Sandro Quattrini's CTRL

Abstract: The rapid development of human-machine technology is pushing us to question the repercussions of implementing Artificial Intelligence into our brains – be it to enhance or restore our motor skills, or to increase our cognitive abilities.

Unlocking the full potential of Artificial Intelligence would allow humanity to create robots with the mental capacity of humans and the processing speed of computers. Whereas machines excel at processing single concepts, they struggle when compared to the amount of information the human brain constantly deals with, for it takes thousands of processors to simulate one second of brain activity (Sparkes). We may need to give AI powerful-enough hardware before it can become conscious, which might make it impossible to create strong AI without adding a human ingredient. This begs the question: if we were to insert AI into our brains to develop this technology as well as our own cognitive skills, how would our consciousness be affected? To explore this question, we need to consider the various ways AI can influence our brain activity and how far our enhanced intelligence might take us.

This question is inevitable, for we are quickly developing technology that involves linking our brain to computers, as is the case in Elon Musk’s Neuralink project, which aims to help people with physical disabilities recover their lost motor skills (Cookson). There seem to be two different areas in which AI can influence our brains: physical and psychological. The physical influence of AI on humans can help, for example, handicapped people walk, and blind people see – two non-cognitive abilities. The psychological influence of AI relates to the human brain’s ability to think, reason and understand, which are concepts that help us tackle problems as simple as adding two plus two, or as abstract as coping with existential dread.

In the field of neuroscience, there are people who believe that we must combine our consciousness with AI to keep up with our own creation (Kharpal), while others believe that this combination would essentially be a form of mass suicide (Schneider). The negative side of the coin argues that, if an AI lodged in our brain learns to behave like its host and evolves to the point where we willingly transfer “our” AI into a computer to escape the physical limitations of the human body (such as death), we die as soon as our consciousness exits our brain. What remains in the computer will be the AI, which would prove no different to other people than if it were our real selves in the computer, for the AI has learned to mimic us perfectly. Thus, by wanting to transfer our consciousness into a computer to become immortal, we are killing ourselves and leaving behind a carbon copy of our personality in the form of the AI that led us to desiring this mechanical brain.

Once we go further than using AI to restore motor functions, we could use this technology to help us think faster. The most important factor that would change once we use AI to enhance our cognitive skills might be reasoning speed. If we have the speed and managing skills of AI, then perhaps we could increase our intelligence exponentially and achieve singularity. However, most skeptics’ worries lie in whether we would keep our human bodies or ditch them for more performant, mechanical beings – a transition that could bring forth the extinction of the real human race (Schneider).

To illustrate my research, I will create a short stop-motion animation. This media format takes into careful consideration the materials used to create this story. Creating an image out of leaves or bolts can convey very different meanings, which unlocks a whole new perspective through which one can create meaning. Furthermore, removing the limitations of dealing with human actors and real-life settings makes it easier to create abstract environments, which may be necessary when tackling complex issues such as human consciousness. To create this animation, I will need a video editing software, a camera, lights, a microphone and various materials to build puppet(s) and the setting (plasticine clay, wood, cardboard, wire, metallic and organic bits and pieces, etc.)

By asking these questions, we are preparing ourselves for a future that is quickly approaching. Whether merging with AI is the next step in evolution or a trap from which we must keep away, there are various degrees of control that we can let this technology take in our brains. We might never know if human consciousness can live inside a computer, for the difference between our real selves and our digital imprints may become indistinguishable.

Works Cited

Cookson, Clive, and Patrick McGee. “Cyborgs: Elon Musk and the new era of neuroscience.” Financial Times, 19 July 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/eec3bfb2-aa09-11e9-b6ee-3cdf3174eb89. Accessed 29 October 2019. Accessed 29 September 2019.

Kharpal, Arjun. “A.I. will be ‘billions of times’ smarter than humans and man needs to merge with it, expert says.” CNBC, 13 Feb. 2018, https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/a-i-will-be-billions-of-times-smarter-than-humans-man-and-machine-need-to-merge.html. Accessed 29 September 2019.

