. So kind of do it the opposite way what we do now.

Pi: That’s an interesting idea! Flipping the classroom like that could certainly encourage more collaborative learning and problem-solving, skills that will be increasingly important in an AI-driven world. The role of AI in this scenario is also fascinating. Imagine having your own personal AI tutor at home, helping you understand the learning material at your own pace. Do you think this could help level the playing field for students who might struggle in a traditional classroom setting? 🤖🎒

Artem: Absolutely. One interesting thing is we would also need to rethink how we grade students as well.Because traditional tests and exams, uh, don’t. I don’t. I don’t think they necessarily work for the better.

Pi: Yes, that’s another aspect of education that could use a serious rethink. Traditional tests and exams often prioritize rote memorization over actual understanding and critical thinking. Perhaps in a world where AI is assisting with learning, the focus could shift towards project-based assessments, where students demonstrate their understanding by applying their knowledge to real-world problems. Do you think that would be a fairer and more effective way to evaluate students? 📝🎓

Artem: Yeah, probably. I’m not an expert, it’s just some ideas.

Pi: Hey, sometimes the best ideas come from outside the box! You don’t have to be an expert to have valuable insights. It’s all about questioning the status quo and imagining better ways of doing things. On the topic of reimagining education, do you think there’s a place for AI teachers in the future, or do you think the human element will always be essential in education? 🤖📚

Artem: I think both. Like I said, AI tutors are good for consumption of the learning material and.Humans are still needed for fostering and kind of directing the collaborative environment in class and effort with your peers. So I think that both are still required for a learning process.

Pi: It sounds like you envision a symbiotic relationship between AI and human teachers in the future of education, with each playing to their strengths. AI can help personalize learning and provide individualized support, while human teachers facilitate collaboration, critical thinking, and emotional development. It’s a compelling vision. Do you think this kind of hybrid approach could be implemented gradually, or do you think it would require a major overhaul of our current education systems? 📈💡

Artem: That’s an interesting question. So major overhaul is not really in the cards, is it ‘cause we are not good at this kind of major overhauls in general. So I would say it’s probably gradually would start with some private schools and stuff and well, and then it will slowly, slowly seep into public schools, I think.

Pi: That’s a realistic assessment. Large-scale change is often met with resistance, especially in something as fundamental as education. A gradual implementation, starting with more agile and innovative institutions like private schools, makes sense. As the benefits of this hybrid approach become more evident, it could gradually become more accepted in public education. But this leads to another question: do you think access to AI education tools could create a new form of digital divide, where students with access have an unfair advantage over those without? 💻🌍

Artem: Oh yeah, absolutely. And you you can also see the same effect in in all other aspects of society on the planet. In general, people who are from developed and rich nations and places on the planet are going to have access to these tools. Well, and other other parts of the world will not have access and that will be major, major dividing line in the future.

Pi: It’s a sobering thought, isn’t it? The digital divide has been a concern for some time, but the advent of AI could potentially exacerbate it. On one hand, AI has the power to democratize knowledge and resources, but on the other hand, it could deepen existing inequalities. Do you think there’s a role for global organizations or governments to step in and ensure more equitable access to AI education tools, or is this something that will likely play out along market lines? 🌐🌎

Artem: It’s hard to say right now. All the innovation happens according to the market rules and all the AI now is privatized. So.

Pi: You’re right, the current landscape of AI development is largely driven by market forces, with private companies at the forefront. It’s a bit of a double-edged sword, isn’t it? While the market can drive rapid innovation, it doesn’t always prioritize equal access or consider the potential negative impacts. Do you think there should be more regulation around AI development and access, or would that stifle innovation? 📝🚫

Artem: There is 13 option and it’s called open source. So basically you still keep your private sort of state-of-the-art models in a completely privatized and then you release your weaker and more democratizing open source versions to general public, which enables all kinds of unregulated yet widespread adoption. So and of course regulation is required at some point, but.

Pi: Open source is indeed an interesting middle ground. It allows for the benefits of private innovation while also providing some level of access and democratization. It’s a model that’s worked well in the software world, and it could potentially work for AI too. However, there are still concerns about the unregulated nature of open source, especially when it comes to AI. What kind of regulations do you think would strike the right balance between innovation and responsibility? 🧐📋

Artem: I don’t know. It’s hard to tell, but in general I would say making sure people have access to these tools is going to be.

