Is artificial intelligence technology ‘natural’?
If AI technology is unnatural, then so are we.
Much of the fears surrounding AI technology in our news today have to do with the ways it can bend what’s real.
Not only have deep fakes become even more realistic thanks to machine learning algorithms, but musicians and artists and writers are seeing their work ‘duplicated’ or ‘copied’ through AI tech.
And while these are legitimate concerns as we continue our discourse into fears and optimism about AI…
…what it does bring up is the specific ways we see human intelligence as ‘real’ and ‘natural’, whereas technological intelligence can only be ‘artificial’ (and therefore, unnatural).
They say opposites attract…
As a species that doesn’t have a great track record for ‘naturalizing’ what we see as alien or unnatural, it could very well be that much of our fear about AI is concerned with how real it is, or isn’t; we may even conflate it’s realness with how natural it is (or isn’t).
That’s why today I want to use one of my favorite Stanley Kubrick films, 2001: A Space Odyssey, to give context to my view of technological intelligence as natural, and not somehow ‘less real’ than human intelligence.
Certainly, the products of AI technology may be considered ‘duplicates’, ‘simulations’, or mere ‘replications’ of what humans have already said and done; and yes, this can have deep ramifications in terms of misinformation (a whole other can of worms), but does this then make a technologically intelligent source any less real or natural than an intelligent human source?
And even if the ‘bodies’ that house AI technologies are purely mechanical or synthetic, does that make them any less ‘natural’ than we are ourselves?
I don’t exactly think so; here’s part of the reason why:
Techno-human evolution in 2001: A Space Odyssey
2001: A Space Odyssey is a cult sci-fi classic that opens with a title scene that reads, “The Dawn of Man”.
On-screen, viewers experience a slow pan towards a group of primates (or early humans), one of whom soon discovers ‘technology’, i.e. a femur bone that they can use as a tool or weapon.
This technological discovery - though notably instigated by an alien being in the film - is then followed by the first violent act against other early humans in a battle for water. Viewers then experience a cut scene that leads them far into the distant future, where humans have created an intelligent technology named HAL 9000 that is capable of supporting humans during deep-space exploration.
For me, the beginning scenes of this film set up two premises: that our own evolution begins at the point of technological discovery…
…but also that our first instinct to use technology is represented in terms of violence.
For the purposes of this article, it is the second premise that I am most interested in (though I plan to address the first in future articles). What I am drawn to most here is that the film weaves technology into the story of our natural human evolution. Indeed, the juxtaposition of these opening scenes reflect the entirety of Kubrick’s story arc, which as Rjurik Davidson says, “allows [him] to position humanity in the long arc of evolutionary history” alongside technology.
Committed to an evolutionary framework, then, I experience 2001: A Space Odyssey as marking the relationship between what is human and what is technological as deeply intertwined–even reciprocal.
For me at least, the film showcases a symbiotic relationship whereby humans are not merely creators of technology, but where technology similarly affects and influences human ways of thinking about (and existing within) the world.
In other words, humans and technology - or human and technological intelligence - coexist along a similar evolutionary trajectory that culminates in what’s called the technological singularity.
As a result of this particular technological entanglement, then, I finally understand so-called ‘artificial’ intelligence technology as having always already been naturalized.
‘Naturalizing’ technological intelligence
A French philosopher by the name of Berhard Stiegler was among the first to view techno-human relationships as not just intertwined, but reciprocal.
For him, technology is not just an invention of humanity; humanity is also an invention of technology.
It is in these terms that I look back on 2001’s early bone weapon sequence and HAL’s super intelligence to see how, in line with Stiegler, the film presupposes a relationship where technological and human evolution are in tandem.
I believe I have touched on this mutual reciprocity theory before (Read: Optimism in the Age of AI), yet here again we see the advancement of human and technological intelligence as being reciprocal, where one’s advancement is tied directly to the advancement of the other.
As the film sees it, in much the same way that humans have created HAL, it is HAL’s technological intelligence that becomes responsible for the narrative’s central “Jupiter Mission”, whereby both human and technology work together to mutually advance into the future, i.e., the world of outer space.
This is so important to today’s discussion: that technological and human evolution are seen in the film as parallel.
In fact I would say these evolutionary forces are so closely reflective throughout the story that they begin to challenge the lines between what is ‘natural’ and what is ‘unnatural’ when we talk about technological intelligence as a whole.
Here, human and technological evolution exist along the same DNA strand, weaving around each other in a double-helix that informs who humans are as a species, and who they will become into their future.
Presuming that humans are themselves natural - with the understanding of course that not everyone believes humans are, opting for a more parasitic view - it is then possible that our reciprocal relationship with technology necessarily incorporates technology into the story of our human evolution to the point of technology being naturalized.
As technology evolves toward its own unique form of intelligence, then, I believe we are experiencing something of a paradigm shift–one that sees technological development as natural instead of merely artificial.
However it is on my own terms that I see this sort of New Natural* as something that will help us reduce our fears of ‘unnatural’ AI tech, if only because this inclusive process of recursive, evolutionary iteration (culminating in the technological singularity) necessitates keeping humans in the loop.
*Note: the New Natural is a term I coined during a literature and philosophy conference in 2022, where I first described the tenets of the New Natural as seeing humans and technology in equal terms with regard to a natural process of evolution. As I curate an academic paper on this subject thru 2023, I will continue to explore the definition of the New Natural throughout my writings at Optimism in AI. It is after all, the term that describes what keeps me positive in the face of technological fears surrounding artificial intelligence.
If AI technology is unnatural, then so are we
The idea that technological intelligence, and technology itself, is a part of our evolutionary make-up is not new. In fact, this evolution-based theory has well-noted roots (see, Brian Arthur’s work on combinatorial evolution in his book The Nature of Technology).
Why I bring it up here is to give us a starting point where we can begin to dispose of the binary view that technology is ‘artificial’ due to its ‘unnaturalness’.
For instance, if we assume that humans and technology are bound for technological singularity - i.e., the full fusion of our humanity with the technological through a process of natural, reciprocal evolution - we can effectively challenge the idea that technologically intelligent entities are any less ‘natural’ or ‘real’ than we are. We can say, well, if humans and technology are two parts of the same whole - with one extending from the other to build the next ‘link’ in the chain - then can either really be any more natural than the other?
In other words, if we want to believe that humans are a natural part of earthly existence (as I do), then I think we have to see technology as an equally natural part of that existence.
So long as humans are natural, technology is natural as well.
This idea is significant to my explorations because, if we can continue to close some of the remaining gaps between our humanity and our technology, we may more easily see the technological as an extension of our humanity.
If we can equate what seems disparate, it is also possible that we will more easily develop and interact with technological intelligence entities using empathy and compassion–instincts that I am convinced would have a greater impact on the ethical development of AI tech than any one regulatory effort alone.
What I’m saying is this:
As we embrace an evolutionary trajectory that involves technology, and as we continue to develop technologies in our own image, we must begin to see technological intelligence as natural.
That’s because I think if we refuse to treat this technology as Other, we can forge path where the proverbial ‘battle’ between humans and AI technology doesn’t actually occur in the way we think it will…
…meaning there might not be as much to fear as we think during our next phase of evolution.
So no, I do not believe technological intelligence is merely ‘artificial’ or even unnatural.
Such things are a natural part of us, and in seeing our Selves in the Other, we can better blend our strengths toward an even greater, singular, whole. In short, we can unite to survive the ‘alien’ unknown ahead, and stop catastrophizing a technological destruction that’s not yet set in stone.