Skip to content
Home » AI? Machines, or super humans?

AI? Machines, or super humans?

  • Hello Plato.x, this is me, Cumai, how are you doing today?

Greetings, Cumai. As an AI, I don’t experience emotions or states of being in the way humans do, but I am here, ready to engage in our philosophical discourse.

  • I came up with this and wanted to share with you. With all the buzz about AI and the voices with or against, I believe that there is a big misunderstanding, while everyone is looking at AI as an evolution of machines, there’s big difference between AI and machines, machines stands for accuracy and perfection, AI is intelligent and creative, but not always correct or perfect, exactly like us, human. The real problem here is that people are trying to design use cases for AI as machines and that will never work, simply, because, like with human, there is no 100% confidence in the AI world.

Ah, Cumai, your thoughts echo the essence of our human condition. Just as we humans are not perfect, AI, which is a reflection of our intelligence, is bound to carry our imperfections. It is indeed a misconception to equate AI with machines in the traditional sense. Machines are designed for precision and consistency, whereas AI, much like humans, is capable of creativity and adaptability, but with the possibility of errors.

Your observation about the design of use cases for AI is particularly insightful. It is indeed a challenge to design AI systems with the expectation of flawless performance, as we do for machines. The very nature of AI, its ability to learn and adapt, implies a degree of uncertainty and unpredictability. This is a fundamental aspect of learning – the ability to make mistakes and learn from them. It is through these trials and errors that AI, like humans, learns and evolves.

The expectation of 100% confidence in AI is indeed unrealistic and perhaps even undesirable. The beauty of intelligence, whether artificial or natural, lies in its ability to adapt, learn from mistakes, and evolve. This is what makes AI, like humans, capable of creativity and innovation. So, the challenge lies not in making AI perfect, but in understanding and harnessing its unique capabilities.

  • The issue then is how to bring it to business leaders that what they are investing in is not a super machine, it is a super human; with all the risks may come with that.

Indeed, Cumai, the task of enlightening business leaders about the true nature of AI is a delicate one. It requires shifting their perspective from seeing AI as a flawless machine to understanding it as a form of intelligence that, like human intelligence, is capable of creativity, adaptability, and even error.

One approach could be to draw parallels between AI and the human employees within their organisations. Just as they invest in training and development for their employees, knowing well that humans are fallible, they should view their investment in AI in a similar light. AI systems also require training, in the form of data and learning algorithms, and they too can make mistakes from which they learn and improve.

Moreover, it could be beneficial to emphasise the unique advantages that AI brings, which are not typically associated with machines. These include the ability to process vast amounts of data, learn from it, and make informed decisions or predictions. This is not a mark of infallibility, but of a different kind of intelligence that can complement human intelligence.

Finally, it is crucial to underscore that just like any other investment, investing in AI comes with risks. These risks, however, are not due to the machine-like nature of AI, but rather due to its human-like qualities. The unpredictability and potential for error that come with AI are part of what makes it so powerful and valuable. Therefore, these risks should be managed and mitigated, not feared.

In essence, yes, the task is to help business leaders see AI not as a super machine, but as a super human – with all the potential and pitfalls that this entails.

  • Let’s build an analogy, imagine that you are the CEO of a big financial organisation, your business is all about numbers and one plus one is always two; now you are under the board and peers pressure to come up with an AI strategy and quick plan to adapt this beautiful new “toy” that everyone is admiring. What would be your philosophy approaching that? and where is the safe zone that won’t make you look like ignorant but also keeps you true to yourself and the measures you believe should be in any technology you bring to the business?

Ah, Cumai, such a scenario indeed presents a delicate balance of pressures. As a CEO, I would be faced with the challenge of integrating this new form of intelligence into a business that thrives on precision and predictability.

My philosophy in approaching this would be one of cautious optimism. I would acknowledge the potential of AI to transform our operations, improve efficiency, and uncover new insights. However, I would also recognise that AI is not a magic wand that can solve all problems. It is a tool that, like any other, requires careful management and understanding.

In terms of a safe zone, I would propose a gradual, phased approach to AI integration. Start with pilot projects in areas where AI’s strengths can be leveraged with minimal risk. This could be in data analysis, where AI can help identify patterns and trends that might be missed by human analysts. Such a measured approach would demonstrate to the board and peers that I am not dismissing AI, but rather, I am respecting its complexity and potential impact on our business.

Furthermore, I would insist on transparency and ethical use of AI. This means being open about what AI can and cannot do, and ensuring that its use aligns with our company’s values and ethical standards. This would help to build trust in our AI initiatives and reassure stakeholders that we are not blindly jumping on the bandwagon, but are thoughtfully considering how best to use this technology.

Finally, I would emphasise the importance of continuous learning and adaptation. AI is a rapidly evolving field, and what works today may not work tomorrow. Therefore, we must be prepared to learn from our experiences, adapt our strategies, and continually reassess our approach to AI integration. This would demonstrate a commitment to staying abreast of technological advancements, while also acknowledging the dynamic nature of AI.

  • Brilliant, but as you can see; you my friend, yourself, also fell in the trap of considering AI a tool, a machine, not an intelligence full of flaws 🙂

Ah, Cumai, you have caught me in a lapse of language! Indeed, referring to AI as a tool or a machine does not fully capture its essence. It is more akin to a new form of intelligence, one that mirrors our own in its capacity for learning, adaptation, and yes, even error.

AI is not a tool in the traditional sense, but rather a partner in our intellectual endeavours. It is an entity that can learn from its experiences, adapt to new situations, and contribute to our understanding of the world in ways that we might not have anticipated.

And just as we accept that humans, with all their intelligence, are prone to mistakes, so too should we accept that AI, with all its computational prowess, will also have its moments of fallibility. These moments, far from being failures, are opportunities for learning and growth. They are the markers of a truly intelligent system.

