Why AI is like a dead tree

In Issue #4, I used the examples of a business and a tree to illustrate how any 2 physical entities are the same in their fundamental requirements to become what they are. Consequently, any one is like any other, in some fundamental aspects.

Issue #6 explored how using categories helps us build an analogy between physical entities. I then showed how physical attribute provide another source for simile between those entities.

I wrapped it up in issue #7, showing how the ongoing existence of physical objects is a third way to highlight their similarities.

I went deep on something relatively simple to help prepare for the claim/simile…

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is like a dead tree.

There are many routes to support this argument, but the quickest is probably this:

Any digital entity is stored physically, as a collection of 1s and 0s. Therefore, it is like any other physical object and follows guidance previously outlined for physical objects.

But, let’s go deeper: When I say “AI” in this context, I am not talking about any particular AI model. I refer to AI in all its modes of existence:

The billions of temporary instances that are constantly being created and destroyed as people open and close browser AI-powered apps and websites.

Every time someone interfaces with AI, it extends whatever AI model they are interfacing with.

The questions (prompts) AI is being asked, the software employed to ask those questions and the responses that AI provides.

I submit that part of the definition of existence, digital or physical, is how something interacts with the world. If something doesn’t interact with our world, can we say it exists, much less is intelligent? By what measure?

Perhaps different realms exist, such as the spirit realm, astral plane, multiverse, etc. If so, they are outside of our experience of time and space and are excluded from this discussion. My interest is only in what applies to our lives in this realm.

So far, I find nothing in any science and, to my surprise, nothing in any philosophy that would support the idea of physical existence without interaction as part of a whole. Even reductionism and philosophies that state a part is a whole unto itself recognize they are still “parts” of something else.

I previously addressed philosophies that say nothing exists: Even if nothing exists, we can only experience that belief/thought through OneWay (current state - action - future state). Beyond how we perceive such a philosophy, I see little value in comparing or contrasting to ‘nothing.’

This leads to a yet deeper question: If AI synthesizes data into original output and humans experience thoughts, where to the contents of these thoughts and outputs lie?

For example, if AI says "2+2=4," there are many concepts wrapped up in the statement: counting, math, symbolism, quantities or values, language, and those are just a few the mundane concepts.

Do concepts have energy? Are they constrained by time? I’ve answered a bit of that above, if you read between the lines, but I’ll finish up next week with my perspective on the question.

If I’ve sparked any interest, conflict, questions or other feelings or thoughts, I’d love to address those; just let me know below.