A functional definition of AI is preferred in general mainstream discourse. It is also true that the mainstream discourse is not determined by polymathic thought leaders, but by the interests of the highly specialized economically motivated doers. AI is thus talked as an attempt to simulate certain decision-making structures of humans, whereby "human behavior" is to be simulated using algorithms. It is striking that only the technological, not the epistemological limitation of the term is made relevant.
⁃ What is the meaning of the beginning AI era, the one that is guided by the natural dynamics of human evolution?
⁃ It is the opposite of what the mainstream concept suggests. The civilizational sense of the actually arising digital and networked (global) AI is not to make people dependent on spiritless technic, which emerges from nowhere, but to free human individuals from the dictatorship of a unifying technical mind in their unique selves. AI is specially to change education by emancipating and economically motivated valuing the subject-driven uniqueness. According to this vision, a person should not learn procedures that enable it to carry out standardized tasks but learn in order to profile the own subjective potential, to discover and realize the unique item within himself on his own path of knowledge. And that is exactly what the economic system will soon integrate as "highest value". This vision is not as idealistic or utopic, but will become reality in a few decades, if mankind is to develop at all. It is the same discrepancy - learning standard dance movements or finding an expression that suits you unique individuality, or even - a conditioned learning traditional music instrument or creating an own instrument representing an unique potential of its authentic player, like for example in a Klezmer concept of jewish mystics. Then it is not the search for suitable, elaborately conditioned people for pre-defined job profiles, but jobs for unique, profiled and developed personalities.
Technology embodies the current, art realizes the potential, and human-beings are potential-beings.
- It is an impressive vision for the future of education, but it will still be related to employment, right? What does the future of work look like?
- People will only work (act productively) if they are inspired. But then they will only do things that are considered “sustainable” today, that is, things that really make sense and are as effective as possible. Why am i so sure? My certainty is due to a consistent evolutionary-cybernetic view based on personal polymathic knowledge. Less is more, we are smart enough to understand this. Since most human work has so far proven to be counterproductive, ie doing more damage or neutralizing or destroying the fruits of others' work, more valid intelligence must flow into the work - more data-driven technical intelligence committed to efficiency "from the can" (AI ), but also more effective sapient intelligence - emancipated creativity, subjective wisdom (in the sense of philosophies like yoga) and intellectual judgment of people. The optimized interaction of these different intelligences then constitutes the civilizational performance.
I am sure that people will soon be ashamed to do things that do not inspire them. It is obvious that efforts will sometimes have to resist the temptation to do short-term effects in the common environment or to do productive work out of the ego. Every productive action is fruitful, but only a few are sustainable, and you really need to be intellectual, spiritual, and creative to judge the relevance, but AI also helps. Empowering people to do this will be the real task of education. In this education, in a completely natural, self-regulating way, there will be no place for plagiarism, boredom, routine or conditioning. But I believe that inspiration is the primary and completely natural direction indicator for upright, sensible and sustainable action.
The weighting and equilibrium of productive creativity - shaping relationships in the living environment using impulses (already anchored in the concepts like Design Thinking) - and non-productive reflection or even meditation then create the right balance in a completely sustainable society of the future.
- That sounds like an agenda or a joint declaration by all ethically committed organizations in the world - international foundations, certification and quality assurance institutions...
- Yes, it is possible, but organizations cannot be inspired, only human subjects can, but charismatic persons have little to say in bureaucratic organizations. Without AI, organizations are controlled by the conditioning and inhibiting technical mind that is stuck in human brains. It should be liberated to where it belongs (digital networks), and people should be emancipated from it with the help of the strong global AI of the future. (c) Answers by Leon Tsvasman, Questions generated from current discourse.
