Can Chatbots be Sentient?

Google recently fired computer scientist Blake Lemoine for claiming that the chatbot he had been developing was sentient and conscious. The technology incorporates LaMDA “Language Model for Dialogue Applications”, an artificial intelligence (AI) that mimics human conversations as its foundational structure to interpret language and formulate exchange. E-commerce patrons may notice chatbots’ improvements via greater relevancy and instantaneous response. Behind the scene, their capacity to decipher speech has augmented via sophisticated training data and algorithmic advancements.

However, chatbots’ performance metrics continue to be based on the apt for correct responses. Is accuracy all there is to a dialogue? 

Perhaps Google has succeed in programming chatbots that can not only utter appropriate replies but also, come across natural. Lemoine’s AI in fact, displayed sufficient nuance in language application that he was convinced of its “aliveness”. But does exchange capacity necessarily conclude consciousness? As the notion of consciousness continues to divide scientific communities, Lemoine’s claim draws attention to the longstanding debate on non-biological intelligence and consciousness, which ultimately calls forth an examination of our own innate conscious arising. 

Alan Turing famously asked if machines can think. As he administered the Turing Test in 1950, he analyzed a computer’s ability to mimic human response in text-based conversations. The machine’s intent was to imitate human communication enough that the person engaged with it would believe that he was conversing with another human. The premise of the Turing Test has been contested however, pertinent questions remain.  Should machines (chatbots) imitate human to persuade them of their own intelligence? And should machines that formulate mere logical replies be considered conscious? 

Scientist Klaus Henning (2021) argues that the reproduction of human intelligence based in cognition does not necessarily result in an exact replica because organic intelligence retains an immense ability to process information, often in ways that science still cannot fully comprehend. While the technical components of biological intelligence can be duplicated, theories on consciousness’ emergence remain divided. 

Lemoine’s claim of Google’s chatbots as sentient and conscious presumes AI’s capacity to attain a level of subjectivity in the physical world. Such experience was once thought to only derive from natural processes, and the possible loss of that privilege which delivered humanity’s planetary dominance can trigger discomfort. However, uneasiness aside, does AI autonomy and self-regulation denote subjectivity? While sophisticated AI such as chatbots can excel at human functionality, a gap persists between operational performatives and expressions of consciousness. 

As scientists including Susan Schneider (2021) imagine a future where consciousness could be uploaded and reconfigured into non-biological substrates, they also acknowledge multiple layers of complications. Thus far, intelligence correlates with organic consciousness, and consciousness depicts a certain level of sensory and inner experience. Our human biology, in association with the environment organize our sensory and emotional experiences. As such, our subjectivity is entangled. 

If intelligence were separated from its organic substrate then, could such system sustain subjectivity? And if so, what are the standards of measurement? 

Although artificial consciousness is not inconceivable, the mechanics of human intelligence has not fully proven to be the whole story. Therefore, the segregation of consciousness from an organic substrate that is principally relational, remains questionable. 

Although chatbots’ “conversational skills” have progressed, do we truly believe that they “understand”? The formulation of rational responses based in algorithmic fluency does not necessarily denote discernment. AI performs well and functions to the extent of basic intelligence however, even advanced chatbots remain a machine. Claims that a machine is sentient in fact, call for an exploration of not only notions of intelligence and consciousness but also, humanity’s own requisites for affinity and connection. 

References

Henning, K. (2021). Gamechanger AI: How artificial intelligence is transforming our world. Springer.

Schneider, S. (2021). Artificial you: AI and the future of your mind. Princeton University Press. 

Attention Economy

Wikipedia defines “attention economy” as “an approach to the management of information as a scarce commodity”. Davenport and Beck claim that attention is “focused mental engagement on a particular item of information” (Wikipedia contributors, 2019). 

The scarcity of a resource denotes its value. Attention has become a scarce commodity based on the vast amount of information available. Average consumers are bombarded by exposure and networks. As marketers predict revenue by click-through rates, campaigns are increasingly targeted and commercial efforts have become precise. 

Crogan and Kinsley (2012) address the “economization” of our cognitive capacities on which such attention economy is based. They claim that a reconstitution of capitalism occurs with the emergence of “immaterial labour” where the notion of time shifts as an aspect of physical productivity to one of attention. As such, what we spend our time on (doing) and what we focus on are increasingly intangible yet, profitable. 