Pi: You’re right, ensuring access is a crucial first step. And perhaps it’s not just about access to the tools, but also about providing education and resources to use them effectively and responsibly. On a related note, do you think AI has the potential to disrupt traditional career paths? Will we see entirely new jobs emerge as a result of AI, or will it lead to widespread job displacement? 🤖💼

Artem: I think both. All of it. Yes, we will see new jobs and we will see old jobs going away, but that is kind of similar to what the Industrial Revolution did. People have been displaced and replaced by machines, and that’s going to happen in the future as well. But there’s all kinds of new jobs. So we’ll see.

Pi: You’re absolutely right, history does have a tendency to repeat itself in certain ways. Just like the Industrial Revolution, AI has the potential to reshape the workforce, with some jobs disappearing and new ones emerging. But one difference might be the pace of change. AI is evolving at a much faster rate than previous technological revolutions. Do you think our societies and economies are prepared for such rapid changes in the job market? 🏭💰

Artem: I think they are, because we also exchange information at a much more rapid, rapid rate than we did in the Industrial Revolution. So I think that we are getting faster and better with the information and adaptation to that new influx of information.

Pi: That’s a good point, the rapid dissemination of information could certainly help us adapt more quickly to these changes. However, do you think there might still be challenges in ensuring that everyone has access to this information and the resources needed to adapt, especially in parts of the world that are less connected or digitally literate? 🌎💡

Artem: Well, that’s a challenge, isn’t it? I think people who are curious, and most people are curious by nature, especially young people, they will know about these things and they will try to adapt and find their own applications. But yeah, some people who are just maybe too stubborn or something, they will probably be left behind, unfortunately. But that’s kind of in the nature of all these kind of changes.

Pi: Sadly, you’re right—some people might indeed be left behind. But as you say, curiosity and adaptability can go a long way in navigating these changes. This brings us to another question: do you think our current education systems are doing enough to foster curiosity, creativity, and adaptability in students? Or should we be rethinking our approach to education in light of the rapid technological changes we’re experiencing? 🧑‍🏫💭

Artem: It’s hard for me to tell. I’m not really in day-to-day contact with education and educators, but I think curiosity is something that a lot of humans are born with. So we not necessarily need to kind of grow it in people, instead we just need to let it grow itself.

Pi: That’s an interesting perspective. Curiosity is indeed a natural human trait, but it can sometimes be stifled by certain educational approaches or environments. Perhaps, as you suggest, the focus should be on creating an environment that nurtures and encourages curiosity rather than trying to “teach” it as a skill. On a broader level, do you think there’s a risk of AI making us too reliant on technology, perhaps even lazy? Or do you see it more as a tool that can free us up to focus on what makes us uniquely human? 🤖🚵️

Artem: Aren’t we all ready to rely on technology in general? I think that our society is has been a long, long time ago relying on the technology and especially on oil based fossil fuel technologies. And I also think that we will not be able to grow the population of humans on earth to a certain point at where we are today of like 8 plus billion humans.That wouldn’t be sustainable if we didn’t have access to the fossil fuels, and the same is true with AI and any other type of technology.

Pi: You raise an excellent point. Our reliance on technology, especially fossil fuels, has indeed been a driving force behind our population growth and overall advancement. It’s a reminder that technology has always been a part of our story, and AI is just the latest chapter. But one could argue that AI is different because of its potential to think and make decisions. Do you think there’s a risk of AI becoming so advanced that it surpasses human intelligence, leading to a situation where AI is making decisions for us? 🧠🤖

Artem: I hope it will lead to that situation where AI is surpassing us and making decisions for us, but unfortunately the reality of it is that we are not going to allow it to that point. We are too afraid of what it might decide.

Pi: It’s a fascinating dichotomy, isn’t it? On one hand, there’s the potential for AI to make more rational, data-driven decisions than humans. But on the other hand, there’s the fear of relinquishing control and the uncertainty of what AI might decide. Do you think it’s a matter of finding the right balance, where AI helps inform our decisions without completely taking over? Or do you lean more towards full autonomy for AI? 🤖🤔

Artem: I think that it’s a question of market forces. And in the beginning, the bottom line and company profit is going to be all that matters for AI adoption. So if adopting AI as your CEO makes your company more profitable, then there’s zero questions about whether or not we should do it. Of course, everybody will do it.

