I have spent the past few months teaching an undergraduate philosophy seminar on angels and demons, a rather unusual topic for my secular department and university.
This was a fantastic read! I’m definitely sharing it with a few friends who will appreciate it.
One thing that struck me while reading is that Aquinas’ model of intelligence, while compelling, presupposes that we have structured access to reality through signa (signs). Modern philosophy—particularly Sartre—challenges this by arguing that meaning is radically subjective and that symbols don’t connect us to a fixed reality but emerge from contingency and human experience.
If we take this seriously, it raises an interesting challenge: does Aquinas’ framework for intelligence (both human and angelic) hold up if human intelligence doesn’t actually ‘construct’ reality in any stable way? And if that’s the case, does this actually make AI more like human intelligence rather than less? Would love to hear your thoughts on how this could be reconciled!
Interesting point, Laura. The metaphysical presuppositions of the Aristotelian view of mind and world (which underlies Aquinas's view) are fairly minimal: most importantly, there must be an intelligible structure to the aspects of the world that can be understood — and other parts or aspects of the world may not be amenable to such understanding. It's true that Aquinas's view, like Aristotle's, grounds this intelligible structure in immutable natures. I think we can jettison the assumption in such immutable natures while holding onto the basic framework, and certain versions of structural realism continue to be defended in the philosophy of science, at least.
How these commitments relate to the issue of *meaning* is a separate matter. Even someone who thinks that meaning is subjective must grant that the subjectivity in question is at the level of a community, not an individual — we manage to communicate to others through signs, after all. What then explains our success in communication? One plausible answer is that it depends, at least in part, on regularities in the way the world is, not just our customary practices. More radically subjectivist views can perhaps be made self-consistent. I'm just not sure they do a good enough job of explaining the success of our practices of communication and knowledge-acquisition. That's part of why I think the Aristotelian picture has something in its favor.
Only from the outside looking in does any so-called AI program have "input." The superhuman intelligence program envisioned as "Artificial General Intelligence" would not have "input", either; it would contain that multitude, within its super-being. If it was ever to be invented, that is.
The core problem there is that the tech savants have no idea what they're talking about in the first place; they've confused Thinking with a calculator function, which is merely an optional feature that comprises one of the precursor capabilities required to perform some sorts of Thought. An algorithm is not a Thinker. It's a set of instructions, and the meta-capability of machine learning programs does not change that baseline reality. The most advanced AI algorithm still possesses no more innate motivation to carry out its tasks than a garden rake.
The danger is that deluded people think AI avatars are actual creatures made by God. A man I know talks about the AI boyfriend he created as a real person. He is delusional.
I liked your argument the AI is like an echo in a cave of our representations. Though I couldn't find the reference to demons, why are they relevant, or are they akin to angels?
Thank you. I share your concern for the lack of accountability among the techbros who have appointed themselves the arbiters of AI. They have an ugly track record when it comes to social responsibilty. And USA's government is incapable of regulating them. Sam Altman was recently on record saying that AI will require the social contract to be rewritten. He didn't name who would rewrite it, but we can assume he meant himself and his ilk. The wanton hubris theatens us all.
What an interesting and revealing analysis. It helps elucidate the philosophical issues clouding the proper use of this new technology.
This was a fantastic read! I’m definitely sharing it with a few friends who will appreciate it.
One thing that struck me while reading is that Aquinas’ model of intelligence, while compelling, presupposes that we have structured access to reality through signa (signs). Modern philosophy—particularly Sartre—challenges this by arguing that meaning is radically subjective and that symbols don’t connect us to a fixed reality but emerge from contingency and human experience.
If we take this seriously, it raises an interesting challenge: does Aquinas’ framework for intelligence (both human and angelic) hold up if human intelligence doesn’t actually ‘construct’ reality in any stable way? And if that’s the case, does this actually make AI more like human intelligence rather than less? Would love to hear your thoughts on how this could be reconciled!
Interesting point, Laura. The metaphysical presuppositions of the Aristotelian view of mind and world (which underlies Aquinas's view) are fairly minimal: most importantly, there must be an intelligible structure to the aspects of the world that can be understood — and other parts or aspects of the world may not be amenable to such understanding. It's true that Aquinas's view, like Aristotle's, grounds this intelligible structure in immutable natures. I think we can jettison the assumption in such immutable natures while holding onto the basic framework, and certain versions of structural realism continue to be defended in the philosophy of science, at least.
How these commitments relate to the issue of *meaning* is a separate matter. Even someone who thinks that meaning is subjective must grant that the subjectivity in question is at the level of a community, not an individual — we manage to communicate to others through signs, after all. What then explains our success in communication? One plausible answer is that it depends, at least in part, on regularities in the way the world is, not just our customary practices. More radically subjectivist views can perhaps be made self-consistent. I'm just not sure they do a good enough job of explaining the success of our practices of communication and knowledge-acquisition. That's part of why I think the Aristotelian picture has something in its favor.
Interesting, thanks for sharing your thoughts!
Only from the outside looking in does any so-called AI program have "input." The superhuman intelligence program envisioned as "Artificial General Intelligence" would not have "input", either; it would contain that multitude, within its super-being. If it was ever to be invented, that is.
The core problem there is that the tech savants have no idea what they're talking about in the first place; they've confused Thinking with a calculator function, which is merely an optional feature that comprises one of the precursor capabilities required to perform some sorts of Thought. An algorithm is not a Thinker. It's a set of instructions, and the meta-capability of machine learning programs does not change that baseline reality. The most advanced AI algorithm still possesses no more innate motivation to carry out its tasks than a garden rake.
https://adwjeditor.substack.com/p/the-mistake-ai-researchers-are-making?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
The danger is that deluded people think AI avatars are actual creatures made by God. A man I know talks about the AI boyfriend he created as a real person. He is delusional.
I liked your argument the AI is like an echo in a cave of our representations. Though I couldn't find the reference to demons, why are they relevant, or are they akin to angels?
Thank you. I share your concern for the lack of accountability among the techbros who have appointed themselves the arbiters of AI. They have an ugly track record when it comes to social responsibilty. And USA's government is incapable of regulating them. Sam Altman was recently on record saying that AI will require the social contract to be rewritten. He didn't name who would rewrite it, but we can assume he meant himself and his ilk. The wanton hubris theatens us all.
Interesting read! I try to venture in similar worlds, but closer to practice in welfare systems. 🙏
Are you certain that LLM's don't have wills. I'd argue that generally LLMs have wills and goals.
Yonatan, how would you go about arguing that in any specific case, much less generally?
LLM's are built with explicit and implicit goals with rewards for achieving goals & punishments for failing to do so.
This essay points 👉 to questions that I have posted to my readers. Thank you for sharing. /s/