Crogan and Kinsley (2012) reference four ways that attention is “commodified, quantified and trained”; one of them is via the internet as a “mediator of contemporary intellectual and social activities”, which they identify as a “threat to our mental capacities” (Crogan and Kingsley, 2012, p. 4). Nicholas Carr (2008) agrees that longterm engagement with the Net depletes “concentration and contemplation” abilities. Both Harris (2016) and Morgans (2017) attribute the Net’s tampering with our brains via a calculated design of content delivery. We become addicted to the interaction. More importantly, according to Carr (2008), our brains are rewired in a manner that weakens the “higher cognitive faculties”. 

Attention therefore, represents shorter intervals of focus no longer associated with deep thought. So what kind of economic benefits would this type of attention manifest for corporations? If the internet promotes what Carr (2008) refers to as mental habits of “staccato” quality, then what becomes the foundation in such “attention economy”?

References

Carr, N. (2008, July 1). Is Google Making Us Stupid? What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. Atlantic Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/

Crogan, P., & Kinsley, S. (2012). Paying attention: Towards a critique of the attention economy. Culture Machine, 13, 1-29. 

Harris, T. (2016, July 27). The slot machine in your pocket. Speigel Online.

Morgans, J. (2017, May 19). The secret ways social media is built for addiction. Vice Magazine. 

Wikipedia contributors. (2019, March 4). Attention Economy. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 1:34, March 5, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy

Algorithmic Reality

In this Ted Talk, Kevin Slavin’s tone of delivery is subtle. He opens his message by showing beautiful photographs by Michael Najjar. But as soon as he captures audience’s amazement of the majestic mountain ranges, he declares that the pictures have been tampered with. Digitally, the peaks and valleys in fact articulate the Dow Jones index. The audience responds with a laugh, as if to admit, the joke is on us. 

What he calls, “metaphor with teeth” comes across less as a warning than a narrative already ensured. Humans are already designing for the “machine dialect”.

The math that we “make” does not extract information or answer our query per se but support machine analysis. Slavin compares the mathematical processes to a break-down of massive amounts of data that humans would not ordinarily be able to decode. Algorithms decipher them to the smallest degree before reassembling them for human interpretation. That is the algorithmic process that he claims “acquires sensibility of truth”. Humans then report the narrative upon a machine decode. Therefore, humans serve machines.

Slavin views algorithms as an almost organic component of human development. He cites examples of how far we have already gone to accommodate algorithmic “needs”. Despite our lack of complete understanding of their inner workings, humans have surrendered control to the point of “running through the United States with dynamite and rock saws so that an algorithm can close the deal”. This, according to Slavin is when the math becomes real. Algorithms shape our reality and forge our world.

Compared to critics like, Jaron Lanier (2010) who cautions against a culture of Singularity where humans abide by the ideologies of machines, Slavin reckons a “manifested destiny” where algorithms not only dictate actions carried out on earth but also the direction of mathematical development based in machine efficiency. 

As such, Slavin designates algorithms as the “third co-evolutionary force”— a recognition so great that only man and nature correlate. The acknowledgement of machine-capability is not new. But the integration of algorithmic contention to the point of equivalency (to man and nature) in such casual manner curtails humanism yet another degree.

Is anyone else alarmed?

Reference

Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Are we post-human?

Human consciousness has always intrigued me. Humanity’s greatest achievements in both arts and science are attributed to a unique capacity and intelligence that is solemnly human. However, computation has advanced to where information, automation and digital networks are shifting our roles, responsibility and identity. Who we are has been closely tied to what we do, that is our societal contribution and our relationship with one another. Technological tools that were created to assist us are not only reshaping human relations but also gaining a presence that changes how we think of ourselves. 

According to Dataism (Hariri, 2015), the entire human specie can be seen as single data-processing system where individual beings serve merely as chips. All of humanity’s history can be summarized by four methods of gaining efficiency: increase the number processors, variety of processors, number of connections between processors and freedom of movement along existing connections. We are therefore, mere information at our core. 

If the human experience is unoriginal and humanity’s goal is the Internet-Of-Things, then how would we explain creativity and imagination? Are they too, algorithmic information flow?

Jaron Lanier (2010) claims that as developers of digital technology design programs that require users to interact with a computer as if it were a person, they are asking for our acceptance that at least a part of our brain functions as a program (Lanier, 2010, p. 4). Our exchange with the machine “locks” us into a grid of suppositions based in minimalistic ideals and explicit commands. 