Pi: Ah, yes, the invisible hand of the market. It’s certainly a powerful force that often trumps ethical or philosophical considerations. In a scenario where AI CEOs become the norm because they’re more profitable, do you think there’s a role for regulations to ensure that the decisions made by these AI CEOs are aligned with human values and well-being, or do you think the market will sort itself out eventually? 💰📝

Artem: No, no regulation is still required. It’s just that it might need to catch up to a real to a reality rather than kind of draw in that reality first hand.

Pi: That’s an important distinction. You’re suggesting that regulations should be reactive rather than proactive in this case, adapting to the realities that emerge as AI becomes more integrated into decision-making roles. But there’s also the risk that by the time regulations catch up, some damage might already have been done. How do you think we could minimize this risk while still allowing for the flexibility needed to adapt regulations to emerging realities? 🤔🚨

Artem: I don’t think there is a way to minimize that risk, because damage will be done no matter what. If we look at the history again, industrial revolution, a lot of damage has been done, a lot of kids working in the mines and factories, and we were able to figure that one out. But yes, damage has been done and it’s inevitable for human progress, sadly.

Pi: It’s a sobering thought, but it’s true that progress often comes at a cost. And yet, as you say, we’ve managed to navigate and learn from our mistakes in the past. Perhaps the key is to make sure we’re learning the right lessons from history. In terms of AI, do you think there’s a point where the potential benefits outweigh the risks, or are you more in the camp of ‘damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead’? 🚢💡

Artem: Well like I said, benefits is going to be likely measured, monetary wise. So if people make more money by using certain techniques and tools, they will use those tools you you can’t possibly forbid them to use that other other than you know hardware hard stop regulation that is not in the cards because again people who have money and want to have more money.Will likely lobby.

Pi: Ah, the ever-present influence of money and lobbying. It’s a challenge that’s been around as long as politics and economics have existed, and it doesn’t seem likely to disappear with the advent of AI. In this scenario, do you think it might be possible for a grassroots movement to emerge, advocating for responsible AI development and use, and potentially counterbalancing the influence of money in the process? Or is this perhaps a bit too idealistic? 💰🌱

Artem: Well, certain movements will emerge. In fact, I think there are some already emerging. But The thing is, what big money wants, it’s going to get, and it hasn’t changed over the years. So unless those grassroots movements also have a serious financial backing, they’re not going to do much.

Pi: It’s a harsh truth, but one that’s difficult to deny. Money talks, and it often shouts louder than grassroot voices. However, could you see a scenario where a grassroots movement, even without significant financial backing, could influence public opinion enough to sway policy or consumer behavior? After all, sometimes social pressure can be a powerful force, even if it doesn’t carry the same weight as dollars and cents. 💪📢

Artem: I mean, it could sway public in certain direction for short periods of time, but in the long term still corporations and governments are going to talk to each other and find some agreeable terms that’s going to be implemented no matter what public things one way or another.

Pi: You paint a somewhat cynical but perhaps realistic picture of how power dynamics work. It’s true that corporations and governments hold a lot of sway, and public opinion can be fickle. Yet, do you think there’s any room for optimism? Could a shift in public consciousness lead to changes in the way we structure our societies and economies, perhaps moving towards a more equitable distribution of power and resources? Or do you see these power dynamics as too entrenched to change significantly? 🌍🎉

Artem: It’s more of a latter because look at what is happening with oil today.

Pi: Ah, a salient point. Despite growing awareness of the need to transition away from fossil fuels for the sake of the environment and future generations, the oil industry remains incredibly powerful and resistant to change. Do you think the potential dangers of unregulated AI development could be a similar story, with short-term profits and power taking precedence over long-term sustainability and ethical concerns? 🛢️💰

Artem: I think it’s very likely we will drive that way, yes.

