Vulnerability: Us and AI

Should we pose “semantic”, ethical, legal and psychological questionsto ask to AI? According to Searle’s “Chinese Room” theory, we can call ourvulnerability sensory-semantic, and AI’s (non?) vulnerability syntactic.

We often expect deep answers from AI, but for now, our semantic filters are necessary and inevitable since “semantic” values ultimately determine development, creativity, discovery.

We see on the one side the elasticity and flexibility of “semantics” and on the other side boundless but predeterminеd possibilities of “syntax”.

When glass breaks, the resulting crystals retain some kinetic energy and continue moving for some time, then, due to inertia, this movement fades to zero. With the maximum degree of vulnerability test: on the one side, there is tension and supereffort of restoration, recovery and even development, and on the other side, a diminishing kinetic impulse.

Do we desire the emergence in the near future of an equivalent consciousness in AI? Do we still retain control over this dimension? Shall we increasingly prize our different vulnerabilities especially the creative ones and cultivate and test them more and more? — Natalia Lyakh