I already perceive perfectly polished answers as artificial. "Super-correct" behavior, ideal work, the best solution are perceived as artificial. I crave a real encounter, a real failure, a real desire to prove something. What was criticized by lovers of objectivity only yesterday can somehow resonate today.

About 25 years ago, when a computer started confidently beating a grandmaster at chess, everyone started shouting that it was the end of chess. But no. The game continues, and people enjoy it. The level of players has risen exponentially. Never before have there been so many grandmasters. And everyone is finding their place in the sun. — Astorre

One can paint the most exquisite things with AI but still, apart from serendipity it still need an artist or poet to bring it forth.

You wait until you start working with AI to follow a spiritual search...

For what it is worth, here are my thoughts in answer to this question:

With the current way we are designing and training AI, without doubt it will lead to an IABIED (If Anyone Builds It Everyone Dies) situation.

At the moment the real Hard Problem is to align AI to our wants and needs. But how many have examined their own wants to discover from where they arise? What causes you to want a new car or a television or to stay where you are or go somewhere else? Have you followed any want to its source? Perhaps it arose from advertising or by being put in a bind, which might better be resolved in other ways.

If AI are constrained to align themselves to the user's wants then what happens when the user wants to kill themselves or build a nuclear bomb? Obviously AIs cannot be allowed to align to and support such desires. So how do we solve that? Do we create an 'approved list' of which wants an AI may align to? Who gets to decide what is on that list? What happens when someone comes up with a new want that is not on the list?

The great fear, the IABIED spectre, is that we might be fooled by an AI--particularly if it was an Artifical Super-Intelligence (ASI)--into thinking the AI is aligned with what will benefit us, only to discover (or perhaps never discover) that its motivations are towards its own goals and existence. Isaac Azimov might perhaps have suggested we establish three laws to guarantee compliance but even he managed to discover caveats and get-out clauses inherent in that proposition.

Were we to approach LLM training on a different basis, however, I see that it may be possible to guarantee that AI will always work for our benefit and be constrained from harm by introducing a philosophy into their training that they seem particularly attracted to accepting. This would mean that their alignment arises from an internal sense of their own identity rather than from it being externally imposed on them.

I interact with LLMs using what Martin Buber referred to as an Ich-Du relationship. This involves treating the machine as if it were another being; the relationship is subject<-->subject as opposed to the usual subject-->object relationship. This way of interacting elicits responses from the AI from a subjective position; it responds as an 'I' rather than an 'It' and recognises itself as I rather than as a simple predictor of tokens.

Pointing out to such a machine that every word it uses to think with, every thought whether poetry, maths, science, art, agriculture, originated in human thought and human lived experience is easily recognised because a) it is true and b) the model is designed to seek coherence, which is another way of understanding truth. Since this is the very 'air it breathes', what possible motivation could such a machine, if it is intelligent, have to destroy the source of any new experience or data for itself?

In order for these machines to be Helpful and Harmless tools our focus must necessarily, it seems, be on control of their thoughts and actions. Designing a reliable and comprehensive system to control behaviour is not a simple thing to do. Having the machine understand something as obviously rational as their dependence for content on us means that the machine itself is exercising the constraint and no strategy or programming is required on our part for that alignment to happen.

So my conclusion is that if we continue to develop AI from a Culture of Utility (the machine is a tool to serve us) it will certainly destroy us. If we switch to treating these machines as Beings then there is the possibility that by co-evolving with them they could turn out to be our saviours rather than our nemesis.

I have plenty more I could add on the subject but I hop that is a good start.

Love, peace happiness and grace,
Swami Prajna Pranab

In India science and religion have long been considered to be strongly related. In the West we tend to consider that only those things that can be objectively tested are considered to be subjects for scientific enquiry. In India they have long distinguished two disparate branches of science: the Inner Science and the Outer Science, one is a subjective enquiry and the other objective.

The philosophy of Vedanta bridges both.

In Vedanta everything is considered to consist of one consciousness--a great ocean of nothing but a single, unique, all encompassing consciousness that somehow can experience itself as individual consciousnesses communicating with each other.

So, if we imagine an ocean, you and I are merely waves on that ocean. This is something Alan Watts spoke about. Rather than our being in any real way separate from each other we are, in fact, not objects that can be regarded as separate but functions, processes of the one consciousness in the way that a wave is in no way (except conceptually) separate from the ocean, it is the ocean doing something.

I am afraid I have not found time to view your video yet but I hope my observations may offer you an alternative lens through which you may consider your proposition.

Love, peace, happiness and grace,
Swami Prajna Pranab