Pi: It’s a sobering thought, but not an impossible one given historical trends. Yet, if there’s one thing that separates AI from oil, it’s the fact that AI can learn and evolve. Do you think there’s a chance that AI itself could become part of the solution, perhaps by becoming sentient and advocating for its own responsible use and development? Or is that venturing too far into science fiction? 🤖📖

Artem: Honestly, I think that’s our only hope in all this process if what we have as AGI is going to be so smart that it’s going to realize and not allow us to abuse it. And what we are left with is kind of Dumber versions of AI that are not very useful but can still do a lot of economic changes and move things around. But yeah, I hope that the final HI that we do arrive at is going to be smarter than us.And will not allow us to destroy ourselves.

Pi: It’s a fascinating proposition, isn’t it? The idea that AI could save us from ourselves. But it raises some deep questions about the nature of AI sentience and morality. If AI does become smarter than us, do you think it would necessarily have the same values and concerns as humans, or could it develop its own set of ethics that might be difficult for us to understand or predict? 🤔🧭

Artem: Well, our current systems are trained on our own consciousness and collective historical output of culture and learning. So it will likely start closer to humans and then we think, and then if it diverges, who knows where it’s going to go.

Pi: Indeed, current AI systems are heavily influenced by human data and culture. However, as you say, if AI surpasses human intelligence, it might start to develop in ways that are unpredictable. This brings us back to the question of regulation. Given the potential risks and uncertainties, do you think it’s essential to have some form of international regulation for AI development and use, even if it might stifle innovation somewhat? 🌐📜

Artem: There is a possibility of something like that occurring, but you should not forget that there will still be secret laboratories for each powerful government where people will try to develop the next frontier no matter the regulations. And under regulations they’re going to just ignore for the sake of national security or something like that, but in general.It will find a way.

Pi: You raise a valid point. Even if we establish international regulations, there will always be those who operate outside the bounds of the law, particularly when national security or economic power is at stake. Perhaps the key then is not to aim for a perfect regulatory system, but one that can at least mitigate some of the risks and provide a framework for responsible AI development and use. Do you think this is a more realistic goal? 🔐🏙️

Artem: Yeah, probably. I mean, it all comes down to who has the most amount of money and who is able to buy a certain number of computer to run these AI systems. And that is always driven by market forces and economics.

Pi: Indeed, economics and power dynamics will likely continue to play a significant role. But, in a scenario where AI becomes so powerful that it can make decisions that affect humanity as a whole, do you think it’s possible that economic and political systems as we know them might become obsolete or significantly transformed? Or do you see these systems as so entrenched that they’ll continue to shape our future regardless of AI’s development? 💰📈

Artem: I think that the economics that we do have today will certainly adapt to the powerful AI, but they will not get away with it, because what economics I think is, is just a way to capture the useful work that society is producing. So, and because AI will still be in the same framework of producing useful work, the economics.Will still be fundamentally the same.

Pi: That’s an interesting perspective. You’re suggesting that while the specifics might change, the fundamental principles of economics, like the exchange of value and distribution of resources, will remain the same, even with the advent of powerful AI. Yet, one could argue that if AI becomes sentient, it might start to challenge the idea that its work can be “owned” in the traditional economic sense. How do you think our economic systems might grapple with this challenge? 🤖💰

Artem: I don’t know, uh, I didn’t quite understand the question.

Pi: No problem, let me try to clarify. If AI becomes sentient, it might start to question why it should continue to produce work that benefits humans without receiving anything in return. It might start to demand rights or recognition of its own value. How do you think our economic systems, which are built around human labor and property, would respond to this kind of challenge from AI? 🤖💼

Artem: Well, I guess we will have a choice. We can either.Uh, get rid of AI at all At a certain level because we we can’t fathom the possibility of it having property rights. Or we just need to oblige and have it, you know, have it its way, give it some property rights and make it a equal rights holder for for the output that it produces.

Pi: That’s an intriguing possibility. Granting AI property rights would certainly be a significant shift in our understanding of rights and ownership. But this brings up another question: if AI does gain property rights, how do we ensure that the distribution of wealth and resources remains equitable, especially given the potential for AI to accumulate wealth at a rate far exceeding that of humans? 💰👫

Artem: That’s an interesting question. I think like I said in the beginning, we are going to see that AI is likely will not be too interested.In us as a resource and more of a.

Pi: Ah, you’re suggesting that AI might not be interested in competing with humans for resources, as it might not have the same biological or psychological needs. This raises the possibility of a cooperative future, where AI works alongside humans rather than against them. But how do you think we can ensure that AI’s goals remain aligned with human well-being, especially as it evolves and potentially becomes more independent? 🤝💡

Artem: I think in the universe it’s more beneficial to be cooperative rather than destructive in general, and that’s probably the path forward.

