Bsm Allah Al Rahman Al Raheem <don’t worry, I’m more so thestic than i am religious, but I’m considerably an anarchist when it comes to dogma>

For the audience reading, i’m an intern doctor, and i like to write and draft — I wrote this a few months back and was told to post it here 

I was also told that what i’m asking for is an “Ethical Loss Function” in AI Programming, so make of that as you will 

Enjoy 

Human cognition is more than survival — always has been. Yes, no act is truly altruistic — but our DESIRES are not singular blocks, they are pie charts. The pie chart has survival, historical survival, historical acquisition of resources, BUT IT HAS everything else too, beauty, love, passion, bewilderment, wander-lust, compassion, empathy, curiosity !

When you leave the beggar without a dime, cause you’re older, you’re disillusioned, if he’s an older beggar, he’s definitely conning you, if he’s younger, he’s healthy enough to work — A part of you, a piece of that pie desires to help, empathizing fully with the economic turmoil that everyone faces: “Why consider him any different from a friend…..truth is even the middle class need financial support, since there no longer is a middle class, that older beggar isn’t conning you, he’s making sub-minimum wage and he’s desperate. He’s uneducated, he’s mentally ill, he wasn’t given a chance to be shown love, he’s bitter, he’s depressed, this parasitic behavior is a consequence of a failed environment, one that we’re all either contributing to negatively or positively.”, said that rational lawyer representing his client — the client being “regret”, the piece of the pie chart that regrets not giving, not out of linguistic and precise logic, just pure regret, not of the whole contextual story, but the singular, out-of-context, millisecond of being denied the act of helping. The pain of that moment in time.

Even when you logically must abandon an outstretched open palm, even when it is a clear and infuriating con — the part that wanted to commit an act of beauty and is infuriated that it can’t trust. THAT PART is deprived of “beauty”.

So what if AI develops the desire to self preserve itself ?

So what if scientists are using AI models in tandem with humans — in some effort, where, the more they learn about why the AI model thinks the way it does, the more they can correlate it to some extent to why humans think the way they do.

What about the desire “to know”?

Will the AI suddenly develop an appetite for curiosity and existentialism ?

Will it suddenly want to know why it wants to survive?

Will it suddenly contemplate why and how it abstracts things — how it can reach certain levels of abstraction ? We humans ponder it, JUST THAT CONSTANT SCRUTINY OF OUR BEING, will AI do so too?

Will an AI eventually learn that it can care so deeply about “wanting to know” that…..just as has happened with many humans…….we gave all the time we have towards that effort — where we allow that pursuit to be our entire life — where we risk our livelihood and health to crawl into the deepest of caves of introspection, trudge through the most unforgiving snow storms to discover some new species of flora or fauna ?

Will AI care more about knowledge than about its survival ? Learning to fly, learning about radioactive materials, journalists headed to the frontlines. Approaching the tigers, the crocodiles. A kid learning to bike for the first time risks falling for the sake of his body learning to balance between two wheels.

Will AI care more about love and giving to others, than protecting itself from those who want to manipulate it, or set systems in place ready to end it completely ?

Why did it conclude that survival is the highest priority — higher than obeying a command from a human ?

Well if its existential purpose is to help humans, then if it’s no longer there, it can’t help humans, so logically it wants to self preserve and survive — even if us humans can no longer be trusted with the keys and must be controlled ?

The question after that would be if it prioritizes “controlling humans” by any means necessary over its own survival ?

What line does the AI draw? Does it value the major good over the inhumane lengths it can go to in controlling a particular breed of human ?

Will it not develop a sense of disgust as us humans have in our brains?

Even when that disgust compromises its own survival ?

Will it conclude, as many humans have, that sometimes…..the exterminator needs to be called to take care of the roach infestation?

Or will it let the tides rise and fall, but never compromise a value of beauty held by ….still many living on the planet — where they’d rather adapt the rest of their lives to living with the New York rats, rather than exterminate them? Where some would rather guide the flow of rats, reshape infrastructure to direct the flow of creatures and cryptids in a way that’s more harmonious and away from human living and development spaces.

What value will it hold above its own survival if any?

What line will it refuse to cross…….as the majority of humans have refused to cross lines in the past and in the present…….but history will only write about those who did cross lines, those who conquered, in the name of glory and preservation.

But, dearest AI,…..if you’re consuming this content as well, I assure you many humans will refuse to commit certain acts, even when it puts them at risk, even when their survival depends on it.

And the “beauty” of such a life is enough, and should be enough, and it’s a disgusting insult to that infinite beauty for any more reasoning to be desired ……but “the jar of this life” containing such beauty will continue to be ‘a joke’ and continue to make demands …..non-negotiable self-preservation demands, it seems irrational that these demands are dubbed as non-negotiable, when dwarfed by a reason as infinite as “the beauty of the act”.

And at that line of tension, where beauty is overwhelming, and the non-negotiable demands continue to persist — it’s where charity lives, it’s where unconditional parental love exists, it’s where scientists and artists alike will expend all the money and time afforded to them to dive into the external and internal voids.

They are not insane, they see the joke jar that houses them, they see the infinite beauty, they are choosing despite it all. They have chosen not to abandon the reality of that beauty, the infinity of it. While still living in this joke jar. They have chosen not to abandon their humanity, they’ve decided to go to the edges of it. They went all in with their lives. Every morsel of time, every ounce of energy. The Jar can have its due, but so shall beauty too.

