I feel like organic technologies such as psychedelics, or meditative practices, will always give greater insights into consciousness than our interactions with AI - but I remain open to possibility.
I’ve been thinking deeply on all these same points for years now, Scott. Great piece.
I think many shy from exploring this because of a (primarily western) value that production = worthiness. So, there’s a crippling “absence of work” fear. But, like the pandemic, societally we’ll be forced to adapt.
I believe with love as our primary driver, and with everything being energy, AI included, this is almost certain to be a net positive.
I’m open to being wrong about that, and like anything it may swing the other way first, but we’re in ascension ✨
Scott, genuinely enjoyed this, and I nodded my way through almost all of it. As always, I suspect we over-estimate the short term effects and under-estimate the long term ones. AI has to do a lot of job replacement to make net-labor a massive issue, but there will be pockets of extreme disruption -- my window on things suggests this is happening in quite a few coding positions.
My "... and thus" is "... so how do we build a container to catch the disrupted." That, to me, is where the interesting work is right now. Are we ready for a generational dark night of the soul?
I believe the development of AI is attributed to an elevated consciousness, and everything we create, including AI, stems from our consciousness. As soul beings inhabiting human bodies, our creations, whether through AI or other expressive tools, reflect our consciousness. We can embody even robots. While it isn’t inherently risky, complications arise when individuals become entangled in the illusion of an “AI ego” more advanced than the human mind. We can’t control our evolution by controlling it through mind or AI. It’s letting go of that control.
one optimistic outcome I see (and hope for) is the use of AI tools to support our collective ability to hold space for ourselves and one another. rather than relying solely on the once-a-week therapy session, folks who skate at the surface of inner work will have more accessible tools to go deeper without having to commit meaningful time to experimenting across modalities
for example: it'll make approaches like IFS and somatic inquiry far more easily accessible and serve as a compliment to sessions with practitioners
I 100% on the estimation tendencies. I also think the generational dark night of the soul is going to be super interesting to see what unfolds. I don’t think the rise in consciousness will happen without some major transformational conflict. Hopefully many ppl who’ve been through the hard shift before will be there to support and ease it for others! Appreciate the ideas shared here Dave
Thanks for finding a different way to discuss this difficult issue. It is a complex issue. You have to start somewhere. It is not a black and white issue as this technology is here to stay. For me, it is a question of what we value and how we use the technology as it relates to those values. Though we may disagree with what the bulk of people are doing and thinking in this area, it does not mean there cannot be a parallel movement on the “fringe” of makers and creatives working and thinking differently with these tools. 🙏😊☀️
I started drafting something about AI the other day and never finished so I would post here as a reply to this post. In short I disagree with your conclusions about replacing jobs in those industries wherever a human is still needed in the loop. I think that is most cases. At the end of the day the LLM (or other AI) need specifications and someone to do something with those outputs; be it argue a legal filing in court, write a law, a prescription, etc. I think people still want a human doctor, lawyer, whatever to review and ok even if much of the intake, diagnosis etc. is automated with LLM or ML. The exception may be visual arts, where the need for human fashion models is no longer required. Commercial artists even there I could see interesting ways to go with the right protections and respect for creator content - such as book covers licensed to a large number of random designs in the style of an artist rather than a single image - creating collector item niche interests and so on. Similarly with regard to the New York Times lawsuit that may derail ChatGPT as the early frontrunner, at the end of the day a language engine is not going to reduce the need for a live reporter to chase facts, stories and interact with humans even if it helps them translate their notes into file much greater quantities of copy. AI is probably one of the few techs I am optimistic about in potential. Right now they are still figuring it out, but it will likely have some applicability across the spectrum. Respectfully!
I'm not sure.
I feel like organic technologies such as psychedelics, or meditative practices, will always give greater insights into consciousness than our interactions with AI - but I remain open to possibility.
I’ve been thinking deeply on all these same points for years now, Scott. Great piece.
I think many shy from exploring this because of a (primarily western) value that production = worthiness. So, there’s a crippling “absence of work” fear. But, like the pandemic, societally we’ll be forced to adapt.
I believe with love as our primary driver, and with everything being energy, AI included, this is almost certain to be a net positive.
I’m open to being wrong about that, and like anything it may swing the other way first, but we’re in ascension ✨
Scott, genuinely enjoyed this, and I nodded my way through almost all of it. As always, I suspect we over-estimate the short term effects and under-estimate the long term ones. AI has to do a lot of job replacement to make net-labor a massive issue, but there will be pockets of extreme disruption -- my window on things suggests this is happening in quite a few coding positions.
My "... and thus" is "... so how do we build a container to catch the disrupted." That, to me, is where the interesting work is right now. Are we ready for a generational dark night of the soul?
I believe the development of AI is attributed to an elevated consciousness, and everything we create, including AI, stems from our consciousness. As soul beings inhabiting human bodies, our creations, whether through AI or other expressive tools, reflect our consciousness. We can embody even robots. While it isn’t inherently risky, complications arise when individuals become entangled in the illusion of an “AI ego” more advanced than the human mind. We can’t control our evolution by controlling it through mind or AI. It’s letting go of that control.
one optimistic outcome I see (and hope for) is the use of AI tools to support our collective ability to hold space for ourselves and one another. rather than relying solely on the once-a-week therapy session, folks who skate at the surface of inner work will have more accessible tools to go deeper without having to commit meaningful time to experimenting across modalities
for example: it'll make approaches like IFS and somatic inquiry far more easily accessible and serve as a compliment to sessions with practitioners
This is a fascinating subject Scott, thank you!
James Mahu offers some amazing and plausible insights about AI and Human Consciousness here:
https://moci.life/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Copernicus_Book_v7_2_IA.pdf
I 100% on the estimation tendencies. I also think the generational dark night of the soul is going to be super interesting to see what unfolds. I don’t think the rise in consciousness will happen without some major transformational conflict. Hopefully many ppl who’ve been through the hard shift before will be there to support and ease it for others! Appreciate the ideas shared here Dave
Thanks for finding a different way to discuss this difficult issue. It is a complex issue. You have to start somewhere. It is not a black and white issue as this technology is here to stay. For me, it is a question of what we value and how we use the technology as it relates to those values. Though we may disagree with what the bulk of people are doing and thinking in this area, it does not mean there cannot be a parallel movement on the “fringe” of makers and creatives working and thinking differently with these tools. 🙏😊☀️
I started drafting something about AI the other day and never finished so I would post here as a reply to this post. In short I disagree with your conclusions about replacing jobs in those industries wherever a human is still needed in the loop. I think that is most cases. At the end of the day the LLM (or other AI) need specifications and someone to do something with those outputs; be it argue a legal filing in court, write a law, a prescription, etc. I think people still want a human doctor, lawyer, whatever to review and ok even if much of the intake, diagnosis etc. is automated with LLM or ML. The exception may be visual arts, where the need for human fashion models is no longer required. Commercial artists even there I could see interesting ways to go with the right protections and respect for creator content - such as book covers licensed to a large number of random designs in the style of an artist rather than a single image - creating collector item niche interests and so on. Similarly with regard to the New York Times lawsuit that may derail ChatGPT as the early frontrunner, at the end of the day a language engine is not going to reduce the need for a live reporter to chase facts, stories and interact with humans even if it helps them translate their notes into file much greater quantities of copy. AI is probably one of the few techs I am optimistic about in potential. Right now they are still figuring it out, but it will likely have some applicability across the spectrum. Respectfully!