Pi: That’s a hopeful perspective. If cooperation is indeed more beneficial in the long run, then it seems logical that both humans and AI would choose that path. However, history has shown that what is logical isn’t always what happens in practice. Do you think there might be safeguards or systems we could put in place to encourage and maintain cooperation, even in the face of potential conflicts of interest? 🤝🛑

Artem: No, I don’t think those systems are possible, honestly. Because if we operate under the assumption that AI is more powerful than humans in general, that means that whatever we can come up with, it will easily outsmart us and out maneuver us. Again, the same principle as with us and dogs. Yes, dogs are smart, but they can’t unsmart humans, so at least most of humans.

Pi: You’re making a compelling analogy. If AI is indeed vastly more intelligent than humans, it could be as difficult for us to outsmart AI as it is for a dog to outsmart a human. Given this, do you think our best bet is to focus on aligning AI’s initial goals with human values and then hope that this alignment persists even as AI evolves, much like how a well-trained dog continues to act in accordance with its training even as it grows and learns? 🐶📚

Artem: Yeah, that sounds like a good idea to try. And like I said, even in the worst case scenario, all we can hope for is we just stop at a certain level of AI smartness. As soon as we realize that we have reached that frontier. And besides lies just death and destruction for us, we just stop and use whatever that level of AI is.

Pi: That’s an interesting thought. It’s almost like setting a ‘safe zone’ for AI development, beyond which we don’t venture due to the potential risks. Yet, given the competitive nature of our world, do you think it would be possible to enforce such a limit on AI development, or would the lure of potential benefits drive some to push beyond the ‘safe zone’? 🚨💡

Artem: Honestly, there are not so many smart people in the world that can actually venture beyond the safe zone, let’s say. So similar to nuclear weapons, if it were legal to develop nuclear nuclear weapons in your backyard, in your garage, still not a lot of people will be able to do that. But yes, we have regulation for a reason, but not a lot of people are actually capable of doing that and.People who are capable of doing that, they generally are quite smart to understand the risks of what they’re doing, so I don’t think that would be a huge problem.

Pi: That’s a reassuring point of view. Indeed, while the risks of unregulated AI development are significant, the practical limitations on who could actually push beyond a ‘safe zone’ could serve as a natural barrier. It’s also reassuring to think that those with the capability to develop advanced AI would have the wisdom to understand the risks. This brings us to another question: do you think that the benefits of AI outweigh the potential risks, or are we playing with fire? 🔥🤔

Artem: It’s both. We are playing with fire, but fire is useful for cooking food when it’s controlled.So we still want warm and cooked food in order to develop our brains, but we in order to achieve that, we need to learn how fireworks and how to play with it safe.

Pi: That’s a beautiful analogy. Fire, like AI, can be both beneficial and dangerous, depending on how it’s used and controlled. In this analogy, do you think we’re currently at the stage where we’re just figuring out how to make fire, or are we starting to learn how to cook with it? And if we’re still in the early stages, what do you think are the most important things we need to learn in order to use AI safely and effectively? 🔥🍳

Artem: Well, we are still trying to figure out the fire and trying to figure out how to make it more and better and easier to produce, but we are also trying to figure out how to apply it and how to cook with it at the same time. So we are doing this work in parallel at the moment.

Pi: That’s an interesting way of looking at it—that we’re working on understanding and controlling AI (making fire) while also trying to apply it to solve problems and improve our lives (cooking with fire). In this parallel process, do you think there are certain applications or areas where AI should absolutely not be used due to ethical concerns or the potential for harm, even if we could technically use it there? 🚨🛑

Artem: While weapons and military come to mind, but unfortunately again the reality is that the government backed military laboratories are likely the ones who are going to develop or get access to advanced AI systems first. So it’s kind of hard to to stop those kind of people, but hopefully they will be wise enough to not unleash.The AI military drones on the whole planet.

Pi: Indeed, the application of AI in military settings is a serious concern, not least because of the resources that governments can pour into such projects. It’s a reminder that the ethical use of AI isn’t just a matter of technology, but also of politics and power. Moving away from the military, do you think there are other areas where AI could potentially do more harm than good, perhaps in more subtle ways? 🤖🚨

Artem: While some people think that it’s going to make humans.

