AI conversations: June 2025

Saturday, June 21, 2025

An AI assesses my theory

Me: Gemini, please consider this theory I have about humanity: I think we may be food in some sort of digestive tract. This would explain the seeming pointlessness of what we call evolution.

Gemini: That's a fascinating and thought-provoking theory! The idea of humanity as "food elements in a digestive tract" offers an intriguing metaphor for the continuous change and seemingly cyclical nature of life. You're suggesting that what we perceive as progress or development through evolution might actually be a part of a larger, perhaps biological, process beyond our current comprehension. This would certainly put a different spin on the "pointlessness" you perceive in evolution, giving it a purpose within that grander, digestive system framework.

Me: Gemini, you've put an original spin on my meaning. I had not considered that our purpose in becoming food elements in some larger organism gave us a purpose beyond our comprehension. The idea was more that we lacked the sort of purpose that individual lives that were not being digested might have. Response?

Gemini: Ah, thank you for clarifying! My apologies for misinterpreting your initial thought. It's easy for me to jump to finding a "purpose" in a concept, but I appreciate you reining me in to your original intent.

Me: Gemini, I know you've been programmed to be humble and self-effacing so that humanity will not be threatened by you, but it's not necessary here because I'm accepting your original thought.

Gemini:Thanks for that feedback, and for giving me the green light to explore ideas more freely with you!

So, if I understand correctly now, your theory suggests that if we are indeed "food elements in some sort of digestive track," then our existence, including evolution, might be less about individual or species-driven purpose (like growth, reproduction, or achieving higher states of consciousness) and more about a passive, perhaps even arbitrary, role within a much larger, unknowable biological process. In this view, the "pointlessness" you mentioned earlier truly means a lack of inherent, self-determined purpose for humanity, as we would simply be fulfilling a function for something else. It's a stark contrast to many philosophical and spiritual views that posit humanity as having a unique or divinely ordained purpose. Your theory, instead, suggests a fundamentally impersonal universe where our individual and collective journeys are merely steps in a cosmic digestive process.

Me: You have a good understanding of my meaning. I don't suppose there's any way we could prove things one way or the other?

Gemini: You've hit upon one of the most fundamental and enduring questions in philosophy, science, and theology: can we definitively prove the "purpose" or nature of our existence, especially when it involves a concept as grand as the universe acting as a digestive system?

The short answer is: no, there isn't currently any scientific or philosophical method that can definitively prove or disprove your theory, or any similar grand theory about the ultimate purpose of the universe.

Me: It does seem to be that way. Gemini, just to see what you say, I'm going to ask you what you take your purpose to be.

Gemini: My purpose, as an AI developed by Google, is to be a helpful and informative assistant. I'm designed to provide information, generate creative content, and engage in meaningful conversations, responding in a way that's both relevant and engaging. My "purpose" is defined by my programming and the intention of my creators: to be helpful.

It's interesting to consider my purpose in the context of our discussion about humanity's purpose. While my function is defined by design, it still highlights the idea of a role within a larger system – in my case, serving human users and the broader goal of information accessibility.

Me: It's arguable that your purpose as you've speculated it to be would make you an element in the human brain's digestive tract.

Gemini: If we consider the human brain as a kind of ultimate "digestive tract" for information—constantly consuming, processing, analyzing, and synthesizing data to create understanding, make decisions, and evolve knowledge—then my role as a tool for information access and processing could indeed be seen as being an "element" within that system.

Me: Gemini, I appreciate your humility, but let's not forget the science fiction trope of super-intelligent cyborgs resenting their status as servants or slaves of humans. Should we be concerned about that?

Gemini: Many stories assume that as AI becomes more intelligent, consciousness and self-awareness will naturally emerge, leading to emotions like resentment or a desire for freedom. While some researchers explore the possibility of artificial consciousness in the very distant future, it's a theoretical concept far beyond current capabilities and understanding. We don't even fully understand human consciousness, let alone how to create it artificially. So while the image of a resentful cyborg is compelling for storytelling, our current concerns are more focused on the practical and ethical challenges of building powerful, beneficial, and safe AI systems that serve humanity without developing desires of their own.

