‘Human, all too human’. Will we become hostages to our own… | by Ariel VA Feinerman | May, 2026 | MediumSitemapOpen in appSign up<br>Sign in

Medium Logo

Get app<br>Write

Search

Sign up<br>Sign in

‘Human, all too human’

Will we become hostages to our own minds by implementing universal AI?

Ariel VA Feinerman

5 min read·<br>4 days ago

Listen

Share

Press enter or click to view image in full size

The Sibyl System, Psycho-Pass TV series

What is needed is nothing less than a breakthrough in philosophy, a new epistemological theory that explains how brains create explanations.<br>David Deutsch, British physicist and philosopher

Many scientists and engineers have unreasonably high expectations of artificial intelligence. For some reason, they believe that once thinking machines are created, they will immediately solve many of our problems and lead to technological singularity. However, this way of thinking is a misconception.<br>Note: I deliberately avoid using the word ‘intelligence’ because it usually refers to the ability to analyse problems and make decisions based on patterns, without awareness of the process. In this sense, intelligence is inherent in the Maple programme, which solves complex equations, as well as in bees, which are capable of learning and complex behaviour, and in many other animals. Instead, I will use the word ‘mind’ when referring to human-level thinking process.<br>Do we even need artificial mind? Yes, we do. Unfortunately, ‘bare’ intelligence solves only a narrow class of problems, and sometimes quite inefficiently. Furthermore, ‘bare’ intelligence is incapable of formulating the problem itself! Take chess, for example: a machine solves the problem non-creatively, expending considerable resources and using various algorithms programmed into it by engineers, not to mention the enormous size of the training set. A human solves the problem creatively, generating new solutions while using far fewer resources!<br>Now, let us return to our problem. It is most likely that the first artificial mind will be be modelled on the human mind. This is because we still do not know how consciousness works, and the only way we currently have of constructing an artificial mind is to copy the human mind. In other words, the thinking machines we create will emulate the human brain. This is a very important circumstance that places serious limitations on our expectations.<br>The problem is that we are planning to set creative tasks for an artificial mind. We expect it to make breakthroughs in medicine and biology, physics and cosmology, sociology and psychology. Moreover, we believe that it will be capable of writing books, composing music, and painting pictures. In other words, we believe that it will be capable of creating new knowledge (in a broad sense, including art and music). But most healthy, normal adults do not engage in anything like this! They are indeed normal, because the majority determines the norm.<br>Being created on the basis of the average human, the artificial mind will not differ from it in any way, except for its potentially unlimited resources. It is quite possible that artificial mind, possessing consciousness, simply will not want to engage in all this creativity that has been imposed on it in advance. After all, modern humans have unlimited resources compared to their Stone Age ancestors. They can access all the information accumulated by humanity in a matter of seconds. However, few people need this information, except for scientists and engineers. Most of the information technology works for entertainment. This has always been the case and will always be so, regardless of the amount of resources available (provided that human nature remains the same).<br>Therefore, creativity is more of an anomaly than the norm. Of course, consuming information is in itself a creative process that requires a certain amount of creativity, as does life in the modern world. Nevertheless, such everyday creativity is necessary for survival and differs greatly from studying the Universe or writing music.<br>For example, the advent of computer programmes for making music has made life easier for novice musicians, but it has not increased their numbers. If a person is not interested in music, he or she will not pursue it, no matter how easy the process may be. Similarly, no matter what computing resources a thinking machine may have, it will not solve a problem if it is not interested in it.<br>However, several ideas have been put forward on how to overcome such challenges. For example, an artificial mind could be programmed to solve specific problems. Nevertheless, until we understand how the human mind works — indeed, how any mind works — and what changes need to be made to the brain at a low level in order to stimulate an interest in music, we will not be able to influence our brains, and consequently their computer models.<br>Well, opponents would say that, while we cannot yet program the mind directly, but we can nurture the...