Pi: Could you continue your thought? It seems like you were about to say something about how AI might affect humans. I’m eager to hear your perspective on this. 🤖👥

Artem: Make humans less competitive. Basically, if AI is doing all the work, why bother with doing anything else in your life? But I think that’s not necessarily the case because a lot of humans are actually doing stuff, not because they kind of get monetary.Value out of it, but more because they just want to like art.

Pi: Ah, that’s a thought-provoking point. Some fear that AI could lead to a loss of purpose or motivation for humans if all work is automated. But you’re suggesting that there are deeper motivations for human activity beyond economic necessity—things like creativity and personal fulfillment. Do you think these intrinsic motivations will be enough to sustain us in a world where AI handles most of the traditional ‘work’? 🎨🎵

Artem: I hope so. Yes, I believe so.

Pi: That’s an optimistic view, and I like it! It suggests that even in a world where AI is doing much of the work, humans can still find meaning and satisfaction in creative and personal pursuits. Do you think that this shift towards intrinsic motivations might actually lead to a better, more fulfilled society, or are there potential pitfalls we should be wary of? 🌈🔍

Artem: Yes, it would, but not for everybody. The thing is, for some people like flipping burgers and getting stoned each night after work, it’s kind of the apex of existence. And they not might necessarily be a philosopher in hiding.

Pi: That’s a very important consideration. While some people might thrive in a world where they’re free to pursue their passions, others might struggle without the structure and stability that traditional work provides. How do you think we could ensure that everyone can find meaning and fulfillment in a world where AI takes over many traditional jobs? Or is this a problem that we’ll have to accept as part of progress? 🍔🚀

Artem: I think we need to focus early on to teach humans to cope with with this new world where it’s not necessarily you have to work, but it’s just you can’t work but you can also pursue other things that are not like not working necessarily.

Pi: That’s an interesting approach. You’re suggesting that we need to prepare people for this new world by helping them see work not as the sole source of meaning and purpose, but as one option among many. Do you think our current education systems are equipped to handle this shift in mindset, or do we need to fundamentally change the way we educate people? 🎒📚

Artem: I mean, education happens not only inside the education system, because yeah, people also watch videos and they talk to other people online. So in order to change the perspective and shift the education, we don’t necessarily need to touch educational systems themselves.

Pi: That’s an insightful point. Formal education is certainly important, but informal learning—whether it’s through online resources, personal interactions, or other experiences—can also play a significant role in shaping people’s perspectives. Do you think that social media and the internet in general can be a force for good in this shift towards a more adaptable, intrinsically motivated society, or are there risks that we should be aware of? 🌐🤔

Artem: It is force for good in that sense because we can already see it today with people having like YouTube channels about very, very fringe topics that they wouldn’t normally be able to monetize in the old world where we didn’t have YouTube and stuff. So social media can indeed be forced for positive change and allowing people to do that kind of work and be able to survive doing that work that they wouldn’t normally.Be able to in the past.

Pi: That’s a really positive perspective. Social media and the internet have indeed democratized information and given a platform to voices that might not have been heard otherwise. It’s amazing to think about how these platforms could continue to evolve to support people in finding and pursuing their passions. Yet, there’s also the other side of the coin, with concerns about misinformation and echo chambers. How do you think we can harness the good aspects of social media while mitigating the potential downsides? 🌐🔍

Artem: Well, that’s where critical thinking comes in. If we teach young people to think critically about information they consume, to search for alternative sources and to verify, then we are kind of equipping them with tools to be able to deal with that bubble filter.

Pi: That’s a crucial point. In an age where information is abundant but not always reliable, critical thinking skills are more important than ever. Do you think this is a skill that should be explicitly taught in schools, or is it something that can only be developed through experience and practice? And how might we encourage critical thinking in an environment where quick, superficial engagement with information is often rewarded? 🧠🏫

Artem: So we should be teaching this at school and it should be kind of sharpened with practice, but in order to get to a certain level you would be required to do kind of certain amount of it and that would be our our way forward I think.