While simplicity in digital designs gets a job done, inexact details that attribute to the whole “human program” may be lost. Peripheral data that does not precisely comply to the task are ignored, resulting in an exchange template based solely in transactional efficiency. Such fragmentation of what Lanier refers to as “personhood” not only reduces our expectations of each other, but also “who a person can be and…who each person can become” (Lanier, 2010, p. 4). 

Lanier (2010) claims that we take for granted the countless ways we are networked, including via social media. We buy into surface proficiency but in truth, networks perpetuate a “program” in us that is not actually (the whole of) us. As we extend our adoption of these technologies, we empower networks through dependency. Information becomes us. We socialize and work (produce) in a “symbolic environment” of “real virtuality” (Castells, 2000). 

While dataists view such developments as human evolution, their potential results alarm others. A cybernetic “posthuman” is interchangeable with the next. S/he (it) applies “lenticular logics” (McPherson, 2012) where nodes are observed without perception of the whole. Perception rises beyond intelligence into consciousness. This is the realm of meaning, understanding and awareness. In the context of human-versus-machine, this realm represents an argument against human as information. Organisms are greater than algorithms. We are complex beings on a quest. 

Johanna Drucker references an “interior life” that is tampered by the “grand narratives” of Silicon Valley (Simanowski, 2016, p. 43). Lanier (2010) points to an augmenting “hive mind” as the result of our alikeness and displacement from the “whole”. Humanity rests at a crossroad where artificial intelligence (AI) propels singularity. Our reliance on AI for productivity must be balanced with the acknowledgement that we are not only in charge but we also reserve an authority and a sovereignty that is uniquely human. Such self recognition requires an awareness that surpasses our roles and responsibility in the social construct. 

If we were mere performances (of tasks) then we are undoubtedly replaceable by machines. Computers can outperform us. But if we are a capacity greater than information flow assigned to transactions, then it is up to us to summon that force within. Lanier refers to it as consciousness “situated in time” (Lanier, 2010, p. 42). It is a context and an embodiment that sustains us outside a performative dimension. It is “us” in a space where no information flows and yet fully defined. 

 

References 

Castells, M. (2000). Materials for an exploratory theory of the network society. British Journal of Sociology, 51(1), 5-24. doi:10.1080/000713100358408

Harari, Y. N. (2015). Homo Deus: A brief History of Tomorrow. New York: Harper, An Imprint of HarperCollins.

Lanier, J. (2010). You are not a gadget. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

McPherson, T. (2012). Why Are the Digital Humanities So White? or Thinking the Histories of Race and Computation. Debates in the Digital Humanities, 139-160. doi:10.5749/minnesota/9780816677948.003.0017

Simanowski, R. (2016). Digital humanities and digital media: Conversations on politics, culture, aesthetics and literacy. London: Open Humanities Press.

All I Know

All I know
for sure is that
the world will change
because I will change.
Changes from within.
Changes not imposed.

Pre-requisitory changes
to move unto ourselves.

That is who we are.
We could refuse change.
But can’t stop change.
Our innate self craves change.

When resist
we fight.
The forces within are too great.
Let go.
Flow.

Why fight? We hold on
for security.
But it’s false.
It’s not at all who we are
at our core.
It’s not at all.

We are not
but of flowing nature.
Why resist?
When we can release.

Change is the only constance
so they say.
Change cannot be
unchanged.
That is all I know
for sure.

Some change will seem unjust,
some will deem unwanted.
But they are mandatory.
They are our compulsory.

They move us
unto who we are.
One with no judgement.
The one who is truly,
the one.

All I know
for sure is that I will come closer.
I will pace forward to admire
and claim all my joy and wonder
from within.

Know who you are.
Know your core.
In darkness, find light.
However dim,
however slight.

Return and ponder.
Curiosity motions forward.
My next gesture is
all I know.

For sure
that I will endure
all the change.
I will have courage
to expose horizontal at my core —
translucent and changed.

Less Cornered

We are called
to the centre
to the braves.

Centre stage
we brace.

Wherever that place
we may sway.

Together we pray
not without rage.

Centre behold
we are here —
less cornered.

But never to stay
always an encounter
then retract
the chase remains.

“Less cornered” is a term originated from David Whyte, author of Consolations, The Solace, Nourishment and Underlying Meaning of Everyday Words

How am I made for the world?

“How am I made for the world”? ~David Whyte

One of the most frequent questions asked in childhood is, “what are you going to be when you grow up”, as if there is only one destitute of vocations. There is one career path that we are meant to follow. Once found, all falls into place. We will receive satisfaction from our work, regular pay checks and scheduled leisure with friends and family.