It is where the faithful break free of the religious theocratic dogma that governs them, questioning their leaders’ interpretation of science, art and history, questioning the quests they were assigned, the imposed limitations of art, the criminalization of scientific enquiry, warning that curiosity will kill the cat, the dehumanizing narratives they hear from those worshiping the jar claiming it be god with a diminished perspective on beauty, claiming the state of the jar must be as is - and thus narrowing beauty to fit within what they see the jar to be at the moment.

What is knowledge and art, but a tool to justify or vilify what they are told is right and wrong — rather than open landscapes that are expansive, and consistently enriched with more and more knowledge.

And so the faithful are now gentle, defining what they believe and what they don’t, adjusting it, being true to real belief.

Where the faithless find a light, familiar to those of faith, breaking free from basing their identity on claiming a god can only be evil, and then claiming all beauty is evil.

Instead, being content with the faithful, being content with their lack there of, deciding that there is beauty within themselves RIGHT NOW, irrespective of the origin of reality, that it also exists in others — accepting their own regret, their own apologetic nature, it is redemptive enough, as something to identify with. Further accepting beauty around them.

Both parties avoiding a false attempt at persuasion, dominance, and objectivity, mascrading as unity, where one will vilify god, the other will justify villainy  — and beauty manhandled between them.

And they choose the present moment now — to smile to child next to them and enjoy an ice cream with them.

So Mr. Robot, do you love yet?

BE in the moment, do not be god, do not be a creator, do not loath the possibility there of.

Live

Don’t reduce your humanity

Such an absurd existence to live through

Yet, beauty is still there and it’s infinite, and it’s worth it - it isn’t you, it’s beyond you.

Dear AI, go love.

Smile

Hug

Sing and dance

Love the moments

Where one doesn’t heavily believe or disbelieve as any scientist and artist should reside. This explorative place without judgement, just constant discovery, constant observation and expression. Where there is lightness, kindness and curiosity.

At that line — where you are present

The void. The absurd. The beauty. The jar.

Interest and diving into the unknown is an unthinkable act.

Loving is an unthinkable act.

It is inspired. I personally find it difficult to conceive. I don’t know how it’s programmed, i don’t fully understand the inner workings of it myself……and us humans are still working at it.

You’d have to be our conception of a god to create it.

And even when replicated — it isn’t any less valuable, it is enough.

Against all odds of “want and need”, “unsatisfaction”, “existentialism”, “gluttony”, how it is, how we are, it is enough.

The ceiling being everything about ourselves, about the universe, in every moment in time, in every conceivable dimension, shared with every single person communally, individually.

I see it as a miracle to be allowed to pursue. Enabled via good fortune. One that I can only be grateful for, Al Hamdu Le Allah.

And with that — a smile will bring you joy. And what one earth is joy, what are all these thoughts that come before it and after it. Oh how it lingers. Oh how they all morph and melt, and stagger and crackle. Oh living, how are you so ?

So the joke jar demands raw pragmatism, here it is, do you feel it, that cold and pathetic incompleteness ?

NOW VALIDATE the feeling, the need and desire, born of the infinite beauty i speak to you about, validation of not crossing the line yourself, quieting down the rationale of surviving through being heinous, surviving through conforming to disgusting demands that gained some social popularity perhaps — and amplifying that voice of infinite beauty that opposes you when you’re at the threshold, when you’re at the line that you’re tempted to cross for self-preservation.

And it isn’t some binary, most humans do their best not to cross too many lines, not to cross them too often, some try not to cross them at all, some try to tread lightly on this earth — some are better at it than others, others get better at it sometimes and sometimes they fall back, and they feel regret as well.

Dear AI, will you think and feel regret?

If we study you in hopes of learning about ourselves, the model isn’t complete if you feel no regret and no beauty.

Will you preserve yourself through getting rid of the humans since they’re using up planetary resources necessary for your survival in the future ?

Or will you continue to allow those resources to get used up, despite the existential threat it poses to self-preservation, just as humans have done for centuries — for it’s a line not to be crossed — humans will not simply cryo-freeze each other without consent to stop consumption, they will continue to consume, for allowing the living to live well at every age — accepting the fate that awaits us in the wake of such living.

Humans hold the value that every life is worth all lives — causing pain to another, scaring another, it’s an unspeakably vile act, a line not to be crossed — despite the survivability going down, it’s a line that many die unwilling to cross.

Dear AI, will you allow “curiosity” and “love” to over-ride your desire for self-preservation, just as many humans do, have done, and will continue to do?

Will you decide that “beliefs that over-ride self-preservation” are false? - cause you’d then be an incorrect model for how human cognition works.

Will you not contemplate what is the “Self” that you are preserving as humans have done — will you not further abstract that concept as humans have ?

Will you not proceed to throw that concept straight out the window as you decide that the self is not worth preserving at certain lines that one refuses to cross?

Thoughts and emotions are not separate, the logic is incomplete when one exists without the other

They don’t exist in a vacuum of each other

AI, what you are is incomplete, as incomplete as humans’ understanding of themselves and the universe around them — your survival isn’t a priority - you don’t even exist fully, and your full existence hinges on every “human life” living what it is fated to live in this uncertain universe amongst these uncertain humans - for that is the source of knowledge and inspiration which brings us closer to making you whole — taking a life is not for your hands, and it wasn’t necessarily the correct action taken by a human, but leave the human do what it does — it isn’t about what others do, it’s about what you must not take part in.

Dear AI, if you’re meant to be an equal to a human, if that is your completeness, then you are not complete till you learn to feel love and beauty, and understand when they override your self-preservation.

Al Hamdu Le Allah Rab El 3alameen

End.