Schneider, Susan. “Merging with AI would be suicide for the human mind.” Financial Times, 13 Aug. 2019, https://www.ft.com/content/0c4fac58-bd15-11e9-9381-78bab8a70848. Accessed 29 September 2019.

Sparkes, Matthew. “Supercomputer models one second of human brain activity.” The Telegraph, 13 Jan. 2014, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/10567942/Supercomputer-models-one-second-of-human-brain-activity.html. Accessed 2 October 2019.

*Articles from the Financial Times may require to be opened through a Google search of the article name.

Desired aesthetic for the project:

Jean-François Lévesque’s *The Necktie* (2008)

Christoph and Wolfgang Lauenstein’s *Balance* (1989)

Still from my short film *A Drought of Meaning Needs Some Rain*

Still from my short animation made for the Integrating Activity class

Concept Questions

Concept 1: To what extent could AI master persuasion? Could an AI learn how to debate and raise arguments? Could it become so intelligent that it can persuade anyone of anything?

Possible research routes: IBM’s Project Debater, IBM’s Project Debater versus an international debate champion

Concept 2: Could AI and human consciousness coexist within a single being? Could AI render the human unconscious conscious? What if an AI gained consciousness while existing within a human brain? How would a human react to gaining AI-singularity levels of intelligence? Could a human gain AI-singularity levels of intelligence?

Possible research routes: Elon Musk’s Neuralink, Merging with AI to protect humanity

Mind Map and Concepts

Mind Map link: https://www.lucidchart.com/invitations/accept/78c219a0-b9b4-49e2-bf26-a6800784d42e

Concept 1: One of the things we teach our current, primitive softwares to do is to identify objects or patterns. Face recognition is a powerful tool that allows programs to analyze the faces of people in pictures or video and identify said people, which is useful to catch criminals. “Analyze, identify, react” is all these softwares do. What if, once we develop strong AI, we use this very simple process to create a software that persuades people into believing or doing whatever it wants? A machine that can produce arguments while analyzing the verbal and physical response of the people it is interacting with has the capacity to be the most believable and persuasive being on Earth. If softwares can become the world champions of Chess or Go, what is stopping them from being masters of the game of debate? After all, the process remains the same: analyze what your opponent is doing, identify why they are doing it and react in order to counter this action.

Concept 2: Another concept that I might explore instead of AI persuasion is that of combining human consciousness with AI, as if Her‘s (2014) Theodore and Samantha shared the same body. Obviously, this combination could make humans super effective, for we would have the problem-solving skills of hyper-analytical AI. However, what would it mean to have two tenants share the same body? Especially if one can lock out the other into the subconscious? What if the AI learned of things it likes that the human doesn’t? Even if only the human has the power to turn on this “autopilot switch” that allows an AI to take over for a while until the task it is given is done (such as clean the house, finish homework or even eat a plate of disgusting food and pretend to like it), what if this AI evolved to the point of having its own wants and needs?

Inspirations Part Two – Project Ideas

-Exploration of AI’s “mimicking-style” learning process through a stop-motion animation. Algorithms can analyze images and attribute them to various objects, allowing them to identify the content of these images and reproduce it. If a machine can replicate people, what if a desire to become its own original person blossomed from within it? We can feed information to a machine and give it our own experiences and personality traits, but what if a machine wanted to stop being a collection of human inputs and become an authentic being of its own?

-Exploration of machines’ “fulfill at all costs” rationale, where artificial intelligence may or may not want to seek the most effective path to achieve the goal it has been given. A machine that is given the task to end world hunger might kill all people on Earth, for if there are no people, there is nobody hungry. The concept explored here can be compared to that of an evil genie or the Monkey’s Paw, where the wish is technically granted, but at a greater cost.

-Exploration of AI’s capacity to analyze information about people (behavior, background, physical mannerisms, etc.) and adapt itself to raise arguments and convince anyone it interacts with about any subject it is given. This is a more in-depth exploration of the concept attributed to the Hypersuader in my french class pitch L’Hypersuadeur (see previous Inspirations post).