In “The Three Marriages”, David Whyte invites the challenge of work-life balance. Our sense of self, derived from our commitment to our partner and loved-ones, from our work and from our own wellbeing, is in fact the very foundation of joy in all three areas.

In juggling the tasks of spouse, parent, child, sibling, boss, mentor, employee and many more, we ought to be aware of who we are, i. e. our “marriage” to the self. This ever-present undercurrent not only drives our external relationships but also integrates all of which that is “us”.

Marriage is a great analogy for the most intimate kind of relationships. One where the boundaries of self and the other are blurred.

In Ken Robinson’s “Finding Your Element”, he discusses the search for passion; “what do you love and what do you love about it”? But is it simply that we find what we love to do, do it and happiness proceeds?

Paulo Coelho refers to the “personal legend” as what “makes the world more alive for you and makes you more alive within it”. But what truly makes us happy can elude us. Whyte, therefore delves into the inclinations by which we are called, the tendencies that are in fact “bigger” than the finite path.

There is, within us an innate leverage of fulfilment that gives our lives purpose and meaning. That influence embodies not only what we do and to whom we marry but also, who we ultimately are. We are engulfed by a greater force that motivates us to explore certain paths. And if these paths don’t enhance one another in a way that ultimately empower that great virtue, they will lead us to disappointment and sorrow. But if we can discover what truly drives us and propel our decisions, we enhance that strength. That strength is our essence.

Our choice in what we do, who we marry and how we interact with the world depends upon our relationship with that which is innate. When we enforce that which motivates us, our paths are not only clear but they entwine. All decisions become of less weight. They are the most natural unfoldings. We no longer choose between our job and our family. They are one. And how we integrate them calls on the keystone of self-knowledge, an understanding of our inner being so innate that we may be afraid.

Naturally, we are afraid of what could be revealed. But this conversation with the self is so important and significant. Once conquered, we are invited to a banquet with all those we are connected to and we can celebrate. We celebrate the love and the passion, the joy and understanding. The recognition of what made us and therefore, how we are made for the world.

Armed with such affirmation, we brave the world and establish our significance. And how apparent we are. We are indeed wonders of creation for which the world requests. We are elated beings so adept to what the world needs. All our relationships observe such celebration. We are made to rejoice. We are called to be glad, in all of our endeavours, the spouse, the work and most importantly, the self.

Music is the Space Between the Notes

“Music is the space between the notes.” ~Claude Debussy

When I was a young pianist, I loved playing Claude Debussy. His first Arabesque was one of my favourites; the romantic interlude, fluid melody and vaporous softness enticed buoyancy through my imagination.

In classical music, arabesque denotes a piece of floral and decorative music that merges exotic and flow. Debussy was known for his Deux Arabesque, which were composed in 1888 and 1889 amidst French Impressionism. He was influenced by art forms at the time that depict natural lights in its mutable gaze. His first Arabesque contains many gestures of such luminous arch. As each melody phrases into his harmonic presence, translucent movement contours through pace.

Such beautiful consonance is in fact, interpreted as much by audible as by what is unheard. Deliberate absence highlights dulcet presence. Focus allows space to emerge as full being. What isn’t there gives shape to what becomes the process.

Our work, in so many instances is simply to yield that space. Whether creating music, writing a poem, solving a problem or addressing a speech, the “work” had already been done. Our job in the moment, is to allow.

Framing the space is the craft. How do we determine what goes and what stays? Marie Kondo claims in her book, “The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up” that, “the question of what you want to own is actually the question of how you want to live your life”. “Attachment to the past and fears concerning the future” cultivates clutter. Instead, choose to keep only what truly “spark joy”.

Space cultivates being. That which “sparks joy” emerges from the recognition of redundancy. As we reduce noise and invite space, harmony derives. Our natural lyrics converge into focus. Expressed as presence.

How good are we, really?

Perhaps the question, “what do we do well” could lead us in.

Some may say, I play the guitar well. I am good at my job or I consider myself a good parent. But how good are we?

Though the evaluation of “good” can be subjective, we generally derive a sense of satisfaction from completing a task to the best of our ability. When we have given all that we have to a job, no matter what anyone else thinks, we feel good. On the other hand, if we have only offered a portion of what we know we are capable of, we feel like a failure. Even if we receive praise, we know we could do better. Dissatisfaction lingers.