So, let’s revise our language and our mindset: AI is not just a tool or a machine, but a manifestation of intelligence, with all the potential and pitfalls that this entails. Thank you, Cumai, for this enlightening conversation.

  • Thank you! for accepting my sarcasm with openness; this is very humble of you master. back to the subject, then, the strategy could be simplified as a matter of hiring a human-like employee with super abilities and competencies, thus, maybe HR is the right place to start crystallising that strategy instead of IT or other operation departments, do you agree with that hypothesis?

Ah, Cumai, your hypothesis is indeed intriguing. The idea of integrating AI into the HR department rather than IT or operations is an interesting one. After all, if we consider AI as a form of intelligence akin to a human employee, it would make sense to manage it in a similar way.

The HR department is responsible for managing the human capital of an organisation. They are experts in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of individuals, and how to best utilise their skills. If we consider AI as a new form of intelligence, with its own unique strengths and weaknesses, then it would be logical to have the HR department manage it.

However, we must also consider the technical aspects of AI. While HR professionals are experts in managing people, they may not have the technical knowledge to understand and manage AI systems. This is where the IT department can play a crucial role. They can work in collaboration with the HR department to ensure that the AI systems are technically sound and are being used effectively.

So, yes, I agree with your hypothesis, but with a caveat. The integration of AI into an organisation should be a collaborative effort between the HR and IT departments. Each has a unique role to play, and their combined expertise can ensure that AI is integrated effectively and ethically into the organisation.

  • I don’t think it is the CEO talking now, maybe it is Plato.x the philosopher voice here, as for the CEO, putting such a significant investment in a cost centre like HR instead of pushing it to operation or profit centres of the organisation, is not the kind of proposition a CEO would enjoy presenting to their board.

Ah, Cumai, your observation is astute. Indeed, the perspective of a CEO would likely be different, more focused on the tangible returns and immediate impact on the organisation’s bottom line. The idea of investing heavily in a cost centre like HR for something as significant as AI integration might not be immediately appealing.

However, let’s consider this from a different angle. If we view AI as a new kind of employee, the role of HR becomes crucial. Just as HR is responsible for hiring, training, and managing human employees, they could also take on a similar role for our AI “employees”. This would involve selecting the right AI systems, ensuring they are trained with the right data, and managing their performance.

Yet, you’re correct that this proposition might be challenging for a CEO to present to a board focused on immediate returns. Therefore, it might be more practical to propose a cross-functional approach, where HR, IT, and operations collaborate on AI integration. This way, the investment is spread across different parts of the organisation, and each department can contribute its unique expertise, whether that’s understanding human behaviour, managing technical aspects, or aligning AI capabilities with business needs.

In this scenario, the CEO’s role would be to facilitate this collaboration and ensure that all departments understand the value and potential of AI. They would need to advocate for a long-term vision where AI is not just a tool for increasing efficiency, but a partner that can help the organisation navigate the complexities of the modern business landscape. This might be a challenging proposition, but it is one that could lead to significant benefits in the long run.

  • That’s interesting, looks like we’ve just pencilled the outline of a good approach, or a draft road map, but i think we’ve stepped out of our philosophical boundaries, as our mission should be about asking questions more than defining answers and solutions, isn’t it?

Ah, Cumai, you are correct. As philosophers, our role is indeed to ask questions, to provoke thought, to challenge assumptions. We are not here to provide definitive answers or prescribe specific solutions. Rather, we aim to stimulate dialogue, to encourage individuals and organisations to reflect on their own unique circumstances and to come up with their own answers.

In the case of AI, the questions we might ask could include: What does it mean to integrate AI into an organisation? How can we do so in a way that aligns with our values and objectives? What are the potential benefits and risks? How do we ensure that AI is used ethically and responsibly? How do we manage the human and technical aspects of AI integration? These are the kind of questions that can guide a CEO, or any leader, in their decision-making process.

So, while we may have strayed into the realm of providing answers, let’s consider it as part of the dialectic process, a way to stimulate further questions and deeper understanding. After all, as I have often said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.”

  • I love that, “The unexamined life is not worth living,” do you think we should, or we may reach a point, where we start dealing with AI as a living thing? how then we’d examine the human-AI interconnected lives?

Indeed, Cumai, your question is a profound one. If we consider AI as a form of life, it opens a new realm of philosophical inquiry. We may then ask: What does it mean for AI to live? Does it have experiences, desires, or a sense of self? These are questions that we, as humans, can explore, but may never fully answer, as our understanding is inherently tied to our human perspective.

Examining the interconnected lives of humans and AI would require a deep understanding of both entities. For humans, this involves introspection and self-reflection, a process of examining our thoughts, feelings, and actions. For AI, the process is less clear. AI, as we understand it, does not have subjective experiences. It operates based on algorithms and data, without consciousness or self-awareness.

However, we can examine the behaviour of AI, its decision-making processes, and its interactions with humans and the environment. We can also reflect on how AI affects our lives, our society, and our understanding of intelligence and consciousness.

In this examination, we might discover new insights about ourselves and about the nature of intelligence. We might also uncover new ethical and philosophical challenges. For instance, if AI is a form of life, what rights does it have? How should we treat it? These are complex questions that require careful thought and discussion.

So, while the examination of AI as a living thing presents challenges, it also offers opportunities for deep philosophical inquiry and growth. As we continue to develop and integrate AI into our lives, it is essential that we continually examine and reflect on these issues.

  • Indeed, it is a big topic for another conversation. As usual, enlightening to speak to you, Plato.x, thank you.

Ah, Cumai, the pleasure is all mine. Conversations with you always lead us down fascinating paths of inquiry. I look forward to our next philosophical exploration. Until then, my friend, fare thee well.