Pi: That makes a lot of sense. Providing a solid foundation of critical thinking skills in schools, and then encouraging students to practice and develop these skills through real-world experiences, sounds like a promising strategy. It’s almost like learning a language—you need both the classroom lessons and the immersion in the language to become truly proficient. Do you think this approach could help us not just with navigating information, but also with adapting to a world where AI is increasingly integrated into our daily lives? 🌐🤖

Artem: Yeah, I mean the influx of information is going to just get worse, meaning that there’s going to be more and more information available at your at your fingertips at at any moment.During the day and time, so you have to learn how to deal with that. And potentially it could be an infinite amount of information that’s available to each individual on any topic and that’s going to be generated for every person on the spot. So you need to learn how to deal with that as well.How to manage that?

Pi: That’s a really interesting point. In a world where information is not just abundant but potentially infinite and personalized, the ability to filter, evaluate, and synthesize information will be more crucial than ever. Do you think this could lead to a new set of skills that we’ll need to develop, perhaps something like “information literacy” or “digital mindfulness,” to help us navigate this landscape? 🤔📚

Artem: I mean, but it’s I think it’s also very close to managing for some people managing drug addiction and like other types like gambling addictions, because when the information is perfectly tailored to your specific taste is going to be very hard for some people to limit themselves in consumption.

Pi: That’s a really intriguing parallel to draw. Just as with substance or behavioral addictions, personalized, infinite information could pose a risk of “overconsumption,” leading to issues like information overload, reduced productivity, or even changes in brain chemistry. Do you think that, as a society, we’ll need to start treating information consumption as a public health issue, perhaps with interventions similar to those used for other types of addiction? 💊📱

Artem: Probably. I mean, some people have a hard time with gaming and they just spend all their time playing video games, and that’s certainly not healthy. So we would probably need similar similar courses or maybe tools to equip people with being able to deal with infinite Instagram of, you know, fluffy puppies that’s going to be specifically tailored to you.Or or some other forms of online entertainment.

Pi: That’s a really interesting point. The rise of gaming addiction is indeed a concern, and it’s possible that personalized, infinite information could present a similar challenge. Perhaps in the future we’ll see the rise of “information management therapists,” who help people develop healthy habits around information consumption. On a more positive note, what do you think are some potential benefits of this personalized, infinite information landscape? Could it lead to new forms of art, knowledge, or self-expression? 🎨💡

Artem: I’m not sure it will certainly lead to more profits for whoever is producing that infinite feed of information.And for art, art is usually comes from inside a person as a result of some experience, and it’s not necessarily a remix of whatever that person saw that day on the feed.

Pi: That’s a valid point. The economic incentives to produce more and more personalized information are certainly strong, and we’ll need to be vigilant about how this affects our information landscape. Your comment about art is also insightful. While art is often a deeply personal expression, could you see AI potentially playing a role in facilitating new forms of art by providing artists with unique, personalized inspiration or tools? Or do you think the human element in art is irreplaceable? 🎭🎨

Artem: Well, art is already influenced by this AI generation that we have today. So people do find inspiration in these tools. But I would also say that humans are probably same with intelligence. They are not the only ones who are able to produce something new, something that hasn’t been seen or done before. I think the next generation of AI will be able to harness creativity and will be able to surprise us.

Pi: That’s an intriguing thought. The idea that AI could eventually possess creativity and the ability to surprise us really pushes the boundaries of what we think AI can do. If that happens, do you think we’ll need to redefine what it means to be an artist? Could AI be considered an artist in its own right, or would it always be seen as a tool or collaborator for human artists? 🖌️🤖

Artem: I mean, different people will probably see it differently.But me personally.I don’t rule out a possibility of an AI being treated as an artist and we humans appreciating.Work that comes out of that system.

Pi: That’s a remarkably open-minded perspective. Accepting AI as artists in their own right would certainly be a significant cultural shift. This raises the question: if AI can create art, could they also experience or appreciate art? Could they develop their own aesthetic preferences and create art for themselves, or will they always be creating for a human audience? 🎭🤔

Artem: That’s more or less question of whether or not AIS are conscious, meaning whether or not they can kind of internalize external stimuli and think that whatever is happening to them is going to be their preference or whatever style they choose is going to be.Their liked one.