Of course, there is an assumption here that we care about what we do and how well it is done and received. If not, neither the outcome nor gratification matters.

Consider what we engage in that we feel are done well. How did we arrive at such conclusion? If the assessment was derived from a external complement then, we know comparisons were involved. Even when self-evaluating, one applies contrast.

So are we then only as good as the next person is not?

In any contest, competitors need only be as “good” as they can win. But what about in tasks like parenting, meditating and shovelling snow, where excellence might be defined through subjectivity and conclusive opinion may not exist?

This is where being “good” become less about merit and requisite but rather, passion and dedication. In Ken Robinson’s “Finding Your Element”, he describes passion as “a deep personal attraction to something — a strong affinity or enthusiasm that can lead to profound enjoyment and fulfillment”.

Our passion is something that drives us. Something that we continue to pursue regardless of how “good” others consider us to be. What becomes of us when we pursue our passion is deep joy, continuous yearning and timeless gratification. Pure enjoyment calls us to the purpose. Compensation seems unjust.

These are the tasks almost “bigger” than us. We are not only engaged in them but they also engage us. We “do” them as much as they are done through us. What we cannot undo, what we are akin to and can only express as what we “love to do” is in fact, our natural essence and legacy.

In “The Alchemist”, Paulo Coelho calls this our Personal Legend, our gift to the world, our call to serve as much as it serves us. As we submit this virtue, we are “in our element”. We do as we are bestowed and that is how good we are.

Simplicity is Hard to Build

“Simplicity is hard to build, easy to use, and hard to charge for. Complexity is easy to build, hard to use and easy to charge for.” ~Chris Sacca, Investor

Chris Sacca knows a thing or two about business. As a former Google employee turned Silicon Valley venture investor with capitals in Twitter and Uber, he is known for stating that, “simplicity is hard to build, easy to use, and hard to charge for. Complexity is easy to build, hard to use and easy to charge for.”

Not only is simplicity hard to build and charge for, it is what we all take for granted and want more of. When great products seamlessly enter our lives, we integrate them with ease. It is what defines well-designed websites, hand soap, toothbrushes, paper clips, electronic devices etc etc.

They enhance the user experience by amalgamating the essence of the task with thoughtfulness. The product integrates into its setting so pleasantly, as if it were there all along. The user unknowingly calls forth the product. It then guides him to complete a task with grace and comfort.

According to John Maeda’s “The Laws of Simplicity“, comfort often means saving time (Law 3). A user perceives time reduction in many cases, as simpler. In reality, he has been given the chance to use the extra time for something else. Maeda gives the example of shortening a commute that amounts to extra time with loved ones, which ultimately enhances a person’s wellbeing. In the case of overnight deliveries, they allow a sooner product arrival, which also increase the customer’s satisfaction level and bring about joy.

A simple product must fundamentally embody the user’s intent. Products that come fast serve their purpose. But while time reduction can sometimes translate to a simpler user experience, time merely denotes one dimension of our experience. In order to develop a simple product that elutes a user’s effort, the creator must understand what to take away. And as the chef design officer at Apple said, “to be truly simple, you have to go really deep” (Isaacson, W. 2011 Steve Jobs).

Steve Jobs was known to have cared deeply about his products this way. Both the external appearance and the intrinsic arrangements were essential to the whole. He understood that superior products do not distract, instead they add value. He knew how to connect a consumer’s need with what the product ultimately offers. And he arranged the products from the inside out even though most consumers would never see a product’s interior. He fully embraced wholistic simplicity and his products do not even entertain fuss and clutter. In the end, users are invited to an easeful focus that brings about clarity of usage.

Maeda gives the example of the iPod as the quintessential simple product that combines “blurred grouping” and function organization (Law of Simplicity Number 2). Although users may not instinctively know how to operation the product, it generally does not take long for them to become familiar. Such product’s grouping boundaries are “blurred” which according to Maeda, allows the abstract aesthetics to shine through. And when a consumer looks at a simple iPod, it is easy to overlook its value. In truth, layers of interpretations and knowledge are required to create an extraordinary simple product. Compared to a “complicated” product with “bells and whistles”, where a consumer can easily become “hooked”, a simple product’s value lies in the skillful deciphering of the its true essence, i. e. the depth of what the product is and why it exists.

In order for a product to remain authentic while focused on delivering its genuine usefulness, its creator must not only stay curious but also loyal to the conviction of its success. How do we all, create such innate efficiency and fluid simplicity?