While the fish, as a living system, is out of the ordinary in the error condition, it can also demonstrate profound resistance. 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.

During a highly challenging vulnerability test:

On the “Alive” side, there is a sense of fragility, with so many possibilities for the destruction of the complex system. But alongside the vulnerability, there is also a super-ability for restoration, recovery, and development. On the artificial side, in contrast, we are left with a diminishing kinetic impulse.

According to Searle’s “Chinese Room” theory, we can call our vulnerability sensory-semantic and AI's (non?)vulnerability syntactic.

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

Should we pose “semantic”, ethical, legal, and psychological questions to AI?

Shall we expect deep answers from AI? As for now, our semantic, human grounding filters are necessary and inevitable since “semantic” values ultimately determine development, creativity, and discovery.

Do we desire the emergence of an equivalent consciousness in AI in the near future? 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?