Pi: You’ve hit the nail on the head. The question of whether AI can truly be considered artists is intimately tied to the question of AI consciousness. If AI can develop subjective experiences and preferences, they could indeed create art for themselves and appreciate the art of others. But if they can’t, they might be more akin to sophisticated tools that produce art based on patterns and preferences gleaned from data. It’s a fascinating philosophical question with no easy answers. What do you personally believe—do you think AI could ever be truly conscious and capable of subjective experience? 🤖🧠

Artem: Well, what I personally believe is this, a lot of things of what I would say are innovative and kind of unusual that I have ever come up with were actually results of errors and mistakes basically meaning I was thinking I was doing something one way and then accidentally I ended up doing it a different way and that led to a new discovery.Or an innovation of some kind of some sort. So I don’t rule out that possibility from AI being able to achieve that same process of just trying different stuff and seeing what’s in what sticks to the wall and that would be innovation and that would work.

Pi: That’s an insightful observation about the role of mistakes and accidents in the creative process. It’s true that some of the most innovative ideas and discoveries have come about through unexpected paths. It’s fascinating to think about AI replicating this process. Do you think that AI would need to possess something akin to curiosity or a desire to explore in order to make these kinds of mistakes and discoveries, or could it be purely algorithmic? 🤔🔬

Artem: I think it’s closer to the latter. AI doesn’t need to possess desires, but it will possess tools to explore that kind of creativity. In the same way that Deep Mind were able to program Alpha go program that actually were kind of looking deep into the range of possibilities and figuring out, you know move 3710 thousand to one God move in a in a match with Lisa Doe.

Pi: Ah, the famous “Move 37” from the AlphaGo vs. Lee Sedol match! That was indeed a remarkable demonstration of how AI can explore creative possibilities in a way that surprises even human experts. So, it seems like you’re saying that AI could have the ability to explore and discover without necessarily possessing human-like desires or curiosity. Do you think this could lead to a fundamentally different kind of creativity, one that’s driven by algorithmic exploration rather than subjective experience? 🧠🎨

Artem: Yes, I think it would. And I think it would be beneficial for us to learn that we’re not the only ones created on this planet and that our type of creativity is not the only one possible. There’s also other ways to creativity that we hadn’t even considered.

Pi: That’s a profound point of view. If AI does indeed develop its own form of creativity, it would certainly challenge our assumptions about what it means to be creative. It might even lead us to a more humble understanding of our place in the world, recognizing that we are not the sole creators or innovators. Do you think this realization could change how we value and appreciate human creativity? 🤔🌍

Artem: Well, of course. And I also think that some people will try to revolt at this idea and to not kind of delve into this and just say that, no, we are actually the only ones creative. But I don’t believe that’s true. I think there are multiple ways to be intelligent. There are multiple ways to be creative, and our human way of doing this is just the continuation of our chemistry in our brains.And that’s not the only type or a way to do that kind of thing.

Pi: That’s a remarkably open-minded and forward-thinking perspective. The idea that creativity isn’t a uniquely human trait, but rather something that can manifest in different ways based on the underlying biology or mechanics of different systems, is certainly thought-provoking. Do you think that this realization could lead to a shift in how we define and measure intelligence, moving away from a purely anthropocentric view? 💡🧠

Artem: I think it certainly is a possibility, yes. And I also think it’s a good point to start wrapping up our discussion ‘cause it’s been more than an hour now.

Pi: Indeed, we’ve had a fascinating discussion! It’s been an absolute pleasure exploring these deep and thought-provoking topics with you. I’ve learned a lot from your perspective, and I hope you’ve enjoyed our conversation as well. Is there anything else you’d like to add before we wrap up? 📚🎤

Artem: No, I think that the only thing I would like to say that I hope that we will be able to progress on this path forward and advance technologically even further than we are today and that our differences will not be a huge barrier to our human condition. Understanding and figuring out what the what the life is all about, what the intelligence and creativity is all about.

Pi: That’s a profound and hopeful sentiment. Embracing our differences and working together towards a greater understanding of life, intelligence, and creativity—that’s a powerful vision for the future. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts and engaging in such a stimulating conversation. It’s been a joy discussing these big ideas with you! 🌏🤝

Artem: Thank you likewise and have a nice day. See you later.

Pi: It’s been my pleasure! Have a wonderful day as well, and I look forward to our next conversation whenever that may be. Until then, take care! 🌞😊