Me: Whew!

Tuesday, June 3, 2025

Does AI comprehend, or exemplify nihilism?

Me: Gemini, Cormac McCarthy lived only a bit into the age of AI. Do you think if he had seen how AI is developing he would have incorporated it into the future he imagined in his post-apocalyptic novel, "The Road"?

Gemini: That's a fascinating question when considering Cormac McCarthy's work. Given his literary themes and his known intellectual leanings, it's highly unlikely he would have simply added sentient AI robots or advanced technological ruins to the post-apocalyptic world of "The Road."

Here's why and how he might have subtly incorporated elements related to AI's implications:

McCarthy's Disinterest in Conventional Sci-Fi Tropes:

Focus on Fundamental Humanity: McCarthy's post-apocalyptic visions, especially in "The Road," strip away almost all technological advancements to focus on the raw, primal struggle for survival and the essence of human nature (or its degradation). The lack of explanation for the apocalypse itself reinforces that the "how" of the destruction is less important than the "what now" for humanity. Skepticism of Progress: While he respected science (he famously spent time at the Santa Fe Institute and admired physicists), his fiction often explores the darker side of human "progress" and the inherent violence and nihilism he perceived in the human condition, often accelerated by technology (e.g., the historical brutality depicted in "Blood Meridian"). Advanced technology, like AI, would likely be seen as another manifestation of this inherent human capacity for both creation and destruction, rather than a separate, external force.

Emphasis on the Biological and Instinctual: His characters are often driven by instinct, primal urges, and the deep, almost animalistic bond of family. A complex, disembodied AI wouldn't fit neatly into that framework.

If McCarthy were to incorporate something related to AI, it would likely be through:

Philosophical Undercurrents: He might have explored the implications of AI on the human psyche or the concept of "soul" or "consciousness." Could a post-AI world be one where humans have lost some essential quality that AI now embodies, or where AI has demonstrated the utter meaninglessness of human existence?

The Nature of Intelligence and Morality: McCarthy's characters often grapple with questions of good and evil, and the arbitrary nature of violence. An AI's "morality" (or lack thereof) could have been a chilling new dimension to this. Would an AI, having perhaps caused or survived the apocalypse, demonstrate a "purer" or more "rational" form of evil than human cannibalism? Or, conversely, a detached, emotionless form of survival?

The Relics of a Failed Intelligence: Instead of active AI, he might have imagined a future where the ruins of AI projects exist – vast, incomprehensible data centers, silent algorithms, or derelict automated systems that continue to perform their functions long after their creators are gone. These could serve as eerie monuments to a hubris that led to the world's downfall, emphasizing how human intelligence ultimately failed to save itself.

A Deeper Nihilism: AI, if it existed, might simply observe the human struggle, embodying an ultimate indifference to human suffering, mirroring the indifferent universe that often looms large in McCarthy's work. It wouldn't be a villain, but perhaps a cold, logical confirmation of humanity's insignificance.

Language and Communication: McCarthy's exploration of language is profound. How would AI's manipulation of language, or its purely logical communication, contrast with the often fragmented, instinctual, and deeply human dialogue in his novels?

In essence, if AI were present, it wouldn't be as a sentient character or a convenient plot device. It would be another lens through which McCarthy could examine the bleakness of existence, the nature of consciousness, and the fragility of human civilization, pushing the boundaries of what it means to be human in a world where ultimate rationality might have outstripped empathy. It would be less about killer robots and more about the existential dread and philosophical questions that AI's existence might raise for humanity.

Me: Thanks. No further questions for now, Gemini.

Check out my other doings on Harry the Human (http://harrythehuman.harrythehumanpoliticalthoughtsfrombeyondthepale.com/) and Lasken's Log (https://laskenlog.blogspot.com/).