Of human intention and machine potential
Raj Aradhyula
Chief Design Officer @ Fractal | Leadership coach | Board Member | Culture evangelist | Mentor to startups | Wellness geek. Views personal.
In 2016, something extraordinary happened in the world of artificial intelligence—a pivotal moment in human history. Lee Sedol, a Go grandmaster who had dominated the game for decades, faced AlphaGo, an AI system developed by Google DeepMind .
During the second game, AlphaGo made the now-famous "Move 37"—a play so unexpected that it stunned professional Go players worldwide. Commentators described this move, which defied conventional Go strategy, as "not just calculated, but creative."
Sedol's response was equally remarkable. In the fourth game, he executed what experts called a "God Move" at position 78 —a brilliant, unexpected play that demonstrated the triumph of human creativity.
The match's final score—AlphaGo winning 4-1—became less important than the insight it revealed: AI doesn't diminish human potential; it amplifies it. A perfect example of how AI can push humans to new heights of performance and creativity.
We stand, today, at a peculiar precipice. Technology that was once cold, computational, and distant is now attempting something radical: to understand, to empathize, to feel. In other words, to humanize itself.
Should this - humanizing technology - even be done? Do we understand the implications? Are we prepared for this?
The truth is that we're confused. Profoundly, delightfully, frustratingly confused about what "humanizing AI" actually means, what it does to us, and whether it's even a good thing. It is as exhilarating as it is uncomfortable.
The Humanization framework
The critical question in AI development is not whether to humanize AI but how to do so effectively. The benefits of AI for humanity are evident, and so are its risks.
Two crucial dimensions of humanizing technology emerge.
Make AI more Humane
Make AI more Human-Like
Several applications are already pushing boundaries. Companies like Affectiva are developing AI that can recognize human emotions; Replika , an AI chatbot, aims to be a personal companion, learning from interactions to become more personalized over time. DALL-E Open Ai and Kalaido.ai demonstrate AI's potential for creative tasks, generating images and text that can surpass human-created content.
However, these advancements come with challenges. Privacy concerns arise as AI becomes more adept at understanding human emotions. There's also the risk of over-reliance on AI companions, potentially impacting real human relationships. Moreover, as AI becomes more creative, questions about intellectual property and the value of human creativity become more complex.
领英推荐
Practical Guidance: The TIDE Approach
For corporations, boards, and innovation leaders, humanizing AI is an existential need. Using the TIDE framework to navigate this complexity can be helpful:
Individually, we can each actively contribute to shaping this new world where humans and machines coexist harmoniously by embracing lifelong learning, and being that voice that advocates for ethical standards in AI development
We have the power to shape AI through thoughtful development, ethical considerations, and a focus on enhancing human capabilities rather than replacing them. By adhering to principles like TIDE, we can create AI systems that are truly in service of humanity—augmenting our abilities while freeing us up for creative endeavors.
But like any meaningful conversation, this is a messy, nuanced, and constantly shifting dialogue. As Stuart Russell, a prominent AI researcher, says:
The primary concern is not spooky emergent consciousness but simply the ability to make high-quality decisions. Here, quality refers to the expected outcome utility of actions taken, where the utility function is, presumably, specified by the human designer.
The Existential Puzzle of AI Humanity
Ancient wisdom offers surprising insights. The Taoist concept of "wu wei"—effortless action—provides a fascinating lens. Just as a skilled craftsperson becomes one with their tool, experiencing "flow" or being "in the zone," perhaps true AI integration means technology that feels like a natural extension of human capability.
Moreover, as AI systems get more sophisticated does it increase the risk of over-reliance and lead to the loss of human agency? Will we risk being manipulated to act in harmful ways and perpetuate biases? If an AI can produce a masterpiece indistinguishable from human-created art, we need to reconsider our definitions of intelligence and creativity.
The question in front of us is:
Are we teaching machines to be more human, or are machines teaching us what it means to be human?
Addressing these questions requires ongoing ethical consideration and robust governance frameworks. There is some effort in this direction by IEEE's Global Initiative on Ethics of Autonomous and Intelligent Systems which provides guidelines for ethically aligned design, emphasizing the importance of human rights, well-being, data agency, and transparency in AI development.
We must ensure that in our quest to humanize AI, we don't inadvertently dehumanize ourselves.
This is the real lesson from Lee Sedol's story. It is a narrative about human-AI collaboration—about making AI more adaptive to humans and enhancing our potential.
This is a profoundly human journey of self-discovery. This journey isn't predetermined; it's co-created—a delicate interplay of human intention and machine potential.
Disclaimer: The views expressed are a provocation—an invitation to dialogue. The future of AI is not predetermined; it's co-created.
Imagine a time when each one of us will have 8 billion AI avatars of ourselves, selling ourselves and our goods to 8 bn of everyone else's AI avatars, all at the same time/concurrently, maybe even reproducing to produce 8 bn more AI children, every second if we can download our AI genetic code into them at that speed. And then getting them to work too. All said and done, economic growth is only limited by the limitations that come with humans being a physical/bio-chemical being. Limitations such as we can only live one moment at a time, we can only have one identity at a time, one history at a time, one biological age at a time, our one brain per body can only process one bodily activity at one time, we get tired, we have emotions, we get hungry, we need physical space, we need Nature to provide us the essentials of what makes us human - life, time, earth, air, water, energy And because we would have chosen to opt out of being bio-chemical beings and chosen to become digital beings, we would have no physical needs like hunger etc, we wouldn't get tired too because there would be no physical strength required for all the infinite consumerism, economics and wealth creation we'll be doing in the metaworse.